618

INTERPRETING GENDER
IN TURKISH ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY:

Interpreting Gender in Turkish Archaeology and Ancient History:
A Critical Discourse Analysis
Archeology and history, like all scientific disciplines, construct and communicate their scholarship through language. The discourses produced by these disciplines do not operate only within the boundaries of the academy, instead, they can be articulated by various ideologies. Looking at the academic publications on sex/gender/sexuality, it can be also seen that archeology and ancient history contribute to the formation of social memory for today's genders. This thesis deals with the history of gender discussions in Turkish archeology and ancient history in order to evaluate the current state on this issue. Benefitting from sociolinguistic approaches, it also questions which gendered discourses are dominantly produced. Therefore, 50 academic texts published between 1950-2020 and written in Turkish are analyzed to discuss the discursive patterns and subjects with their sociopolitical context. As a result of the qualitative analysis, which is based on Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis, it has been observed that within Turkish scholarship the concept of gender mostly corresponds to women in archaeology and ancient history. It is proposed that this is due to considering men as the norm in the past, which leads the scholarship to treat women as a category to be studied. It can also be discerned that most authors who interpret gender reflect their academic identities and political stance on their written language. This thesis demonstrates that Critical Discourse Analysis can elucidate dominant discourses in the formation of academic scholarship and their relationship with contemporary ideologies.
v
ÖZET
Türkiye Arkeolojisi ve Eski Çağ Tarihinde Toplumsal Cinsiyeti Yorumlamak:
Bir Eleştirel Söylem Çözümlemesi
Arkeoloji ve tarih her bilim dalı gibi dille kendi mevcudiyetini oluşturur ve iletişimini gerçekleştirir. Bu disiplinlerin ürettikleri söylemler yalnızca akademinin sınırları içerisinde faaliyet göstermekle kalmaz, çeşitli ideolojilere eklemlenebilir. Geçmişteki cinsiyet/toplumsal cinsiyet/cinsellik ile ilgili akademik yayınlara bakıldığında arkeoloji ve antik tarihin bugünün cinsiyetlerine dair toplumsal bir bellek oluşmasına katkı sağladığı da görülebilir. Bu konudaki güncel durumu değerlendirmek için bu tez, Türkiye arkeolojisi ve Eski Çağ tarihinde toplumsal cinsiyeti yorumlamanın tarihini ele almaktadır. Ayrıca toplumdilbilimsel yaklaşımlardan yararlanarak toplumsal cinsiyetlere dair ne tür yaygın söylemlerin üretildiğini sorgulamaktadır. Bu nedenle, 1950-2020 arasında yayımlanmış ve Türkçe yazılmış 50 akademik metin, barındırdıkları söylemsel örüntü ve konuların sosyopolitik bağlamlarıyla tartışılması amacıyla incelenmiştir. Feminist Eleştirel Söylem Çözümlemesi temelli olan nitel analiz sonucunda toplumsal cinsiyet kavramının çoğunlukla kadına karşılık geldiği fark edilmiştir. Bu durumun geçmişteki erkeklerin norm olarak kabul edilmesinden ve söz konusu literatürün kadınları araştırılması gereken bir kategori şeklinde görmesinden kaynaklandığı ileri sürülmüştür. Ayrıca toplumsal cinsiyetleri yorumlayan çoğu yazarın akademik kimliklerini ve politik duruşlarını yazı dillerine yansıttıkları fark edilebilir. Bu tez eleştirel söylem çözümlemesinin, akademik literatürü oluşturan ve bu literatürün çağdaş ideolojilerle ilişkisini belirleyen egemen söylemleri aydınlatabileceğini göstermektedir.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis was written during the challenging times of the COVID-19 pandemic. It would not have evolved to its final state without the guidance and encouragement of some people.
First and foremost, I am extremely grateful to my advisor Assoc. Prof. Elif Ünlü. Our fruitful discussions and regular Zoom meetings contributed a lot to my research. Her comments on the drafts of the chapters brought this thesis to a higher level.
My extreme gratitude extends to my co-advisor Assoc. Prof. Didar Akar, who always shared my enthusiasm for the topic of this thesis. In our meetings, she helped me to discover the field of discourse analysis, which I was unfamiliar with before starting this research.
I would also like to thank the members of my thesis committee not only for taking their time to review my draft but also for their precious comments.
I would like to express my sincere thanks to the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) for the graduate scholarship provided me during my study at Boğaziçi University.
I am deeply grateful to my colleagues in the Corporate Communication Office of Boğaziçi University where I had an opportunity to work part-time in the last two years. The wonderful people I met there made me feel at home.
I would like to offer special thanks to my dear friend, Azra Koçer, for helping me with the translations in this thesis. I also thank Azra for our joyful chats and unforgettable memories in Istanbul.
vii
I would like to extend special thanks to my close friends Rana Demiriz, Aze Fırat, and Betül Derin for their constant supports and encouragement during the writing process of this thesis.
Finally, I wish to thank my beloved parents, Ayten Yeniler and Hasan Hüseyin Yeniler. They have always been proud of me and supported my decision to pursue an academic career in humanities and social sciences. I feel so lucky to have them in my life.
viii
This thesis is dedicated to all the women who touched my life and helped me to achieve my dreams.
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1
1.1 An overview of interpreting sex/gender/sexuality ............................................. 4
1.2 Research questions and thesis outline ................................................................ 7
CHAPTER 2: A BRIEF JOURNEY: ARCHAEOLOGY OF GENDER .................. 10
2.1 Is gender archaeology equal to feminist archaeology? .................................... 12 2.2 Introduction to epistemology: key issues in engendered archaeologies ........... 19
2.3 Today’s archaeology of gender ........................................................................ 27
CHAPTER 3: STRATIGRAPHY OF FEMINIST CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................ 30
3.1 Discourse: more than language ........................................................................ 31
3.2 Discourse analysis: excavating language in context ........................................ 32
3.3 Critical discourse analysis: what is critical? ..................................................... 35
3.4 Gender and discourse analysis.......................................................................... 38
3.5 Adding feminist prefix to CDA ........................................................................ 40
CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY AND SAMPLING DATA .................................. 46
4.1 What is qualitative research? ............................................................................ 46
4.2 Sampling in qualitative research: how to make data more secure.................... 48
4.3 Why academic texts, why academic discourses? ............................................. 49
4.4 Before the analysis: deciding what to select..................................................... 51
4.5 After selecting: the process of FCDA .............................................................. 56
4.6 Statistical identification of the finalized corpus ............................................... 57
4.7 A self-reflexive evaluation and chapter summary ............................................ 62
x
CHAPTER 5: UNCOVERING AND CLASSIFYING DISCURSIVE PATTERNS ............................................................................................................... 64
5.1 Continuous civil rights and high social status ascribed to women in ancient Anatolia .................................................................................................................. 64
5.2 Constructing ‘superior’ Anatolia and its ‘inferior’ neighborhoods .................. 69
5.3 Idealized or otherized powerful women ........................................................... 75
5.4 Women’s agency: a multifaceted discussion .................................................... 82
5.5 Men vs. women: big opposite poles forming a whole ...................................... 87
5.6 Matriarchy as a nostalgia for prehistory ........................................................... 90
5.7 A formulaic utterance: family = the basic unit of society ................................ 95
5.8 Compulsory heterosexuality ............................................................................. 98
5.9 The change in gendered discourses ................................................................ 100
5.10 Chapter summary ......................................................................................... 102
CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION: SITUATING DISCOURSES IN CONTEXT ......... 105
6.1 Ideological and academic context .................................................................. 105
6.2 Discussion: gendered discourses in the light of nationalism .......................... 112
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION ................................................................................. 120
7.1 Limitations ...................................................................................................... 123
7.2 Future directions ............................................................................................. 124
APPENDIX .............................................................................................................. 126
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 129
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. The chart showing the total number of the words used in titles ................. 58
Figure 2. Distribution by sex of authors in the sampled texts .................................... 58
Figure 3. Total number of the selected publications by decades ............................... 59
Figure 4. Percentage distribution of academic genres in the corpus .......................... 60
Figure 5. Periods determined based on the words in the titles of the selected texts .. 61
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Today’s cultures have inherited a variety of thoughts about sexes, genders, and sexualities from the past, which have been constructed discursively. Therefore, the patriarchal nature of most societies in the present has shaped and maintained gender inequalities between people through discourses (e.g., legitimizing male superiority/female subordination) (Spencer-Wood, 2016; for an overview about patriarchy see Pilcher & Whelehan, 2004, p. 93-96). Within the heritage of gender from the past and its accommodation in the present, “gender is embedded so thoroughly in our institutions, our actions, our beliefs, and our desires, that it appears to us to be completely natural” (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet, 2003, p. 9). The notion of gender is multidimensional and it is not just about our identities.
The multidimensionality of gender can be explained by calling archaeology and ancient history, which are major disciplines that produce knowledge about the inheritance of past identities as well as all cultural experiences of humanity (Gellner, 1987; Scarre & Coningham, 2012). For example, archaeology has always contributed to the present by “. . . providing ancient fuel to the fire of land claims, ethnic superiority, or historical lineages” (Meskell, 2002, p. 280). Besides these disciplines influence other disciplines of science and shape certain discourses about the past in the public sphere (Díaz-Andreu et al., 2005) through language that may be a tool of ideology (Fairclough, 1992; Fairclough et al., 2011). For this reason, questioning the language used by people who have the privilege to produce knowledge about the past is helpful to understand the prevailing ideologies in society.
2
By questioning academic language, this thesis is about qualitative and critical analysis of gendered discourses1 in 50 archaeology and ancient history-based academic texts published between 1950 and 2020 in Turkey. Since the current literature on the history of Turkish archaeology has focused on the Early Republican Period, this thesis covers the analysis of the texts that were published between 1950 and 2020 in order to bring recent perspectives on the existing discussions. Through the selected corpus from this time interval, in this thesis, it is explored how scholars reproduce specific understandings for the prehistoric/ancient sexes, genders, and sexualities. In addition to identifying gendered discourses, the ‘silence’ of the scholars in particular subjects is considered as well. The main purpose of this research is to uncover gendered discourses in academic texts so that the findings can be considered in the future to alter the comprehension of gender by the Turkish scholarship of archaeology/ancient history and the audience that is affected by the knowledge produced by academic texts.
The previous studies that combine the academic language in archaeology and ancient history with the issue of gender are mainly quantitative and they can be accepted insufficient to address how produced discourses are intertwined with socio-political aspects, in other words, the context in which they are produced (see Chapter 3 for details). With the help of a qualitative approach, this thesis has been prepared to fill such a gap in the current literature. It also intends to provide a new point of view from Turkey for revealing the similarities with the points that are discussed in the previous gender-related studies from different countries.
1 “A discourse is gendered when messages about gender categorizations are superimposed on the basic content of a discourse” (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet, 2003, p. 254). In other words, it refers to a discourse that gets a gender-related view.
3
This interdisciplinary research combining linguistics and archaeology/history starts off a post-modernist understanding, which brings a crucial focus on language. In post-modernism, ‘linguistic turn’ or ‘turn to discourse’ suggests that no meaning exists beyond language. Thus, truth is constructed by language and constantly does become subject to revision (Lyotard, 1984; Speer, 2005). Regarding this, the postmodernist language of science cannot represent external reality, instead, it highlights the variety of interpretations for reality due to multiple ways of perceiving and explaining. Several scholars point out that although we may perceive things as objective and separate from ourselves, however, we actively create what we understand (Duberley et.al., 2012, p. 25-26). These creations are mainly resulted from producing discourses.
Discourses play an important role in these creations because they can be defined as statements used to explain everything ‘standing out there’ (Wodak, 2009; for more information see Chapter 3). Besides, discourses are historical so they are interlinked with the previous discourses produced in specific contexts. A discourse analyst might be not only interested in “who uses language, how, why and when” (van Dijk 1997, p. 3), but also in how discourses impact the audience. In such conditions, one of the main purposes of discourse analysis becomes presenting power relations that reflect inequalities, hierarchies or other issues in society (Wodak & Meyer, 2001). Therefore, in this thesis, the Feminist Critical Discourses Analysis (FCDA) was consulted, which is particularly interested in how power and dominance about gender are discursively established (Lazar, 2014; see Chapter 3).
This study has four principal steps for investigating gendered academic discourses: A detailed review of the literature on gender in Turkish archaeology and ancient history, selecting 50 academic publications from this literature, then
4
conducting a qualitative FCDA of each selected text, and finally discussing the findings from all analyzed texts with their socio-political contexts. Since this thesis has focused on dominant discourses about sex/gender/sexuality, it is important to provide a brief overview of ‘sex/gender/sexuality’ and define these concepts.
1.1 An overview of interpreting sex/gender/sexuality
As ‘interpreting gender’ is located in the title of the thesis, this section provides a summary for the conceptualization of sex/gender/sexuality which is usually discussed as a system in feminist scholarship.
Although sex and gender are linguistically distinct words, their meanings have been controversial. Sex is generally defined as a biological category based mostly on sexual organs while gender remains as the social elaboration of sex. However, even if sex is accepted as biological and gender as social, they cannot be clearly separated. When gender is built over sex, then the issue of biological difference enters into the domains of society, which becomes complicated.2 As Eckert & McConnell-Ginet (2003) argues:
There is no obvious point at which sex leaves off and gender begins, partly because there is no single objective biological criterion for male or female sex. Sex is based in a combination of anatomical, endocrinal and chromosomal features, and the selection among these criteria for sex assignment is based very much on cultural beliefs about what actually makes someone male or female. (p. 10)
On the other hand, the term ‘gender’ has been created with the effects of modern Western thought, which emphasizes both the material establishment of self-identity and the social formation of human character (Nicholson, 1994, p. 80).3
2 Several scholars have discussed that defining sexes belong to particular times and particular cultures (e.g., Lorber & Farrell, 1991).
3 The idea that women and men are separate entities has historical origins and it is linked to mythology, literature and philosophy in most cultures. For example, Connell (2009) argues that
5
Accordingly, until the appearance of second-wave feminism, the male/female distinction was seen as the facts of biology which refers to a material foundation. To undermine this power of sex, feminists began to put more emphasis on social construction after the 1960s.4 Within English-speaking countries, this was done by extending the meaning of the term ‘gender’ (Haig, 2004). Nicholson (1994) explains that before the 1960s, gender was a term that had been mainly used to identify masculine or feminine linguistic forms. As such, it already had connotations to understand which is socially coded as male or female. Then, feminists started to use ‘gender’ to separate women’s social roles from their biology.
Most feminists during the 1970s accepted biological facts differentiating women and men in all societies. Hence, gender was introduced as a concept to elaborate sex, not to replace it. Although this approach led to another systematic distinction as ‘sex/gender,’ Rubin (1975) has conceptualized "the sex/gender system" and she has criticized the subordination of women through discursive production of this system. Rubin’s ideas are particularly significant in terms of an attempt to reveal that the connection between biological sex, gender and sexuality are socially constructed. Another similar emphasis was brought by Foucault (1972; 1978). Therefore, by the end of the 1980s, the term ‘gender’ was not only widely adopted, but had also caused a variety of theoretical discussions. Another remarkable attempt arrived with the theorization of doing gender. West and Zimmerman (1987) have argued a more complex sex/gender system by going beyond the distinctive
gender theories resulted from the changes of “older discourses that were religious and moralistic, dating from times before modern imperialism” (p. 32).
4 This can be illustrated with the earlier ideas of de Beauvoir. She concludes that the philosophical ‘other’ is both female and the feminized one (de Beauvoir, 1953). She elaborates on this with her popular argument, “one is not born, but rather becomes, woman” (p. 330).
6
foundation of these categories. They argue that gender is not a trait or attribute, but something that is accomplished or done.
It can be said that the most remarkable gender-related theories emerged with the rise of postmodernist thought in the 1990s and 2000s. In order to underline the instability of gender, Butler (1990) and Sedgwick (1990) have discussed both the discursive and performative sides of gender. Butler (1990) argues how there is a hidden connection between sex, gender, and desire: She theorizes that the prevalent view about binary sex (male vs. female) forms the basis for binary gender (masculinity vs. femininity) and these become intelligible through desire (heterosexuality).
There had been also other theories to uncover the hidden connection of sex with gender as a system. Several scholars suggest that sex should not be considered the first step to explain gender, rather this order should be reversed since gender ideologies produce the epistemological framework, in which sex is located at the first place (Halberstam, 2020). Accordingly, various studies continued to focus on the social construction of sex during the 1990s (e.g., Fausto-Sterling, 1985, 1993; Laqueur, 1990).
Another phenomenon that gender is closely connected with is sexuality. Parallel to the appearance of gender discussions, compulsory reproduction supported by the concept of binary sexes has been critiqued by feminist/queer scholars (see Siann, 1994). Moreover, it was emphasized that the body that cannot become independent of culture plays an important role in sexuality (Geller, 2017; Voss 2008). Finally, it was presented that there might be other socio-political mechanisms controlling gender and sexuality. For instance, Hennessy (2000) shows that capitalism combined desire and gender under “a new (heterogender) ideology of
7
sexual identity” (p. 101). According to Hennessy (2000), capitalist ideology separates humans as homosexuals and heterosexuals so that their sexual identities make sense by the coordination of gender roles with the sexual object choice.
1.2 Research questions and thesis outline
In this study, qualitative discourse analysis is used as the methodology whereas a feminist critical approach is adopted as the theoretical framework to question how and why certain discourses about sex/gender/sexuality are produced in Turkish archaeology and ancient history. To realize the analysis, 50 academic texts written in Turkish and published between 1950 and 2020 were selected beforehand according to certain criteria such as having a gender-related keyword in title (for details see Chapter 4). Throughout the analysis, the aim was not to evaluate or challenge the arguments of the authors of the sampled publications. Rather, the selections were based on the titles and contents of the texts. After the selection, all texts were examined comprehensively, then the patterns that reveal among the discourses about past genders were detected and named. By following the CDA model that Fairclough suggests (2015a), the social dimensions of these named discursive patterns are introduced. Therefore, my analysis includes the discussion of how pervasive discourses are connected with sustaining or changing official ideologies in Turkey.
This study asks the following questions:
• What kind of discourses do Turkish5 archaeologists and ancient historians produce about sex/gender/sexuality?
• Is it possible to identify some patterns among these discourses?
5 Throughout the thesis, the usage of ‘Turkish’ does not refer to any intentional exclusion of groups. I use this word as the language of the selected publications produced by scholars who are part of official institutions such as universities in Turkey.
8
• Why do certain discourses repetitively appear?
• Are there any visible changes in the way that the identified discourses are produced over time? Is it possible to historicize these changes?
• How can we analyze the identified discourses intertextually? Are there any intertextual connections between discourses in different publications?
• Do some scholars produce implicit discourses more as a way of resistance against the disciplinary norms or making any counter interpretations?
• How do writers of the selected publications treat the distinction between sex and gender as terminology? Are there any overlapping usages between these concepts?
• How do writers of the selected texts perceive sexuality for the prehistoric and ancient periods?
I attempt to answer these questions in the following chapters. In Chapter 2, the gender-related studies in archaeology and ancient history are reevaluated and it is explained why and when these studies began in the West. In this chapter, some of the main studies regarding gender archaeology are summarized. Finally, this chapter refers to the key issues about gender, which are still considered in archaeology and ancient history. These key issues were selected to become the reference and medium for analyzing the findings of this thesis at the end.
Chapter 3 introduces another research area, this time from linguistics, and draws the theoretical framework of the thesis by identifying FCDA. After discourse and discourse analysis are explained, the emergence of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and FCDA is discussed. Finally, prior publications and debates covering the relationship between language, gender, and archaeology are introduced and it is explained how this study adds a new layer over these publications.
9
Chapter 4 defines what qualitative analysis is and why it is used in this study. Besides, this chapter presents the steps of the FCDA, this time, as the methodology of the thesis. Finally, this chapter gives detailed information about how 50 academic texts were selected and provides fundamental statistical information about the general characteristics of the selected corpus.
Chapters 5 and 6 constitute the main part of the thesis. They classify prominent discursive patterns and subjects as findings that are observed after the analysis. The findings were first summarized by using excerpts from the publications, then the identified discourses are named and categorized at the end. In Chapter 6, these discursive patterns are discussed within their ideological and academic contexts. Chapter 6 aims to answer ‘why’ certain discourses are produced repetitively while others remain hidden or non-existent.
The thesis ends with a conclusion chapter including two sections: the limitations of this research and several suggestions for future directions.
10
CHAPTER 2
A BRIEF JOURNEY: ARCHAEOLOGY OF GENDER
This chapter introduces how gender studies began in archaeology and how they opened new discussions for understanding the past lives of humans. By historicizing the contexts of gender-related studies in archaeology, this chapter summarizes some of the main publications on this issue.
Nowadays, gender is a hotly debated topic in the world and, as mentioned in the introduction, it has been academically discussed especially for the last few decades. It can be indicated that gender studies, in general, had embraced a predominantly political dimension because feminist scholars struggled with what male scholars mostly ignored, such as women’s participation in human history. Over time, the aura of gender studies gained different political dimensions and this has continued until today. The close connection of gender with otherness and inequality made gender studies an ideal arena for approaches that explore power, exclusion, discrimination, and representations of identities.
In archaeology too, gender is embedded in the main research interests of the discipline such as “household organization, social status, division of labor” (Conkey and Gero, 1991, p. 17; also see Hill, 1998). In archaeological contexts, gender is usually identified through burials, visual depictions, tool use, and skeletal remains. Ethnoarchaeology is also frequently consulted for interpreting female and male activities in the remote past (Alberti & Danielsson, 2014). However, there have been various academic discussions in the history of gender studies in archaeology and these include ontological and epistemological positioning of sex/gender as well as
11
considering gender with other elements of identity such as age. In short, the multidimensionality of gender has offered various debates.
Before introducing these debates, it is significant to emphasize that there is no singular term covering all dimensions of gender-related research in archaeology. The term, ‘gender archaeology’ constitutes a sub-discipline and it can be criticized for being marginal in front of mainstream archaeological research. Its meanings and content transformed in the last decades and it continues to change. For example, Gilchrist (1991) united political feminism, the theorization of gender, and adding women to history under the term “women’s archaeology” (p. 495). More recently, Montón-Subías & Meyer (2014) preferred using the term “engendered archaeologies” (p. 1) when archaeology explicitly problematizes sex, gender, sexuality while interpreting the past. According to the authors, “this term encompasses the complex spectra of feminist, gender, and queer archaeologies” (Montón-Subías & Meyer, 2014, p. 1). When I use the term gender archaeology throughout this thesis, I use it as having closer meaning to ‘engendered archaeologies.’
It can be briefly summarized that gender-related research in archaeology included mostly women at the beginning, but then it started to gain a holistic and intersectional approach. To put it differently, gender studies in archaeology initially started to discover gender categories in the past. However, recent gender studies are directed toward searching “how gender is relational and negotiated” (Sørensen, 2006, p. 112).
12
2.1 Is gender archaeology equal to feminist archaeology?
The history of gender studies in archaeology has roots in the feminist movement but at the same time, its beginning can be followed within some theoretical approaches in archaeology itself. Rubio (2011) has declared that the development of gender archaeology originated from the effects of the women’s movement, but the interest in gender at first started within processualism in archaeology. Although it can be accepted that such interest was born within processualism, its direct parallelism with post-processual archaeology is also obvious (Gilchrist, 1991). Yet, in post-processualism, the female agent might continue to be ignored and this might cause “negating multiple genders” (Gilchrist, 1991, p. 497) in favor of individual as an abstract term.
While discussing processualism as a turning point for the archaeology of gender, it is crucial not to disregard that structuralism influenced processualist studies. Therefore, processualism and structuralism approached gender together by determining activity areas, spatial control, and artefact patterns of humans (e.g., Clarke, 1972; Flannery & Winter, 1976). Starting from this, such studies involved implicit assumptions concerning the sexual division of labor, so they can be seen as pioneering for the scholars, who link artefacts to either males or females based on ethnographic parallels or only grave goods.
After referring to these internal theoretical approaches that lead to an interest in gender, it is important to mention the unique place of feminism. Feminism is usually treated as singular, while there are different branches. Especially for the waves of feminism, Nelson (2006) remarks that “the waves never existed, especially in archaeology” (p. 158). The waves might already imply the linear progression of feminism. Instead, different feminist waves might coexist in particular periods and
13
geographies. Nevertheless, the particular characteristics of the feminist waves can be consulted to explain the history of archaeological approaches to gender. For example, the former waves of feminism aimed to expose inequalities in patriarchal order to challenge those inequalities. However, third-wave feminist theories would propose that the inequality between men and women is not unified and same in the world (e.g., Hooks, 1984; Lorber, 2010). Then, one of the main concerns of the third-wave feminists was to perceive gender together with the other aspects of identity.
Moreover, the impact of different feminist theories is intermingled with the main characteristics of the waves. For instance, radical feminists draw more attention to women’s biology although they are often criticized for asserting an essentialist comprehension of becoming a woman (Gilchrist, 1999). Another notable one among different branches is Marxist feminism. By following Engel (1884) about his theorization on how women started to be oppressed after the emergence of private property, Marxist feminists have perceived women as one class who is exposed to labor exploitation and sexual oppression by the capitalist system (Gilchrist, 1999, p. 3) and their ideas influenced many non-English speaking former communist countries. Notable works were produced in the USSR (e.g., Chard, 1960; Soffer, 1983), China (e.g., Shelach, 2004), and North Korea (e.g., Li, 1992). In these countries, Marxist feminism encouraged the beginning of gender-related research in archaeology.
Even if some scholars analyze the effects of first-wave feminism on archaeology (e.g., Díaz-Andreu & Sørensen, 1998), initial gender-related studies began both in Europe and the United States after the second-wave feminism being divaricated from various branches like Marxism. For the case of Europe, these studies came out in Scandinavia and Dommasnes (1976) wrote the first archaeology
14
thesis from a feminist perspective. In Norway, an important threshold about gender was crossed with the publication of the journal entitled K.A.N: Kvinner i arkeologi i Norge (K.A.N. Women in Archaeology in Norway) and the conference that was organized in 1979. Similar attempts were seen in other countries of Scandinavia. In the United Kingdom, however, feminist archaeology began to be shaped during the 1980s. Here, after TAG meetings in 1982, 1985, and 1987, Cambridge Feminist Archaeology Workshops that took place in 1987-1988 can be considered remarkable events for the birth of feminist archaeology (Engelstad, 2007, p. 217-222; Montón-Subías & Meyer, 2014).
In the United States, while cultural anthropology was already combined with feminism during the 1970s, archaeology met gender in the 1980s. The earliest feminist anthropological argument against the patriarchal narratives of the past was about hunting/gathering. For example, by criticizing Washburn and Lancaster's (1968) complete disregard for the contributions of women to human evolution, Linton (1971) had provided an alternative explanation by discussing that gathering foodstuffs by females was important. Similarly, other scholars have argued that women used to hunt together with men (e.g., Dahlberg, 1981; Turnbull, 1981) and women participated in small game hunting in some societies (e.g., Slocum, 1975; Montón-Subías & Meyer, 2014). As another case from anthropology, Lee’s (1979) analysis presents how the plants that women gathered constitute the majority of the !Kung diet.
For the United States, however, an important step for the archaeology of gender was taken with the article by Conkey & Spector (1984). Their article brings feminist insights to archaeological theory and methodology. Besides, it is a pioneering article that introduces the notion of gender to archaeological literature. As
15
De Leiuen (2018) indicates, their article “raised an array of issues and central questions that archaeologists are still exploring and are fundamentally important in the present.” (p. 94).
Conkey & Spector (1984) attempt to examine gender roles, identities and ideologies in the past. They suggest that such examination should not be restricted to finding women. Since they perceive the past as very complex, they introduce some methodologies, in particular, the “task-differentiation framework” that can be used to analyze the artefact-related activities of people in archaeological contexts (Conkey & Spector, 1984). This concern proves that the sexual division of labor was a popular theme when it comes to earlier gender studies in archaeology. From this aspect, their article is complementary to the initial studies about the sexual division of labor.
This article is also important for the concerns of my thesis: Conkey & Spector (1984) define one of their main interests as “to critically evaluate some of the messages that archaeologists convey about gender” (p. 2). They accept that “sex bias is both reflected and realized by the language of archaeology” (Conkey & Spector, 1984, p. 10). They summarize these observations with the concept of ‘presentist gender paradigm.’
After this article, in the United States, the conference entitled “Women and Production in Prehistory” in 1988 gathered many scholars who were to become effective for the development of gender studies in archaeology. The conference papers were published under the title of “Engendering Archaeology” (Gero & Conkey, 1991). A second conference followed this in 1989 under the title of XXII Chacmool Conference in Canada and ended up as a publication, “The Archaeology of Gender” (Walde & Willows, 1991). Similar initiatives continued by publishing the papers of the 1991 Boone conference under the title of “Exploring Gender through
16
Archaeology” (Claassen, 1992). Such conference series enabled various single-authored and edited volumes on the archaeology of gender.
While these turning points exhibit how archaeological approaches to gender are influenced by feminism, it is important not to forget that some archaeologists publishing on gender have chosen to distance themselves from feminism over time. In other words, the close association of gender-related studies with feminism became a matter of discussion. As a recent addition to such discussions, Bolger (2012) questions whether gender and feminism create another binary division.
Another group of scholars criticizes the marginalization of feminism in archaeology and they demand the involvement of feminist archaeology into the mainstream scholarship. This demand can be read as the fear of being marginal because of adopting a political perspective instead of objectivity (Engelstad, 2007, p. 225-226). For example, Moore (1997) shows the low visibility of gender issues in mainstream archaeological publications. In terms of joining the mainstream, Engelstad (2007) indicates that such views trivialize “the critical, innovative edge characteristic of much feminist gender archaeology” (p. 229). Instead, she recommends criticizing the mainstream itself rather than feminist archaeology.
On the other hand, it should be underlined that the political aims of feminist scholars are multifaceted, which have transformed during the 1990s. For instance, in common with third-wave feminism, queer views emerged in response to another hierarchical positioning within the interpretations of the past: The epistemological dominance of heterosexuality (Dowson, 2006). This period also witnessed the change in feminist attention towards questioning differences among women, so ‘intersectionality’ appeared as another concept in gender discussions. This term was first coined in 1989 by Crenshaw (2011), who concerns black feminism.
17
Intersectionality can be defined as a systematic point of view, which underlines the close relationship between gender, class, and other aspects of identity (Fotopoulou, 2012). Over time, it transformed into a tool for creating a dialogue between queer theory and feminism because queer theorists together with feminists argued that in politics some components such as race are excluded from the identity formations (see Talburt, 2007). Such integrity in both theories caused a change towards including different identities for knowledge production.
In archaeology, however, queer theories have been suspicious since most scholars do not know what ‘queer’ actually means. This term points out a marginalized position in front of all essentialist thoughts, so ‘queer’ is not fixed and it takes different meanings in different contexts. It is sometimes equal to homosexuals as slang, but in other contexts, it might represent a political positioning against the modern sexual categories (see Jagose, 2005).
Nevertheless, queer theory increased its impact on archaeology after 2000. Firstly, a volume of “World Archaeology” (Dowson, 2000) focused on queer theory. The conference organized at Chacmool in 2004 was also concluded with the publication entitled “Que(e)rying Archaeology” (Terendy et al., 2009; Dowson, 2016; Croucher, 2012). Queer theory continued to influence gender-related studies in archaeology in the last decade. Among the recent works, Casella & Voss (2011) have discussed sexuality and colonialism as a new perspective for archaeology. In addition, ‘queerying’ as a verb continues to be located in the titles. For instance, Moral (2016) reviews the issue of the ‘third gender’ in archaeology by criticizing the usage of this term, which supports sexual binaries. Based on a similar approach, Geller (2017) attempts to ‘queer’ the understandings of sex, gender, and sexuality in bioarchaeology. More recently, beyond the Mesoamerican and European scholarship,
18
queer theory became visible in the discussions about Ancient Near East. For example, Matić (2016b) brings innovative perspectives into the study of sex/gender for Ancient Egypt while Newman (2018) reevaluates gendered figures in the wall paintings from Knossos that had been previously considered ambiguous. In such studies, it is possible to observe that the concepts of ambiguity and fluidity come into prominence. However, it is important to watch out for what such designations really mean. Understanding gender as fluid might conceal the fact that identity is sometimes constructed according to the norms, which include and exclude certain bodies and personhood in past societies (Cobb & Croucher, 2016; Matić, 2016a; Moral, 2016).
Finally, similar to positioning feminism and gender archaeology towards each other, another question raises about the relationship between feminist and queer approaches in archaeology: I agree with the idea that the research areas of feminist and queer archaeology should not be divided (Alberti & Danielsson, 2014). Nevertheless, queer perspectives have been mostly located around the exceptions being out of social norms (e.g., Jagose, 2009) whereas other scholars have emphasized that the application of queer theory cannot be predefined (e.g., Dowson, 2000). In the world, there is not an agreed understanding of queer archaeology as well: North American scholarship focuses more on the studies of sexuality and embodiment which are highly affected by Butler’s theory of performance (e.g., Joyce, 2008; Voss & Schmidt, 2000) while various scholars in Europe often consider queer “as opposed to any norm” (Alberti & Danielsson, 2014, p. 10).
19
2.2 Introduction to epistemology: key issues in engendered archaeologies
Regarding this thesis, which is about analyzing language and knowledge production, archaeology of gender should be analyzed in terms of its epistemological concerns. Epistemology refers to multiple aspects of knowledge such as the types of knowledge or the ones who have authority to create knowledge (Spencer-Wood, 2011; also see Audi, 2011). Epistemological concerns of any science might change over time. For example, feminism has critiqued the androcentric knowledge and research methods in science (Wylie, 1997). Similarly, queer theory has helped to think beyond binary categories and question the heteronormative interpretations of the past (e.g., Dowson, 2000).
Based on the importance of knowledge production in archaeology, this section of the chapter tackles fundamental topics developed together with the history of gender-related research in archaeology. At this point, the most controversial issue can be accepted as the relationship between sex/gender and understanding their mechanisms that mutually worked in past societies. The separation or combination of sex/gender directly affects the current epistemologies.
2.2.1 If ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ are not the same, can we identify them? If ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ are the same, can we use them interchangeably?
In the introduction chapter, I have emphasized that before the 1990s, scholars studying gender-related subjects generally approved the sex/gender dichotomy. However, this did not mean that there was always consensus on accepting dichotomies for the past. For instance, binary oppositions have been generally criticized in the last decades in both anthropological and archaeological discourse (e.g., Ortner, 1974; MacCormack & Strathern, 1980; Moore, 1988; Descola &
20
Palsson, 1996; Thomas, 2004; Croucher, 2012). These studies demonstrate that binary oppositions such as nature/culture or male/female are discursively established and do not reflect universal experiences. Among these studies, according to Ortner (1974), women are usually associated with nature, while men are matched with culture.
Since the 2000s, reconsidering the sex-gender dichotomy has gained speed (e.g., Laqueur, 1990; Rubin, 1984; Butler, 1990). This situation enabled some people to accept that both sex and gender are socially constructed. For example, among the studies cited just above, Laqueur (1990) has theorized the notion of the one-sex model, which proposes that males and females were not evaluated as categories until the late seventeenth century. After that, a discursive transformation occurred and the anatomical differences between women and men started to be seen as certain facts in Western societies (Moral, 2016). Laquer’s theory has shown how determining sexes for the pre-modern periods is actually complicated.
Despite the critiques against the methods of determining sex in archaeological contexts, however, most scholars have accepted that two sexes are linked to two gender categories. Biological sex is generally determined by scoring the morphological and dimorphic traces in the skeleton, which includes complexities and ambiguities (Geller, 2005; Ghisleni et. al., 2016). Therefore, archaeological methods tend to identify genders around sex dichotomies (Sofaer, 2006) and neglect unsexed skeletons (Stratton, 2016). Moreover, in bioarchaeology, accepting only gender as a social construct is problematic since burials represent the last moment of the deceased and they do not usually include traces that reflect all genders of the person which were performed throughout her/his life (Hollimon, 2006; Moral, 2016). Finally, the current sex determinations might be controversial for the representations
21
of intersex people. Although “approximately 1.7% of all live births do not conform to a Platonic ideal of absolute sex chromosome, gonadal, genital, and hormonal dimorphism” (Blackless et al. 2000, p. 161), the current methods of sex determination in skeletons can do little for representing them (Geller 2017).
Apart from determining sex, some scholars prefer theorizing body for explaining the relationship between sex and gender. For example, Preciado (2002) suggests that there is not a body outside any epistemological framework, in other words, a discursive framework. At this point, Preciado’s thoughts on the body are similar to Geller’s (2009) conceptualization of “bodyscape.” Geller (2009) argues that the term “bodyscape” encourages thinking about the multiple representations of bodies, which are shaped within the normative ideas of any society.
In addition to theorizing the body, other recent contributions come back to the discussions between sex/gender division. Sofaer (2006), Fuglestvedt (2014), and Marshall & Alberti (2014) indicate a common point: deconstructing the separation of sex from gender (see Moral, 2016). Fuglestvedt (2014) proposes the term “archaeology of sexe” to contain sex/gender together. According to Fuglestvedt (2014):
Sexe implies that we study women and men of the past, that is ‘woman’ and ‘man’ devoid of essentialism. These women and men should be studied from a perspective of lived experience, and will help us to create women and men of a variety of embodiments. (p. 62)
In addition to ‘sexe,’ Sofaer (2006) suggests to avoid starting with gender categories and accept that gender is diverse throughout the life (see Moral, 2016).
In their work, Marshall & Alberti (2014) also think that accepting females and males as binary sexes cause their identification as two big different worlds in archaeological interpretation. Instead, they propose that archaeologists should start
22
by accepting an ontological unity between females and males. In this way, all bodies, discourses, and practices become agential for archaeological interpretation.
Another recent effort about the ontological detachment of sex from gender brings transgender perspectives into archaeology. According to Weismantel (2013), archaeology can contribute to transgender studies through “cross-cultural and historical investigations of human gender diversity” (p. 327) and it can expose “the idea of constructing one’s body through appropriating and suturing together disparate body parts from diverse origins in many ancient societies” (p. 328). By giving examples from various sites, Weismantel highlights the possibility of archaeology that does not exhibit the two-sex model, the universality of the nuclear family, and the timelessness of heterosexuality.
Finally, these studies should not be understood as they recommend using sex and gender interchangeably. Instead, they draw attention to the importance of theorizing and discussing the relationship between sex and gender. Hence, defining sex and gender as the results of similar discursive production does not mean that they are the same.
2.2.2 Excavating women’s agency in the past
In terms of epistemologies, patriarchal and heterosexist interpretations still dictate archaeological practice (Croucher, 2012). Since those studying the past were predominantly male, it is obvious that the roles of the males in the past were given prominence in archaeological interpretation. In the end, this situation enables the settlement of stereotypical understanding of women in knowledge production. Starting from this, some scholars have evaluated the negative implications of these stereotypes except academic scholarship. For example, Burtt (1987) examines
23
children’s books which depict the past as consisting of active men and passive women. Similarly, Moser (1993) investigates gender stereotypes in many visual reconstructions about prehistoric life.
The male-dominated structure of knowledge production not only creates stereotypic understanding but also conceals women’s agency. Therefore, the initial interest of feminist archaeologists was to make women visible. Conkey (2003) states that from the mid-1980s to the beginning of the 2000s, at least 80 percent of the literature that might be grouped under the title of feminist archaeology was actually about “finding women” (p. 869). In other words, “the absence of women” both in archaeological epistemology and practice was the fundamental issue at the beginning of gender-related research (Sorensen, 2000, p. 156). Before such research, only males were being considered major agents in the past and women were involving in academic discussions only if they are emphasized in written sources (Spencer-Wood, 2006, 2011). At the same time, there was an acceptance that female power is mostly gained through marriage. Even the suggestion of female leaders would require extra archaeological and historical proof (Croucher, 2012).
This androcentric heritage, the effects of feminism, and the material basis of archaeology together have constantly promoted an interest in the sexual division of labor (Gilchrist, 1999, p. 31). It has been frequently thought that “the function of gender is to organise labor” (Claassen, 1992, p. 3), so a clear division of labor existed in most of the past societies. For example, concerning craft specialization, Costin (1996) argues how in cases in which both women and men do the same activities, their subtasks are usually brought into prominence to clarify the distinction between their labour. Such perspective, however, might benefit from essential views. For
24
example, the sexual division of labour might be regarded obvious when one of women’s indispensable roles is interpreted as childcare (e.g., Brown, 1970).
Parallel to this, bioarchaeology has been used to discuss the existence of sexual division of labor for the transition from the Paleolithic to the Neolithic. For instance, skeletons excavated in Abu Hureyra reflect some changes within the Neolithic period. It has been interpreted that both females and males showed signs of carrying heavy loads (Molleson, 1994). Then, it was concluded that the long times that females spent kneeling in order to pound and grind cereal grains caused some changes in skeletons. For such arguments, Gilchrist (1999) comments that “here an exclusive sexual division of labor is expected” (p. 44) based on females who are expected to prepare food.
As a reaction to such attitudes towards structuring women’s roles in certain areas, it can be proposed that creating any artefact requires negotiation or cooperation between people. According to Peacock (1991), producing tools and realizing tasks could be organized based on other activities, such as childcare, or could be shared. Thus, instead of one sex being responsible for making specific tools, both sexes might undertake common roles. It is also important not to forget that the process of production might be shared between people (Gilchrist, 1999, p. 40). For instance, to make pottery, one person might be responsible for finding clay and another expert one might finish it.
Lastly, the sexual division of labour in archaeology does not remain limited to interpreting the past but archaeology itself. Most female archaeologists were formerly employed, as Gero (1985) identified, “in archaeological housework” (p. 344). Various studies also address that women’s responsibilities, salaries, labour, and roles in archaeology is directly related to their marriages, children and degree of
25
mobility (see Claassen, 1994). It is not difficult to see the correlation between women’s lack of participation in knowledge production and the problematic interpretations of sex/gender/sexuality. However, this should not mean that all female scholars stand against the patriarchal order and the patriarchal basis of knowledge. Certain discourses of female scholars might also support hetero-patriarchal perception of gender. For example, in the discussion part of this thesis, it is illustrated that such situation is visible in Turkish archaeology and ancient history (see Chapter 6).
2.2.3 Theorizing femininity and masculinity
Although archaeology of gender emerged by attempting to make women visible in the narratives about the past, over time, they included more discussions about the ways of constructing masculinities. In other words, it was discovered that men have gender as well and it became crucial to reconsider the roles of men that are assigned by patriarchal ideals. Several sociologists such as Connell (1995) and Seidler (2006) also influenced gender studies in archaeology in terms of addressing the issue of masculinity (e.g., Knapp, 1998; Spencer-Wood, 2006; see Montón-Subías & Meyer, 2014). While some researchers have become interested in the representations of masculinity, which is generally analyzed in terms of violence and warfare (e.g., Matić & Jensen, 2017) whereas others have questioned the involvement of such analyses in archaeological data (e.g., Alberti, 2006). Yet, archaeological studies have mostly depicted masculinity as something that only men perform through symbols of violence or phallus (Gilchrist, 1999, p. 65).
Although ‘the absence of women’ has been theorized in archaeology and femininities have been discussed in social sciences in general (e.g., Schippers, 2007),
26
it is important to point out that finding femininities is still inadequate in archaeology. Some scholars who study masculinities have already remarked the necessity of more research about femininities (see Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). Since female masculinities were introduced as early as the 1990s (e.g., Halberstam, 1998; also see Thedéen & Danielsson, 2012), the current lack of analyzing intersectional aspects of masculinity and femininity in archaeology such as female masculinities or male femininities is surprising. Such studies should be immediately added to knowledge production in the archaeology of gender.
2.2.4 Sexuality: An archaeological neglection
While several scholars did address sexuality during the 1970s, it did not come out within feminism until the 1980s (Montón-Subías & Meyer, 2014). Therefore, one can infer that sexuality is one the most recent subjects of gender studies and there is still much work to be done about that.
Schmidt & Voss (2000) explain several agents that have obstructed sexuality in archaeological discourse. According to them, it is generally thought that sexual behavior is biological, therefore ahistorical. They also underline that speaking about sexuality might be thought of as immoral and the research on sexuality is related to the researcher’s own biases. Similar to these points, Dowson (2000) claims that “institutionalized homophobia” in Western countries is supported by archaeological discourse (p. 162). Later on, Voss (2008) argues that homophobia is reproduced in archaeology through value-judgements against erotic artefacts. Moreover, those objects being contrary to the heteronormative understanding were sometimes “censored from archaeological publications” (Voss, 2008, p. 318). For instance, it is
27
known that Anatolian figurines representing no evidence of clear sex are less published and rarely displayed (Croucher & Belcher, 2016).
2.3 Today’s archaeology of gender
Recently, Moen (2019) has questioned the current state of gender studies in archaeology. According to her, three points have to be addressed about this: One of them is the impact of gender studies in archaeology. She concludes that although recently there are several important additions to gender-related research, gender is not actually an integrated aspect for studying past societies. In other words, “there has not yet been a significant impact of gender archaeology outside of a quite narrow academic sub-community” (Moen, 2019, p. 209). Secondly, she reviews the mainstream to claim how men are still accepted as the norm. She also criticizes museums in terms of transmitting biased assumptions about past genders to the public (Moen, 2019, p. 214-216). Finally, she recommends becoming aware of presentism and argues that “if statements are to be made of what roles women and men are carried out in the past, these need to rest on solid empirical bases, not on assumptions drawn from the researchers own experience” (Moen, 2019, p. 219). However, due to the dominant ideologies in the academy, the focus on gender with its intersectional aspects still remains to be necessary. On the other hand, towards the second decade of the twenty-first century, research about gender equality and archaeologists themselves is joined by new literature on sexual harassment in the fieldwork (e.g., Muckle, 2014). The report published by Clancy et al. (2014) demonstrate that many female archaeologists experience sexual harassment in fieldwork and most of them do not know how to react against harassment.
28
Another issue is analyzing how the scholarships of different countries have adopted gender studies in archaeology. The studies on the historiography of this issue are still limited in the world, except the West. It can be thought that in various countries gender studies in archaeology and ancient history remain marginalized or do not exist. However, it would be crucial to conduct more research on how national history, feminism, academic structures, and the efforts of certain scholars have enabled gender-related research in archaeology. It seems that the contributions to the archaeology of gender are recently extending to the local scholarships of various regions such as Latin America (see Navarrete, 2010). Aside from South Africa, archaeology of gender is limited in Africa (e.g., Folorunso, 2007; Eyifa-Dzidzienyo & Kankpeyeng, 2014) and its presence is much more restricted in Asia except the scholars working in the universities of the United States and Europe (Montón-Subías & Meyer, 2014, p. 8). Even the situation is diversified in Europe. For example, the case studies from Italy and Greece demonstrate how national traditions have been effective for the limited research concerns about gender archaeology (Vida, 1998; Nikolaidou & Kokkinidou, 1998). The same conclusion can be reached for the case of Turkey, which is discussed in the last part of this thesis. By this way, this thesis provides a new point of view from Turkey in terms of the current state of gender discussions in archaeology.
Finally, it is significant to recognize the recent efforts promoting multinational contacts between the ones interested in gender in archaeology. One of such efforts is Archaeology and Gender in Europe (AGE), a team of the European Association of Archaeologists, which organizes regular meetings to discuss gender. AGE did also conduct a session in Istanbul in 2014 (Ghisleni et al., 2016). While AGE mostly gathers people from Europe, it should be indicated that in many regions
29
including Turkey, local interests in gender are about “. . . to substantially augment intercontinental networks as well as to benefit from them” (Montón-Subías & Meyer, 2014, p. 9).
30
CHAPTER 3
STRATIGRAPHY OF FEMINIST CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
This chapter deconstructs FCDA and explains this notion step-by-step. Accordingly, the title of this chapter is called “stratigraphy,” which takes inspiration from archaeological methods. The chapter starts from the basic unit, discourse itself, and then questions why being critical provides a different approach along with the umbrella term: discourse analysis. After explaining the emergence of CDA and its effects on discourse studies, the rest of the chapter tackles the relations between gender/discourse and the involvement of FCDA in the discussions about this relationship. The chapter ends with a summary of the pioneering publications and debates surrounding discourse-related studies in archaeology. In the end, the contribution of this thesis to the current archaeological and linguistic scholarship is explained.
Today, as humans, we construct our social worlds through not only language but also language used in connection with nonlinguistic objects. In that sense, discourse cannot be identified only by language. Rather, it involves “coordinating language with ways of acting, interacting, valuing, believing, feeling and with bodies, clothes, non-linguistic symbols, objects, tools, technologies, times and places” (Gee, 1999, p. 25). This idea implies that except for being useful for communication, language is constitutive and interactive. Therefore, speaking and/or writing turns to be a “site where meanings are created and changed” (Taylor, 2001, p. 6). This elasticity of language entails the extensity of discourse-related studies although some scholars intentionally attribute discourse to certain analyses (e.g., Wetherell et al., 2001).
31
3.1 Discourse: more than language
As a starting point, “language-in-use is everywhere and always political” (Gee, 1999, p. 1). According to Gee (1999), being “political” implies anything and anyplace, in which human social interactions determine how the sources of power are distributed. Based on this point, discourse appears in different levels of our lives as much as language does.
Today, people might use discourse in inappropriate contexts or with other concepts such as ideology interchangeably. Besides, scholars’ treatments of discourse vary from consulting written or spoken languages and to other means of communication such as visual media. In addition to its variety in terms of methodology, discourse can also represent particular philosophies that work for language usages in the background. Regarding this, there have been several definitions of discourse in linguistics. For example, Taylor (2001) explains discourse as “language-in-use” (p. 5) and indicates that discourse analysts look for “patterns” in language usages (p. 6). Van Dijk (1997) agrees with the idea that discourse appears whenever language is used in a particular context.
Similarly, but based on different terminologies, Gee (1999) separates two meanings of discourse. Firstly, he emphasizes that being aware of who we are and what we are doing always covers more than language since there are socially accepted rules for the ways of using language, which contribute to how we use language. Because of these rules; we act, interact and think in the proper places with the proper things. Therefore, Gee (1999) uses “discourse with a little d” (p. 17) for referring to the types of how language is used whereas he uses “Discourses with a capital D” (p. 17) for considering socially accepted associations that interact with using language. According to Gee (1999), “Big D Discourses” (p. 17) become visible
32
when language is combined with other things. These other things include “. . . situated identities; ways of performing and recognizing characteristic identities and activities; ways of coordinating and getting coordinated by other people, things, tools, technologies, symbol systems, places, and times; characteristic ways of acting-interacting-feeling-emoting-valuing-gesturing-posturing-dressing-thinking-believing-knowing-speaking-listening-writing” (Gee, 1999, p. 38).
Nevertheless, it is possible to categorize some of the main characteristics of discourse. Firstly, context comes forward to understand how particular languages are used and generally, context can be defined as certain times, places, and circumstances in which languages establish social interactions. It can be thought that the relationship between context and discourse is dialectical, therefore they can shape each other. Apart from context, intertextuality can be regarded as another common characteristic of discourses. It means that discourses in the same context always interact with other discourses (see Litosseliti & Sunderland, 2002, p. 14). To put it differently, discourses often influence each other and they sometimes come together “to create new hybrids” (Gee, 1999, p. 7). These hybrids enable the extension for the meanings of discourses: While discourse may take place between two persons who are physically present for interaction, it might be “embedded in larger socio-historical configurations and structures” (Angermuller et al., 2014, p. 3).
3.2 Discourse analysis: excavating language in context
Discourse analysis began to rise after the 1960s. It is not possible to trace this field of research back to one founder or school, so it is originated from the combination of various theoretical and methodological frameworks that developed mainly in Europe and the United States (Angermuller et al., 2014). More recently, discourse analysis is
33
called “discourse studies” because there are several divisions between more quantitative corpus analysis and more qualitative studies of language practices (Angermuller et al., 2014). This concept refers to a field in which both discourse theory and data analysis are combined for conducting discourse research. Since this thesis covers a limited content analysis to detect gendered discursive patterns in Turkish archaeology and ancient history, in all chapters including this, the term discourse analysis is preferred instead of discourse studies.
When it comes to defining discourse analysis, one more time, diverse perspectives can be observed. For instance, as a general definition, Bavelas et al. (2002) state that discourse analysis means systematic study of natural communication between people in terms of meanings rather than physical features of their language. According to Wodak & Meyer (2009), “discourse analysis involves looking beyond the literal meaning of language, understanding the context in which it was produced” (p. 19). In terms of questions that discourse analysts ask, discourse analysts interrogate “who uses language, how, why and when” (van Dijk, 1997, p. 2).
Within this questioning, it becomes possible to reach certain discursive patterns at the end. By defining discourse analysis as searching for patterns within language uses, Taylor (2001) provides different steps for discourse analysis. According to her, the first step focuses on the patterns in terms of vocabulary, structure or functions in a language. In contrast, the second step deals with how language is used. With this approach, researchers study language as a process and they are more interested in the patterns revealed through people’s interactions. The third step aims to discover patterns in the language that are linked to specific social issues around it. This approach would consider language as situated in its cultural context rather than a specific interaction as in the second approach. A fourth step
34
looks for patterns within much larger contexts. In this approach, the patterns are associated with philosophies and logic behind the emergence of them. These different steps reveal that all of them are complementary to discourse analysis.
However, scholars might propose various methodologies for discourse analysis. Based on this situation, discourse analysis can be criticized for not having a set of rules that can be followed step-by-step in order to reach objective results. For example, Denzin (1994) thinks that the epistemological debates concerning discourse analysis have created “the crisis of representation and legitimation” (pp. 23-24). The crisis of representation is related to how a researcher cannot offer objective knowledge. On the other hand, the crisis of legitimation means that there are no well-established procedures for testing the obtained knowledge. However, it is important to remind that even in hard sciences, it might be difficult to encounter such certain methods to check the results against objectivity. Indeed, objectivity itself can be questioned in a post-modernist sense (see Chapter 1).
These critiques, however, are significant to realize that discourse analysts always add a new layer from themselves over the data. Although this does not necessarily mean that any analysis is just the analysts’ subjective views, in the end, the findings of any analysis might become meaningful in certain ways for certain people. In other words, the results from a discourse analysis might not be inclusive for all readers. As Gee (1999) states, “all analyses are open to further discussion and dispute, and their status can go up or down with time as work goes on in the field” (p. 94).
Another related point to add such polemics is making generalizations through data. Taylor (2001) thinks that it is important to question “how general are the patterns within the language in use and what forms do they take” (p. 13), which again
35
relate to the analysts’ own selection. For this reason, an analyst should inform readers about the details of the data selection process and how much the data allows for generalizations. Chapter 4 includes detailed information about the data selection in this thesis and brings back some of the issues introduced here.
3.3 Critical discourse analysis: what is critical?
Major trends in CDA started in Europe especially in the United Kingdom and started to gain popularity in the late 1970s (Angermuller et al., 2014). Breeze (2011) suggests that the study by Fowler et al. (1979) and Hodge & Kress (1993) can be accepted as pioneering works for the foundations of CDA. For the first time, however, the term CDA was used by Fairclough (1985) and it came to the fore by his book “Language and Power” (Fairclough, 1989). Despite the proliferation of publications over time, this book is still one of the best-known sources about CDA.
CDA is fed by several concepts of critical social theory. For example, Gramsci’s (1971) theorization about the “hegemony” based on coercion and consent influenced the beginning of critical approaches towards language. Besides, Bourdieu’s (1984) theorization of “habitus” and Habermas’ (1984) stress on the function of communication in modern societies had an effect on the birth of critical views towards language.
Finally, Foucault’s views on power and language are crucial for the basis of CDA. According to Foucault (1972, 1977), discourses are widespread and around us so that they dictate the way we understand the world and become subjects. To put it differently, discourses correspond to reality and shape us as subjects. He adds that discourses determine the boundaries between those who are authorized to speak and the ones who are not given the voice to speak in the existing power relations
36
(Foucault, 1972). Because of these roles of discourses, Foucault is interested in questioning how some discourses dominate the ways we define ourselves and our social world, while other discourses offer spaces for challenging and resisting power (see Arribas-Ayllon & Walkerdine, 2017; Potter, 2008). For example, Foucault’s (1978) primary concern for the history of sexuality was understanding power operations through discourses, which lead to the commonality of sexual practices. In his examination of the past, Foucault discovers pieces of knowledge and their effects on power in order to uncover the constructions of knowledge in modern societies. For this, he conceptualizes ‘archaeology of knowledge,’ which causes discourses being shaped at any historical basis or particular institution (Foucault, 1972). After this examination, genealogy allows to uncover the continuities and discontinuities of the transmission of the power relations and how these have influenced and shaped current practice (Koopman, 2008). By recalling Foucault, discourse analysis can be metaphorically defined as doing archaeology of language or excavating language as a stratified site.
In the light of the relationship between language and power, CDA developed along with questioning how complex social problems are linguistically represented in order to offer strategies for understanding and deconstructing them. As Fairclough (2001) says, “the starting point for CDA is social issues and problems” (p. 229). Gee (1999) also makes a distinction between “descriptive” and “critical” discourse analyses: The former describes language to understand it without going beyond that. When someone analyzes the linguistic patterns produced by people, who learn a second language and compare those patterns with their native language usages, this becomes an example of descriptive studies. On the other hand, CDA aims to move beyond explanations for challenging the socio-political conditions in which
37
discourses appear. Therefore, CDA is sometimes expected to play a role in requesting social change against any discriminatory ideologies (Strauss & Feiz, 2013). According to Van Dijk (2015):
CDA is discourse analytical research that primarily studies the way social-power abuse and inequality are enacted, reproduced, legitimated and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context. With such dissident research, critical discourse analysts take an explicit position and thus want to understand, expose, and ultimately challenge social inequality. This is also why CDA may be characterized as a social movement of politically committed discourse analysts. (p. 466)
All similar definitions emphasize the relationship between language and power constructed by the concepts such as struggle, inequality, dominance, etc. (see Harrington et al., 2008, p. 10). Therefore, it is possible to infer that CDA contains one essential approach: A political concern for revealing how language is closely connected with power (Fairclough, 1992).
However, similar critiques against discourse analysis that are introduced previously are usually directed to CDA as well. Breeze (2011) gathers the main criticisms against CDA. The first one is about the polysemy of the term critical. Secondly, the eclectic theoretical background of CDA usually brings about the lack of its orderly application (Breeze, 2011). Thirdly, as Stubbs (1997) points out, in CDA “there is very little discussion of whether it is adequate to restrict the analysis to short fragments of data, how data should be sampled, and whether the sample is representative” (p. 7). Moreover, there is other criticism against CDA for analyzing texts without paying much attention to their production, distribution or consumption (see Breeze, 2011). Finally, some linguists are complaining about the negative side of research produced in the literature of CDA, so they suggest scholars to question more on the ‘positive’ aspects of discourse (e.g., Martin, 2004; Luke, 2002; Breeze,
38
2011). For example, a positive attitude in CDA towards gender would concern discourses challenging gender inequality rather than reproducing gender inequality.
As it is the case in all discourse analyses, one more time, the agency of the analyst should be underlined. In CDA too, the analyst depends on her/his views about social practices (Sunderland, 2004). Before moving to FCDA, this observation becomes meaningful since CDA shows similarities with feminist studies, which contain political concerns as well. In the next section, the previous studies covering the relationship between gender and discourse analysis are introduced, since they directed the appearance of FCDA.
3.4 Gender and discourse analysis
Since the 1970s, the number of studies conducted to explain the relationship between gender and language as well as critical approaches to language has increased. This growth can be evaluated within the effects of postmodernism which is briefly explained in the introduction of this thesis. Besides, the second-wave feminist movement played important roles in the proliferation of such studies (see West et al., 1997).
Within this period, the research combining gender with language has been divided into two directions: At the beginning, the academic interest focused on how gender is represented in the form of language and how people use language (Speer, 2005). However, this way of looking can be called traditional since it might cause the adoption of essential approaches to language analyses where researchers perceived people as having static characteristics. For instance, in a sociolinguistic study that aims to examine sex differences, research participants might be separated as males and females and their language uses might be compared accordingly. Yet, here sex
39
and gender might be treated as fixed qualities that individuals have and the studies based on this treatment might become a reference to prove “the difference between men and women” (Speer, 2005, p. 12).
To avoid such treatments, more constructionist approaches became popular over time (Burr, 2003; Gergen, 1999). In the constructionist way of thinking, the relationship between gender and language started to be recognized differently. Since both sex and gender began to be accepted as something that is done (Cealey & Hood-Williams, 2002; West & Zimmerman, 1987; Butler, 1990; for other studies see Chapter 1), researchers following constructionism deal with how gender identities are done as a result of specific language production and social interaction processes. These studies acknowledge the agency of people themselves for the formation of gender and this agency includes using language strategies for resisting social norms. At the same time, constructionist studies acknowledge the socio-cultural constraints that direct individuals to make their linguistic choices (Kendall & Tannen, 2015, p. 654).
Against these constructionist approaches, Cameron (2007) argues that sociolinguistics might adopt radical social constructionism, but this adoption might not enable one to evaluate biological differences between men and women sufficiently. Therefore, a high level of social constructionism can be criticized for marginalizing the field and leaving biology untouched (see McElhinny, 2014).
During the 1990s, the explanations presented for the relationship between gender and language aimed to describe how language takes a mediating role for gender and other social constructs. For example, Ochs (1992) has discussed that feminine or masculine ways of speaking do not directly reflect gender but rather “index” it through stances that are associated with women and men in society
40
(Kendall & Tannen, 2015). As a result, people use language and reflect their identities with stances in specific contexts (West et al., 1997). In her case study in Mexico, Brown (1994) examines sarcastic politeness among women as an example of gender indexing. In some confrontations, Brown realizes that “even when women are not being polite, characteristic female strategies of indirectness and politeness are manifested in their speech” (p. 336).
3.5 Adding feminist prefix to CDA
As introduced just above, the theoretical discussions of gender-related linguistics started with difference-based theories and then continued with feminist interventions, which locate women’s concerns to the center. Over time, women’s concerns transformed more into the understanding of intersectionality (Weatherall, 2002). As a response to the feminist investigation of gender and sex as separate concepts, however, various scholars preferred addressing questions of sexual identity to these investigations under the title of queer (Bucholtz, 2014, p. 39; also see Chapter 1). Recent studies about gender and discourse also emphasize that gender should be regarded as an activity rather than a situation and moving beyond thinking sex, gender and heterosexuality together as a system (McElhinny, 2014).
While there had been lots of studies from a feminist perspective within CDA, FCDA was proposed by Lazar (2005), who positions herself within a “feminist political imagination” (Lazar, 2014, p. 182). FCDA aims to discover discourses that reproduce a social order in which some people (mostly men) are assigned privileges, while others (mostly women) are regularly disadvantaged and discriminated. Then, the mission of FCDA becomes “to examine how power and dominance are discursively produced, resisted, and counter-resisted in a variety of ways through
41
textual representations of gendered social practices, and through interactional strategies of talk” (Lazar, 2014, p. 189).
Lazar (2014) argues that there are not many CDAs on how marginalized people resist or challenge the social status quo. While it is important to demonstrate gender-related ‘critical’ approaches to discourse for challenging gender asymmetries, she also warns about “gender oversensitivity” (Lazar, 2014, p. 181). Gender oversensitivity means considering gender in every situation even where other identities might be more relevant in particular cases. Therefore, it is crucial to become self-reflexive about the relevance of gender for particular discourse analyses and explicitly explain why gender is very relevant for the studies conducted from the perspective of FCDA. The previous chapter presenting a historical overview of gender studies for archaeology and ancient history demonstrates the reasons why gender should be examined with critical perspectives (see Chapter 2).
3.6 Archaeology and discourse analysis
Data in social sciences are typically discursive. As archaeology was established as a discipline within the social scientific milieu, for archaeologists, there was no way of removing personal interests, institutional interests, and disciplinary interests for producing knowledge about the past (Tilley, 1990). This also comes to mean that knowledge production is related to the production of particular dominant discourses.
Thomas (2004) states that archaeology “. . . is creatively shaped by its contemporary cultural and linguistic resources, and the nineteenth century presents a particularly dense set of such interactions” (p. 1). How archaeologists talk about the past and how they interpret the past are always important because their findings can be used in politics, as well as they influence how we perceive today’s society in
42
which we live. When it comes to gender issues too, gender-related discourses in archaeology might be included for legitimizing and asserting different ideologies. Consequently, discourses produced in the academic sphere might be used to empower or undermine today’s gender asymmetries.
In addition to these points behind producing knowledge, it is important to remind that archaeological texts, like all texts, are intersubjective and intertextual. The professional language of any discipline including archaeology contributes to the creation of academic culture and establishes what a discipline looks like. In the field of academic research, textual production is at the core of negotiating the relationship between the members of academic communities and of constructing academic identities. Becher & Trowler (2001) discuss that linguistic analysis in disciplinary contexts helps to provide information for the disciplinary community itself.
However, discovering such dynamics in archaeology through discourse analysis has started recently. For example, Burkette (2015) provides a comparison for the studies about both language and material culture by highlighting some of the common points that the disciplines of linguistics and archaeology reflect. In terms of directing sociolinguistic questions to archaeology, there are a few studies. As a fundamental one among this corpus, Joyce (2002) explores how archaeological languages are created and why archaeologists give authority to particular voices over others. In order to explore this process, Joyce (2002) benefits from the opinions of Bakhtin (1981) about human language and dialogue. Bakhtin’s fundamental point is that scientific writing produces a singular type of authoritative knowledge, but creating meanings consist of complicated and multidimensional processes. In other words, knowledge is created through multiple voices, but scientific texts eliminate the dialogical aspect of this process (Bakhtin, 1981).
43
In addition, Preucel (2006) explains the relationship between materials and meanings through the studies of two founding semioticians: Ferdinand de Saussure and Charles S. Peirce. By discussing and comparing the theories of these two figures, Preucel (2006) underlines the importance of Peircian semiotics against the ideas of Saussure (Preucel, 2006; also see Russell, 2008).
Apart from these studies, several scholars examine the relationship between language and archaeology in light of gender. For instance, Tomášková (2011) questions the prevalence of gender in journals, but this study is limited to the analysis of gender terms in titles, abstracts and keywords. Later on, De Leiuen (2015) has conducted similar research.
The 2007 volume of the Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory presents prominent discussions about the perception of gender in archaeology. In the volume, Engelstad (2007) argues the issue of language and gender in mainstream archaeological theory publications. Later on, Back Danielsson (2012) demonstrates that the number of gender-themed articles is very low in archaeological journals. Conkey (2007) analyzed four “Readers of Archaeological Theory” for investigating how the discipline approaches feminisms (De Leiuen, 2018).
There are also some studies about citation practices regarding the sexes of the authors in archaeology. For example, Hutson (2002) examines citation practices in four journals in terms of equity issues between male and female scholars. Hutson finds that the rates of cited women vary in different journals and women’s archaeological labor is generally devalued. Very recently, in her Ph.D. thesis, De Leiuen (2018) presents detailed research for the impact of gender studies in archaeology. She applies the methods of corpus linguistics to research articles of six
44
prominent archaeological journals, so she draws a quantitative picture for the content of discussing gender in archaeology.
De Leiuen (2018) determines three main themes that emerged in the way gender was used and applied in archaeology: absence, attribution, and ambivalence. For absence, she claims that across the journals, gender becomes insignificant over time. In light of the keyword results, she finds that there has been also no growth in the content on gender and its related concepts over time. Finally, she concludes that fewer people are investigating gender in archaeology now than in the 1990s. For attribution as a theme, De Leiuen (2018) emphasizes that archaeologists still perceive gender as something to be found or to attribute to people. For the final theme, she gives examples about the tendency for males to be used as the norm and to be mentioned first (De Leiuen, 2018, p. 365).
From Turkey, the closest publication to this thesis can be accepted as the recent study by Özgüner (2015), in which she examines the contents of the reports published by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism after the International Symposium of Excavations, Surveys and Archaeometry that takes place annually in Turkey. By considering the variety of problems expressed by archaeologists during these meetings, Özgüner (2015) discovers the existence of different identities in Turkish archaeology.
The main studies that cover language and archaeology as presented, however, are mainly quantitative and they are partially insufficient to address the social reasons and results of interpreting gender in archaeology and ancient history. This thesis, however, considers the socio-political aspects of the discourses produced by archaeologists and ancient historians in Turkey based on qualitative analysis. This
45
thesis, one more time, indicates why archaeologists and historians still need to revise how they disseminate knowledge to both academia and the public.
46
CHAPTER 4 METHODOLOGY AND SAMPLING DATA
While the previous chapter deals with the theoretical framework of discourse analysis, this chapter focuses on its methodological side. Here, firstly, qualitative research is introduced. The second part of the chapter concentrates on explaining how data was selected for this study and analyzed qualitatively.
Before moving into qualitative research, it is important to remind that analyzing a text reflects the perspective of researchers and this perspective might be as ideological as the texts themselves. Besides, it is not possible to understand a text completely since all the possible ways of reading depend on particular social contexts (Saukko, 2003; Cheek, 2004). Considering these arguments, the last section of the chapter presents a self-reflexive evaluation of the FCDA in this thesis.
4.1 What is qualitative research?
Discourse analysis might be qualitative and/or quantitative. In social sciences, there have been discussions to differentiate qualitative research from quantitative research. There is still no consensus on this issue and as discourse analysis, there is no unified set of methods for qualitative analysis (Mason, 2002).
Qualitative data is the data that cannot be easily explained numerically such as opinions, comments, and behaviors of people. In other words, qualitative data deals with “meanings that are constructed through language” (Dey, 1993, p. 11). Following meanings, qualitative research methods are often consulted for “answering whys and hows of human behavior, opinion, and experience or the information that is
47
difficult to obtain through more quantitatively-oriented methods” (Guest et.al, 2013, p. 1).
A variety of disciplines such as anthropology and communications contributed to the rise of qualitative research. Although these disciplines have different theoretical and methodological concerns, they have a common reason to conduct qualitative research which is understanding patterned behaviors and social processes (Lockyer, 2012).
Theoretically, the history of qualitative research can be followed within two branches: Positivism and interpretivism. Traditional positivism accepts the possibility of achieving objectivity through a particular methodology (Guest et.al, 2013). In social sciences, there are still supporters of such positivism, but most contemporary social scientists who still operate under the premise of the scientific method are identified as “post-positivists” (Guest et.al, 2013, p. 6). After the second half of the twentieth century, however, more critical views against positivism emerged. These non-positivist attitudes included the “ways in which reality was conceived and identified, the relationships between the researcher and the researched, the manner in which research was designed and executed, and the methods of data collection and data analysis employed” (Lockyer, 2012, p. 710).
With these critiques in social sciences, interpretative approaches started to gain in popularity. These approaches represented especially by anthropologists such as Geertz (1973) were more into interpreting deeper meanings that involve personal narratives or observed behaviors. Apart from anthropologists that have been conducting qualitative research for many years, more recent disciplines such as media benefit from qualitative methods. Finally, feminism has had a significant impact by challenging conventional scientific discourse and by establishing an
48
agenda for certain issues such as gender that is currently seen among the main issues of qualitative research (Mason, 2002, p. 2-3).
4.2 Sampling in qualitative research: how to make data more secure
After defining what qualitative analysis is, this section presents the issue of sampling in social sciences. Sampling refers to the process of selecting something from a defined population to conduct a study. On the other hand, sampling is an ongoing process of asking analytical questions throughout the study. In other words, qualitative data analysis is realized simultaneously with sampling data and making interpretations of the sampled data (see Creswell, 2009, p. 184).
For qualitative research, attempts at random sampling are generally not recommended because the size of the data repository is not known and there might be various representations in a data group (Bauer and Aarts, 2000). Therefore, instead of random sampling, Mautner (2008) recommends a cyclical process. The process follows these steps: Initially having a small corpus, analyzing it and selecting one more time based on the first findings (Bauer and Aarts, 2000). Over time, more selections are added until the point that the corpus has “reached saturation” (Bauer and Aarts, 2000, p. 34). In other words, the selection process continues until it becomes evident that all findings are very similar and clear.
During the selection of any data, Mautner (2008) also recommends interpreting the already-selected data and to do small sample analyses. This methodology allows researchers to modify the selection decisions or hypotheses. Yet, researchers may have difficulty for dealing with the possibility of misrepresented sampling, which is “cherry-picking texts” (Mautner, 2008, p. 37)
49
according to several subjective aims. In sampling, subjectivity needs to be balanced by selections that are exposed to critical and meticulous scrutiny.
Apart from falling into trap of misrepresented sampling, Mason (2002) indicates that “sample size should help to understand the process, rather than to represent a population” (p. 135). Mason (2002) also warns researchers not to assume that selecting one category of any type represents all categories of that type. Rather, it has been suggested that they should think strategically about what to include for making comparisons and addressing research questions. In short, the key issue for qualitative sampling becomes considering research objectives rather than representing the biggest data.
Related to Mason’s (2002) ideas, another sampling approach is called purposive sampling, which is about choosing data based on the purpose of its involvement in the study (Bernard, 2000). Behind the logic of purposive sampling lies selecting cases that provide the most detailed information for the research purposes (Patton, 2002; Guest et al. 2013). For this thesis too, cyclical process and purposive sampling were followed to finalize the analyzed corpus. Before explaining the selection process, it is important to clarify why academic texts are preferred for the FCDA in this thesis.
4.3 Why academic texts, why academic discourses?
In this thesis, there are two fundamental reasons for selecting academic texts dealing directly with gender-related issues: One of them can be considered practical in terms of finding and collecting academic texts and the other is theoretical, which is related to the aims of CDA.
50
Firstly, in terms of practical sides, texts are ubiquitous and they can be spread easily. Especially when printed, they become permanent and easier to collect. In addition, they do not require time-consuming transcriptions before analysis (Mautner, 2008). Unlike the interviews with participants, which are conducted for analyzing spoken language, it can be said that published texts also protect the socially situated context already inside them, so they do not change while being observed.
Secondly, through academic texts, researchers produce academic discourses which are not just about academic language (Sperling, 1996). Instead, higher education students or researcher candidates learn these discourses as well as the conventions, genres, and popular research themes of their disciplines in order to enter their academic community. As Flower (1989) says:
Academic discourse occurs when writers enter into the academic community by contributing to both a serious, energetic conversation and to a shared body of knowledge. In addition to these finished thoughts, academic discourse also encourages and values writing which presents new ideas, hypotheses and mysteries, issues for negotiation, and thoughtful reflections. (p. 4)
This negotiation between different members of the academic community reveals another prominent aspect of academic writing: Academic texts are written to persuade readers of something. This persuasion is not only created through the ways of presenting arguments but also through asserting authority. It is now commonly accepted that academics also use language for constructing their social relations and reproducing certain ideologies (see Hyland, 2011).
This essential feature of academic writing can be linked to the political agenda of the CDA. As it is mentioned in the previous chapter, due to this political agenda, academic texts were considered appropriate for consulting CDA to
51
emphasize their nature that represents the “dominant ideological ways of depicting relationships and realities” (Hyland, 2011, p. 176).
4.4 Before the analysis: deciding what to select
This thesis has a specialized corpus consisting of academic texts to be able to analyze gendered discourses in Turkish archaeology and ancient history. For that purpose, titles of texts were examined for sampling and certain keywords used in the titles have been determined so that the FCDA demonstrates how gender is obviously relevant in the group of the selected texts. The Turkish keywords used for the literature review were as follows:
• Toplumsal Cinsiyet (Gender)
• Cinsiyet (Sex)
• Eril / Maskülen / Erkeksi (Masculine)
• Dişil / Feminen / Kadınsı (Feminine)
• Erkek (Male / Man)
• Kadın (Female / Woman)
• Aile (Family)
• Evlilik (Marriage)
• Çocuk (Child)
• Beden (Body)
• Kral (King)
• Kraliçe (Queen)
• Cinsel (Sexual)
• Erotizm (Eroticism)
• Düzcinsel / Heteroseksüel (Heterosexual)
52
• Eşcinsel / Homoseksüel (Homosexual)
These words have been determined by following the previous studies that focused on the relationship between archaeology and language, especially the studies of De Leiuen (2015, 2018), as well as the plain meanings of those words in Turkish.
To include a variety of sexuality-related publications, apart from words that refer to the specific sides of sexuality such as ‘heteroseksüel,’ the words indicating sexuality in general, such as ‘cinsel’ and ‘erotizm’ are included for deciding what to select. The words referring to LGBTIQA+ were not incorporated into the process of selecting texts because no academic text about these categories was encountered after searching the current literature of Turkish archaeology and ancient history. Besides, no academic study that is directly related to homosexuality or heterosexuality was found following the determined criteria for selecting.6
Understanding gender also includes exploring masculinities/femininities and their roles in gender hegemony (De Leiuen, 2015); so ‘eril/maskülen/erkeksi’ and ‘dişil/feminen/kadınsı’ as a group of words were included. Although in Turkish there are nuances between the meanings of these words, they are all used for translating masculinity and femininity and they all can be used for referring to gender roles. Thus, they were evaluated as one group and searched accordingly.
‘Aile,’ ‘çocuk,’ ‘evlilik’ were added to investigate the situation of heteronormativity in academic discourses (De Leiuen, 2015). ‘Kral’ and ‘kraliçe’ were incorporated among the keywords for examining the studies that are particularly associated with the relationship between gender and politics. ‘Beden’ is also decided to be added since it is intersectional for identity-related studies. To put it
6 It can be also argued that there were many past societies that had much more fluid ideas of sexuality rather than rigid sexual categorizations (see Voss, 2008), therefore adding LGBTIQA+ opens another discussion, which is beyond the scope of this thesis.
53
differently, here, ‘beden’ is regarded as a neutral term to be used for any identity-related issues, therefore important.
Finally, the words ‘cinsiyet’ and ‘toplumsal cinsiyet’ were included to figure out the academic understanding of the relationship between sex/gender/sexuality as a system. According to Turkish Language Association (TDK, 2019), ‘cinsiyet’ means sex and refers to features that differentiate males and females by birth. For gender, in Turkish, the word ‘toplumsal’ is added to the word ‘cinsiyet,’ which emphasizes the social aspect of gender. Since this division occurred recently, it is noteworthy that ‘cinsiyet’ might refer to both sex and gender and be used interchangeably in academic publications written in Turkish. Hence, these words have particular importance to understand discourses about the conceptualization of sex/gender/sexuality in academic texts.
While searching the keywords presented above, the usages varied by their affixes and suffixes were taken into account and their literal meanings coming from the stems were taken as the basis. For example, while the word ‘cinsel’ refers to ‘sexual’ as an adjective, its noun version ‘cinsellik’ was evaluated in the same group despite their semantic differences.
During the selection process, to enrich the variety of academic genres, the final corpus was restricted to four genres which consist of journal articles, books with single authors, book chapters or articles in an edited book and conference papers. The articles published in non-refereed journals were not included, although I have observed that certain gender-themed articles published in popular journals in Turkey such as Aktüel Arkeoloji are sometimes cited in academic works such as theses.
54
For searching based on the determined keywords in the titles of the publications, DergiPark platform was used. TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM provides academic journals in Turkey via DergiPark platform. The journals found in this platform and categorized within their scientific areas were sometimes searched separately through their databases. For example, the tri-annual journal “Belleten” which was founded in 1937 by the Turkish Historical Society (Türk Tarih Kurumu) was searched separately on its website for accessing its older issues.
For books with single author; the publishing houses that particularly publish archaeology, history and art history books in Turkey were also scanned through their own websites. Among these publications are Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, Ege Yayınları, Homer Yayınları, Yapı ve Kredi Yayınları, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Yayınları.
Finally, the bibliography sections of the academic texts were consulted for searching. The frequently-cited studies that can be accepted as fundamental about women in Turkish archeology and ancient history are directly incorporated into the corpus. It should be noted that the corpus was mainly finalized by following the bibliography sections of the previously-found publications.
There have been several criteria for structuring the final corpus before and after searching. Firstly, the total number was restricted to 50, which can be thought of as applicable. It can be already seen that there have not been many publications on gender-related issues in Turkish archaeology and ancient history. Although the total number of such publications is not known, the academic interest in gender has increased especially after 2000 (see Figure 3) as the distribution of the publication years in the finalized corpus also suggests.
55
Another criterion was determined in terms of the nature of academic writing. It has been required that all writers speak Turkish as their native language. Accordingly, the Turkish translation of any gender-themed publication and the ones who wrote in Turkish as a second language were left out of this research. Moreover, the educational background of the authors was determined as another key criterion. In the corpus, the ones who took their undergraduate and/or graduate education in the departments of archaeology, ancient history, Hittitology, art history, and other related departments are represented. The main reason for such criterion becomes the fact that the authors construct their academic identities through training on how to write and how to speak in compliance with their disciplines. Therefore, for the sake of observing the continuities and breaks in the reproduction of discourses in the academic cultures of archaeology and ancient history, the ones who wrote gender-themed texts without having an educational background in related departments were left out for this research. For the texts written by two authors or more as a collective work, this criterion was considered at least for one of the authors.
Other criteria were determined in terms of the contents of the selected publications. In this thesis, interpreting gender refers to re-transferring or re-translating of the conceptualization of sex/gender/sexuality through producing knowledge based on data. Thus, theory-based texts about gender without grounding archaeological findings or written sources were not taken into the corpus. Another boundary was drawn between the periods that the publications cover. For providing historical diversity and narrowing the corpus down at the same time, the publications focusing on prehistoric and ancient periods were added. The cutoff period is chosen to be the end of Classical Antiquity, therefore the Late Antiquity and following historical periods are not covered for this research in order not to deal with the
56
changing nature of discussions that developed with both the advent of Christianity and Islam and the increase in visual/written records. As the result of the selection, Appendix shows the list of the 50 publications that were analyzed in this thesis.
4.5 After selecting: the process of FCDA
During the sampling process, the FCDA of gender-themed academic texts was done by reading texts comprehensively, identifying the types of salient and frequently appearing discourses, transferring this data into naming patterns and finally interpreting all findings within their socio-political contexts in Turkey.
As introduced above, by following Mautner (2008) and Mason (2002), 13 random publications were initially selected for this thesis. After that, based on the identified discourses in this small group, the corpus was extended to 60 texts in the course of time from February 2020 to March 2021. From these 60 texts, the final sample size was reduced to 50 samples in total. During this extension and elimination process, the selections were made according to several criteria: Research questions stated in the introduction, previously determined discourses in completed sample analyses, needs of comparing and contrasting texts having different contents, the need for increasing the representations of certain historical periods (e.g., the Hittite period), certain issues (e.g., men), and of various language-in-use that the texts contained.
After reading texts comprehensively, a response paper about 4-5 pages long was prepared for each of them. These papers included salient discursive patterns and some quotations from the analyzed texts as examples. After finishing the analysis of 50 texts, they were evaluated together (see Chapter 5) to list and explain the observed patterns. By following the framework that Mautner (2008) presents, discourse
57
analysis in response papers contained lexis (evaluating meanings, words, metaphors), verbal analysis (who does what to whom), modality (e.g., expressing certainty vs vagueness), the presence of different narrators in the text, the ways of establishing a dialogue between author and reader (e.g., asking questions).
4.6 Statistical identification of the finalized corpus
Before moving to the findings presented in the next chapter, this section presents the finalized corpus and highlights the variety of representations that the samples contained. Figure 1 was prepared to show the ratio of keywords in the titles of the selected texts. The striking aspect in this chart is that ‘kadın’ is the most commonly used word in titles (59%). The second most commonly used words among the titles are ‘kraliçe’ and ‘family’ (8% for each). Since the representation of texts discussing women in prehistoric and ancient times is very high, there is a correlation between the number of these texts and the number of prevalent discourses about women, which are introduced in the next chapter.
In the corpus, no text directly approaches masculinity or femininity as well as particular sexualities such as heterosexuality. On the other hand, the very low representation of ‘cinsiyet’ and ‘toplumsal cinsiyet’ in the titles of selected texts indicates that the perception of the scholars against these terms cannot be directly realized. Therefore, how the authors understand sex, gender, and sexuality is discussed based on their inferences and deductions about the roles and positions of women/men in the past (see Chapter 6).
The statistical identification of the corpus also reveals that female authors constitute the largest number as writers of gender-themed academic texts in Turkish archaeology and ancient history (Figure 2). However, it is important to underline that
58
the number of male authors is not negligible (41%), which constitutes almost a balanced view between the sexes of the authors in the corpus.
Figure 1. The chart showing the total number of the words used in titles
Figure 2. Distribution by sex of authors in the sampled texts
0
0
5
5
10
10
15
15
20
20
25
25
30
30
35
35
40
40
59%
59%
41%
41%
Female
Female
Male
Male
59
From the aspect of periods when the texts were published, the corpus mostly represents texts that were published after 2010. This table can also be used for discussing how academic interest in gender increased very recently (see Figure 3). The number of texts published after 2010 constitutes 54% of the corpus. The publications between 2000-2010 follow them with 24%. In the third order the samples published between 1990-2000 are located, which constitutes 14%. While highest representation belonged to the years 1993, 2013 and 2016 with 5 samples for each, the very low representation of the texts written before the 1990s can be explained by the low amount of academic research dealing with gender directly. In terms of increasing the variety of academic genres, as explained previously, four categories have been detected for sampling.
Figure 3. Total number of the selected publications by decades
According to the chart prepared for the representation of these categories, the most common genre appears as journal articles with 22 in total (Figure 4). The
2
2
0
0
1
1
1
1
7
7
12
12
27
27
0
0
5
5
10
10
15
15
20
20
25
25
30
30
1950-1960
1950-1960
1960-1970
1960-1970
1970-1980
1970-1980
1980-1990
1980-1990
1990-2000
1990-2000
2000-2010
2000-2010
2010-2020
2010-2020
Numbers
Numbers
Years
Years
60
second highest percentage belongs to articles or chapters in edited books. This is followed by conference, seminar, workshop and symposium papers (16%). Finally, the least represented category becomes books with a single author (12%). According to this chart and the results after scanning the literature with keywords, it can be inferred that gender-related issues are mostly discussed in articles or book chapters, which can be linked to the high number of publications in these genres.
Figure 4. Percentage distribution of academic genres in the corpus
The clear classification of historical periods covered in the sampled texts is difficult since several texts provide a survey about women from prehistoric to classical periods. However, according to the words in titles that refer to certain periods, Figure 5 was prepared, which exhibits the variety of representations in terms of historical periods. Here, the words ‘Eski Çağ’ and ‘Antik’ are accepted as interchangeable words, therefore the periods when writing was available constitute
42%
42%
12%
12%
30%
30%
16%
16%
Journal articles
Journal articles
Book with a single author
Book with a single author
Article or chapter in an edited book
Article or chapter in an edited book
Conference, symposium or workshop
Conference, symposium or workshoppaperspapers
61
the main historical focus of the texts in the corpus (Figure 5).7 It is followed by the Hittite period. The focus on the periods, where primary written sources were available might be the reason for the frequency in their representation, which shows the importance of analyzing gender on the basis of written sources in Turkish archaeology and ancient history.
Figure 5. Periods determined based on the words in the titles of the selected texts
Since the regional focus is more obscure than the historical focus among the selected texts and it is not always specified in the titles, no separate chart was prepared for evaluating regional focus. Yet, it is important to underline that Anatolia is the most represented region among the sampled texts. Several discourses are shaped around this regional focus as explained in the following chapter. ‘Anatolia’ as
7 These terms are semantically different and they both might be used with different meanings in different contexts. For the sake of this thesis, they both are used interchangeably to refer to the periods when writing started to become available to be used.
0
0
2
2
4
4
6
6
8
8
10
10
12
12
14
14
16
16
62
a word already appears in the titles of 12 texts, which constitutes 24% of the selected texts.
4.7 A self-reflexive evaluation and chapter summary
Working with texts, people mostly focus on their literal meanings which identify ‘what is there.’ Yet, this chapter explains that qualitative researchers do not want to stop there. Instead, they need to make an “interpretive reading” (Mason, 2002, p. 149) of what the analysis shows. In this thesis, by following the CDA model that Fairclough suggests (2015a), the description is complemented with interpreting how pervasive discourses are connected with sustaining or changing official ideologies in Turkey. Therefore, this thesis is definitely shaped by my interpretations as an author as well as how authors of the selected texts interpret gender. As a person producing academic discourse in 2021, I am aware that my interpretive reading of discourses might change in the future with different socio-political situations.
Although the corpus that is shaped for this thesis can be considered limited in terms of the representations of selected publications, in this chapter, it has been discussed how various criteria were determined to enrich the corpus and increase the variety of representation. The final corpus was created by following the recommended methods in the scholarship of qualitative research. As a methodology, it has been also emphasized that the FCDA is run together with selecting academic publications. These points prove that the selections were done meticulously and the final corpus was shaped to reach generalizations about interpreting gender in archaeology and ancient history in Turkey.
As stated in the introduction, this FCDA of the academic texts does not have to do with underestimating and undervaluing the authors, who wrote those texts: I am
63
not interested in testing the truth of the arguments that the authors academically create in the selected publications. Instead, the findings in the next chapter should be considered for evaluating what to do with prevalent discourses, how power relations dominate the appearances of these discourses, and which alternative discourses should be proposed for the future of archaeology and ancient history in Turkey.
64
CHAPTER 5
UNCOVERING AND CLASSIFYING DISCURSIVE PATTERNS
Following the questions of ‘how’ and ‘why’ certain discourses about gender are reproduced in Turkish archaeology and ancient history, in this chapter, the FCDA intended to uncover and classify what is overstated, understated and overlooked as well as the intersections between different discourses. As Fairclough (2015b) points, “critical discourse analysis typically focuses on intertextual analysis which shows how elements of other texts are incorporated and combined within a particular text” (p. 187). Therefore, the findings in this chapter demonstrate how various discourses are in dialogue with each other.
This chapter includes prominent discursive patterns that are observed after the analysis of the selected academic texts. Throughout the chapter, the changes and breaks in these discourses are considered as well. As a result of the analysis, the patterns were classified with the titles of each section below and several excerpts from the corpus are given to illustrate them.8 At the end of the chapter, the findings are shortly summarized and the common discourses are named to prepare the readers for the next chapter.
5.1 Continuous civil rights and high social status ascribed to women in ancient Anatolia
After the FCDA, it has become clear that the most prevailing discourses in the selected samples are joined under the issue of discussing women’s status in
8 Each excerpt is numbered in order. In-text citations of the original paragraphs are eliminated not to confuse readers. All translations of the excerpts from Turkish to English belong to the author of this thesis.
65
prehistoric and ancient times. The publications in the selected corpus highlight that women’s rights and freedom are shaped within the framework of property, monogamous marriage and nuclear family. Therefore, these publications have focused on the specific aspects of women’s historical experiences.
After the analysis, it has been also observed that women’s legal positions, their juridical rights and the existence of a civil code in ancient Anatolia are among the specific titles in the gender literature of ancient history in Turkey. With an emphasis on marriage institution and an established civil code system,9 the information and cases from the written sources are frequently used to affirm the high status of women in the ‘developed’ society of ancient Anatolia. For instance, in Excerpt [1] below, women in the pre-Hittite period in Anatolia are evaluated within their rights to divorce. The usage of negation in the first sentence of this excerpt is crucial since the utterance ‘woman is not sold’ implies the alternative view accepting that women can be sold. In this sense, the negation becomes two-dimensional, which might refer to the affirmative meaning at the same time. Therefore, negation targets a particular stance about selling women and this target compares the high positions of women with other women, who can be sold. In the following sentences of Excerpt [1], the author compares the rights of women with today’s mentality and interprets women’s rights as the reflection of a developed social mindset, which has actually originated from the traditions in Anatolia.10 Within this discursive framework, Anatolia is brought into prominence as
9 In the corpus, there are already three publications that only cover ‘the issue of marriage’ from women’s point of view (see Bilgiç, 1951; Saraçoğlu, 2007; Kozbe, 2001).
10 Interpreting women’s rights in the light of development and progression is visible in another example of the corpus, (Süel, 1992, p. 251). Besides, in one example, it is suggested that “with a creation of a very high culture, woman was valued in the Hittite society. The Hittite woman was also brought to a very advanced level” (Murat, 2016, p. 73).
66
a place where women were not sold in the pre-Hittite period, which is related to the long-lived matriarchal traditions. In the end, the author asserts that with the contact of peoples of Semitic origins and the arrival of the Hittites, the situation changes. In this way, Anatolia is presented as a distinguished place for women before the arrival of external powers such as the Hittites:
[1] Görülüyor ki, II. Binyıl başlarında Anadolu’da câri olan âdet ve anane hukukuna göre, evlenirken kadın satılmaz ve erkek gibi kadına da boşanma hakkı tanılır, boşanma vukuunda çocuklar kadına düşer. Bu durum, bugünkü anlayışımıza göre, çok ileri bir zihniyetin ifadesi ise de, aslında bu tarz bir evlilik müessesinin, bu devirdeki Anadolu cemiyetinin anaerkli [sic] (matriarkal) bir ailenin geleneklerini aksettirdiğine şüphe yoktur. Bu geleneklerin değişmesinde Asurlu kolonistlerin sâmi asıllı âdetlerinin tesiri olacağı gibi, müteakip Hititler çağının da bu karışmada tesiri kendini gösterecektir. (Kınal, 1956, p. 360)
[1] It seems that at the beginning of 2nd millennium B.C., according to the customary and traditional law being prevalent in Anatolia, the woman is not sold, and woman, like man, is given the right to divorce, and children go to the woman in the case of divorce. Although this situation is the expression of the very developed mindset based on today’s understanding, there is no doubt that a marriage institution like this reflects the traditions of a matriarchal family in Anatolian society in this period. In the change of these traditions, the effect of this mixing in the subsequent Hittite era will manifest itself, just like the influence of the Semitic traditions of the Assyrian colonists. (Kınal, 1956, p. 360)
In Excerpt [2] as well, divorcing is presented as the criterion that determines the status of women.11 One more time, it is argued that the pre-Hittite period reflects ‘a developed social level’ in which human freedom is partially formed. According to the author, this should be stated doubtlessly. This expression reflects that there is no doubt for readers against this interpretation. In the following part of the paragraph, the author gives reference to contemporary lawyers, which shows how modern understanding of women’s divorce rights become the basis for interpreting women’s
11 In the corpus, there are several publications in which the authors claim that women are given particular rights in terms of marital and inheritance rights, so they had freedom in particular social contexts, (e.g., Bilgiç, 1951, p. 237; Kılıç & Duymuş, 2007, p. 89; Darga, 1993a, p. 28; Çığ, 1999, p. 52). Parallel to this, Anatolia is also drawn as a place where women had the right to alimony 4000 years ago, (Kılıç, 2014, p. 159; Mandacı, 2015, p. 86).
67
rights in the past.12 Parallel to this reference, it is also important to observe that the author prefers associating freedom of women with freedom of society in general. As a result, the freedom of women in terms of divorce rights becomes discursively connected with discourses about social emancipation represented by the existence of a civil code:
[2] Boşanma özgürlüğünün varlığı, o çağın toplum düzeninin fikir seviyesini belirten bir kriter olarak kabul edilirse, eski Anadoluda bu çağın sonraki Hitit Krallık rejimine oranla daha ileri ve insan özgürlüğünün kısmen oluştuğu bir sosyal düzeyi yansıttığı kuşkusuz söylenmelidir; çağdaş hukukçularımızın deyimi ile “...özünde, boşanma özgürlüğü yok ise, toplum da özgür değildir.” (Darga, 1984, p. 100)
[2] If the existence of the freedom of divorce is accepted as a criterion that indicates the level of thought about the social order in that age, it should be undoubtedly said that this age in ancient Anatolia reflects a more advanced social level in which human freedom is partially formed, compared to the later Hittite Kingdom regime; in the words of our modern lawyers: “…in essence, if there is no freedom to divorce, society is not free either.” (Darga, 1984, p. 100)
The association of women’s rights with social emancipation is visible again in Excerpt [3]. Here, a clear contrast is drawn between the world going toward the Space Age and the situation of women who are condemned and isolated from social life. In this example, the usage of utterances reflecting the author’s personal opinions, such as ‘unfortunately,’ are the traces of the author’s positioning in academic language. In the last part of the example, the author finds the distinguished position of women in prehistory surprising. In fact, the expression ‘we learn with astonishment’ reflects the break of an expectation for the linear progressive understanding of women’s history. In other words, such a reaction results from the
12 There are other examples showing that today’s perspective becomes the basis for interpreting the past. In one case, the author claims that in Mesopotamian society, women had detailed rights that cannot be seen in today’s societies: (Erdemir, 2019, p. 24). In another example, the author makes an analogy between women who were punished by being thrown to the Euphrates in ancient times in Mesopotamia and can still have a similar tragic end today (Kozbe, 2001, p. 31).
68
author’s progressive sense of history between prehistory and the Space Age,13 so the astonishment appears when the author’s progressive history understanding is interrupted with high positions of women in the beginning of human history compared to today.
In Excerpt [3], the usage of pronouns ‘we’ and ‘us’ demonstrate that the author is writing on behalf of others, which represents the authority to speak for a group of people. Therefore, the pronouns ‘we’ and ‘us’ can be read as the author’s own way of showing identification with the readers, which creates solidarity between the writer and the readers. Another aspect of using the pronoun ‘us’ indicates that people who are not included in ‘us’ belong to another group, namely ‘them’. It should be kept in mind that these pronouns can have an excluding as well as including function. In this example, the usage of ‘we’ strengthens the sense of solidarity with readers rather than aiming to draw a border between the ones in the academic sphere and the ones who remain outside of academia:
[3] Uzay çağına girişini kıvançla izlediğimiz dünyamızın birçok toplumlarında ne yazıktır ki, kadın, hor görülür, sosyal hayat içinde bir bakıma izole edilirken insanlık tarihinin başlangıcında kadına toplum için seçkin bir yerin verildiğini, aranılan, arzu edilen, neticede kutsallaştırılan bir varlık olduğunu hayretle öğreniyoruz. (Yalçınkaya, 1971, p. 203)
[3] In many societies of our world, which we proudly watch their entries into the space age; while, unfortunately, the woman is being despised and somewhat isolated in social life, we learn with astonishment that at the beginning of human history, women were given a distinguished place for society, that they were sought, desired and consequently sanctified. (Yalçınkaya, 1971, p. 203)
By starting from the modern values about women’s rights, the interpretations of the past continue to be seen in other publications regarding different periods. For the Classical periods, the case of women is sometimes contrasted with the present-
13 Here, ‘the Space Age’ is understood as the ultimate destination of progression.
69
day attitudes toward democracy. In Excerpt [4], the author states that the existence of democracy in Athenian society contradicts women’s rights. Here, ‘democracy’ can be interpreted as one of the concepts that also symbolize modernity and progression. The term ‘golden age’ supports such a sense of progression in this sentence. Moreover, the connection between women and democracy is consolidated with the usage of ‘even’ as an adverb to underline the existence of gender inequality in the Athenian society despite the many innovations in democracy during the Pericles period.14
In Excerpt [4], the author also remarks that women could not reach the rights to the extent they deserve. This is significant because what women really deserve remains obscure and readers are convinced with the idea that women should have more extended rights, which implicitly gives reference to women’s rights in the present. In other words, this utterance about deserving rights indirectly takes on the role of an operator to compare women having different status between different periods:
[4] Ancak Perikles döneminde altın çağını yaşayan ve demokratik alanda pek çok yeniliğe öncülük eden Atina toplumunda dahi, kadınlar yaşamsal ve siyasal haklarından, hak ettikleri ölçüde yararlanamamışlardır. (Saraçoğlu, 2007, p. 153)
[4] However, even in the Athenian society that lived its golden age during the Periclean period and pioneered many innovations in the democratic field, women could not benefit from their vital and political rights to the extent they deserve. (Saraçoğlu, 2007, p. 153)
5.2 Constructing ‘superior’ Anatolia and its ‘inferior’ neighborhoods
While interpreting the rights and status of women in prehistoric and ancient times, it has been discovered how Anatolia is identified as exclusively developed from a
14 In another sample from the corpus, the authors emphasize that the Athenian democracy is womanless democracy and they indicate that this situation is not only limited to the ancient times of human history: (Kaya & Taşdöner, 2017, p. 16).
70
gendered point of view in Excerpts [1], [2]. Another pattern regarding this identification appears interdiscursively when Anatolia is centered and compared with surrounding geographies in terms of women’s rights. This comparison method is particularly used to prove that the situation in Anatolia is rather favorable in terms of gender equality. The inclusion of Anatolia in that sense is significant since the formation of gender hierarchies and their manifestation through representation are related to the construction of ‘the other.’ For this reason, the role that difference has played in the construction of gendered otherness should be considered (Bahrani, 2001). Accordingly, geographical and cultural differences bring new dimensions to the construction of the other in gendered representations of the past.
If returning to Excerpts [1] and [2], people coming from Mesopotamia are depicted as the external cultural forces bringing their patriarchal traditions to Anatolia. Thus, the attitudes of these external forces toward women are differentiated from the local traditions of Anatolia. In the several publications of the corpus, it has been realized that the positions of women in Anatolia are compared with Mesopotamia as well as the Greco-Roman world. For instance, in Excerpt [1], the Semitic traditions are named to explain the transition to the patriarchal order. Since the Hittites are considered to be part of the eastern narrative because of their patriarchal traditions, their arrival to Anatolia is accepted as a turning point for the change in gender hierarchies. It is crucial to note that the periods for analyzing the roles and positions of women in society were determined in the light of any ‘foreign’ effect. This framework leads to the appearance of another common discourse reflecting that the positions of women in Anatolia were always better than women living in the surrounding regions. This discourse repeats itself as a pattern up until
71
the recent publications and it constitutes one of the main arguments for praising women’s historical existence and agency in Anatolia.
From the corpus, there are other examples such as [5] in which the boundaries of Anatolia against the other regions are strictly drawn in terms of gender hierarchies. In Excerpt [5], we see the subject of bride price,15 which is discursively interrelated with Excerpt [1]. Here, the existence of bride price is used as evidence for inequality between men and women in front of the law. The author adds that women were not sold before the Hittite period when Semitics traits in marriage began to be implemented.
In Excerpt [5], it is argued that women were subjected to the strict rules of male-dominated societies after the Assyrian Trade Colony Period. This actually creates ambivalent interpretations about the following Hittite period: The Hittites became a medium for the construction of the historical identity of Turkey (Shaw, 2004). However, when it comes to gender issues before and after the Hittite period, it is usually accepted that there is a rupture between the two periods and the Hittites carried their patriarchal traditions to Anatolia. Nevertheless, in some examples from the corpus, the status of women in the Hittite period is still seen better than the surrounding regions despite the existence of patriarchy.16 All these observations prove that the perception of the Hittites in the literature of Turkish archaeology and ancient history is multidimensional and ambivalent from the perspective of women’s issues. To sum up, the Hittites are either praised or otherized depending on their
15 We encounter that some authors accept that the Hittite marriage institution was based on purchasing women as it is the case in all patriarchal societies (e.g., Mandacı, 2015, p. 91; Çelebi, 2015, p. 43-44).
16 Anatolia is presented as geography, where the transition from matriarchy to patriarchy took place later than in Mesopotamia. In one case, the authors suggest that during the Old Hittite Period, Anatolian women were freer compared to Mesopotamian women (Kaya & Taşdöner, 2017, p. 5).
72
positioning against the prehistoric local customs of Anatolia or different cultures in their surrounding regions:
[5] EL 1 vesikasının, üzerinde durduğumuz müphem yeri bir tarafa bırakılırsa, Sâmilerin “levirat” denen evlenme sistemi ile, “satın alma” diye adlandırılan evlenme sistemlerinin bu çağda Anadolu’da izleri görülmemektedir. Bilindiği gibi, ancak Hititlerde bu Sami hususiyetleri kendini göstermeğe başlamıştır. Esasen kadına, erkekle müsavi bir mevki tanıyan bir hukuk telâkkisinde bu aykırı usullere yer verilmesi beklenemez. (Bilgiç, 1951, p. 237)
[5] Leaving aside the ambiguous part of the EL 1 document, on which we are focusing, there are no traces of the Semitic people’s marriage system called “levirat” and also no trace of the marriage systems called as “purchasing” in Anatolia in this age. As it is known, these Semitic characteristics started to show themselves only in the Hittites. In fact, it cannot be expected that these contradictory procedures are included in a legal consideration that gives women an equal position with men. (Bilgiç, 1951, p. 237)
Another point supporting the existence of ambivalent interpretations for the Hittites can be seen in some of the recent publications highlighting the patriarchal basis of the Hittites, therefore, including a feminist language. In Excerpt [6], the author compares the civil law systems of the Hittites with monotheistic religions. Here, the Hittites are categorized within the approaches of monotheistic religions toward women. In the end, both the Hittites and monotheistic religions are brought together as ‘one cultural package’ that aims to suppress women on behalf of men. This example is again related to the issue of monogamy-polygamy, which reflects the civil law-related aspects of women:
[6] Yahudilik, Hıristiyanlık ve İslam dininde evlilikler zinayı önlemek ve soyun devam için en meşru seçenektir. Hititlerde olduğu üzere erkeklerin hem cinsel arzularının tatmini hem de soyun sürdürülmesi için meşru eşlerin yanı sıra hür ve köle sınıfından başka kadın almalarına dini açıdan yasaklama getirilmemiştir. Yahudilik ve İslam’da çok eşlilik yeni düzenlemeler ile sınırlandırılmıştır. Bütün bu düzenlemeler erkeklerin lehinedir. Nitekim gerek Hitit hukukunda gerekse din yasalarında kadın tek kocalı kalacak eğer ihanet ederse öldürülecektir. (Çelebi, 2015, p. 87)
[6] In Judaism, Christianity and Islam, marriages are the most legitimate option to prevent adultery and continue the lineage. As it was the case with the Hittites, both for the satisfaction of men’s sexual desires and the
73
continuation of their lineage, there is no religious ban on men taking other women from the free and slave class as well as legitimate wives. Polygamy in Judaism and Islam is limited by new regulations. All these regulations are in favor of men. As a matter of fact, both in Hittite and religious laws, a woman will remain with one husband and she will be killed if she betrays. (Çelebi, 2015, p. 87)
Comparing ancient cultures of Anatolia with surrounding regions reveals that the boundaries of Anatolia are determined on the basis of whether archaeology proves the existence ‘matriarchal’ society, which is mostly believed to provide more freedom to women. Even from this aspect, Anatolia is fragmented especially when different cultures disrupt its cultural unity. For example, from the corpus, some interpretations about comparing different parts of Anatolia during the Iron Age can be read from this perspective. In Excerpt [7], the Phrygians and Lydians are categorized together because of the matriarchal past in the region where they were located, so they both are contrasted against the Urartians.17 In this example, ‘sexual freedom’ is emphasized separately from ‘social lives of women,’ which again refer to ‘the emancipation of women:’
[7] Örneğin Urartularda kadınlar babalarına, kocalarına bağlıydılar ve kızlarının kiminle evleneceğine babalar karar veriyordu. Fakat Frigler ve Lidyalıların dininde egemen kültün Anatanrıça’ya ait olduğu düşünüldüğünde bu iki uygarlıkta kadınların sosyal yaşam ve cinsel özgürlüklerinin diğer uygarlıklara göre çok daha fazla olduğu düşünülebilir. (Kaya & Taşdöner, 2017, p. 19-20)
[7] For example, in the Urartians, women were subjected to their fathers and husbands, and the fathers decided whom their daughters would marry. However, considering that the dominant cult in the religion of the Phrygians and Lydians belongs to the Mother Goddess, it can be thought that women had much more social and sexual freedom compared to other civilizations. (Kaya & Taşdöner, 2017, p. 19-20)
17 This comparison between the Phrygians and the Urartians is also explicit in another article that discusses Anatolian women in the Iron Age: (Konyar, 2013, p. 244).
74
The fragmental nature of Anatolia in terms of women’s status reappears among some interpretations for prehistoric periods. In Excerpt [8], the author suggests that the characteristics of the southeastern region rather have similarities with Mesopotamian cultures. Accordingly, the author claims that the figurines symbolizing men’s power and productivity were not sanctified as much as the female statuettes in Anatolia. Here, southeastern Anatolia is seen as it belonged to the Mesopotamian cultural sphere. Based on this argument, the readers can infer that Mesopotamia is masculinized, which supports the exclusivity of Anatolia in terms of women’s representation. For both regions, the matriarchal and patriarchal traditions are dated back to prehistory, so it can be said that Anatolia and Mesopotamia are culturally divided from a gendered perspective. In the last sentence, the usages of pronouns ‘we’ and ‘us’ demonstrate the inclusion of authorial voice as an academic authority in order to convince readers:
[8] Anadolu’da Neolitikten sonra “baba tanrı” inancını devam ettirdiğine inanılan fallus, koç, boğa, geyik gibi bazı figürlerin erkeğin gücünü ve üretkenliğini sembolize ediyor olduğunu kabul etsek bile, bu sembollerin tüm Anadolu’da kadın heykelcikleri kadar otoriter ve güçlü Tanrı biçiminde kutsallaştırılmadığı görülmektedir. Güneydoğuda yoğunlaşan erkek betimlerinin ise Anadolu’dan çok Mezopotamya kültürlerini etkisi altına alan ve Sümer’de Fırat ve Dicle’nin Baba-Kral Enlil’ine kadar uzanan bir kültün ataları olabileceği kanısındayız. (Aydıngün, 2005a, p. 21)
[8] Even if we accept that some figures such as phallus, ram, bull and deer, which are believed to have continued the belief of “father god” in Anatolia after Neolithic period, symbolize the strength and productivity of men; it is seen that these symbols were not sanctified in the form of an authoritarian and powerful God as much as women figurines in Anatolia. We believe that male depictions concentrated in the southeast may be the ancestors of a cult that influenced Mesopotamian cultures rather than Anatolia and reached the Father-King Enlil of Euphrates and Tigris in Sumer. (Aydıngün, 2005a, p. 21)
As indicated previously, the positions of women in Anatolia are sometimes compared with the Greco-Roman world. In these samples, the Greek women living
75
in the mainland is otherized against women living in Anatolia.18 By drawing a contrast between Western Anatolia and the Greek mainland, Excerpt [9] reintroduces the discourse that women’s rights and freedom are much better in Anatolia than the surrounding regions. Here, the expression ‘Anatolia has a more moderate environment for women,’ is especially attached to other discourses constructing the boundaries of Anatolia in terms of women’s rights and freedom (see [1], [5]). However, the characteristics of such ‘moderate environment’ remain unclear and obscure for readers:
[9] Kıta Yunanistan’a oranla, İonia şehirlerinde ve adalardaki kadınların kişilik, temel hak ve özgürlük açısından çok daha yumuşak ve ılımlı bir ortamda gelişmiş oldukları gözleniyor. (Darga, 1993b, p. 120)
[9] It is observed that women in Ionian cities and islands have developed in a much softer and more moderate environments in terms of personality, fundamental rights and freedom compared to continental Greece. (Darga, 1993b, p. 120)
5.3 Idealized or otherized powerful women
Within patriarchal society, sex and gender roles are rigidly demarcated. Women who step beyond these designated roles might cause discomfort and become open to attacks against their morality. In addition, in most cultures leaders are presumed to be men and many studies in psychology and management have presented the existence of stereotypes against female leaders (e.g., Koenig et al., 2011; Eagly & Karau, 2002; Oakley, 2000; Helgesen, 1990; Adams and Yoder, 1985). According to another group of research, women are usually expected to be kind and helpful (e.g., Williams & Best, 1990 also see Carli & Eagly, 2017). Similar expectations might be valid in the past, so the powerful women who are deemed inappropriate for ruling might be
18 In one text, the author claims that in the Hittites, the property right of men over women was not as unlimited and unconditional as it was in the Greeks and the Romans (Erdemir, 2019, p. 56). In another example, Anatolia and Greece are compared in terms of their matriarchal and patriarchal pasts (Şahin, 2013, p. 14).
76
exposed to attacks in the past as recorded in the written documents. In this way, archaeologists and historians who look at these documents uncritically approve the patriarchal perception of such women embedded in the language of ancient authors. As a result, discussing powerful women might include subjective statements and value-judgments of the scholars as well as the biases of authors that create these documents. This situation can be interpreted as a two-sided trap for scholars.
In most of the selected publications that interpret women who had some kind of authority in prehistoric and ancient times, it is possible to come across discourses covering the stereotypic understanding of women, which results from approving what is written on historical documents as facts. In Excerpt [10], various assumptions against the figure of Hastayar represent such approval. In this excerpt, Hastayar is assumed to be malevolent and ungrateful based on the records of Hattušili who likens her to a snake. The expression ‘here is what happened after that’ also supports how the author reinforces the original narration about Hastayar, who caused chaos in the Hittite palace:
[10] 1. Hattuşili (Labarna)’nin Hititçe ve Akkadça olmak üzere çift dilde kaleme alınmış olan vasiyetnamesinden öğrenildiğine göre, Haştayar’ın oğlu prens Huzzia önceden veliaht olarak tayin edildiği halde, daha sonra veliahtlıktan azledilerek, yerine prens I. Murşili veliaht olarak tayin edilmişti. İşte ne olduysa bundan sonra olmuş, Haştayar, sarayın ileri gelenleri beraber bu duruma isyan etmişti. Söz konusu belgelerden anlaşıldığına göre Haştayar, meşru kraliçe olmayıp Hattuşili’nin gözdelerinden biriydi. Sommer ve Goetze’ye göre ise Haştayar, I. Hattuşili’nin eşlerinden birisi idi, ancak meşru kraliçe değildi. Çünkü vesikalarda, “Tavannana” veya “SAL. LUGAL” yani “kraliçe” ünvanı ile zikredilmiyordu. Üstelik, kötü kalpli ve nankör bir kadın olmalı ki, Hattuşili, söz konusu vesikasında onu “bir yılan”a benzetmektedir. (Memiş, 1993, p. 21)
[10] As it is learned from the will of Hattusili 1 (Labarna), which was bilingually written in both Hittite and Akkadian; Huzzia, the son of Hashtayar, was previously appointed as heir, but was later dismissed from the crown, and instead prince Mursili I was appointed as heir. Here is what happened after that, Hashtayar and the notables of the palace rebelled against this situation. According to the documents in question, Hashtayar was not a legitimate queen, but one of Hattusili’s favorites. According to Sommer and
77
Goetze, Hashtayar was one of the wives of Hattusili I, but was not the legitimate queen. Because in the documents, she was not mentioned with the title of “Tavannana” or “SAL.LUGAL,” which means “queen.” Moreover, she must have been a wicked and ungrateful woman, whom Hattusili compares to a “snake” in the document in question. (Memiş, 1993, p. 21)
Among the selected publications covering women as rulers, Puduhepa also comes into prominence as a figure from the deep-rooted history of Anatolia. Generally, in the samples of the corpus, Puduhepa is idealized since she reflects the modern ideals of womanhood based on strength, loyalty, compassion, motherhood, and love.19 In Excerpt [11], Puduhepa is depicted according to her deep love for her husband and her fear of losing her husband, which supports the emphasis on loyalty in a few places as well as heteronormative understanding of womanhood:
[11] Eşi Kral III. Hattuşili tarafından sevilen ve saygı gören Puduhepa da hiç şüphesiz kocasına sadık bir eşti . . . Kocasına bağlı yorulmak bilmeyen, bu sadık kraliçenin “Güneşinin (kralın) sağlığının devamı” ve “uzun bir ömür” yaşaması için tanrılara sunduğu dualar ve vaat ettiği adaklar, Puduhepa’nın derin sevgisinin, eşini her an kaybetme korkusunun ifadesi olmalıdır. (Darga, 1993a, p. 32)
[11] Puduhepa who was loved and respected by her spouse King Hattusili III was undoubtedly a loyal wife to her husband . . . The prayers and the promises of this tireless and loyal queen who was faithful to her husband offered to the gods for “the continuation of the health of the sun (king)” and for him to live a “long life,” should be an expression of Puduhepa’s deep love for her spouse and fear of losing her spouse at any moment. (Darga, 1993a, p. 32)
In Excerpt [12], Puduhepa is taken as a reference to compare the positions of women in Anatolia with the Greco-Roman world.20 Here, Puduhepa symbolizes
19 With her exceptional features, Puduhepa is mostly used to connect all similar idealized female rulers of Anatolia, therefore Puduhepa as a historical figure is usually cited as a reference. For instance, in one text, Puduhepa is reminded for analyzing another queen in the Hittite period in terms of having common features (Süel, 2013, p. 144). To support this formulaic image of Puduhepa, another example illustrates that Puduhepa represents the real strength, fortitude and courage of Anatolian women (Erdemir, 2019, p. 62).
20 There are several examples in the corpus, which interpret how female rulers in Anatolia are too important to compare with other contemporary female rulers. In one text, it is stated that the Hittite queens are too high and noble to compare with the princesses of Egypt and Babylon (Kınal, 1956, p. 365). For other examples comparing the Hittite queens against the Mesopotamian and Egyptian queens (e.g., Darga, 1984, p.29; Kılıç & Duymuş, 2007, p. 97; Memiş, 1993, p. 26). While interpreting female rulers, Anatolia is repeatedly emphasized. In one example, the difference between
78
women’s higher status in Anatolia, so this sentence is interrelated with Examples [1] and [9]. Here, Puduhepa somehow represents the strength of her fellow beings in Anatolia and in this way, she takes on the role of emphasizing the ‘superiority’ of Anatolia. This example is particularly important since the superiority of Anatolia is highlighted against the Greeks and Romans. This interpretation creates a hierarchy so that the Greek and Roman women are victimized:
[12] Bu davranışın değerini anlayabilmek için onlarla akraba diğer kavimlere, en başta Greklere ve Romalılara ibret verici bir açıdan şöyle bir bakmak lazımdır. Puduhepa'dan yaklaşık 600 sene sonra çıplak atletleri seyreden Hellen kadınları ölümle cezalandırılırlardı; gene 1000 sene sonra Roma'da kadınlar tüm öz ve kamu görevlerinden uzak tutulmuşlardır. (Ünal, 2005, p. 7)
[12] In order to understand the value of this behavior, it is necessary to look at the other tribes, especially the Greeks and Romans, from an exemplary perspective. About 600 years after Puduhepa, Greek women watching naked athletes were punished with death; 1000 years later, women in Rome were kept away from all core and public duties. (Ünal, 2005, p. 7)
Only in one sample (Excerpt [13]) from the corpus, Puduhepa is interpreted by ‘negative’ expressions. Nonetheless, we see another stereotypic understanding of womanhood this time, which is based on the idea that powerful women fall victim to their emotions and ambitions.21 It is important to note being ambitious for ruling is never associated with male rulers in the analyzed publications, which proves that men are taken as the norm and are usually associated with rationality and objectivity.
Finally, through the usage of literary language, the boundaries between an academic text and fiction are blurred, as some authors transmit the contents of written sources as a ‘storyteller.’ In this point, ‘storytelling’ can be explained from Bakhtinian perspective. Bakhtin (1981, 1986) thinks that different languages do not
the 2nd millennium and the 1st millennium B.C. in terms of women’s political positions is highlighted between Anatolia and Greece (Şahin, 2013, p. 212).
21 Another example tackles non-ideal women by interpreting them as they belonged to “exaggerated events” (Darga, 1993c, p. 123).
79
exclude each other. This idea is against the monological understanding of academic language that usually exclude literary genres. As Lin (2014) argues, for Bakhtin, the difference between storytelling and academic discourse is “only nominal” (p. 64). Therefore, different languages of all genres include an ongoing dialogue between them and the engagement of the marginalized literary language with academic writing is always possible.
In some sampled texts, the adoption of literary language can be considered opportunity for the authors to add their own voices which is mixed and combined with their academic explanations. To illustrate, in Excerpts [10], [13], [14] and [15], the personal expressions blur the boundaries between the academic arguments and subjective utterances based on the written documents. In Excerpt [13], it would be not wrong to say that the language almost turns to become colloquial even vulgar:
[13] Tuthaliya her şeye burnunu sokan, onu tıpkı babası gibi bir kukla kral konumuna sokmak isteyen ve her halde yaşlandıkça cadılaşmaya başlayan bu kadınla geçinemedi. Yaşlı üvey anne ve ihtiraslı kaynana artık Tuthaliya'nın genç karısı ve gelin kızıyla da hiç geçinemiyordu. (Ünal, 2005, p. 12)
[13] Tuthaliya could not get along with this woman who poked her nose on everything and wanted to make him a puppet king just like his father and presumably started to become a witch as she got older. The old stepmother and passionate mother-in-law could no longer get along with Tuthaliya’s young wife and bride’s daughter. (Ünal, 2005, p. 12)
In Excerpt [14], the selection of the words even complicates who is the original narrator. In this way, the author almost associates himself/herself with the original author and this directly leads to the approval of language embedded in the original documents. As a result, the author accepts that women’s behaviors based on their emotions may cause damage to the future of the empire and family. Therefore, it can be said that women that are expected to fall victim their emotions and pass their boundaries are otherized, as treated in examples [10], [13]:
80
[14] Septimius Severus ölünce, devletin ve oğullarının geleceği adına, iki oğlunu uzlaştırma çabası bir sonuç vermemiş, küçük oğlu Geta’nın büyük oğlu Caracalla’nın adamlarınca kucağında öldürülmesine tanık olmak gibi talihsiz bir acıyı sineye çekmek zorunda kalmıştır. Buna rağmen duygusal davranarak imparatorluğun ve ailenin geleceğini tehlikeye atacak bir entrika yoluna başvurmayarak, imparatorluğun resmi işlerinde Caracalla’ya yardımcı olmaya çalışan Julia Domna’nın yaşama ve yönetme azmi, Caracalla’yı öldüren Macrinus’un imparator ilan edilmesiyle sona erdi. (Kaya, 2006, p. 15)
[14] When Septimus Severus died, and her efforts to reconcile his two sons in the name of the state and her sons’ future did not yield any results, she had to endure the unfortunate pain of witnessing the murder of his younger son Geta, who was killed in his arms by the men of his eldest son Caracalla. Nevertheless, emotionally, by not resorting to conspiracy that would endanger the future of the empire and the family, trying to help Caracalla in the official affairs of the empire, Julia Domna’s determination to live and rule ended when Macrinus, who killed Caracalla, was declared emperor. (Kaya, 2006, p. 15)
About the relationship between the adoption of literary language and idealizing/otherizing women, Excerpt [15] proves that this issue does not appear only in certain periods or the interpretations of certain authors. Instead, its appearance is ranging from the texts covering the proto-history of Anatolia to the Classical periods. In Excerpt [15], a royal woman figure from the Roman Empire has fallen victim to desires and extreme pleasures one more time:
[15] Zarif, edebiyat ve sanata ilgili duygusal bir kadın olan Iulia üst üste yaşamış olduğu hayal kırıklıkları, duygularının hiçe sayılması sebebiyle hayata dair bağlanabileceği bir ümidi kalmamış, belki de yaşadığı stres ve ağır depresyonla, babasından ve yaşadıklarından hesap sorarcasına aşırı zevkler ve arzular peşinde koşan, ne yaptığını bilmeyen bir kadına dönüşmüştür. (Erdemir et al., 2016, p. 66)
[15] As an elegant, emotional woman with an interest in literature and art, Iulia had no hope for life because of her disappointments and the disregard for her feelings over and over; perhaps with the stress and severe depression she has experienced, she had turned into a woman who pursued extreme pleasures and desires as if to account for her father and her life and who does not know what she is doing. (Erdemir et al., 2016, p. 66)
All these examples together exhibit that ‘being a powerful woman’ is gendered and this situation opens a space for authors to produce different discourses
81
accordingly. However, it does not change one thing: When it comes to interpreting high political positions of women, men and women are considered hierarchically. In Excerpt [16], the queen is depicted as she had various roles in ruling except participating in wars. Actually, ‘this inability’ reveals the hierarchical positions between genders. It also shows that the visibility of women increases when they perform in ways that do not damage the authority of men. The frequent usages of negations and the utterances ‘only the king’ already reveal who is standing in the background to position the women hierarchically: the king.22
[16] Belgelere göre Hitit kraliçesini ordunun başında savaş meydanları hariç kraliyeti ilgilendiren her türlü etkinlikte kralla birlikte görmek mümkündür. Hitit ordusunun sadakat yeminlerini sadece krala değil, kraliçelerine ve prenslerine hitaben de yapması Hitit krallığının salt kralla değil kraliçe ve prenslerle bir bütün olarak görüldüğünü göstermektedir. (Cengiz, 2014, p. 28)
[16] According to the documents, it is possible to see the Hittite queen with the king in all kinds of events that concern the kingdom, except on battlefields. The fact that the Hittite army made their oaths of loyalty not only to the king but also to their queens and princes shows that the Hittite kingdom was seen as a whole not only with the king but also with the queen and princes. (Cengiz, 2014, p. 28)
Apart from accepting the king as the norm, the contrasting views against Puduhepa also demonstrate how interpretations in the academic texts depend on the way of understanding written sources with particular stances. Although the written documents of the period in question are accepted as ‘factual’ sources, this section proves that scholars’ different inferences have the potential to produce completely different discourses from each other. In other words, the language of the authors reflects how they understood or wanted to understand the written sources to create their academic arguments.
22 In the analyzed corpus, there is a text that includes interpretations referring to the idea of equality between kings and queens as well as the identification of queens together with kings (Kuzuoğlu, 2007, p. 805).
82
Finally, both praising and otherizing women in Anatolia occur to the patriarchal extent: Powerful women are idealized when the king is willing to share power with them. For instance, Puduhepa stands as a figure to be usually attributed with positive characteristics since her position is already approved by her husband, the king.
5.4 Women’s agency: a multifaceted discussion
Interpreting women’s agency is more than explaining women’s roles in the past. Agency refers to “the ability to act on one’s own behalf” (Nelson, 2004, p. 154). For women’s agency, the moments when the attributions surrounding gender roles were accepted or challenged are crucial. Therefore, agency becomes related to revealing power relations. As discussed above, scholars’ interpretations might produce separate discourses although the written documents used as sources are the same and accepted as ‘true.’ To illustrate this, the contrast between Excerpts [11], [13] shows how Puduhepa is interpreted differently. Similar findings from the interpretations of powerful women emerge while observing the interpretations of women’s agency in the corpus: Scholars’ discourses on women’s agency changes in different contexts and all of them create a multifaceted discussion. On the other hand, it can be said that women’s agency as a subject facilitates more feminist discourses among authors as a way of challenging gender stereotypes and emphasizing patriarchal order.
As introduced previously, the existence of a rather ‘positive’ environment for women in Anatolia is generally an agreed view among the publications in the corpus.23 However, in several cases, the rights in the distant past were implicitly
23 For one example claiming that women were not second-class or the slaves of men, see: (Darga, 1984, p. 102). In another publication, Hittite queens are interpreted as the carriers of the Hittite culture into different cultures, but they take this responsibility by getting married with the princes of surrounding empires (Kılıç & Doymuş, 2007, p. 96). In another sample, it is argued that the case of
83
given to women by unknown yet male authorities. This can be proved with the usage of passive structures in the sentences (see [1], [3], [5]), which creates a ‘discursive silence.’24 In other words, women are not the ones who earn rights or challenge to take particular rights. Instead, they are rewarded in a way by other agents. This obscurity actually refers to the pervasive existence of men, who control women and decide to give rights to women.
In some of the publications from the corpus, however, there are several attempts to give agency to women. In Excerpt [17], the expression ‘despite everything’ means a contrasting situation for the powerful positions and high status of women, because this expression implies the disadvantages of women. Here, the expression ‘reigning in the background’ refers to the partially independent status of women and an attempt to give agency to women.25 On the other hand, the existence of ‘thousands of years’ should be regarded as the use of hyperbole in language.
For the relationship between men and women, again in this sentence, one’s location is determined by the other and this already reflects how gender is understood in academic interpretations. It can be argued that the binary thinking restricts scholars to identify women together with men or men together with women. Excerpt [17] makes readers to think that women were located in the background when men were located in the forefront:
[17] Her şeye rağmen kadınlar binlerce yıldan beri hep arka planda saltanatlarını sürdürmüşlerdir. (Çığ, 1999, p. 58)
[17] Despite everything, women have always reigned in the background for thousands of years. (Çığ, 1999, p. 58)
Puduhepa should not be interpreted as feminism, rather her pioneering activities were conducted based on the traditions that her homeland brought rather than revolutionary inspirations (Ünal, 2005, p. 14).
24 In texts, it is possible to hide events or phenomenon by using passive voice. This is called discursive silence (Fairclough, 2010).
25 For another example, which includes “backstage metaphor” for women: (Erdemir, 2016, p. 19).
84
In Excerpt [18], the author claims that women played social and political roles to the degree the conditions created by men allowed them. The structure of the sentence is not passive and women are the subject in the sentence. After underlining that the status of women changes from period to period parallel with other social transformations, the following part of the sentence indicates that women can do everything but they only present their abilities and intelligence according to the conditions determined by men. This example is remarkable since the author gives agency to women within the structure of the sentence and emphasizes their disadvantages in the patriarchal society, which invokes a feminist perspective:26
[18] Görülüyor ki dönemlere göre toplumsal olaylar paralelinde kadının konumu ve katılımı şekillenmiş, kadınlar her konuda var olan yetenek ve zekalarını ancak erkeklerin belirlediği şartlar içinde ortaya koyabilmişlerdir. (Akalın, 2003, p. 42)
[18] It can be seen that the position and participation of women were shaped in parallel with social events according to periods, and women were able to demonstrate their talents and intelligence in every subject only under the conditions determined by men. (Akalın, 2003, p. 42)
In terms of women’s agency, more emphasis on women’s struggle can be observed in several texts published recently.27 In Excerpt [19], women in the Greek comedy Lysistrata boycott sexual intercourse with men, and the author interprets this situation as the awakening of women where they start using their own bodies according to their will. Using expressions such as ‘boycott’ and ‘awakening’ as well as locating “Athenian women” in the subject of the sentence invokes the feminist stance in academic language one more time:
[19] Örneğin, MÖ 411 yılında oynanan Lysistrata’da işlenen tema, Atinalı kadının “savaşa hayır!” çağrısıdır ve erkekleri savaştan vaz geçirmek için önerilen yol, erkekleri ve cinsel birlikteliği boykottur. Bu da artık Atinalı
26 As a similar attitude, in another example, the author argues that women were socially made passive, they were limited into the roles of motherhood and child-caring (Konyar, 2013, p. 263).
27 In one example, a similarity is established between the difficult struggle of women in ancient times and today in Mesopotamia (Kozbe, 2020, p. 61). For another example, in which the author states that in the Roman period, women demanded rights and struggled for that, see: (Erdemir, 2016, p. 19).
85
kadının bilinçlendiğini ve erkeğin malı olarak kabul edilen bedeninin, kendi istemi doğrultusunda kullanmaya başladığının da göstergesidir. (Şahin, 2013, p. 11)
[19] For example, the theme dominating in Lysistrata played in 411 B.C., is the Athenian woman’s “no to war!” calling, and the recommended way to put men out of war is to boycott men and sexual intercourse. This is also an indication that the Athenian woman has become conscious of themselves and that they began to use their body, being accepted as the property of man, according to their own will. (Şahin, 2013, p. 11)
However, this emphasis on struggle is not always directed to women passing beyond men’s authority. In some of the samples from the corpus, it is argued how women struggled due to their love of family members and children (Example [20]). Therefore, their struggle is actually understood as it arises from women’s emotions and this is again interrelated with the discourses about women in ruling positions who act based on their emotions. In the last part of the Excerpt [20], the expression ‘men are not innocent at all’ brings another clear feminist critique against ancient sources:
[20] Sevmeden evlendirilen, sevmesine izin verilmeden boşatılan, kocaları öldürülerek dul bırakılan ve yeniden evlendirilen, babanın otoritesini topluma ispatlamak için çocukları ellerinden alınan kadınlar, hem içlerinde aile kurdukları fertlere ve çocuklarına duydukları sevgi hem de haksızlıklara uğramış olmalarının verdiği bir hınçla istemedikleri kötü muamelelere karşı mücadele etmişlerdir . . . Antik kaynakların yazarları erkek olduğundan ve yönetimi elinde bulunduran hemcinslerine toz kondurmak istemediklerinden çoğu zaman kadınları haksızlığa uğramış göstermemeye çalışsalar da kaynaklardaki farklı ifadeler değerlendirildiğinde erkeklerin hiç de masum olmadıkları görülebilmektedir. (Erdemir et al, 2016, p. 69)
[20] Women who were married without love, divorced without being allowed to love, widowed after their husbands were killed and remarried, whose children were taken away to prove the authority of their father to society, struggled against the ill-treatment they did not want with the love they felt for their family members and their children as well as the resentment of their injustice . . . Although the authors of ancient sources often try not to portray women as being wronged because they are men and they do not want to put dust on their fellow men in control, when the different expressions in the sources are evaluated, it can be seen that men are not innocent at all. (Erdemir et al, 2016, p. 69)
86
In Excerpt [21], the author compares today’s parents with the parents in ancient times. The expression ‘being doomed to the same end’ becomes interrelated with considering women as victims of today’s patriarchal ideology. In that sense, a continuation is drawn between ancient and modern periods, but at the same time, another continuation is drawn by seeing women as helpless victims of the patriarchal system. Besides, the utterance ‘over the centuries’ can be read as hyperbole, which consolidates the maintenance in certain roles of parents spanning from ancient periods to the present:
[21] Her ne kadar Antik Çağ’da ebeveynlerin her ikisi de evlatlarının yetişmesinde pay sahibi olsa da çocuğun zihinsel ve ruhsal gelişiminin babaya, biyolojik gelişiminin ise anneye ait sorumluluklar olduğu edebî verilerin sunduğu tablodan anlaşılmaktadır. Bu durumun yüzyıllar boyunca değişmediği yine edebî metinlerdeki ifadelerden anlaşılmaktadır. Aynı doğrultuda düşünen kesimler günümüzde ve kendi toplumumuzda da aynı sona mahkûm olmuştur. Yüceltilmiş erkek ve bastırılmış kadın profillerinin nezaretinde büyüyen çocuklar da ne yazık ki gördüklerini uyguladıklarından kadını her konuda ikinci planda tutan, eğitimden yoksun bırakan, ev işleri ve annelik görevleri arasına sıkıştıran bir zihin yapısıyla yetişen bireyler hâline gelmiştir. Buna istinaden, kendisi için çizilen hayata boyun eğen, eğitim ve özgüven eksikliği nedeniyle kendi kararlarını veremeyen ve hayata atılamayan kadınların sayısı günümüzde bile toplumumuzun büyük bir kesimini oluşturmaktadır. Aradan geçen binlerce yıla rağmen aynı bakış açısına sahip olan tüm toplumlar, aynı erk-şiddet-ayrımcılık-bağnazlık döngüsünü yaşamaya mahkûm olmuştur. (Özkan, 2017, p. 21)
[21] Although both parents have a share in the upbringing of their children in ancient time, it is understood from the table presented by the literary data that the mental and spiritual development of the child is the responsibility of the father and the biological development of the mother. It is understood from the expressions in literary texts that this situation has not changed over the centuries. Societies that think in the same direction are doomed to the same end today, in our own society. Children who grew up under the custody of exalted men and repressed women profiles unfortunately continued what they saw and became individuals who grew up with a mindset that put women in the second place, deprived of education, and squeezed them between housework and motherhood duties. Based on this, the number of women who are submissive to the life drawn for them, who cannot make their own decisions and cannot start life due to lack of education and self-confidence constitute a large part of our society even today. All societies that have the same point of view despite the passing thousands of years have been doomed to live the same cycle of power-violence-discrimination-bigotry. (Özkan, 2017, p. 21)
87
5.5 Men vs. women: big opposite poles forming a whole
When it comes to interpreting gender, binary thinking concentrates on the idea that men and women are separate entities, opposites that complement each other. Such thinking conceals the variety of gender identities and define women and men as if they have nothing in common (Geller, 2017). In the selected publications, it is generally observed that women are usually defined in contrast to men and they are presented through the display of what is different from men’s roles and status (e.g., [28]). Therefore, their labors such as gathering food or their identities as mothers and wives are separated from the men’s positions (e.g., [24], [25], [26]).
In the corpus, there are several examples showing how men and women are defined against each other. For instance, in Excerpt [22], both are likened to the concept of day and night. The author claims that men and women add meanings to each other even though they constitute opposite poles.28 The utterance ‘dichotomic equality’ is regarded because equality is located within the acceptance of men and women as different entities. In other words, it explicitly supports the discourse that men and women are different but they might be still united based on this difference:
[22] Hitit devletinin resmiyet dünyasındaki kadın imajını temsil eden Hitit kraliçelerinin Hitit kralları ile dikotomik eşitliğini incelemek amacıyla kaleme alınan bu çalışmada “dikotomi”, gündüz ve gecenin birbirlerine taban tabana zıt olmalarına rağmen “gün” denilen bir bütünü oluşturmaları, birbirlerini tamamlamaları hatta birinin varlığının ötekine anlam kazandırması örneğinde olduğu gibi bir birlerine ters, zıt olmakla birlikte bütün oluşturan daha doğrusu birinin varlığının diğerine anlam kazandırdığı kadın-erkek ilişkilerini tanımlamak amacıyla kullanılmıştır. (Cengiz, 2014, p.21)
[22] In this study written in order to examine the dichotomous equality between the Hittite kings and the Hittite queens representing the image of women in the official world of the Hittite state, as in the example of the fact that day and night are diametrically opposed to each other, they form a whole called “day,” complement each other and even the existence of one gives meaning to the other, “dichotomy” has been used to describe the male-female
28 Other examples claiming that humans are divided into two as males and females: (Karasu, 2006, p. 46; Uzunoğlu, 1993, p. 16).
88
relationships which constitute a whole or more precisely, the existence of one gives meaning to the other. (Cengiz, 2014, p.21)
As stated above, the big opposite poles are frequently accepted as complementary and they together symbolize balance that is established against chaos. In Excerpt [23], the author argues that when the balance between men and women is damaged, life gets damaged too. Hence, people are responsible for protecting this balance. Moreover, bringing God into the equation in an academic text is interesting and this explicitly reflects the author’s stance that also moves away from the earlier more secular stance of the scholarship.
[23] Yaratan cinsiyetsizdir ve tektir, ancak insan çifttir. İnsanın bir çift olması da dünyadaki hayati dengeyi sağlamak içindir. İnsanın görevi her şartta ve kurallar çerçevesinde bu dengeyi koruyabilmektedir. Bu ikili arasında denge ya da dengeler bozulduğunda, hemen her alanda ve anlamda zorluklar, sıkıntılar, sorunlar ortaya çıkmaktadır. (Erdemir, 2019, p. 11)
[23] The Creator is sexless and only, but human is made of couple. The fact that human beings are made of couple is to provide a vital balance in the world. The duty of humans is able to maintain this balance under all conditions and rules. When the balance between these two is damaged, difficulties, troubles and problems arise in almost every field and sense. (Erdemir, 2019, p. 11)
‘The big poles’ are also related to discourses about sexual divisions of labor. As discussed in Chapter 2, today feminist anthropological literature does not accept men/hunter, women/gatherer model as a given. However, from the corpus, it seems that the perception of men as hunters and women as gatherers still continue to be seen among recent publications within Turkish scholarship.29 In other words, interpretations about the hunter-gatherers demonstrate how interpreting division of labour might be attached to binary thinking. In this case, heteronormativity takes courage from the ways gender is explained by consulting biological sex. In some of the selected publications,
29 For one example associating women with gathering and men with hunting because of biological differences: (Aydıngün, 2013, p. 44).
89
biological features are considered references while explaining the reasons for socially constructed gender roles. Therefore, certain biases against men and women as well as heteronormativity get empowered through these discourses. In Excerpt [24], we see how women are associated with nature and particularly soil based on ideas about fertility.30 This is also connected with the concept that Anatolia is usually identified within the ideals of womanhood. In this quote, the author perceives a common point between women and Anatolia through mystery:
[24] Anadolu deyince de akla belki de çokkültürlülük nedeniyle öncelikle gizem gelmez mi aslında? Hemen çözülmez, her şeyi hemen anlatmaz bu topraklar. Burada doğmuş, buradan geçmiş kültürlerin köklü gelenekleri ve inanılmaz çeşitliliği, birbirleriyle etkileşimleri, sanatsal açıdan öncü özellikleri insanı gerçekten şaşırtır. Gizemlidir bu topraklar; ezber bozan, kendine özgü ilahi yanı olan bir gizemdir bu... Kadın da gizemlidir; ana tanrıça inanışından itibaren yüceltilmiş, dağ tepelerinde nişler içinde kutsanmış, toprak ve bereketle bir görülmüştür. (Çaykara, 2013, p. 314)
[24] Maybe because of the multiculturalism, doesn’t mystery come to mind firstly when one says Anatolia? These lands cannot be solved right away, do not tell everything immediately. The deep-rooted traditions and incredible diversity of cultures that were born and passed here, their interactions with each other and their artistic pioneering features really surprise people. These lands are mysterious; this is a game-changer mystery with its own divine side… The woman is also mysterious; since the belief of the mother goddess, she has been exalted, blessed in niches on mountain tops and identified with soil and fertility. (Çaykara, 2013, p. 314)
Here, as a result of the common features between women and soil, women are deified because of fertility, motherhood, beauty, love, and desire.31 In Excerpt [25] too, the author makes a clear distinction between the women who gave birth and those who did not give birth. At the end, giving birth is considered among the main steps for becoming a woman:
30 In one sample from the corpus, nature is perceived as mother, so the author compares the agricultural productivity and women’s reproductivity (Sina, 2004, p. 50-51). In another example too, the author compares female body that is giving birth and soil in which plants grow by considering both of them mysterious: (Aydıngün, 2005a, p. 16).
31 Another example showing how women in the past are associated with positive values such as peace, motherhood, creativity, art, elegance and justice: (Erdemir, 2019, p. 16; Çelebi, 2013, p. 114). Another similar attitude for women in the Paleolithic Age: (Yalçınkaya, 1971, p. 208).
90
[25] Kadın olmanın en özel durumlarından biri de çocuk sahibi olmaktır. Kuşkusuz ki bu durum ilkel toplumlar için oldukça ilginç ve bir o kadar da mucizevi görülmüştür. Modern dünyada dahi doğum yapmış olan kadına bakış ve gösterilen saygı doğum yapmayan kadınlara göre pozitif anlamda farklılık göstermektedir. (Fidan, 2018, p. 36)
[25] One of the most special aspects of being a woman is having a child. Undoubtedly, this situation was seen as interesting and miraculous for primitive societies. Even in the modern world, the regard and respect shown to women who have given birth differ positively from women who have not given birth. (Fidan, 2018, p. 36)
As stated previously, big opposite poles require defining women as not men and men as not women. From this aspect, in Excerpt [26], males too are generalized in terms of having common biological features but this time such concepts are shaped around “power, violence and potency.”32 Through this way, the difference between men and women is established again by receiving support from biological attributions:
[26] Kadın biyolojik özelliği gereği böyle bir güce ihtiyaç duymaz. Yani iktidar kavramını kadınla birlikte kullanmak zorlama olur. Kadının iktidarlı olmak veya iktidarsız olmakla bir işi yoktur. O her zaman hazırdır ve bacaklarını açması yeterlidir. Bunun için ihtiyaç duyduğu güce de her zaman sahiptir. Oysaki erkek güçlü olmak zorundadır; iktidarlı olmak onun mecburiyetidir. İktidar sahibi olmayan erkek muktedir olamaz. Çünkü yaşamın devamı için gücü göstermesi gereken erkektir. (Gezgin, 2010, p. 60)
[26] The woman does not need such a power due to her biological characteristics. In other words, using the concept of power with women would be strained. Woman has nothing to do with being potent or being impotent. She is always ready, and it is enough to spread her legs. She always has the power she needs for this. Yet, man has to be strong; it is his obligation to be powerful. A man without power cannot be capable. Because it is the man who must show strength for the continuation of life. (Gezgin, 2010, p. 60)
5.6 Matriarchy as a nostalgia for prehistory
From the corpus, another commonly discussed subject is the transition from matriarchal to patriarchal social order regardless of a specific historical focus.
32 Another example that explains the difference between sexes in terms of physical power differences of males and females: (Turgut, 2017, p. 70).
91
Matriarchy is usually represented as an order in which women and men are equally positioned in a remote past and a clear break takes place with the appearance of patriarchy. In order to depict such a strict transition, the worlds of men and women are sharply defined, which reinforce the big opposite poles again. In other words, it is observed that certain characteristics are categorized as belonging to either matriarchy or patriarchy. For example, while competence can be connected with patriarchy, love, gratitude and solidarity can be used to depict life in matriarchal order. This dichotomy becomes discursively interrelated to viewing prehistory through the lens of the modern hegemonic view between men and women. In Excerpt [27], the existence of matriarchy is associated with the idea that women symbolize fertility and productivity. In contrast, the transition to patriarchy is explained through the concepts of sovereignty, policy, gun and war which are paired with men:
[27] Hitit öncesi Anadolu toplumlarında verimlilik ve doğurganlığı simgelediği için kadının daha bir saygın yeri olmasına, buna paralel olarak toplumda anaerkil eğilimi daha güçlü görülmesine karşılık, gelişkin Hitit toplumunda yayılımcı bir dış siyaset izlenmesinin de etkileriyle olacak, babanın egemenliği artmış eli silah tutanların önemi artarak ataerkil düzenin özellikleri belirginleşmiştir. (Süel 1992, p. 240)
[27] Although women had a more respected place in pre-Hittite Anatolian societies since they symbolized fertility and productivity and parallel to this matriarchal tendency was seen stronger in the society, with the effects of an expansionist foreign policy in the developed Hittite society, father’s sovereignty increased, the importance of those holding guns increased, the features of the patriarchal order became evident. (Süel 1992, p. 240)
As mentioned previously, in the corpus, there are essentialist interpretations regarding men and women for the prehistoric periods. These interpretations also seem to be connected with the accounts of the transition from matriarchy to patriarchy. In Excerpt [27] and [28] too, while men are associated with power, wars and physicality, women are matched with beliefs, fertility and reproduction, which
92
are rather abstract features far from physicality.33 In Excerpt [28], the author also suggests that women were central because of their fertility which makes them important within the family sphere, while men are positioned in the political or public sphere in general. Finally, this interpretation explains how matriarchal order managed to preserve itself in vestiges in Anatolia34 (for the relationship between matriarchy and Anatolia, see [1], [24]):
[28] Kalkolitik Çağ’da bakırın, taşın yanı sıra kullanılması ve ileri üretime dayalı yaşam düzeninde Anadolu’da köyler büyür ve küçük şehirler halini alır. Bunların etrafı koruma duvarlarıyla çevrilir. Bu küçük kentlerin aralarında toprak sınırları nedeniyle kavgalar ve küçük savaşların başladığı olasıdır. Bu savaşlarda erkek, fiziksel gücü ve pazu kuvvetiyle topluluklarda önemini arttırır. Kadın, doğurganlığı, yeni bir hayata can vermesiyle, bereketi, çoğalmayı sağlayan cins olarak inanç dünyasında ailede ve toplumda yine önemli olmalıdır. (Uzunoğlu, 1993, p. 22)
[28] In the Chalcolithic Age, the villages in Anatolia grow and became small cities in the life order based on advanced production and the use of copper as well as stone. These are surrounded by defensive walls. It is possible that fights and small wars started between these small cities because of the land borders. In these wars, men increase their importance in communities with their physical strength and muscle strength. The woman should have been important again in the family, society and in the world of belief due to their sex that ensures fertility, reproduction and the power of creating a new life. (Uzunoğlu, 1993, p. 22)
Another aspect that appears while defining matriarchy with feminine associations is the connotation of the matriarchal past with nostalgia. It is curious to note that I have observed this only among the interpretations of female scholars. In Excerpt [29], matriarchy becomes a remote nostalgic place in which people lived
33 In the corpus, there are several references to warrior features of men and their physical powers (e.g., Aydıngün, 2005b, p. 30-31; Turgut, 2017, p. 69; Erdemir, 2019, p. 12; Kılıç & Duymuş, 2007, p. 90).
34 The idea that the remnants of matriarchy continue to be seen in Anatolia (despite patriarchy) is a common discursive pattern, for other examples: (e.g., Karasu, 2006, p. 47; Darga, 1984, p. 104; Konyar, 2013; p. 243). For the arguments of the matriarchal past, the mother-goddess belief is usually shown as the archaeological proof, which is inferred mostly from female figurines. Another reference that matriarchy preserved itself in Anatolia by giving reference to the representation of Virgin Mary as the extension of mother-goddess belief (Uzunoğlu, 1993, p. 24).
93
peacefully and established relationships that are originated from love and gratitude.35 The author convinces readers for perceiving matriarchal order in the light of love, peace, and solidarity. Through the usages of negations, the contradiction between patriarchy and matriarchy is strengthened:
[29] İnsanlığın ilk büyük toplumsal deneyimi olan bu “anaerkil” düzende, üretime katılma biçimi ve aldığı role bağlı olarak bir maddi çıkar ve statü farklılığının, yani cinsiyetler arası bir “efendi-köle” ilişkinin olmadığı sanılıyor. Kadınla erkek arasında, “birbirine üstün gelme” mücadelesi değil, koşulların gerektirdiği bir dayanışma olmalıdır. Neolitik çağların bütün “anaerkil” toplumlarının inanç merkezinde yer alan “Ana Tanrıça” ile insanlar arasındaki ilişkinin, “kulluk” mantığından değil, sevgi ve şükran duygusundan kaynaklandığı düşünülüyor. (Aydıngün, 2013, p. 45)
[29] In this “matriarchal” order, which is the first big social experience of humanity, it is thought there was no difference of financial interest and status depending on the way and role of participation in production, that is a “master-slave” relationship between sexes. There should have been solidarity between men and women as required by the conditions, not the struggle to “prevail over each other.” The relationship between the “Mother Goddess,” which is at the center of belief of all “matriarchal” societies of the Neolithic times is thought to be originated from the feeling of love and gratitude, not from the “servitude” logic. (Aydıngün, 2013, p. 45)
As mentioned above, in some of the selected publications, there seems to be an overarching narrative about a romantic matriarchal society in prehistory, which cuts across periods and regions by including the publications that cover the Classical periods. In Excerpt [30], the author states that most of the scholars accept that the transition to patriarchy caused many changes in the lives and positions of women and women started to lose their liberty through time in Ancient Greece.36 This transition is again explained by the men’s rising roles in labor, agriculture and politics. Here, patriarchy is also shown as the reason why women lost their former freedom. By this way, discourses produced about this transition become interrelated with the
35 In one publication, there is a reference to feminist theorists, therefore patriarchy is associated with social illness, tyranny and wars while matriarchy is identified as the golden age of peace and fertility: (Çelebi, 2013, p. 96).
36 Other examples discussing the transition from matriarchy to patriarchy in the Greek world: (Akalın, 2003, p. 21; Saraçoğlu, 2007, p. 142).
94
discourses about women’s rights as well as the discourses about ‘big opposite poles between sexes:’
[30] İ.Ö. 13. yy. sonlarında başlayan Kavimler Göçü'nden itibaren Hellas’ta yaşayan kadınların toplum düzeninin bir parçası olduğu ve özgür hayatlar sürdüğü, toplumun önce anaerkil düzene sahip olduğu ileri sürülmektedir. İ.Ö. 11. yy. ilâ 8. yy.’da ise iş gücü, tarım ve siyasi örgütlenmeler nedeniyle erkeğin aile içindeki ve toplumdaki rolünün artarak baş konuma geçmesiyle ataerkil düzene geçildiği düşünülmektedir. Bu durumun kadının yaşantısında ve konumunda kaçınılmaz olarak değişikliğe yol açtığına, toplumsal yapının değişmesiyle birlikte kadının eski özgürlüğünü kaybetmeye başladığına yönelik görüşler çoğunluktadır. (Özkan, 2017, p. 3)
[30] It is claimed that women living in Hellas have been a part of the social order since the Migration period that started at the end of the thirteenth century B.C. and they lived freely and that the society first had a matriarchal order. Between the eleventh century and the eighth century B.C., it is thought that the patriarchal order started with the increasing role of men in the family and society due to labor force, agriculture and political organizations. The majority of opinions are that this situation inevitably led to a change in the life and position of women and that the woman began to lose her former freedom with the change in the social structure. (Özkan, 2017, p. 3)
Nevertheless, all interpretations about matriarchy cannot be generalized as one group. In the corpus, a more recent sample reveals a direct criticism against the scholars who interpret the Venus figurines as proof of matriarchal order (see [31]). Although the author agrees with the idea that Venus figurines represent fertility, she questions how this issue becomes related to the existence of matriarchal order or the dominance of one sex over another:
[31] Venüs heykelciklerinden yola çıkılarak yapılan bu anaerkil yorum, bilim insanları tarafından yaratılmış feminist bir yaklaşım olmalıdır. Çünkü henüz iki cinsiyetten birinin diğerine üstünlüğünü ya da bir cinsiyetin hakkını arama çabasına girmek için çok erken bir dönem olmalıdır. Dolayısıyla kadının doğurganlığının ve siklusunun gizemli ya da kutsal kabul edilmesiyle ilişkili olarak Venüs heykelciklerinin bereketi temsil etmesi, toplumun da aynı zamanda anaerkil bir düzende olduğu anlamına gelmemelidir. (Hakman, 2020, p. 24)
[31] This matriarchal interpretation based on Venus figurines should be a feminist approach created by scientists. Because it should have been a very early period to seek the superiority of one of the two sexes over the other, or to seek the rights of one gender. Therefore, the fact that Venus figurines represent fertility in relation to the acceptance of reproductivity and cycle of
95
woman as mysterious or sacred should not mean that the society was also in a matriarchal order. (Hakman, 2020, p. 24)
5.7 A formulaic utterance: family = the basic unit of society
For prehistoric periods, it is often not possible to prove that females and males came together with a kind of marriage and they lived only with their legitimate children in the buildings called houses (Dowson, 2001). Despite that, archaeologists talk about these houses’ owners, their wives and children. The interpretations of these families are inferred from the lens of our modern nuclear families. In this way, past families are not usually defined in a clear way. At the same time, a concept of universal family conceals historical transformations and it “obscures the diversity and reality of family experience in any place and time” (Gerstel, 2003, p. 231).
The interpretations of families are crucial and they are included in my FCDA since they reveal the connection between sex/gender/sexuality. The expectation between these concepts to complete each other prevents “seeing discontinuities and incoherence in the logic in which the existence of two-sexes directly requires heterosexuality” (Carroll, 2012, p. 6). Thus, discourses produced about past families reveals a level of implicit heteronormativity. In these cases, proper sexuality that forms a family is always defined by implying reproduction, copulation and the continuity of generations.
In addition, the statement that ‘family is the foundation of society’ is used in different publications from the corpus.37 In Excerpt [32], the author indicates that family, being the basic unit of the society, is formed by legal documents and traditions, which is similar to the process of today’s family formations:
37 There are other examples claiming that family is the smallest unity of the society: (Özkan, 2018, p. 63; Erdemir, 2019, p. 25).
96
[32] Erkek ve kadının örf-adet ve kanunlar çerçevesinde ve şahitler huzurunda düzenlenen hukuki vesika ile bir arada bulunmaları ile oluşan aile toplumun temel birimidir. (Kılıç, 2014, p. 23)
[32] The family is the basic unit of the society, which is formed by coexistence of men and women within the framework of customs, laws and legal documents issued before witnesses. (Kılıç, 2014, p. 23)
The idea that family constitutes the foundation of society automatically gives a responsibility to family members to maintain this foundation. Therefore, family guarantees the continuation of generations, society, or even humanity in general. In Excerpt [33], the author asserts the idea of a nuclear family consisting of male, female creates future generations:
[33] Arkeolojik veriler, tarih öncesi çağlarda yaşamış insanların neslin devamının kadın ile erkeğin birleşmesi sonucunda gelen doğumla gerçekleştiğini gayet iyi bildiğini ortaya koyuyor. Nevali Çori’de ele geçen Neolitik Çağ’a ait bir kap parçası üzerindeki kadın, erkek ve çocuk betimiyle Çatalhöyük’te üretilmiş erotik sahneler içeren betimlemeler ve son yıllarda Bafa gölündeki kaya sığınaklarında tespit edilen kadınlı erkekli düğün sahnelerindeki görüntüler bunu kanıtlamaktadır. Ayrıca Latmoslu dönem sanatçıları kaya resimlerinde erkek, kadın ve çocuktan oluşan yaşam döngüsünü de ailenin sürekliliğini sağlayan her iki cinse ait bedeni de değişik biçimlerde defalarca betimlemişlerdir. (Aydıngün, 2013, p. 48)
[33] Archaeological data reveal that people who lived in prehistoric times knew very well that the continuation of the generation took place through the birth resulted by the copulation of men and women. The depictions containing erotic scenes produced in Çatalhöyük, the depictions of women, men and children on a piece of Neolithic Age vessel uncovered in Nevali Çori and the images in the wedding scenes with women and men found in the rock shelters in Bafa Lake in recent years prove this. In addition, the artists of the Latmos period have repeatedly depicted the life cycle of men, women and children in their rock paintings as well as the bodies of both sexes, which ensure the continuity of the family in many different ways. (Aydıngün, 2013, p. 48)
Related to giving ‘a big responsibility’ to family structure such as maintaining future generations or humanity in general, family is sometimes defined ideally. In some examples, family relationships are depicted with the emphasis on
97
respect and love revealing such an idealized or romantic perspective.38 In Excerpt [34], the author claims that family ties differ little compared to today. Here, family environment is also depicted as warm and peaceful in normal conditions. Bridging such understanding of family to the present underlines the unchanging nature of family:
[34] Çeşitli arkeolojik ve filolojik belgeler değerlendirildiğinde, aile içindeki günlük yaşam normal şartlar altında oldukça sıcak ve huzurludur. Ailenin saadeti her şeyin üzerinde tutulur. Aile bağları, ailenin çocuklarıyla ilişkisi günümüze nazaran çok az farklılık gösterir. (Erkanal, 2001, p. 119)
[34] When various archaeological and philological documents are evaluated, daily life in the family is quite warm and peaceful under normal conditions. Happiness of the family is kept above all else. Family ties and the relationship of the family with their children differ so little compared to today. (Erkanal, 2001, p. 119)
Because of the responsibility given to families for maintaining future generations, in almost all publications concerning family in the corpus (particularly the texts that were published recently), the concept of protecting families is brought into prominence. This duty is perceived as it has always existed in human societies, who encountered possible dangers against family structure. From the corpus, some authors argue that the protection of family from damages is ensured through the rules and laws in ancient times.39 In Excerpt [35], the author agrees with the idea that the laws concerning family in ancient times are necessary and pragmatic for maintaining
38 For another idealistic interpretation, see: (Çığ, 1999, p. 55). In one sample, such ideal environment is depicted by creating a narrative for the family in Sumerian history: The mother prepares breakfast and stays at home while the father says “nice words” to his children in the morning (Erkanal, 2001, p. 119).
39 There are several examples in the corpus, which reproduce the discourse that the customs and laws in a society arose from the need to protect: (Süel, 1992, p. 243; Kozbe, 2020, p. 51; Kılıç, 2014, p. 47; Murat, 2016, p. 73; Arslantaş & Septioğlu, 2016, p. 25; Darga, 1993a, p. 34; Fidan, 2018, p. 38; Süel, 2013, p. 137).
98
family structures.40 Here, the author presents that these laws and rules help to tackle the problems that might cause the disintegrations of families:
[35] Sonuç olarak, Eski Çağda Ön Asya medeniyetlerinde aileye büyük önem verildiğini, ailenin birlikteliğini korumak adına, toplumun bu en küçük biriminin kurulma aşamasından itibaren ortaya çıkabilecek tüm meselelerin yazılı kanun metinleriyle güvence altına alınmaya çalışıldığını görmekteyiz. Ailenin kurulmasıyla sağlanan akrabalık bağlarının oluşturulması güçlü aileleri oluştururken, yine bu kanun maddelerinin ailelerin dağılması sonrasında ortaya çıkabilecek huzursuzluk ve kargaşa gibi sorunların önünü almayı amaçlamış olduğu söylenebilir. (Özman, 2018, p. 69)
[35] As a result, we see that the family was given a great importance in the Ancient Near Eastern civilizations, and in order to protect the unity of the family, all the issues that may arise from the establishment of this smallest unit of the society were tried to be secured with written law texts. It can be said that while the establishment of kinship ties with the establishment of the family created strong families, it can also be said that these articles of the law aim to prevent problems such as unrest and chaos that may occur after the family disintegration. (Özman, 2018, p. 69)
5.8 Compulsory heterosexuality
The evolutionary perspective embedded in interpreting the difference between men and women and the necessity of family structures entails the consideration of reproduction as one of the fundamental necessities of humans. Therefore, this section investigates the appearance of discourses related to the idea of reproduction by using Rich’s (1980) term “compulsory heterosexuality.” Rich (1980) argues that “heterosexuality needs to be recognized and studied as a political institution” (p. 637). Through this way, heterosexuality is seen as compulsory that acts upon individuals from birth and thus individuals are assumed to be heterosexual until they speak out the reverse.
From the analyzed corpus, sexual aspects of humans in prehistoric and ancient periods are overwhelmingly connected with only reproduction and giving
40 “The danger to family disintegration” reappears for interpreting women in Greek and Roman periods too. In one case from the corpus, the author explicitly criticizes the Spartans for causing damage on family (Erdemir, 2019, p. 74).
99
birth.41 For example, in Excerpt [36], reproduction is considered among the basic needs of humans and that this need will continue as humans exist. However, it is women whose sexual features are mostly discussed and elaborated about regarding this topic. This is visible with the clear association of fertility and reproduction with women:
[36] Doğuş ve çoğalma ile ilgili bütün prosesüslerde kadın en önemli yeri işgal etmektedir . . . Geçmiş içinde çoğalmak ve beslenmek insanlığın en temel ihtiyaçlarından biri olmuştur. Esasen bu ihtiyaç yaşam süresince de devam edecektir. (Yalçınkaya, 1971, p. 203)
[36] The woman occupies the most important place in all processes related to birth and reproduction . . . In the past, reproduction and nutrition has been one of the most basic needs of humanity. Essentially, this need will continue throughout life. (Yalçınkaya, 1971, p. 203)
As mentioned in Chapter 4, among the selected samples, there is no publication that directly discusses homosexuality or heterosexuality. However, in some texts, there are parts that particularly deals with the same-sex relations.42 Interestingly, such relationships are discussed based on whether the society approves them. For instance, in Excerpt [37], the author remarks that although existed, homosexuality was not approved for women. Besides, homosexuality is regarded within the extramarital relationships:
[37] Aynı zamanda erkeklerde olduğu kadar çok fazla toplum içine çıkmasa da kadınlar arasında da eşcinselliğin yaygın olduğu bilinmektedir. Örneğin lirik şiirin öncülerinden Sappho’nun şiirlerinde kadın eşcinselliğine işaret eden birçok ipucu bulunmaktadır. Bununla birlikte kadınlar için eşcinsellik gibi eğilimler tasvip edilmemekte ya da bir kadının evlilik dışı ilişkisinin ortaya çıkması kocasının kadını boşamasını yasayla zorunlu hale getirmektedir. (Saraçoğlu, 2007, p. 148-149)
[37] At the same time, it is known that homosexuality was common among women, although it did not appear as much in society as in the case of
41 Another example emphasizing reproduction in hunter-gatherer societies (Uzunoğlu, 1993, p. 16), another example referring to “fertility” for the continuation of generation (Gezgin, 2010, p. 31).
42 It is interesting to see that Darga (1993c) defines the relationship between Hadrian and Antinous with the term, “homoerotic feelings” (p. 123-124). The emphasis on feelings rather than the act itself is crucial. For other publications including parts about homosexuality, see: (Şahin, 2013; Gezgin, 2010).
100
homosexuality among men. For example, in poems of Sappho, who was one of the pioneers of lyrical poetry, there are many clues pointing to female homosexuality. However, tendencies such as homosexuality were not approved for women, or the emergence of a woman’s extramarital relationship made it obligatory by law for woman to be divorced by her husband. (Saraçoğlu, 2007, p. 148-149)
Similarly, in Excerpt [38], although the author underlines the existence of same-sex relationships, he also argues that such relationships have never been legally or socially accepted:
[38] Olmayan bir eylem suç teşkil etmez; oysaki yukarda da belirttiğim ve pek çok kaynakta da görülebileceği gibi yetişkin iki erkek arasında yaşanan eşcinsel ilişki her zaman var olmuştur. Ancak kabul edilebilir toplumsal edimler içinde yer alamamış, suçlanmış veya lanetlenmiştir. (Gezgin, 2010, p. 224)
[38] A non-existing act does not constitute a crime, but as I mentioned above and can be seen in many sources, homosexual relationship between two adult men has always existed. However, it could not take part in acceptable social actions, it was accused or cursed. (Gezgin, 2010, p. 224)
Interpreting same-sex relationships for the past demonstrates similarities with interpreting women against the normative manhood. The general silence about sexuality beyond reproduction and the examples above prove that ‘homosexuality’ is positioned separate against the normative heterosexuality. By this way, it continues to be marginalized like women in the mainstream literature.
5.9 The change in gendered discourses
So far pervasive gendered discourses are listed and illustrated based on the FCDA in this research. The similar examples from different publications that were published in different years emphasize the permanent aspects of such discourses. However, it is important to remark that these discourses are not static and they become exposed to certain changes following the changes in socio-political conditions in which they appear. For instance, the recent emphasis on ‘protecting family as an institution’
101
(Excerpt [35]) can be interpreted as interlinked with the recent political discourses claiming that the devaluation of family is followed by many social problems.
The discursive changes about gender are particularly visible in the last decade for Turkish archaeology and ancient history. In these disciplines, it seems that rise of the academic interest in gender in the last decade augments the variety of interpretations. For example, when discussing the issue of women’s agency above, it has been already emphasized that more feminist discourses were observed between 2010 and 2020 and the excerpts [19], [20], [21] have been provided as examples. In addition, it seems that in the last decade, more counter-interpretations were presented against pervasive discourses such as the ideal matriarchal order for the prehistory of Anatolia (Excerpt [31]). On the other hand, there are some recent interpretations that deconstruct the normative feature of sexuality as given in the analyzed corpus. For instance, in Excerpt [39] below, the author needs a parenthesis to explain that understanding of sexuality was something different from today. On the other hand, the author makes a connection between sexuality and shame. The explicit connotations of the word “embarrassment” is an element that define sexuality here, but she does not elaborate on what she really means with it. This can be also regarded as a counter-discourse among the common discourses about reproduction, which emphasize the unbroken continuity from past to present. In this paragraph, the author puts a break between the past and the present in terms of the meanings of sexuality:
[39] Yani Thesmophoria bayramı, Demeter nezdinde gizemle daha çok içselleştiği düşünülen kadınlar tarafından gerçekleştirilse de erkek dışlanmaz aslında. Hatta tam tersine erkeğin önemi, berekete katkısı bugün bize tuhaf gelen cinsel içerikli (cinselliğin de bir tarihi var malum, o dönemde utancın/ayıbın anlamı bugünkünden farklı) birtakım sembollerle, imgelerle bu bayramda yerini alır. (Çaykara, 2013, p. 304)
102
[39] In other words, although the Thesmophoria festival is carried out by women who were thought to be more internalized with mystery by Demeter, the man was not actually excluded. On the contrary, the importance of men and their contribution to fertility takes its place in this holiday with some symbols and images having a sexual content (sexuality also has a history, as it is known today, the meaning of shame is different from today). (Çaykara, 2013, p. 304)
Apart from such rare attempts to redefine sexuality, the critiques against patriarchy can be followed in some of the sexuality-related interpretations. In Excerpt [40], the author proposes that women were degraded to commodities in ancient societies, but such discourses are almost produced as cliché.43 In other words, without deepening the theoretical meanings of this association, it is used as a formulaic utterance.44 Such formulaic accounts depict women as helpless victims of the patriarchal system and deprives them of any agency:
[40] Cinsellikte kadın bedeni bakire veya dul oluşuna göre artı ya da eksi değer yüklenerek alınıp satılabilen kullanılmış eski ya da kullanılmamış yeni bir eşya gibidir. (Çelebi, 2015, p. 20)
[40] In sexuality, the female body is like a used old or unused new item that can be bought and sold with a positive or negative value, depending on whether she is virgin or a widow. (Çelebi, 2015, p. 20)
5.10 Chapter summary
In this chapter, prominent themes and subjects have been compiled after the FCDA of the selected academic texts. In addition, common discourses and the variations in them are exemplified by several quotes from the analyzed samples. However, all samples are not illustrated. Some samples do not include any striking interpretation or inference about gender. This group generally consists of descriptive analysis of data, which is a point to be discussed in the next chapter.
43 For other ‘object’ references among the sampled texts: (Turgut, 2017, p. 80; Çelebi, 2015, p. 18). In another sample, the author suggests that the Greek world perceived women as objects in home (Erdemir, 2019, p. 70).
44 These discourses are similar to presenting family as the basic unit of society, which is discussed above as another formulaic utterance.
103
This chapter is mainly organized to present how discourses exist in constellations or in networks related to other discourses. There are both inter and intra-textual relationships between discourses, so some of them become similar, while the others remain different. This situation creates almost a field of discourses for authors to be actively appropriated for their own purposes and arguments (Sunderland, 2004). Based on inter and intra-textual relationships of discourses, it is possible to identify gendered discourses that are commonly seen in Turkish archaeology and ancient history. By following the model that Sunderland (2004) suggests, the initial discourse in these disciplines becomes ‘men and women are different discourse,’ which refers to the way most scholars view men and women based on difference. ‘Compulsory heterosexuality discourse’ can be also seen as an attachment to ‘men and women are different discourse,’ so they are intertwined with each other. As Hollway (1984) argues, heterosexuality can be taken as reference to reproduce gender differences and hierarchies (Sunderland, 2004). Then, family as the basic unit of society discourse’ can be read as a medium that represent genders through heterosexuality and their roles in family.
Apart from these identified discourses that reveal the close relationship between sex/gender/sexuality, in the corpus, ‘privileged Anatolian women discourse’ corresponds to interpreting women’s high status and social rights in the distant past of Anatolia. This discourse becomes interrelated with ‘superior Anatolia discourses,’ which coexist with the interpretations about women’s rights in comparing Anatolia with surrounding cultures. Then, ‘nostalgic matriarchy discourse’ establishes the foundation and fundamental academic proof of ‘privileged Anatolian women’ and ‘superior Anatolia discourses’ especially for the prehistoric periods.
104
However, these discourses should not be understood as static or always fixed. Although certain discourses are repetitively created from the 1950s to 2020, interpretations among scholars are always negotiated and these new subject fields create frequently seen ‘oppositional’ or ‘alternative discourses.’ The agency of women is definitely one of these subject fields that is discursively constructed. Besides, women’s agency becomes a theme in which the author’s political positionings (e.g., feminism) and stances (e.g., bias against women) appear explicitly due to their potential to enable negotiations in academic texts.
Despite the existence of such changes, several discourses strengthen their places over time. ‘Men and women are different discourse’ is foremost among them, which disregards ‘being human’ as a more neutral concept to discover commonality between genders.
105
CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION: SITUATING DISCOURSES IN CONTEXT
In this chapter, the findings of the FCDA are situated in both ideological and academic contexts of Turkey, where archaeology and history developed as two disciplines for constructing the state’s national identity. This chapter aims to answer ‘why’ certain discourses repetitively come up while interpreting gender.
For explaining ‘context’ in detail, it is not my main purpose to provide a detailed history of archaeology in Turkey or its relationship with the official ideologies. However, some remarkable aspects of this history are directly related to the findings of the FCDA in this thesis. This chapter is divided into two sections, where first I attempt to present the ‘ideological’ and ‘academic’ background for the reproduction of certain gendered discourses in the selected corpus and then discuss all findings together within this presented framework.
6.1 Ideological and academic context
In this section, it is discussed how sex/gender/sexuality as a system has played important roles in constructing the national identity of Turkey. Considering the relationship between gender and nationalism also enables one to evaluate ‘privileged Anatolian women,’ ‘nostalgic matriarchy,’ ‘men and women are different,’ and ‘compulsory heterosexuality’ discourses observed among the samples of the corpus. Therefore, this section draws the background for the named discourses at the end of the previous chapter.
106
6.1.1 Nationalist narratives of the remote past: silent about gender?
Since nations are discursively created, in Turkey, evidence from physical anthropology, archaeology, history and linguistics was involved “for the complicated task of discursively making Turks” (Shaw, 2004, p. 133). Archaeology and history supported nationalism on the basis of epistemologies following positivism. Because of the supplementary relations of these disciplines to both geography and culture, they provided the mythic and romantic narratives of the nation’s past (see Kohl & Fawcett, 1996; Díaz-Andreu & Champion, 1996). From the literature covering the relationship between archaeology and nationalism, it is also possible to follow how nations were discursively formed based on deciding who is superior and who is inferior, which explicitly reveal power relations (see Trigger, 1984; Silberman, 1996; Kohl, 1998).
In Turkey, archaeology and history have had their process of appearance and development (Kafadar & Karateke, 2011). Their beginnings are usually dated back to the nineteenth century when the Ottoman Empire was experiencing “a process of Westernization” (Özdoğan, 2002, p. 112; also see Bahrani et.al., 2011).
Since this thesis covers publications written between 1950 and 2020, it has been decided to summarize the case of archaeology and ancient history after the emergence of the Turkish Republic. Several scholars have already demonstrated that Turkish archaeology developed into an academic discipline under the impact of Kemalist nationalism (e.g., Özdemir, 2001). The existing literature about the relationship between archaeology and nationalism emphasizes that the Turkish Republic was accepted as the latest generational ring of the tradition going back to the prehistoric and ancient civilizations in Anatolia. Accordingly, the existence of a past “to be proud of” and the Anatolian civilizations that were considered
107
“developed” in their era, became linked to the Early Republican ideologies (Pulhan, 2003, p. 144).
Although the earlier period of the Turkish Republic witnessed the appearance of discourses about a general assertion of Central Asian origins of people living in Turkey, it is clear that these discourses transformed more into centralizing Anatolia. Atakuman (2008) states that such a transformation can be especially observed during and after the Second Turkish History Congress (1937). To elaborate on this, Gür (2010) has proposed the term “Anatolian Civilizations Discourse (ACD),” which identify discourses that support “the idea of peoples of Anatolia as a collective, primordial identity to those living in the territory now known as Turkey” (p.72).45
Unlike the scholar favoring ‘Anatolianism’ earlier as adhered to Kemalist nationalist discourse, another group of intellectuals, quite different in their backgrounds called themselves ‘Anatolianists’ and their movement ‘Blue Anatolia’ in the 1950s and 1960s. They introduced the concept of a ‘homeland’ blended with humanist philosophy and literature. ‘Blue Anatolia’ movement supported “an Anatolian cultural essence from which all these Greco-Roman cultural products emerged” (Gür, 2010, p. 83).
Since the beginning of nationalist historical narratives in Turkey, another aspect of locating Anatolia in the center is recovering Turkish nationalism from its Islamic effects. Therefore, ‘secularist’ discourses helped to locate these narratives within the narratives of the West. Parallel to this, Pulhan (2003) claims that archaeology in Turkey was shaped as it represents the secular Kemalist segments of society.
45 Gür (2010) adds that the Anatolian civilizations are not only matter of scientific discussions. They are involved in cultural policies and economic interests of the Turkish state.
108
In Turkey, the ties between nationalism/Anatolianism/secularism and the past are best represented in the Turkish History Thesis (Ersanlı, 2003), which was formulated in a book titled “Türk Tarihinin Ana Hatları” (The Main Tenets of Turkish History) in 1930. The Main Tenets of Turkish History was commissioned by the members of “Türk Tarihi Tetkik Cemiyeti” (The Turkish Historical Research Society) (Atakuman, 2008). The history thesis constituted a break from the religion-based histories of the Ottoman period, which glorify the empire as part of Islamic history. Instead, the new thesis represented the secular side of Turkish history by integrating this history into the mainstream of Western civilizations. From this aspect, the discourses about the high status of women in Central Asiatic societies emerged and affected the official discourses about Turkish women (Kandiyoti, 1991). One of such discourses from the Main Tenets of Turkish History can be illustrated with this excerpt: “Türk camialarında kadınlar kocalarının vesayeti altında ezilmiş bir zümre olmaktan uzak idiler. Kadın, ailenin hukuk sahibi bir azası sayılırdı” (Türk Tarihi Tetkik Cemiyeti, 1930, p. 432).46
Similar to the high positions of women in Turkic communities of Central Asia, the Hittite women are also included in the content of the Main Tenets of Turkish History. In fact, throughout the book, the case of women is shortly evaluated for several civilizations such as the Sumerians and Indus. From the book, this excerpt demonstrates how women were interpreted within the nationalist narratives: “Etilerde kadın hürriyeti yüksekti. Bunlar hükümet işlerinde vazife aldıktan başka hâkimlik te yaparlar ve erkekler gibi muhaberelere giderlerdi. Kıraliça [sic] kıral [sic] kadar
46 “In Turkish communities, women were far from being a group oppressed under the tutelage of their husbands. The woman was considered a legal member of the family” (Türk Tarihi Tetkik Cemiyeti, 1930, p. 432).
109
hukuku haizdi” (Türk Tarihi Tetkik Cemiyeti, 1930, p. 243).47 In the process of researching for this thesis, similar discourses have been discovered in “Resimli Şark Dergisi” (Illustrated Oriental Magazine), which is a monthly magazine that started to be published in 1931 (Oğur, 2020). As a magazine being famous with its illustrations, it targeted the public as the audience and published articles in many areas ranging from health to archaeology. In one of its issue, Turhan (1931) wrote these sentences:
Tahtı idaresinde birçok prenslikleri bulunduran Eti imparatorluğu, esasen bir federasyon halinde olduğu için, hars noktasından yüksek bir halde bulunuyordu. Harsen yükselmiş bir hükümetin, bir milletin elbette ki muntazam kanunları bulunması lazım gelirdi. Bilhassa kadın ve aile hukuku Etilerce çok mühim bir mevkii işgal ediyordu. (p. 25)48
Afterward, other similar discourses can be found in İnan’s (1962) book, “The Emancipation of the Turkish Woman.” Here she evaluates women’s status before the arrival of Islam. She claims that Islam caused a decline in previously high positions of Turkish women. As a result, it is possible to see how women’s emancipation is directly connected with secularism.
These examples attest that ‘women’s emancipation’ involved in the official ideology that combined nation-building and secularization in Turkey.49 According to
47 In English: “Freedom of women was high in the Hittites. They took office in government affairs other than being judges and went to battles like men. The queen had the law as the king” (Türk Tarihi Tetkik Cemiyeti, 1930, p. 243).
48 In English: “Since the Hittite Empire, which had many principalities under its throne was essentially a federation, it was in a high state in terms of culture. A culturally ascended government, a nation, of course, would have to have formal laws. Especially women and family law occupied a very important position for the Hittites” (Turhan, 1931, p. 25).
49 In Turkey, the ‘women question’ indeed became visible after Tanzimat in the Ottoman period and never disappeared after the Republic of Turkey was established. Mostly male officials and intellectuals produced discourses on women and the family “to express deeper anxieties concerning the cultural integrity of the Ottoman Muslim polity in the face of Western influence” (Kandiyoti, 1991, p. 23). After being objects of political discourse, women became citizens as a result of the changing nature of the Ottoman/Turkish state (Kandiyoti, 1991). However, Coşar (2007) indicates that the ideal Republican woman was exposed to two-dimensional subordination: Her femininity was limited to becoming wife and mother. Then, she was expected to enter the public sphere by obscuring her sexual identity.
110
Kandiyoti (1991), this issue “was also the product of a Western cultural orientation that is shaped by Enlightenment perspective on progress and civilization” (p. 43). Accordingly, “the abolition of shariah laws and the adoption of Swiss Civil Code (1926)” provided civil rights to women in terms of marriage, family and inheritance (Coşar, 2007, p. 117). Besides, the school became co-ed (1924) and the women were given “the right to participate in local elections (1930) and later in general elections (1934)” (Coşar, 2007, p. 117). Arat (1994) argues that these “were seen as tools for national development” (p. 59; see Coşar, 2007).
6.1.2 Academic context
Apart from the ideological background and heritage that shapes interpreting gender in Turkish archaeology and ancient history, it is also important to analyze the academic context where archaeology and history have drawn their own ways. The current scholarship emphasizes the lack of theoretical and contemporary approaches in these disciplines. For instance, Çilingiroğlu (2015) states that there is one way to do archaeology in Turkey, which is based on the cultural-historical approach. One of the main aspects of cultural-historical theory that emerged at the end of the nineteenth century is the ignorance of people as the ones who intervene and execute the cultural processes. Within this point of view, cultural changes are always explained through the concepts of migration and diffusion. For the case of Turkey, another important aspect of the cultural-historical approach became to link people to certain geographies. In this way, being the successor of a region (e.g., Anatolia) and its past was considered crucial to claim that region as prior and superior against the surrounding regions. Therefore, the cultural-historical approach in archaeology actually fits the ideological context in which archaeology developed in Turkey. To
111
put it differently, when cultural-historical theory first appeared, it had already provided an opportunity for the construction of the nation-states and the creation of artificial ethnic identities (Gür, 2007).
As discussed above, however, Turkish archaeology and history broke their bonds with the ideological discourses over time. Even if these two disciplines continued to have a close relationship with the state, they started to adopt a more ‘objective’ and ‘scientific’ language (Erdur, 2003). The adoption of such language also went parallel with a failure to create close relationships with philosophy, sociology, cultural anthropology (Çilingiroğlu, 2015).
The transformation of archaeology is also affected by the social, economic, and political process that Turkey experienced after 1960.50 The 1960 and 1980 coups, which determined the political climate of Turkey, can be accepted as important reasons for the formation of an apolitical structure in archaeology as in most fields. This apolitical environment should not be understood as archaeologists do not make relations with the state. As Erdur (2003) states, this situation is ambivalent: While archaeology ends up protecting its apolitical policy in the name of being scientific, it also changed to become introverted to maintain its relationship with the state and approve official discourses. Erdur (2003) adds that the non-political claim based on scientific discourse can be evaluated as political as well, since it approves the existing political order shaped by nationalist, Islamist and culturally conservative state ideology.
Another aspect of the recent archaeological research in Turkey can be summarized within the framework of academic inbreeding. In his paper, Dinç (2015) evaluates the reflections of academic inbreeding in Turkish archaeology. Although
50 Here, it is important to emphasize that there is still a need for more academic studies covering the history of archaeology after the 1950s in Turkey.
112
discussing gender cannot be directly attached to that, a ‘citation inbreeding’ fed by academic inbreeding exists about interpreting gender in Turkish archaeology and ancient history. I have used ‘citation inbreeding’ to refer to the fact that certain academic works are cited over and over in gender-related studies. As a result of this practice, it is observed that young scholars commonly produce similar discourses with their professors who trained them, which contributes to the closed-off nature of the Turkish academia in terms of following global trends in new theories and methodologies, like recent feminisms.
6.2 Discussion: gendered discourses in the light of nationalism
So far it is clear that in Turkey, women were discursively positioned through the paradigms of nationalism putting Anatolia to the center over time. This situation is explicitly reflected in nationalist historiography as illustrated with the examples just above. This new image of the woman had “ancient and respectable antecedents to invoke” (Kandiyoti, 1991, p. 40-41). This aspect can be accepted as an important reason why Turkish archaeologists and historians were interested in discovering women in the distant past of Anatolia and comparing their civil rights, particularly with women today. It can also be observed that residues of nationalist discourses continued to be seen after the 1950s for a while and to be found implicitly in some of the recent publications (Excerpts [1], [2], [3] and [5] and other publications from the corpus that are listed in footnotes in the previous chapter). Thus, it can be generally summarized that since the beginning of the Republic, there has never been silence about gender, particularly women in Turkish archaeology and ancient history. This is an important observation because it might be assumed that gender partially involved in academic discourses in Turkey. As Nelson (1997) points out, “the problem is not
113
that archaeology has been unaware of gender, but that gender arrangements of the present have been universalized and read back into the past” (p. 54). As an example of this situation, in Turkey, gender arrangements of the present are historically weaved by the discourses that also contributed to constructing the national identity of the state. As a parallel to emphasizing ‘continuity’ with the high civilizations of Anatolia, the special value given to women in this geography was also shaped by this ‘continuity’ model.
The praise to the matriarchal past in Anatolia, which is revealed in the corpus can be also interpreted in the light of nationalistic discourses about women in Turkish archaeology and ancient history. As I have introduced in Chapter 4, the transition from matriarchy to patriarchy is commonly mentioned in most of the publications of the corpus. However, it is simply accepted that matrilineal societies were earlier than patrilineal ones, so “the interpretation was pro forma, rather than argued” (Nelson, 2004, p. 97). One of the interesting features of these discourses is, one more time, the assertion of ‘continuity’ embedded in them. According to this assertion, matriarchal traditions always continued in Anatolia as a signal of the important positions of women.
Such ‘continuities’ in terms of women’s positions and rights already depict a particular representation of femininity or womanhood, which is again shaped by nationalist ideals. For instance, the mother goddess used as archaeological proof to claim the existence of matriarchy turns to be an eternal representation of the feminine. Moreover, women for the prehistoric periods of Anatolia are mostly defined as those who give birth and nurture and who are closely allied with the body, nature, and sexuality. Among these, sexuality especially corresponds to the unavoidable biological features of women. The FCDA in this thesis reveals that the
114
discursive formation of the idealized prehistoric woman seems quite conventional in Turkish archaeology (Excerpts [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [33], [36]).
A similar comparison can be made with Chinese archaeology and ancient history where the national ideology has also affected the historiographical discourse (Shelach, 2004). A large amount of Chinese archaeological literature was devoted to gender-related issues in the People’s Republic of China, especially from the late 1950s to the 1980s, most were exclusively conducted as part of studies of the social structure of prehistoric society. In these publications, Marxist social theory determined the interpretations of male and female burials in order to reconstruct the marriage system, the social division of labor, and the social status of men and women in prehistoric societies of China (Linduff & Sun, 2004). Nelson (1997) asserts that in the states where Marxism was dominant, “matrilineal societies were treated in a doctrinaire fashion in archaeology” (p. 121).
On the other hand, matriarchy was not involved only in the Marxist theoretical framework. In the feminist literature of the 1970s, the issue of matriarchy was used to argue that women were not always exposed to patriarchy in the remote past. The archaeological evidence of various sites in Turkey, especially Çatalhöyük, supported the inference of a prior matriarchy (Barstow, 1978). On the other hand, these discussions enabled the creation of a ‘matriarchal myth.’ (Eller, 2000; also see Meskell, 1995). Based on the FCDA of the corpus in this thesis, it seems that the feminist literature depicting matriarchy as ‘ideal’ and ‘nostalgic’ affected and continues to affect the interpretations of archaeologists and historians in Turkey.
However, in Turkey, the conventional image of women in matriarchal societies of prehistoric times has remained tied to nationalist discourses rather than being only nurtured from the Marxist-feminist branches. Although in the corpus of
115
the thesis, some references to male exploitation can be followed among the discussions of matriarchy/patriarchy which invoke Marxism (see Excerpt [29]),51 praising women’s status in the light of matriarchy coincides with nationalist discourses that already portray the conventional image of a woman based on wifehood and motherhood. As women have been identified mainly according to their procreative functions in the family, it can be concluded that in Turkish archaeology ‘nostalgic matriarchy’ and ‘privileged Anatolian women’ discourses seem to develop together along with the residues of nationalist discourses from the earlier periods as well as the Marxist-feminist influence. These discourses continue to reflect on the recent and current literature.
As indicated above, common gendered discourses are indispensable to nationalist discourses. Yet, societies do not approve of all genders and sexualities and nationalism is discursively related to particular ideas of genders and sexualities (Nagel, 2016). For instance, certain sexual practices such as masturbation, pre-marital relations, and homosexuality have been identified as both harmful to the individual, as well as to the health of the families (Pryke, 1998). Women and non-heterosexuals are often identified as what men are not and more importantly, they are considered standard to determine proper gender and sexuality (Nagel, 2016). Hence, it is not surprising that in several publications from the corpus, the ignorance of non-heterosexual and non-reproductive sexuality as well as the frequent emphasis on protecting and maintaining nuclear family (Excerpts [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]) are intertwined with the nationalist framework defining sexuality and family.
51 In this excerpt, the utterances such as “master-slave,” “struggle,” “financial interest,” “servitude” can be evaluated within the Marxist theoretical framework.
116
In the light of ‘proper’ gender roles and sexuality, nationalist discourses limit women to the roles such as mothers of the state.52 Therefore, ‘nostalgic matriarchy’ and ‘privileged Anatolian women’ discourses can be interpreted as the molds carrying the remnants of nationalist discourses and later intertwined partially with the Marxist-feminist theoretical framework. However, behind these discourses lies the initial discourse: ‘Men and women are different.’ As discussed in the previous chapter, differentiating men and women conceptually correspond to viewing men and women based on difference and identify each in opposition to the other. ‘Compulsory heterosexuality’ discourse is also attached to this, so they mutually support each other. At the end, the intertextual relationship between these discourses presents how sex/gender/sexuality is understood as a system in Turkish archaeology and ancient history. The FCDA analysis of the corpus in this thesis exhibits that the scholarly interpretation of gender is shaped by the acceptance of the scientifically visible ‘sexual differences’ Therefore, Turkish archaeology and ancient history dominantly reproduced and continue to reproduce ‘men and women are different’ discourse. As Claassen (1992) has already discussed, “what archaeologists are actually looking at is sex and sex roles, not gender” (p. 4). The analysis of the corpus uncovers how scholars frequently use biological classifications to identify gender, which suggests that in Turkey there is no archaeology and ancient history of gender, but biological sex or woman.
More importantly, both archaeology and ancient history constantly produce manhood “as the norm, the subject of discourse, the knowledge, the visible, the positive in opposition to the negative of the feminine” (Baker, 1998, p. 27). In the titles of the selected samples, the high usage of the word ‘women’ (see Chapter 3)
52 Pryke (1998) states that “arguably modern motherhood always has a national connotation of some sort” (p. 542).
117
also proves this situation as it does not represent the prominence of women but rather the invisibility of men as the norm about gender-related issues. Norms are already constructed in a way that they do not become visible. Norms become something that people take for granted. For example, when someone says ‘a male nurse’ or ‘a female football player,’ these expressions reveal the one being out of the norm. What is needed to emphasize and separate is atypical, it is the different one and the exotic one (see Spender, 1980). It is clear that women are treated as a different category to be studied in the analyzed corpus of this thesis.
However, in the corpus, women are sometimes interpreted by questioning patriarchal ideology, which accepts males “as the norm and females as the submissive or exception” (Hartman, 1991, p. 18). This is especially visible with the interpretations that invoke feminist language (Excerpts [6], [18], [19], [20], [21], [40]). It should be also noted that the publications covering the Classical periods are more inclined to produce feminist discourses although classical archaeologists have generally been described as a closed group to contemporary theoretical approaches in the world of archaeology (Alcock and Osborne, 2012, p. 4; Eren, 2015). This should be related to the abundance of both visual and written records during the Classical periods, which do not direct scholars only to a biased or stereotypic understanding of sex/gender/sexuality in the past. For instance, scholars cannot easily stay silent about homosexuality since the historical evidence already exists or they cannot avoid the patriarchal voice of male writers in Ancient Greece, who defined what an ideal woman should be.
In their paper covering the relationship between feminism and Greek archaeology, Kokkinidou & Nikolaidou (2009) claim that even though female archaeologists were interested in women, “on the few occasions that gender has been
118
admitted into the academic sanctum of Greek archaeology, little has been achieved beyond a harmless representation: women have simply been added and stirred into the traditional recipes of the discipline” (p. 32). According to them, women constitute the majority of archaeologists in Greece, but feminist-inspired work has so far been limited to exceptions. They ascribe this situation to “the close entanglement of scholarship with the ideology of the nation-state, belated response to international trends and the absence of an influential feminist movement, thus of feminist theory” (Kokkinidou & Nikolaidou, 2009, p. 27). From this aspect, close parallelism can be remarked between Greek and Turkish archaeology. As Özdoğan (2002) argues, an interesting feature of the second-generation Turkish archaeologists was women’s more visibility as scholars and this visibility is still common today. Özdoğan (2002) adds:
At present, Turkish archaeology is dominated by female archaeologists, and
most archaeology departments are chaired by women. They also constitute a
clear majority in museum-based archaeology. In this respect, at least in the
Middle East, Turkey is a unique case. (p. 119)
This observation was not based on quantitative results and the current situation of women’s participation in Turkish archaeology could be the subject of another detailed study. On the other hand, this leads us to the point that Kokkinidou & Nikolaidou make for the case of Greek archaeology: Because of the remnants of nation-state ideology and the ignorance of third-wave feminism, which requires questioning the identification of sex/gender/sexuality, the high representation of female scholars in archaeology and ancient history does not remove the limitations of interpreting gender-related issues within nationalism. Although Turkish archaeology and ancient history have the potential to produce feminist discourses, recent discussions in feminism are otherized because of the ideological and academic framework in which they are situated. My analysis shows that the first-wave and
119
sometimes second-wave of feminist perspectives can be identified through discourses whereas more recent feminisms are very limited to be characterized. As Brumfiel (2006) argues, although the equality between women and men is growing in academics, women might consider the past within the tradition of patriarchal archaeology as well. This seems valid for the case of Turkey.
In the corpus, another observation can be made through the scholars who adopt more ‘academic’ language for interpreting sex/gender/sexuality (e.g., Cesur, 2019; Yaman, 2020, Gür, 2019). It is important to observe this phenomenon particularly in the recent publications among the younger generation. In addition to these examples, the publications covering the representation of men in the past provide formal descriptions of these representations (e.g., Çelik, 2016; Aydıngün & Reyhan, 2010). The publications that make descriptive analyses and avoid elaborated interpretations for the gender-related issues can be evaluated within the framework of adopting non-political aspects of archaeology in Turkey in the name of being objective. These texts do not provide explicit discourses that have the remnants of nationalist ideology or particular political stances such as feminism. On the other hand, they represent different ways of writing and making interpretations about past genders in Turkish archaeology and ancient history.
120
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSION
This thesis includes the FCDA of 50 academic texts written in Turkish and published between 1950-2020, which directly contain gender-related interpretations in archaeology and ancient history. This study investigates which dominant gendered discourses are reproduced in the selected texts and how these discourses are constructed within scholars’ language-in-use. After classifying and categorizing common gendered discourses, this thesis aims to discuss them within their socio-political context and with their intertextual connections, which is considered important in the scholarship of discourse analysis.
After introducing the research questions and the concepts of sex, gender, and sexuality; the beginning and rise of gender studies in archaeology are summarized in Chapter 2. In addition, the key issues that have been discussed in the literature of gender archaeology are introduced particularly to compare them with the issues in the discussion chapter. In Chapter 3, after defining discourse and discourse analysis, the main principles of CDA and FCDA have been summarized. At the end of this chapter, by introducing the previous research that combines archaeology, language, and gender, it is explained how this thesis contributes to the current archaeological and linguistic scholarship. In Chapter 4, the reasons for conducting a qualitative analysis are clarified. In addition, the corpus is introduced with its initial characteristics and the ways it was selected based on specific criteria are explained. As the core of this study, in Chapters 5 and 6, prevalent discourses as the findings of the analysis are categorized and identified through several examples. These discourses are also situated within their context and it is shown how the reproduction
121
of gendered discourses is closely connected with nationalist ideology in which archaeology has established and maintained itself in Turkey.
This analysis provides important results for revealing how archaeologists and historians perceive sex/gender/sexuality as a system in Turkey. Firstly, it has been observed that despite exceptions, there is usually no clear division between ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ in the written languages of scholars, which might be related to the fact that these terms usually overlap in Turkish. The reason might be that ‘toplumsal cinsiyet,’ the phrase for ‘gender’ in Turkish, is still not used in daily language. Such overlapping usages of ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ enable scholars to take biological sex as a reference to interpret socially constructed gender. It has been also discovered that ‘gender’ corresponds mainly to ‘women.’ Therefore, the general academic interest in gender can be defined as searching and situating women from prehistoric and ancient periods.
The correspondence of ‘gender’ to ‘woman’ in Turkish archaeology and ancient history demonstrates that men are accepted as the default category of human. As feminist scholars previously argued (see Chapter 2), women are usually regarded as ‘exotic’ or ‘out of the norm.’ This thesis shows that the case of Turkey provides a clear example of this situation.
On the other hand, it can be concluded that the academic interest in gender in archaeology and ancient history is not new despite the noticeable number of related publications in the last decade. The intertextual relationship between academic discourses about women’s civil rights and social status with nationalist discourses on women demonstrates that women have been constantly discussed in both archaeology and history since the Early Republican period in Turkey. This also
122
proves that gendered discourses about women in archaeology and ancient history are explicitly related to the paradigms of nationalism.
Apart from the effects of Early Republican discourses, after the 1970s, the archaeological and ancient historical literature seems to be superficially influenced by Marxist-feminist approaches. In the FCDA analysis here, the effects of feminism have been detected in several publications. However, scholars are inclined to exclude recent feminist perspectives, such as third-wave and/or fourth-wave feminisms, because of the hegemonic principles of the official ideology and academic framework in which archaeology and history are situated. To elaborate more, it would not be wrong to claim that feminist approaches are being intentionally selected in these disciplines in Turkey.
The named discourses after the analysis also reveal the promotion of ‘continuity’ especially in terms of women’s civil rights, the matriarchal traditions, and the existence of family as institution in Anatolia. Yet, the promotion of ‘continuity’ enables the present to be always there while investigating the past. Such an approach that builds a bridge between the past and the present in terms of gender issues tends to trivialize many aspects of gender. At the end, it projects back institutions and norms such as family or heterosexuality from the known historical periods to the prehistoric periods.
Apart from interpreting sex/gender/sexuality, the findings of the FCDA uncover some of the characteristics of archaeological and ancient historical research in Turkey. First, in these disciplines, gender-related issues are discussed based mostly on written sources rather than archaeological data. It can be proposed that such situation originates from the tendency of relying on written documents as ‘facts’ without having much critical eyes on them (see Chapter 5). Moreover, the
123
publications in the corpus consist of very limited discursive references from international discussions about gender. Finally, the authors who interpret gender generally tend to reflect their academic authorities and political positionings explicitly or implicitly on their language. However, when it comes to gender, there are also several scholars distancing themselves against making direct inferences and utilizing theoretical perspectives. This group prefers the principles of the positivist approach and ‘objective’ or more ‘scientific’ language.
It is hoped that the consequences of this analysis will raise more self-reflexive and critical approaches to gender in archaeology and history in Turkey.
7.1 Limitations
Although the analyzed publications in the corpus were selected based on certain criteria to diversify them and increase their rate of representation (see: Chapter 4), it is important to note that the selection depended on the decisions of this thesis’ author. As a limitation of these selections, the highest number of the represented publications is from the years between 2010 and 2020. Therefore, there is still a need for analysis of more publications, especially before the 1990s. Since the beginning of the years of publications does not extend to before the 1950s in the corpus, this study represents limited periods within the history of the Turkish Republic.
In terms of methodology, the study remains inadequate to support the findings with quantitative analysis, for example, corpus linguistics. In addition, the socio-political context is only presented in broad strokes to provide framework. Positioning gendered discourses into a macro analysis that includes detailed information about the socio-political history of Turkey should be considered for future research.
124
In this thesis, the sex of the authors was not considered to be a major agent for evaluating language-in-use. Thus, the texts were not categorized and analyzed separately according to the sexes of the authors. This is particularly avoided due to the risks of reproducing stereotypes on the idea that men and women use different languages. Finally, there had been difficulties to understand what the authors really imply by using the words, “kadın” and/or “erkek” and translate them into English, since these words have always the possibility to refer to either biological sex or gender of men and women in Turkish. Their meanings are mostly inferred from the contexts of the sentences in which they are used.
7.2 Future directions
In this FCDA, the selection of the analyzed publications was made according to the gender-related keywords in their titles. For future studies, by selecting a more comprehensive corpus, it will be important to look at the discourses inside the publications, which include interpretations of gender in a separate section or between the paragraphs.
Beyond the written academic discourses, the spoken languages of archaeologists and historians can be investigated. For example, it can be researched whether they interpret the archaeological features such as pits and walls with a gendered view in the fieldwork. Parallel to this, field reports or excavation-based publications can be analyzed to discover whether gendered discourses are absent there. More sociolinguistic studies can be conducted in disciplinary contexts by analyzing the language of female and male archaeologists in the fieldwork to see what is common in their language-in-use. In the fieldwork, the biased or
125
discriminatory language can be also revealed by analyzing the experiences of ‘marginalized’ people such as non-heterosexuals.
The intertextual research of gendered discourses has also the potential for further research. In the future, it can be presented how archaeologists and historians in Turkey produce similar discourses with their colleagues from different countries. In this way, the intercontinental networks between the gender-related studies might increase.
As the final point, more studies should be done about men and masculinities in archaeology/history in order to deconstruct ‘man’ as the default category of human.
126
APPENDIX
[THE LIST OF THE ANALYZED PUBLICATIONS]
Title(s)
Author(s)
Year of Publication
Hititlerden Önceki Anadolu Halkının Evlilik Hukukunun Orijinal Tarafları
Emin Bilgiç
1951
Eski Anadolu'da Kadının Mevkii
Füruzan Kınal
1956
Paleolitik Devirlerde Kadın Figürinleri
Işın Yalçınkaya
1971
Eski Anadoluda Kadın
Muhibbe Darga
1984
Hitit Kadınının Hukuki Durumu
Aygül Süel
1992
Hitit Sarayında Kraliçelerin Rolü
Ekrem Memiş
1993
Tarih Öncesinden Demir Çağ'a Anadolu'da Kadın
Edibe Uzunoğlu
1993
Anadolu Tarihi Çağlarında Kadın
Muhibbe Darga
1993
Yunan/Hellen Uygarlığında Kadın
Muhibbe Darga
1993
Roma Uygarlığında Kadının Yeri
Muhibbe Darga
1993
Sümer’de Kadın
Muazzez İlmiye Çığ
1999
Eski Önasya'da Çocuk
Hayat Erkanal
2001
Mezopotamya'da Aile ve Evlilik
Gülriz Kozbe
2001
Eskiçağda Grek Kadının Toplumsal Yaşantısı
Ayşe Gül Akalın
2003
Eleusis'de Demeter Kültü ve Kadın Ritüelleri
Ayşen Sina
2004
Eski Anadolu'da Feminizmin Öncülerinden Bir Kraliçe Portresi: Kizzuwatnalı Puduhepa
Ahmet Ünal
2005
Yerleşik Hayat Öncesi: Yaratan Beden
Şengül Aydıngün
2005
Kentleşme ve Tuncun Keşfi: İlk Tunç Çağının Kutsal Bedenleri
Şengül Aydıngün
2005
Çivi Yazılı Belgelere Göre Eski Anadolu Kadını Hakkında Bazı Gözlemler
Cem Karasu
2006
Roma İmparatorluğu’nu Yöneten Suriyeli Kadınlar
Mehmet Ali Kaya
2006
Hititlerde Kadın ve Siyaset
Yusuf Kılıç & H. Hande Duymuş
2007
Hellen Evlilik Ritüelinde Kadının Rolü ve Sosyal Konumu
Aslı Saraçoğlu
2007
Asur Ticaret Kolonileri Çağı’nda Anadolu Kraliçeleri
Remzi Kuzuoğlu
2007
Antik Yunan ve Roma Sanatında Cinsellik ve Erotizm
İsmail Gezgin
2010
Sakalını Tutan Bir Erkek Figür Hitit Tapınak Görevlilerinden LÚAlan.zu9 Olabilir Mi?
Şengül Aydıngün & Esma Reyhan
2010
127
Tarih Öncesi Çağlarda Anadolu'da Kadın-Mucizenin Kaynağı, Bereketli ve Her Şeye Hâkim
Şengül Aydıngün
2013
Kadınlara Özel Bir Bayram: Thesmophoria
Emine Çaykara
2013
Demir Çağı'nda Anadolu Kadını: Urartu, Frig ve Lidya
Erkan Konyar
2013
Antik Dönemde Anadolu'da Kadın
Nuran Şahin
2013
Šapinuva'nın Kraliçesi Taduhepa
Aygül Süel
2013
Hitit Kralı ve Kraliçesi Arasındaki Dikotomik Eşitlik Üzerine Bazı Tespitler
Tülin Cengiz
2014
Eskiçağ Aile Hukuku
Yusuf Kılıç
2014
Asur Ticaret Kolonileri Çağı’nda Aile Hukukunda Kadın (MÖ. 1950-1750)
Ebru Mandacı
2015
Toprak Altındaki Kadının Sessiz Çığlığı: Eskiçağ'da Kadın
Binnur Çelebi
2015
Roma Vatandaş Hukukunun Konusu Olarak Kadın
Hatice Palaz Erdemir
2016
Çivi Yazılı Hukuki Belgelere Göre Mezopotamya’da Kadın
Yüksel Arslantaş & Rüstem Kadri Septioğlu
2016
Cumhuriyetten İmparatorluğa Geçiş Döneminde Roma Şehirli Kadınının Değişimi
Hatice Palaz Erdemir & Onur Günday & Nurcan Barman
2016
Anadolu’da Hitit Döneminde Kadın ve Önemi
Leyla Murat
2016
Seramiksiz Neolitik Dönem Erkek Figürleri
Bahattin Çelik
2016
Yasalar ve Gelenekler Işığında Arkaik ve Klasik Dönem Yunan ve Cumhuriyet Dönemi Romalı Kadınların Aile Hayatı
Elif Burcu Özkan
2017
İlkçağda Kadın: Toplumsal Cinsiyet Eşitliği Bakımından Hellenistik Çağ Öncesi İlkçağ Tarihine Genel Bakış
Mehmet Ali Kaya & Kevser Taşdöner
2017
Hitit Dini Ritüellerinde Kadınların Görevleri ve Rolleri
Murat Turgut
2017
Yazılı Belgeler Işığında Hitit Kadınları
Sezer Seçer Fidan
2018
Eşyanın Cinsiyeti: Hitit Ritüellerinde Kadın
Sevgül Çilingir Cesur
2019
Eski Çağda Anadolu ve Mezopotamya’da Aile
Recep Özman
2019
İzmir Arkeoloji Müzesi’nden Bir Miken Figürini ve Miken Kadın Figürinlerinin Doğu Akdeniz’deki Dolaşımı
Barış Gür
2019
Eskiçağda Cinsiyet ve Kadın
Hatice Palaz Erdemir
2019
Paleolitik Çağ Sanatında Kadın Heykelcikleri
İrfan Deniz Yaman
2020
128
Eski Yunan Heykeltıraşlığında Kadın ve Çıplaklık Üzerine
Meral Hakman
2020
Mezopotamya'da Kadın Olmak
Gülriz Kozbe
2020
129
REFERENCES
Akalın, A. (2003). Eskiçağda Grek kadının toplumsal yaşantısı. Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi, 22(33), 17-47. doi.org/10.1501/Tarar_0000000140
Alberti, B. (2006). Archaeology, men, and masculinities. In S. M. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of gender in archaeology (pp. 401-434). New York: Altamira Press.
Alberti, B., & Back Danielsson, I.-M. (2014). Gender, feminist, and queer archaeologies: USA perspective. In C. Smith (Ed.), Encyclopedia of global archaeology (pp. 2988-2997). New York: Springer. doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2_1024
Angermuller, J., Maingueneau, D., & Wodak, R. (2014). The discourse studies reader: An introduction. In J. Angermuller, D. Maingueneau & R. Wodak (Eds.), The discourse studies reader: Main currents in theory and analysis (pp. 1-13). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Arat, Z. (1994). Turkish women and the republican reconstruction of tradition. In F. M. Göçek & S. Balaghi (Eds.), Reconstructing gender in the Middle East (pp. 38-51). New York: Columbia University Press.
Arribas-Ayllon, M. & Walkerdine, V. (2017). Foucauldian discourse analysis. In C. Willig & R. W. Stainton (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology (2nd ed., pp. 110-123). London: Sage Publications. doi.org/10.4135/9781526405555
Arslantaş, Y. & Septioğlu, R. (2016). Çivi yazılı hukukî belgelere göre Mezopotamya’da kadın. Fırat Üniversitesi Orta Doğu Araştırmaları Dergisi, 12(1), 1-41.
Atakuman, Ç. (2008). Cradle or crucible: Anatolia and archaeology in the early years of the Turkish Republic (1923-1938). Journal of Social Archaeology, 8(2), 214-235. doi.org/10.1177/1469605308089965
Audi, R. (2011). Epistemology: A contemporary introduction to the theory of knowledge (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Aydıngün, Ş. G. (2005a). Yerleşik hayat öncesi yaratan beden/Presettlement: the creative body. In Ş. G. Aydıngün (Ed.), Tunç Çağının gizemli kadınları/Mysterious women of the Bronze Age (pp.1-27). İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
Aydıngün, Ş. G. (2005b). Kentleşme ve tuncun keşfi: İlk Tunç Çağı’nın kutsal bedenleri/Urbanization, the invention of bronze and the sacred bodies of the EBA. In Ş. G. Aydıngün (Ed.), Tunç Çağının gizemli kadınları/Mysterious women of the Bronze Age (pp. 29-80). İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
130
Aydıngün, Ş. G. & Reyhan, E. (2010). Sakalını tutan bir erkek figür, Hitit tapınak görevlilerinden LÚAlan.zu9 olabilir mi?. In Ş. Dönmez (Ed.), Veysel Donbaz'a sunulan yazılar DUB.SAR E.DUB.BA. A, Studies presented in honour of Veysel Donbaz (pp. 27-34). İstanbul: Ege Yayınları.
Aydıngün, Ş. G. (2013). Mucizenin kaynağı, bereketli ve her şeye hâkim. In E. Çaykara (Ed.), Anadolu’da kadın: On bin yıldır eş, anne, tüccar, kraliçe/A. Muhibbe Darga (pp. 43-50). İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
Back Danielsson, I.-M. B. (2012). Much ado about nothing? Gender research in journals during the last 30 years within archaeology. In I.-M. Back Danielsson & S. Thedéen (Eds.), To tender gender: The pasts and futures of gender research in archaeology (pp. 17-32). Stockholm: Stockholm University Press.
Bahrani, Z., Çelik, Z., & Eldem, E. (Eds.). (2011). Geçmişe hücum: Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda arkeolojinin öyküsü, 1753-1914. İstanbul: Salt Yayınları.
Baker, M. (1998). Italian gender theory and archaeology. In R. D. Whitehouse (Ed.), Gender and Italian archaeology: Challenging the stereotypes (pp. 23-33). New York: Routledge.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). The problem of speech genres. In C. Emerson, M. Holquist (Ed.), Speech genres and other late essays (pp. 60-102). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Barstow, A. (1978). The uses of archeology for women’s history: James Mellaart’s work on the Neolithic goddess at Çatal Hüyük. Feminist Studies, 4(3). 7-18. doi.org/10.2307/3177535
Bauer, M. & Aarts, B. (2000). Corpus construction: a principle for qualitative data collection. In Bauer, M. W., & Gaskell, G. (Eds.), Qualitative researching with text, image and sound (1st ed., pp. 20-37). London: Sage Publications. doi.org/10.4135/9781849209731
Bavelas, J. B., Kenwood, C. & Phillips, B. (2002). Discourse analysis. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 102-29). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Becher, T. & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories (2nd ed.). Milton Keynes: Open Universities Press.
Bernard, H. (2000). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bilgiç, E. (1951). Hititlerden önceki Anadolu halkının evlilik hukukunun orijinal tarafları. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(3), 227-238. doi.org/10.1501/Dtcfder_0000000944
131
Blackless, M., Charuvastra, A., Derryck, A., Fausto-Sterling, A., Lauzanne, K., & Lee, E. (2000). How sexually dimorphic are we? Review and synthesis. American Journal of Human Biology, 12(2), 151-166. Bolger, D. (2012). Introduction. In D. Bolger (Ed.). A companion to gender prehistory (pp. 1-21). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. doi.org/10.1002/9781118294291.ch0
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Breeze, R. (2011). Critical discourse analysis and its critics. Pragmatics, 21(4), 493-525. doi.org/10.1075/prag.21.4.01bre Brown, J. (1970). A note on the division of labor by sex. American Anthropologist, 72(5), 1073-1078. Brown, P. (1994). Gender, politeness, and confrontation in Tenejapa. In C. Roman, S. Juhasz & C. Miller (Eds.), The women and language debate: A sourcebook (pp. 322-339). New Bamswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Brumfiel, E. M. (2006). Methods in feminist and gender archaeology: A feeling for difference and likeness. In S. M. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of gender in archaeology (pp. 31-58). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. Bucholtz, M. (2014). The Feminist Foundations of Language, Gender, and Sexuality Research. In S. Ehrlich, M. Meyerhoff & J. Holmes (Eds.), The Handbook of Language, Gender, and Sexuality (pp. 23-47). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. doi.org/10.1002/9781118584248.ch1 Burkette, A. (2015). Language and material culture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Burr, V. (2003). Social constructionism (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Burtt, F. (1987). Man, the hunter: Bias in children’s archaeology books. Archaeology as Education, 6(2), 157-174. doi.org/10.17863/CAM.33488 Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.
Cameron, D. (2007). Unanswered questions and unquestioned assumptions in the study of language and gender: Female verbal superiority. Gender and Language, 1(1), 15-26. doi.org/10.1558/genl.2007.1.1.15
Carli, L. L., & Eagly, A. H. (2017). Leadership and gender. In J. Antonakis, & D. V. Day (Eds.), The nature of leadership (3rd ed., pp. 244-271). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Carroll, R. (2012). Introduction: Feminism, queer theory and heterosexuality. In Rereading heterosexuality: feminism, queer theory and contemporary fiction (pp. 1-22). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
132
Cealey, H. W. & Hood-Williams, J. (2002). Beyond sex and gender. London: Sage.
Cengiz, T. (2014). Hitit kralı ve kraliçesi arasındaki dikotomik eşitlik üzerine bazı tespitler. Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi, 33(56), 19-34. doi.org/10.1501/Tarar_0000000578
Cesur, Ç. S. (2019). Eşyanın cinsiyeti: Hitit ritüellerinde kadın. TÜBA-AR Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi, (24), 73-89.
Chard, C. S. (1960). The Neolithic in northern Asia: A cultural area approach. Anthropologica, 2(2), 240-248. doi:10.2307/25604471 Cheek, J. (2004). At the margins? Discourse analysis and qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 14(8), 1140-1150. doi.org/10.1177/1049732304266820
Claassen, C. (Ed.). (1992). Exploring gender through archaeology: Selected papers from the 1991 Boone Conference. Madison, WI: Prehistory Press.
Claassen, C. (1992). Questioning gender: an introduction. In C. Claassen (Ed.), Exploring gender through archaeology: Selected papers from the 1991 Boone Conference (pp. 1–9). Madison, WI: Prehistory Press.
Claassen, C. (1994). Introduction. In C. Claassen (Ed.), Women in archaeology (pp. 1-8). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Clancy, K. B. H., Nelson, R. G., Rutherford, J. N., & Hinde. K. (2014). Survey of academic field experiences (SAFE): Trainees report harassment and assault. PLoS ONE, 9(7), 1-9. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102172
Clarke, D. L. (1972). A provisional model of an Iron Age society and its settlement system. In D. L. Clarke (Ed.), Models in Archaeology (1st ed., pp. 801-85). London: Methuen.
Cobb, H., & Croucher, K. (2016). Personal, political, pedagogic: Challenging the binary bind in archaeological teaching, learning and fieldwork. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 23(3), 949-969. Conkey, M., & Spector, J. (1984). Archaeology and the Study of Gender. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 7, 1-38. doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-003107-8.50006-2
Conkey, M. (2007). Questioning theory: Is there a gender of theory in archaeology? Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 14(3), 285-310. doi.org/10.1007/s10816-007-9039-z
Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Cambridge: Polity Press. Connell, R., & Messerschmidt, J. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender and Society, 19(6), 829-859. doi.org/10.1177/0891243205278639
133
Connell, R.W. (2009). Gender in world perspective. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Costin, C. L. (1996). Exploring the relationship between gender and craft in complex societies: methodological and theoretical issues of gender attribution. In R. P. Wright (Ed.), Gender and archaeology (pp. 111-140). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Coşar, S. (2007). Women in Turkish political thought: Between tradition and modernity. Feminist Review, (86), 113-131. doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.fr.9400337
Crenshaw, K. W. (2011). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sez: A black feminist critique of doctrine, feminist theory and anti-racist politics. In M. T. H. Vivar, H. Lutz & L. Supik (Eds.), Framing intersectionality: Debates on a multi-faceted concept in gender studies (1st ed., pp. 25-42). Ashgate: Farnham.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Croucher, K. (2012). Death and dying in the Neolithic Near East. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Croucher, E. & Belcher, E. H. (2016). Exchanges of identity in prehistoric Anatolian figurines. In O. Kaelin, R. Stucky & A. Jamieson. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East: June 9-13, 2014, University of Basel. Volume 1: Travelling images - transfer and transformation of visual ideas; Dealing with the past: Finds, booty, gifts, spoils, heirlooms; Collections at risk: Sustainable strategies for managing Near Eastern Archaeolo (pp. 43-56). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvc770z3
Çaykara, E. (2013). Kadınlara özel bir bayram: Thesmophoria. In E. Çaykara (Ed.), Anadolu’da kadın: On bin yıldır eş, anne, tüccar, kraliçe/A. Muhibbe Darga (pp. 43-50). İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
Çelebi, B. (2015). Toprak altındaki kadının sessiz çığlığı: Eski Çağ’da kadın. İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları.
Çelik, B. (2016). Yeni buluntular ışığında seramiksiz Neolitik dönem erkek figürleri. Kafkas Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (17), 3-18.
Çığ, M. (1999). Sümer’de Kadın, In XII. Türk Tarih Kongresi, 12-16 Eylül 1994, Ankara (I. Cilt) (pp. 51-58). Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu.
Çilingiroğlu, Ç. (2015). Kültür tarihçiliği kıskacında Türkiye arkeolojisi: Arkeolojiye kanatlarını verebilir miyiz?. In Ç. Çilingiroğlu & N. P. Özgüner (Eds.), Değişen arkeoloji 1. TAG Türkiye toplantısı bildirileri (pp. 13-23). İstanbul: Ege Yayınları. Dahlberg, F. (1981). Introduction. In F. Dahlberg (Ed.), Woman the gatherer (pp. 1-35). New Haven: Yale University Press.
134
Darga, M. (1984). Eski Anadoluda kadın (2nd edition), İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları. Darga M. (1993a). Anadolu tarihi çağlarında kadın. In G. Renda (Ed.), Çağlar boyu Anadolu’da kadın, Anadolu kadınının 9000 yılı (pp. 26-35). İstanbul: Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları. Darga, M. (1993b). Yunan/Hellen uygarlığında kadın. In G. Renda (Ed.), Çağlar boyu Anadolu’da kadın, Anadolu kadınının 9000 yılı (pp. 118-120). İstanbul: Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları. Darga, M. (1993c). Roma uygarlığında kadının yeri. In G. Renda (Ed.), Çağlar boyu Anadolu’da kadın, Anadolu kadınının 9000 yılı (pp. 121-124). İstanbul: Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları.
Descola, P. & Pálsson, G. (1996). Nature and society: Anthropological perspectives (1st ed.). New York: Routledge.
de Beauvoir, S. (1953) The second sex. New York: Vintage Books.
De Leiuen, C. (2015). Discourse through the looking glass: Gender in the language of archaeological journals. Archaeologies, 11(3), 417-444. doi.org/10.1007/s11759-015-9284-9
De Leiuen, C. (2018). Landscapes of gender in archaeology: Theory, discourse, practice (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Flinders University, Australia.
Denzin, N. (1994). Romancing the text: The qualitative researcher-writer-as-bricoleur. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, (122), 15-30.
Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide for social scientists (1st ed.). London: Routledge. doi.org/10.4324/9780203412497
Díaz-Andreu, M., & Champion, T. (Eds.). (1996). Nationalism and archaeology in Europe (1st ed.). London: Routledge. doi.org/10.4324/9781315748221
Díaz-Andreu, M. & Sørensen, M. L. S. (1998). Towards an engendered history of archaeology. In M. Díaz-Andreu & M. L. S. Sørensen (Eds.), Excavating women: A history of women in European archaeology (pp. 1-28). London: Routledge.
Díaz‐Andreu, M., Lucy, S., Babić, S., & Edwards, D. (2005). The archaeology of identity: Approaches to gender, age, status, ethnicity and religion. London: Routledge.
Dinç, B. (2015). Arkeoloji eğitiminin temel bir sorunu olarak akademik kendileşme ve arkeolojideki yansımaları. In Ç. Çilingiroğlu & N. P. Özgüner (Eds.), Değişen arkeoloji 1. TAG Türkiye toplantısı bildirileri (pp. 41-45). İstanbul: Ege Yayınları.
135
Dommasnes, L. H. (1976). Yngre jernalder i sogn: Forsok på sosial rekonstruksjon (Unpublished Master’s thesis). University of Bergen, Norway. Dowson, T. A. (2000). Why queer archaeology? An introduction. World Archaeology, 32(2), 161-165. doi.org/10.1080/00438240050131144
Dowson, T. A. (2006). Archaeologists, feminists and queers: sexual politics in the construction of the past. In P. Geller & M. Stockett (Eds.), Feminist anthropology: Past, present, and future (pp. 89-102). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Dowson, T. A. (2016) Queer theory meets archaeology: Disrupting epistemological privilege and heteronormativity in constructing the past. In N. Giffney & M. O'Rourke (Eds.), The Ashgate research companion to queer theory (pp. 277-292). New York: Routledge.
Duberley, J., Johnson, P., & Cassell, C. (2012). Philosophies underpinning qualitative research. In G. Symon, & C. Cassell (Eds.), Qualitative organizational research (pp. 15-34). London: Sage. doi.org/10.4135/9781526435620.n2
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598. doi.org/10.1037/0033- 295X.109.3.573
Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2003). Language and gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511791147
Eller, C. (2000). The myth of matriarchal prehistory: Why an invented past won’t give women a future. Boston: Beacon Press.
Engels, F. (1884). The origins of the family, private property and the state. Stuttgart: Dietz. Engelstad, E. (2007). Much More than Gender. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 14(3), 217-234. doi.org/10.1007/s10816-007-9035-3 Eren, K. (2015). Türkiye’de klasik arkeoloji geleneğinin “İyonya” imgesi. In Ç. Çilingiroğlu & N. P. Özgüner (Eds.), Değişen arkeoloji 1. TAG Türkiye toplantısı bildirileri (pp. 25-34). İstanbul: Ege Yayınları. Erdemir, P. H. (2016). Roma vatandaş hukukunun konusu olarak kadın. Tarih Dergisi, (63), 1-26. Erdemir P. H., Günday, O., & Barman, N. (2016). Cumhuriyetten imparatorluğa geçiş döneminde Roma şehirli kadınının değişimi. In O. Köse (Ed.), Geçmişten günümüze şehir ve kadın I (pp. 59-72). Samsun: Canik Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları. Erdemir, P. H. (2019). Eskiçağda cinsiyet ve kadın. Serencam Yayınevi.
136
Erdur, O. (2003). Bilginin değeri sorunsalı ve Türkiye’de arkeolojinin koşul ve olasılıkları üzerine. In O. Erdur & G. Duru (Eds.), Arkeoloji: Niye? Nasıl? Ne İçin? (pp. 199-223). İstanbul: Ege Yayınları. Eren, K. (2015). Türkiye’de Klasik Arkeoloji geleneğinin “İyonya” imgesi. In Ç. Çilingiroğlu & N. P. Özgüner (Eds.), Değişen arkeoloji 1. TAG Türkiye toplantısı bildirileri (pp. 25-34). İstanbul: Ege Yayınları. Erkanal, H. (2001). Eski Ön Asya’da çocuk. In B. Onur (Ed.), Dünyada ve Türkiye’de değişen çocukluk/Changing childhood in the world and in Turkey: III. Ulusal çocuk kültürü kongresi bildirileri 16-18 Ekim 2000 (pp. 117-127). Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Çocuk Kültürü Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi. Ersanlı, B. (2003). İktidar ve tarih/Türkiye’de “resmî tarih” tezinin oluşumu (1929-1937). İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları. Eyifa-Dzidzienyo, G., & Kankpeyeng, B. (2014). Gender in archaeology: A Ghanaian perspective. In Anquandah J., Kankpeyeng B., & Apoh W. (Eds.), Current perspectives in the archaeology of Ghana (pp. 110-122). Ghana: Sub-Saharan Publishers. Fairclough, N. (1985). Critical and descriptive goals in discourse analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, (9), 739-763. doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(85)90002-5 Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power (1st ed.). London: Longman. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity. Fairclough, N. (2001). The discourse of new labour: Critical discourse analysis. In M. Wetherell (Ed.), Discourse as data: A guide for analysis (1st ed., pp. 229-266). Sage Publications Ltd. & the Open University. Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. doi.org/10.4324/9781315834368 Fairclough, N., Mulderrig, J. & Wodak, R. (2011). Critical Discourse Analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (pp.357–378). London: Sage. Fairclough, N. (2015a). Language and power (3rd ed.). London: Routledge. Fairclough, N. (2015b). Textual Analysis. In M. Bevir & R. A. W. Rhodes (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of interpretive political science (pp. 186-198). London: Routledge. Fausto-Sterling, A. (1985). Myths of gender: Biological theories about women and men. New York: Basic Books. Fausto-Sterling, A. (1993). The five sexes: Why male and female are not enough. The Sciences, (33), 20-24. doi.org/10.1002/j.2326-1951.1993.tb03081.x
137
Fidan, S. S. (2018). Yazılı belgeler ışığında Hitit kadınları, Arkeoloji ve Sanat, (157), 25-43.
Flannery, K. V. & Winter, M. C. (1976). Analyzing household activities. In K. V. Flannery (Ed.), The early Mesoamerican village (pp. 34-47). New York: Academic Press.
Flower, L. (1989). Negotiating academic discourse (Tech. Rep. 29). Pittsburgh, PA: Center for the Study of Writing, Carnegie Mellon University.
Folorunso, C. A. (2007). Ethnoarchaeological studies in parts of Nigeria. In S. Hamilton, R. D. Whitehouse & K. I. Wright (Eds.), Archaeology and women: Ancient and modern issues (pp. 353-372). Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.
Fotopoulou, A. (2012). Intersectionality queer studies and hybridity: Methodological frameworks for social research. Journal of International Women's Studies, 13(2), 19-32.
Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. New York: Pantheon.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish. London: Allen Lane.
Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality. New York: Pantheon Books.
Fowler, R., Hodge, R., Kress, G. & Trew, T. (1979). Language and control. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Fuglestvedt, I. (2014). Declaration on behalf of an archaeology of sexe. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 21(1), 46-75. doi.org/10.1007/s10816-012-9136-5 Gee, J. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (1st ed.). New York: Routledge. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Gellner, E. (1987). Culture, identity and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Geller, P. L. (2005). Skeletal analysis and theoretical complications. World Archaeology, 37(4), 597-609. doi.org/10.1080/00438240500404391
Geller, P. L. (2009). Identity and difference: Complicating gender in archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 38(1), 65-81. doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-091908-164414
Geller, P. L. (2017). The bioarchaeology of social-sexual lives: Queering common sense about sex, gender, and sexuality. Switzerland: Springer Press. doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40995-5
138
Gergen, K. J. (1999). An invitation to social constructionism. London: Sage.
Gerstel, N. (2003). Family. In W. Outhwaite (Ed.), The Blackwell dictionary of modern social thought (2nd ed.). Maiden, MA: Blackwell. Gero, J. M. (1985). Socio-politics and the woman-at-home ideology. American Antiquity, 50(2), 342-350. doi:10.2307/280492
Gero, J. M. & Conkey, M. W. (Ed.). (1991). Engendering archaeology: Women and prehistory. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Gezgin, İ. (2010). Antik Yunan ve Roma sanatında cinsellik ve erotizm. İstanbul: Alfa Yayınları. Ghisleni, L., Jordan, A., & Fioccoprile, E. (2016). Introduction to binary binds: Deconstructing sex and gender dichotomies in archaeological practice. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 23(3), 765-787. doi.org/10.1007/s10816-016-9296-9
Gilchrist, R. (1991). Women's archaeology? Political feminism, gender theory and historical revision. Antiquity, 65(248), 495-501. doi:10.1017/S0003598X00080091 Gilchrist, R. (1999). Gender and archaeology: Contesting the past. London: Routledge. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. Q. Hoare, G. N. Smith, (Eds.). New York: International Publishers.
Guest, G., Namey, E. & Mitchell, M. (2013). Qualitative research: defining and designing. In G. Guest, E. Namey & M. Mitchell (Eds.), Collecting qualitative data: A field manual for applied research (pp. 1-40). London: Sage. doi.org/10.4135/9781506374680
Gür, A. (2010). Political excavations of the Anatolian past: Nationalism and archaeology in Turkey. In R. Boytner, L. S. Dodd & B. J. Parker (Eds.), Controlling the past, owning the future: The political uses of archaeology in the Middle East (pp. 68-89). Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Gür, B. (2019). İzmir Arkeoloji Müzesi’nden bir Miken figürini ve Miken kadın figürinlerinin Doğu Akdeniz’deki dolaşımı. TÜBA-AR Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi, (25), 95-108. doi.org/10.22520/tubaar.2019.25.007
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 1, reason and the rationalization of society (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press. (Original work published 1981).
Haig, D. (2004). The inexorable rise of gender and the decline of sex: Social change in academic titles, 1945–2001. Archives of Sexual Behavior, (33), 87-96. doi.org/10.1023/B:ASEB.0000014323.56281.0d
139
Hakman, M. (2020). Eski Yunan heykeltıraşlığında kadın ve çıplaklık üzerine. In M. Hakman (Ed.), Prehistoryadan günümüze kadın (pp. 23-45). Ankara: Bilgin Kültür Sanat Yayınları. Halberstam, J. (1998). Female masculinity. Durham: Duke University Press.
Halberstam, J. (2020). 31 Gender. In B. Burgett & G. Hendler (Ed.), Keywords for American cultural studies (3rd edition) (pp. 123-125). New York: New York University Press. doi.org/10.18574/9781479867455-033
Harrington, K., Litosseliti, L., Sauntson, H. & Sunderland, J. (Eds.). (2008). Gender and language research methodologies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hartman, J. E. (1991). Telling stories: The construction of women's agency. In J. E. Hartman, E. Messer-Dawidow (Eds.), (En)gendering knowledge, feminists in academe. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press.
Helgesen, S. (1990). The female advantage: Women's ways of leadership. New York: Doubleday.
Hennessy, R. (2000). Profit and pleasure: Sexual identities in late capitalism. New York: Routledge.
Hill, E. (1998). Gender-Informed archaeology: The priority of definition, the use of analogy, and the multivariate approach. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 5(1), 99-128.
Hodge, R. & Kress, G. (1993). Language as ideology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Hollimon, S. E. (2006). The archaeology of nonbinary genders in native north American societies. In S. M. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of gender in archaeology (pp. 435-453). Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
Hollway, W. (1984). Gender differences and the production of the subject. In J. Henriques, W. Hollway, C. Urwin, C. Venn & V. Walkderdine (Eds.), Changing the subject (pp. 227-263), London: Methuen.
Hooks, B. (1984). Feminist theory: From margin to center. Cambridge: South End Press.
Hutson, S. (2002). Gendered citation practices in American antiquity and other archaeology journals. American Antiquity, 67(2), 331-342. doi.org/10.2307/2694570
Hyland, K. (2011). Academic discourse. In Hyland, KL & Paltridge, B (Eds.), Continuum companion to discourse. London and New York: Continuum.
İnan, A. (1962). The emancipation of the Turkish woman. Amsterdam: United Nations Educational.
140
Jagose, A. (2005). Queer theory. In M. C. Horowitz (Ed.), New dictionary of the history of ideas (pp. 1980-1985). Detroit: Charles Scribner's Sons. Jagose, A. (2009). Feminism’s queer theory. Feminism & Psychology, 19(2), 157-174. doi.org/10.1177/0959353509102152
Joyce, R. (2002). The languages of archaeology: Dialogue, narrative, and writing. Oxford: Blackwell.
Joyce, R. A. (2008). Ancient bodies, ancient lives: Sex, gender, and archaeology. New York: Thames & Hudson.
Kafadar, C. & Karateke, H. T. (2011). Late Ottoman and Early Republican Turkish historical writing. In S. Macintyre, J. Maiguashca, & A. Pók (Eds.), The Oxford history of historical writing: Volume 4: 1800-1945 (pp. 559-577). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kandiyoti, D. (1991). End of empire: Islam, nationalism and women in Turkey. In D. Kandiyoti (Ed.), Women, Islam and the state (pp. 22-47). London: Palgrave Macmillan. doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-21178-4_2
Karasu, C. (2006). Çivi yazılı belgelere göre eski Anadolu kadını hakkında bazı gözlemler. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 15(3), 45-66.
Kaya, M. A. (2006). Roma İmparatorluğu’nu yöneten Suriyeli kadınlar. Belleten, 70(257), 63-82.
Kaya, M. A. & Taşdöner, K. (2017). İlkçağda kadın: Toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliği bakımından Hellenistik çağ öncesi İlkçağ tarihine genel bakış. Türkbilim Dergisi, (21), 1-24.
Kendall, S., & Tannen, D. (2015). Discourse and gender. In D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton, & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 639-660). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Kılıç, Y. & Duymuş, H. (2007). Hititlerde kadın ve siyaset. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi, 26(42), 85-99. doi.org/10.1501/Tarar_0000000327
Kılıç, Y. (2014). Eskiçağ aile hukuku. Konya: Çizgi Kitabevi.
Kınal. F. (1956). Eski Anadolu’da kadının mevkii. Belleten, XX(79), 355-366.
Knapp, A. (1998). Masculinist archaeology. Archaeological Dialogues, 5(2), 115-125. doi:10.1017/S1380203800001252
Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell A. A., & Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 616-642.
141
Kohl, P. (1998). Nationalism and archaeology: On the constructions of nations and the reconstructions of the remote past. Annual Review of Anthropology, (27), 223-246. doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.27.1.223
Kohl, P., & Fawcett, C. (Eds.). (1996). Nationalism, politics and the practice of archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kokkinidou, D., Nikolaidou, M. (2009). Feminism and Greek archaeology: An encounter long over-due, In K. Kopaka (Ed.), FYLO. Engendering prehistoric stratigraphies in the Aegean and the Mediterranean (pp. 25-37). Liège: Université de Liège & Austin: University of Texas.
Konyar, E. (2013). Demir Çağı'nda Anadolu'da kadın: Urartu, Frig ve Lidya. In E. Çaykara (Ed.), Anadolu’da kadın: On bin yıldır eş, anne, tüccar, kraliçe/A. Muhibbe Darga (pp. 241-267). İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
Koopman, C. (2008). Foucault's historiographical expansion: Adding genealogy to archaeology. Journal of The Philosophy of History, 2(3), 338-362. doi.org/10.1163/187226308X335994
Kozbe, G. (2001). Mezopotamya’da aile ve evlilik. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Dergisi, (103-104), 27-33.
Kozbe, G. (2020). Mezopotamya’da kadın olmak. In M. N. Aydın (Ed.), Tarihte kadın (pp. 45-63). Çanakkale: Paradigma Akademi Yayınları.
Kuzuoğlu, R. (2007). Asur Ticaret Kolonileri Çağı’nda Anadolu kraliçeleri. Belleten, 71(262), 795-810. Laqueur, T. W. (1990). Making sex: Body and gender from the Greeks to Freud. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Lazar, M. M. (Ed.) (2005). Feminist critical discourse analysis: Gender, power and ideology in discourse. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Lazar, M. M. (2014). Feminist critical discourse analysis. In S. Ehrlich, M. Meyerhoff & J. Holmes (Eds.), The handbook of language, gender, and sexuality (pp. 180-199). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Lee, R. B. (1979). The !Kung San: Men, women and work in a foraging society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Li, K. (1992). The new history of Korea (E.W. Wagner & E.J. Shultz, Trans.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1961)
Lin, C. (2014). Storytelling as academic discourse: Bridging the cultural-linguistic divide in the era of the common core. Journal of Basic Writing, (33), 52-73.
Linduff, K. M. & Sun, Y. (2004). Introduction. In K. M. Linduff & Y. Sun (Eds.), Gender and Chinese archaeology (pp. 117-136). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
142
Linton, S. (1971). Woman the gatherer: Male bias in anthropology. In S. E. Jacob (Ed.), Women in cross-cultural perspective: A preliminary sourcebook (pp. 9-21). Champaign, II: University of Illinois Press.
Litosseliti, L. & Sunderland, J. (2002). Gender identity and discourse analysis (vol. 2). John Benjamins Pub, Philadelphia, PA.
Lockyer, S. (2012). Qualitative research, history of. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 706-710). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lorber, J. (2010). Gender inequality: Feminist theories and politics (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.
Lorber, J., & Farrell, S. A. (Eds.). (1991). The social construction of gender. Newbury Park: Sage.
Luke, A. (2002). Beyond science and ideological critique: Developments in critical discourse analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 96-110. doi.org/10.1017/S0267190502000053
Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge (G. Bennington & B. Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published 1979) MacCormack, C. P., & Strathern, M. (1980). Nature, culture, and gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mandacı, E. (2015). Asur Ticaret Kolonileri Çağı’nda aile hukukunda kadın (MÖ. 1950-1750), History Studies, 7(1), 81-94.
Marshall, Y., & Alberti, B. (2014). A matter of difference: Karen Barad, ontology and archaeological bodies. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 24(1), 19-36. doi:10.1017/S0959774314000067
Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative researching (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Martin, J. (2004). Positive discourse analysis: Solidarity and change. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 49, 179-202.
Matić, U. (2016a). (De)queering Hatshepsut: Binary bind in archaeology of Egypt and kingship beyond the corporeal. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 23(3), 810-831. doi.org/10.1007/s10816-016-9288-9 Matić, U. (2016b). Gender in ancient Egypt: Norms, ambiguities, and sensualities. Near Eastern Archaeology, 79(3), 174-183. doi:10.5615/neareastarch.79.3.0174
Matić, U., & Jensen, B. (Eds.). (2017). Archaeologies of gender and violence. Oxford, Philadelphia: Oxbow Books.
143
Mautner, G. (2008). Analysing newspapers, magazines and other print media. In R. Wodak & M. Krzyzanowski (Eds.), Qualitative discourse analysis in the social sciences (pp. 30-53). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Memiş, E. (1993). Hitit sarayında kraliçelerin rolü. Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi, 8(1), 19-35. Meskell, L. (1995). Goddesses, Gimbutas and New Age archaeology. Antiquity, 69(262), 74-86. doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00064310 Meskell, L. (2002). The intersections of identity and politics in archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 31(1), 279-301. doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.31.040402.085457 McElhinny, B. (2014). Theorizing gender in sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology. In S. Ehrlich, M. Meyerhoff and J. Holmes (Eds.), The handbook of language, gender, and sexuality (2nd ed., pp. 48-67). Malden, MA: Blackwell. doi.org/10.1002/9781118584248.ch2
Moen, M. (2019). Gender and Archaeology: Where are we now?. Archaeologies, 15(2), 206-226. doi.org/10.1007/s11759-019-09371-w Molleson, T. (1994). The eloquent bones of Abu Hureyra. Scientific American, 271(2), 70-75. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0894-70
Montón-Subías, S., & Meyer, W. (2014). Engendered archaeologies. In C. Smith (Ed.), Encyclopedia of global archaeology (pp. 2372-2381). New York, Heidelberg, Dordrecht, London: Springer. Moore, H. L. (1988). Feminism and anthropology. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Moore, J. (1997). Conclusion: The visibility of the invisible. In J. Moore & E. Scott (Eds.), Invisible people and processes: Writing gender and children into European archaeology (pp. 251-257). London: Leicester University Press. Moral, E. (2016). Qu(e)erying sex and gender in archaeology: A critique of the "third" and other sexual categories. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 23(3), 788-809. doi.org/10.1007/s10816-016-9294-y
Moser, S. (1993). Gender stereotyping in pictorial reconstructions of human origins. In L. Smith and H. duCros (Eds.), Women in archaeology (pp. 75-92). Canberra: Australian National University.
Muckle, R. J. (2014). On sexual harassment and abuse in archaeology. The SAA Archaeological Record, 14(5), 32-33.
Murat, L. (2016). Anadolu’da Hitit döneminde kadın ve önemi. In O. Köse (Ed.), Geçmişten günümüze şehir ve kadın I (pp. 73-80). Samsun: Canik Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları.
144
Nagel, J. (2016). Nationalism and Gender. In N. A. Naples (Ed.), The Wiley Blackwell encyclopedia of gender and sexuality studies (pp. 1-4). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. doi.org/10.1002/9781118663219.wbegss155
Navarrete, R. (2010). Excavando mujeres en y desde el sur: Aproximaciones a la arqueoloǵıa feminista en Latinoamérica. Revista Venezolana de Estudios de la Mujer, 15(34), 75-104.
Nelson, S. M. (2004). Gender in archaeology: Analyzing power and prestige (2nd Edition). Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
Nelson S. M. (Ed.). (2006). Handbook of gender in archaeology. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Newman, A. (2018). Queering the Minoans: Gender performativity and the Aegean color convention in fresco painting at Knossos. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, 30(2), 213-236. doi.org/10.1558/jmea.35406
Nicholson, L. (1994). Interpreting gender. Signs, 20(1), 79-105. doi.org/10.1086/494955
Nikolaidou, M. & Kokkinidou, D. (1998). Greek women in archaeology. In M. Díaz-Andreu & M. L. S. Sørensen (Eds.), Excavating women: A history of women in European archaeology (pp. 266-94). London: Routledge.
Oakley, J. (2000). Gender-based barriers to senior management positions: understanding the scarcity of female CEOs. Journal of Business Ethics, 27(4), 321-334.
Ochs, E. (1992). Indexing gender. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 335-358). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oğur, M. (2020). Atatürk dönemi dergilerinden Resimli Şark Dergisi’nin toplumsal dönüşüme etkisi. Diyalektolog, (25), 131-145. doi.org/10.29228/diyalektolog.48549
Ortner, S. B. (1974). Is female to male as nature is to culture?. In M. Z. Rosaldo and L. Lamphere (Eds.), Woman, culture, and society (pp. 68-87). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Özdemir, A. (2001). A history of Turkish archaeology from the nineteenth century to the end of the one-party period. (Unpublished MA thesis). Boğaziçi University, Istanbul.
Özdoğan, M. (2002). Ideology and archaeology in Turkey, In L. Meskell (Ed.), Archaeology under fire: Nationalism, politics and heritage in the eastern Mediterranean and Middle East (pp. 111-123). London: Routledge.
145
Özgüner, N. P. (2015). Türkiye arkeolojisinde problemler ve farklı kimliklerin oluşumu: Kazı sonuçları toplantısı yayınlarının incelenmesi. In Ç. Çilingiroğlu & N. P. Özgüner (Eds.), Değişen Arkeoloji 1. TAG Türkiye Toplantısı Bildirileri (pp. 105-121). İstanbul: Ege Yayınları.
Özkan, E. (2017). Yasalar ve gelenekler ışığında Arkaik ve Klasik dönem Yunan ve Cumhuriyet dönemi Romalı kadınların aile hayatı. Kadın Araştırmaları Dergisi (15), 1-25.
Özman, R. (2019). Eski Çağda Anadolu ve Mezopotamya'da aile. In M. Eriş (Ed.), Dünya medeniyeti içinde Türklerde ve başka topluluklarda aile ve akrabalık ilişkileri çalıştayı: Çalıştay tebliğler ve sonuç bildirileri, 22/23 Kasım 2018 (pp. 63-69). Kastamonu: T.C. Kastamonu Valiliği.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Peacock, N. R. (1991). Rethinking the sexual division of labour: Reproduction and women’s work among the Efe. In M. di Leonardo (Ed.), Gender at the crossroads of knowledge: Feminist anthropology in the post-modern era (pp. 339-60). Berkeley CA: University of California Press.
Pilcher, J., & Whelehan, I. (2004). Fifty key concepts in gender studies. London: Sage.
Potter, J. (2008). Discourse analysis. In Given, L. M. (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 217-220). Thousand Oaks, CA and London: Sage.
Preciado, B. (2002). Manifiesto contra-sexual. Madrid: Opera Prima.
Preucel, W. R. (2006). Archaeological semiotics, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Pryke, S. (1998), Nationalism and sexuality, what are the issues?. Nations and Nationalism, (4), 529-546. doi.org/10.1111/j.1354-5078.1998.00529.x
Pulhan, G. (2003). Türkiye Cumhuriyeti geçmişini arıyor: Cumhuriyet’in arkeoloji seferberliği. In O. Erdur & G. Duru (Eds.), Arkeoloji: Niye? Nasıl? Ne İçin? (pp. 139-147). İstanbul: Ege Yayınları.
Rich, A. (1980). Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. Signs, 5(4), 631-660. doi.org/10.1086/493756
Rubin, G. (1975). The traffic in women: Notes on the political economy of sex. In R. R. Reiter (Ed.), Toward an anthropology of women (pp. 157-210). New York: Monthly Review Press.
Rubin, G. (1984). Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. In C. S. Vance (Ed.), Pleasure and danger: Exploring female sexuality (pp. 267-319). Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
146
Rubio, L. S. (2011). Gender thinking in the making: Feminist epistemology and gender archaeology. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 44(1): 21-39. doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2011.572674
Russell, M. A. Archaeological semiotics by Robert W. Preucel. Historical Archaeology, 42, 185-187. doi.org/10.1007/BF03377092
Saktanber, A. (2002). Kemalist kadın hakları söylemi. In T. Bora and M. Gültekin (Ed.), Modern Türkiye’de siyasi düşünce, Kemalizm (2nd edition). İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
Saraçoğlu, A. (2008). Hellen evlilik ritüelinde kadının rolü ve sosyal konumu. In B. Can & M. Işıklı (Eds.), Doğudan yükselen ışık, arkeoloji yazıları (Atatürk üniversitesi 50. kuruluş yıldönümü arkeoloji bölümü armağanı) (pp. 141-159). İstanbul: Zero Yayınları.
Saukko, P. (2003). Doing research in cultural studies. London: Sage.
Scarre, G., & Coningham, R. (Eds.). (2012). Appropriating the past: Philosophical perspectives on the practice of archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139026932 Schippers, M. (2007). Recovering the feminine other: Masculinity, femininity, and gender hegemony. Theory and Society, 36(1), 85-102. doi.org/10.1007/s11186-007-9022-4 Sedgwick, E. K. (1990). Epistemology of the closet. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Seidler, V. J. (2006). Transforming masculinities: Men, cultures, bodies, sex and love. London and New York: Routledge.
Shaw, W. M. K. (2004). Whose Hittites, and why? Language, archaeology and the quest for the original Turks. In M. L. Galaty, C. Watkinson (Eds.), Archaeology under dictatorship (pp. 131-153). Boston, MA: Springer. doi.org/10.1007/0-387-36214-2_7
Shelach, G. (2004). Marxist and Post-Marxist paradigms for the Chinese Neolithic period. In K. M. Linduff & Y. Sun (Eds.), Gender and Chinese archaeology (pp. 11-27). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. Siann, G. (1994). Gender, sex, and sexuality: Contemporary psychological perspectives. London: Taylor & Francis. Sina, A. (2004). Eleusis'de Demeter kültü ve kadın ritüelleri. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi, 44(1), 37-52.
Slocum, S. (1975). Woman the gatherer: Male bias in anthropology. In R. R. Reiter (Ed.), Toward an anthropology of women (pp. 36-50). New York: Monthly Review Press.
147
Sofaer, J. (2006). The body as material culture: A theoretical osteoarchaeology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Soffer, O. (1983). Politics of the Palaeolithic in the USSR: A case of paradigms lost. In J. M. Gero, D. M. Lacy & M. Blakely (Eds.), The socio-politics of archaeology (pp. 91-105). Amherst: University of Massachusetts.
Sørensen, M. L. S. (2006). Gender, things, and material culture. In S. M. Nelson (Ed.) Handbook of gender in archaeology (pp. 105-135). Lanham: AltaMira Press.
Speer, S. A. (2005). Gender talk: Feminism, discourse and conversation analysis. London: Routledge.
Spencer-Wood, S. M. (2011). Introduction: Feminist theories and archaeology. Archaeologies, 7(1), 1-33. doi.org/10.1007/s11759-011-9169-5
Spencer-Wood, S. M. (2006). Feminist theory and gender research in historical archaeology. In S. M. Nelson (Ed.) Handbook of gender in archaeology (pp. 59-104). Lanham: AltaMira Press.
Spencer-Wood, S. M. (2016). Feminist theorizing of patriarchal colonialism, power dynamics, and social agency materialized in colonial institutions. International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 20(3), 477-491. doi.org/10.1007/s10761-016-0356-3
Sperling, M. (1996). Revisiting the writing-speaking connection: Challenges for research in writing and writing instruction. Review of Educational Research, 66(1), 53-86. doi.org/10.3102/00346543066001053
Shelach, G. (2004). Marxist and post Marxist paradigm for the Neolithic. In K. M. Linduff & Y. Su (Eds.), Gender and Chinese archaeology (pp. 11-28). Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.
Silberman, N.A. (1996). Promised lands and chosen peoples: the politics and poetics of archaeological narrative. In P. L. Kohl and C. Fawcett (Eds.), Nationalism, politics and the practice of archaeology (pp. 249–62). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Spender, D. (1980). Man made language. London: Routledge.
Stratton, S. (2016). “Seek and you shall find.” How the analysis of gendered patterns in archaeology can create false binaries: A case study from Durankulak. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 23(3), 854-869. doi.org/10.1007/s10816-016-9290-2 Strauss, S., & Feiz, P. (2013). Discourse analysis: Putting our worlds into words. New York: Routledge. Stubbs, M. (1997). Whorf’s children: Critical comments on critical discourse analysis. In A. Ryan, & A. Wray (Eds.), Evolving models of language (pp. 100-116). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
148
Sunderland, J. (2004). Gendered discourses. Oxford: Palgrave Macmillan. Süel, A. (1992). Hitit kadınının hukuki durumu, In Uluslararası 1. Hititoloji kongresi bildirileri (19-21 Temmuz 1990) (pp. 239-253). Ankara: Uluslararası Çorum Hitit Festivali Komitesi Başkanlığı. Süel, A. (2013). Šapinuva’nın kraliçesi Taduhepa. In E. Çaykara (Ed.), Anadolu’da kadın: On bin yıldır eş, anne, tüccar, kraliçe/A. Muhibbe Darga (pp. 137-145). İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları. Şahin, N. (2013). Antik dönemde Anadolu’da kadın. İzmir: Ege Üniversitesi Yayınları.
Talburt, S. (2007). Queer theory. In B. J. Bank (Ed.), Gender and education: An encyclopedia (pp. 63-71). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
Taylor, S. (2001). Locating and conducting discourse analytic research. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor & S. J. Yates (Eds), Discourse as data: A guide for analysis (pp. 5-48). London: Sage.
Terendy, S., Lyons, N., & Kelly, J. (Eds.). (2009). Que(e)rying archaeology: The proceedings of the 30th annual Chacmool conference. Calgary: Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary.
TDK. (2019). Cinsiyet. In Türk Dil Kurumu Sözlükleri. https://sozluk.gov.tr/
Thedéen, S. & Danielsson, IM. B. (2012). Gender questions. In S. Thedéen & I-M. Back Danielsson (Eds.), To tender gender: The pasts and futures of gender research in archaeology (pp. 9-16). Stockholm: Stockholm University.
Thomas, J. (2004). Archaeology and modernity. London: Routledge.
Tilley, C. (1990). On modernity and archaeological discourse. In I. Bapty & T. Yates (Eds.), Archaeology after structuralism: Post-structuralism and the practice of archaeology (pp. 127-152). London: Routledge.
Tomášková, S. (2011). Landscape for a good feminist: An archaeological review. Archaeological Dialogues, 18(1), 109-136. doi.org/10.1017/S1380203811000158
Trigger, B. (1984). Alternative archaeologies: Nationalist, colonialist, imperialist. Man, 19(3), 355-370. doi.org/10.2307/2802176
Turgut, M. (2017). Hitit dini ritüellerinde kadınların görevleri ve rolleri. In G. Şimşek (Ed.), Kültürel miras ve kadın (pp. 69-82). Aydın: Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Yayınları.
Turhan, H. (1932). Hititler'de Kadın ve Aile Hukuku, Resimli Şark, (15), 25-28.
Turnbull, C. M. (1981). Mbuti womanhood. In F. Dahlberg (Ed.), Woman the gatherer (pp. 205-221). New Haven: Yale University Press.
149
Türk Tarihi Tetkik Cemiyeti. (1930). Türk tarihinin ana hatları methal kısmı. Istanbul: Devlet Matbaası.
Uzunoğlu, E. (1993). Tarih öncesinden Demir Çağ’a Anadolu’da kadın. In G. Renda (Ed.), Çağlar boyu Anadolu’da kadın, Anadolu kadınının 9000 yılı (pp. 16-24). İstanbul: Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları.
Ünal, A. (2005). Eski Anadolu’da feminizmin öncülerinden bir kraliçe portresi: Kizzuwatnalı Puduhepa. İdol Arkeoloji ve Arkeologlar Derneği Dergisi, 7(2), 5-15.
van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.). (1997). Discourse as social interaction: Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (Vol. 2). London: Sage.
van Dijk, T. A. (2015). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Tannen, H. Hamilton, & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), The handbook of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 466-485). New Jersey: Wiley & Sons.
Vida, M. C. (1998). The Italian scene: Approaches to the study of gender. In R. Whitehouse (Ed.), Gender and Italian archaeology: challenging the stereotypes (pp. 15-22). London: Accordia Specialist Studies on Italy.
Voss, B. L., & Schmidt, R. A. (2000). Archaeologies of sexuality: An introduction. In R. A. Schmidt and B. L. Voss (Eds.), Archaeologies of sexuality (pp. 1-34). London: Routledge.
Voss, B. L. (2008). Sexuality studies in archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 37(1), 317-336. doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.37.081407.085238
Voss, B., & Conlin Casella, E. (Eds.). (2011). The archaeology of colonialism: Intimate encounters and sexual effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walde, D., & Willows, N. (Eds.). (1991). The Archaeology of gender. Calgary: Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary.
Washburn, S., & Lancaster, C. (1968). The evolution of hunting. In R. B. Lee & I. DeVore (Eds.), Man the hunter (pp. 293-303). Chicago: Aldine.
Weismantel, M. (2013). Towards a transgender archaeology: A queer rampage through prehistory. In S. Stryker & A. Aizura (Eds.), The transgender studies reader 2 (pp. 319-334). London: Routledge.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1(2), 125-151. doi.org/10.1177/0891243287001002002
West, C., Lazar, M. M., & Kramarae, C. (1997). Gender in discourse. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction (pp. 119-143). London: Sage.
Weatherall, A. (2002). Gender, language and discourse. New York: Routledge.
150
Wetherell, M., Yates, S., & Taylor, S., (2001). Discourse theory and practice: A reader. London: Sage.
Williams, J. E., & Best, D. L. (1990). Measuring sex stereotypes: A multi-nation study. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2001). Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: Sage Publications.
Wodak, R. (2009). Aspects of critical discourse analysis. London: Sage Publications.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Critical Discourse Analysis: History, Agenda, Theory, And Methodology. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (2nd ed., pp. 1-33). London: Sage.
Wylie, M. A. (1997). Good science, bad science, or science as usual? Feminist critiques of science. In L. Hager (Ed.). Women in human evolution (pp. 29-56). New York: Routledge.
Yalçınkaya, I. (1971). Paleolitik devirlerde kadın figürinleri. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Antropoloji Dergisi, (6), 203-222. doi.org/10.1501/antro_0000000238
Yaman, İ. D. (2020). Paleolitik çağ sanatında kadın heykelcikleri, In M. Hakman (Ed.), Prehistoryadan günümüze kadın (pp. 3-22). Bilgin Kültür Sanat Yayınları.