Interpretations of Winston Churchill

Evaluate two or more competing interpretations of Winston Churchill.
Winston Churchill has become an icon of modern history, and is probably the most celebrated Prime Minister or the twentieth century. It was not until he was 65, however, that Churchill achieved his popularity and fame, and it was almost wholly the result of the end of the Second World War. Without this, the popular impression of Churchill would fall a long way short of what it is today. Churchill is remembered by most, of course, as a great national hero; a war leader who delivered Great Britain, and the rest of the world, from the threat of Nazi Germany advancing inexorably to extend the Third Reich. There were many other aspects to Churchill’s life, however, of which it was the culmination only, in victory, that secured his historical legacy. As is to be expected with someone as successful and popular as Churchill, the man has attracted a great many academics to research into and report on Churchill’s life (between fifty and one hundred in the estimate of Roy Jenkins[1]). These various interpretations are many, and each one must be considered in the context of the time and societal circumstances in which it was written. As with all history, (especially biography,) one must evaluate such works sceptically, trying to discern the biographer’s own views and prejudices, and those of the society which produced the biographer. What each work tells us about Churchill must be cross-referenced with other accounts, and with impartial accounts of events in which Churchill was involved. This essay will focus on four key biographies of Churchill; Addison’s Churchill, the Unexpected Hero, and Jenkins’ recent Churchill primarily, as well as Gilbert’s Churchill, a Life, and Ponting’s Churchill.

Get Help With Your Essay
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Essay Writing Service

When one considers the various biographies of Churchill that the post-War years have yielded, it is fair to say that there are discernable patterns. An increasing scepticism in the historiography is an example of such a trend. It seems accurate to describe the later biographies of Churchill as less laudatory and unquestioningly praising towards Churchill than, say, Jenkins’ recent biography. This, in its stated mission, sets out to reconsider the wholly celebratory nature of some earlier biographies. Jenkins introduces his magisterial work with the assertion that Churchill was ‘many faceted, idiosyncratic and unpredictable…’[2] The work is not, however, hagiographical; indeed from the outset, Jenkins’ esteem and fondness of Churchill (albeit based upon a very brief series of encounters in the early 1940s) is obvious. “I was aware of witnessing something unique, but also remote and unpredictable.”[3] As a whole work, however, Jenkins’ is more thorough than anything that has gone before. It is a dense, academic and politically charged work, obviously written by an insider of the political world from its clear understanding and appreciation of the main passion of Churchill’s life; politics. Churchill was, after all, in the House of Commons for over sixty years.
The other major work which will be considered is somewhat less academic, and more populist in its structure and style. Addison covers the life of Churchill from his birth through his early years as a journalist and soldier, through his early parliamentary career and later premiership and his last years in less than 250 pages. While this remains a convincing and thorough biography, it is by no means as comprehensive as the project undertaken by Jenkins. What of the content of these two books, however? How do their respective authors present Churchill? It has already been mentioned that Jenkins has sought to adopt a holistic approach which is relatively free of unquestioning praise. Addison’s is, perhaps, more preoccupied with the popular appeal of Churchill, and as such, it is less sceptical of certain aspects of Churchill’s life. This is, however, to be expected, as rather than present a fully comprehensive account of the whole of Churchill’s life, this account seeks to assess the reasons for the man’s ascendancy to national hero. The tone of the work is established in the Prologue, which states that Churchill ‘won two great victories in the Second World War. The first was a victory over Nazi Germany. The second was a victory over the many sceptics who, for decades, had derided his judgement, denied his claims to greatness, and excluded him from 10 Downing Street on the grounds that he was sure to be a danger to King and Country.”[4]
The first appropriate period to consider in Churchill’s life covers the years from his birth in 1874 up until 1901. Both begin with a brief account of the birth of Churchill and of his family history; that he was the grandson of the seventh Duke of Marlborough and his mother was an American named Clara, the daughter of a New York financier. This was the period that saw Churchill attend Harrow School, an adolescence which, according to Addison, was ‘overshadowed by the physical and mental decline of Lord Randolph [Churchill’s aristocratic Tory minister father].’[5] Gilbert offers an early insight into what he later considers to be one of the principal driving forces of Churchill, when he remarks that to the young Winston, the death of his father provided ‘yet further proof that the Churchills died young.’[6] Throughout Gilbert’s work, this driving force features heavily in causing Churchill to pursue his goals first in the journalistic field, and later in politics.
When considering Gilbert’s interpretation of Churchill’s life and achievements, it is also important to consider the esteem with which he held Churchill. It should be remembered that prior to writing his biography of Churchill, Gilberts continued Churchill’s life work (in another field from politics) in completing, in six volumes, an historical work which had been started by Randolph Churchill. This is surely significant, firstly in the level of understanding of Churchill such an undertaking would have afforded Gilbert, but also as a sign of the reverence with which Churchill was held. According to Addison, the ‘official biography’ is ‘sometimes said to perpetuate the Churchill myth and it is true that Randolph Churchill’s volumes were partisan.”[7] It is this very partisanship that one must be aware of and vigilant about in considering biographies generally, and in particular when it comes to one with such an awesome accompanying reputation.
Gilbert’s work, although in places stricken with this identified partisanship, on the whole offers a record of the events of Churchill’s life, in which evidence is collected from a huge variety of sources, including Churchill’s own papers, private correspondence held at the Marlborough seat of Blenheim Palace, and other more official evidence such as parliamentary records and reports and Churchill’s own journalistic offerings and speeches. Gilbert’s biographical work is unique in that it generally forms attachments to the evidential, or chronicled record which he helped to produce. Again, and as Addison points out, from a reading of Gilbert’s work in these volumes, it is clear ‘that his admiration for Churchill is profound’.[8] Gilbert’s sympathy with Churchill, and indeed his contempt for those who sought to sully the name and reputation of Churchill, is obvious from various parts of his writings.
One such person was Field Marshall Alanbrooke, who was one of Churchill’s most successful, and trusted generals (when he was General Alan Brooke). According to Jenkins, Churchill ‘succeeded in angering Alan Brooke at a staff conference on 9 September [1944].’[9] Later, various diarists, foremost amongst whom was Brooke, began complaining about Churchill’s ‘ramblings’. These were characteristic of his ‘long rather than decisive meetings’ that members of the government and the forces became increasingly frustrated about.[10] Although the relationship had been tense and often problematic between the two, Alanbrooke (as he now was) recorded in his diary that during his farewell in 1945, ‘it was a very sad and very moving little meeting at which I found myself unable to say much for fear of breaking down.’[11] The purpose of this is to show that despite their differences, it seems unlikely that Alanbrooke harboured any ill-feeling towards Churchill that would colour his memoirs. According to Gilbert, however, it was the publication of Alanbrooke’s diaries that did much to harm the image of Churchill. ‘No single book’, Gilbert writes, referring to the diaries as edited by Arthur Bryant, ‘gave a more distorted picture of Churchill’s war leadership, or would provide for many years to come so much material for critical, hostile, and ill-informed portrayals of Churchill in the war years.’[12] This is not to disparage Gilbert’s work with the taint of one-sidedness, however, as the work, vast as it is, is generally free of value judgements or even a coherent doctrine as to the character of Churchill.
For this; a more personal and judgemental view of Churchill, one must turn to the works of Jenkins and of Ponting. It is clear from the introduction of Ponting’s unashamedly revisionist work that he seeks to challenge the ‘Churchill myth’, which Gilbert is perhaps more instrumental in moulding, or at least perpetuating. The central thesis in Ponting’s work, as stated in his introduction, is that the Churchill myth was in fact largely the result of Churchill’s own writing; that Churchill managed successfully to shape the way in which he would be seen by the succeeding generation by his own artful and indeed self-promoting work.[13] It is not usually the prerogative of statesmen to shape future generations’ views of themselves; this being left to later historians and scholars. If Ponting’s theory is correct, it would make Churchill one of the few successful statesmen to have achieved this, obviously prior to his death. The two major prongs of Ponting’s attack are firstly that Churchill was not in fact the brilliant wartime leader that popular perception imagines, and secondly that his popularity was not in fact as high as has been assumed. His bases for these revisionist claims are official papers that have been released in recent years.
Although revisionist history is always going to offend and upset those of the old school by its very nature of, in Ponting’s case, sheer iconoclasm, but in this case, one cannot avoid the impression that Ponting is not so much blazing a trail to a more truthful and less fanciful perception of Churchill, as he is simply inaccurate. Ponting reconsiders the pre-War years of Churchill’s political career. He claims that Churchill was opposed to democracy and social progress.[14] This is an unlikely character trait of Churchill, for whom one of the principal motivations for one of his most famous pre-War decisions, the 1925 return to the Gold Standard, was the ‘paradox of unemployment amidst dearth … I would rather see Finance less proud and Industry more content.’[15] As well as this, it was Churchill who pioneered the system of national insurance during his time at the Treasury (something which he and Lloyd George had started prior to the First World War). This was a policy which, although not redistributive as certain forms of taxation might have been, certainly improved the lot of many of the more unfortunate elements in inter-war British society.
Ponting goes on to suggest that Churchill harboured racial prejudices.[16] This may well be accurate, but it is presented by Ponting in a misleading way; a way which neglects the wider contemporary social attitudes of the early twentieth century. While it is never forgivable to view any race or creed as in any way inferior, Churchill was not guilty of this in the way that Ponting suggests. It was more an opinion of racial differences and idiosyncrasies than any judgement as to the relative merit of different races. As Addison remarks, such views were characteristic of the time without any attendant racism, amongst the foremost social reformers.[17] Indeed there is supportive argument for Ponting’s assessment to be found in other biographies of Churchill. One such example is John Charmley’s revisionist work which suggests that Churchill’s treatment of the Poles in the last months of the war revealed racial prejudices. He accuses Churchill of both weakness in this respect, and of hypocrisy, for his earlier criticism of Chamberlain’s similar treatment of the Czechs.[18]
The most striking evidence that Ponting is erroneous in this assessment of Churchill is to be found in Churchill’s view of the European Jews who were increasingly under threat during his early parliamentary career. Indeed it was Churchill’s perceived sympathy for the Jews in the wake of such atrocities as Kristallnacht in November 1938 that strengthened Churchill’s position as against Neville Chamberlain.[19] Earlier in Churchill’s career, he had fought vehemently to defeat the restrictive Aliens Bill of 1904, which was unfavourable to the Jews. Jenkins suggests, however, that although this was a brave and commendable battle to be undertaken by Churchill, his motivation was less that of a sense of equality and concern for the well-being of the Jewish population, than the political expedient of appeasing a large and powerful political lobby in his constituency. ‘…It could be cynically alleged that the vigour with which Churchill opposed (and helped to kill) a restrictive Aliens Bill in the session of 1904 was not unconnected with the fact that this was exactly when he alighted on Manchester North-West [where the Jewish lobby was so strong].’[20] While this may well be so, it does not make it the case that Churchill harboured anything other than deep resentment of the Nazi views as to the inferiority of the Jewish race and non-white populations.
Ponting’s criticisms of Churchill are obvious, and pervade much of his work. Gilbert, on the other hand, is generally more praising and less critical throughout his work; he is not, after all, seeking to debunk the so-called Churchill myth. Gilbert’s work, however, is not free from criticism. The most striking is, perhaps, his assessment that Churchill had a great and significant character weakness that he allowed to control him at vital stages throughout his career. This weakness was an almost-obsessive desire to be at the centre of affairs, and to be seen to be there in the public perception. He was, then, a courtier of public opinion (which is of course to be expected from a politician) but Gilbert seems to suggest that it led to an inefficient and sometimes disastrous management style that may have been avoided had Churchill been more willing, for example, to delegate.[21]
A significant advantage which biographers such as Gilbert and Jenkins have over those such as Ponting is that they actually met, and in the case of Gilbert at least, knew considerably, their subject. Gilbert was in fact something of an insider in the life of Churchill which affords him an insight which Ponting and other later biographers could not emulate. Examples of this intimate contact abound throughout Gilbert’s work, such as the conversations which he had with Churchill’s wife Clementine. One such conversation is occurred when Clementine told Gilbert of how in the immediate aftermath of Churchill’s downfall in 1915, ‘I thought he would die of grief’.[22] Gilbert’s is an insight which comes from first-hand interviews with those who knew and were close with Churchill (although not always on good terms). A further example is the interview which Gilbert conducts with General Sir Edward Spears, who accompanied Churchill on many journeys and who recalled on one occasion during the First World War when Churchill was at the Admiralty, how the French commanders had not taken Churchill’s suggestions about the development of the tank seriously, remarking ‘Wouldn’t it be simpler to flood Artois and get your fleet here?’[23] It is this first-hand knowledge and experience which puts Gilbert’s work (as well as, to a lesser extent, Jenkins’) above the likes of Ponting’s.
Gilbert’s work is not, however, free from potentially controversial statements. Surely fully aware of the impact on the historical debate of such assertions, he states, for example, that on the eve of the Munich agreement, which saw Neville Chamberlain (then Prime Minister and of whom Churchill was a stern critic) announced that he was seeking agreement from the third Reich leadership that no further advances would be made, in the words of Jenkins, ‘the whole House … rose to its feet and sent Chamberlain off in a splurge of goodwill.’[24] Jenkins suggests that it was the ‘almost solitary exception of Harold Nicolson’, the House supported Chamberlain. Gilbert states that neither Churchill, nor his fellow Members Eden or Amery stood to applaud Chamberlain as he set off on his mission.[25] It is, of course no secret that Churchill opposed Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement of Hitler, but small facts like this are potentially controversial when one considers the general atmosphere in England on the eve of the War; an attitude that everything possible should be done to avoid another conflict so soon after the devastation and destruction of the Great War.
With the notable exception of Ponting’s iconoclastic work, the overwhelming thesis in the various biographies of Churchill is one of praise and respect for Churchill. This is not wholly the product of his achievements at the head of the Government during the War, but also due to his achievements before the Second World War. The formative years in the making of the Churchill myth were undoubtedly the war years, as is evidenced by the fact that their presence in any biography is disproportionately large compared to any other period of his life. The chapter covering the war years in Addison’s book is titled ‘The Making of a Hero’.[26] The overwhelming sense from all of the biographies is that once the authors have been exposed to their subject, the result is an almost awe-like reverence for him. The concluding pages of Jenkins perhaps best summarise this pervasive attitude: ‘I now put Churchill, with all his idiosyncrasies, his indulgences, his occasional childishness, but also his genius, his tenacity and his persistent ability, right or wrong, successful or unsuccessful, to be larger than life, as the greatest human being ever to occupy 10 Downing Street.’[27]
BIOGRAPHY
Addison, P., Churchill, the Unexpected Hero (Oxford, 2005)
Danchev and Todman (Eds), War Diaries, 1939-1945: Field Marshall Lord Alanbrooke
Gilbert, M., Churchill: a Life (Pimlico, 2000)
Jenkins, R., Churchill (MacMillan, 2001)
Ponting, C., Winston Churchill (Sinclair-Stevenson, 1994)

Footnotes
[1] Jenkins, R., Churchill (MacMillan, 2001), pxiii
[2] Jenkins, p3
[3] Jenkins, pxiii
[4] Addison, P., Churchill, the Unexpected Hero (Oxford, 2005), p1
[5] Addison, p13
[6] Gilbert, C., Churchill: a Life (Pimlico, 2000), p49
[7] Addison, p251
[8] Addison, p252
[9] Jenkins, p754
[10] Ibid, p774
[11] Danchev and Todman (Eds), War Diaries, 1939-1945: Field Marshall Lord Alanbrooke, p712
[12] Gilbert, p1232
[13] Ponting, C., Winston Churchill (Sinclair-Stevenson, 1994), pp10-15
[14] Ponting, pp300-325
[15] Quoted in Addison, p114
[16] See, for example, Ponting, p375
[17] Addison, p252
[18] Quoted in Jenkins, p779
[19] See Jenkins, p537
[20] Jenkins, p108
[21] See, for example, Gilbert, p30
[22] Gilbert, vol III, p457
[23] Gilbert, vol III. p625
[24] Jenkins, p525
[25] Gilbert, vol V, pp986-987
[26] Addison, chapter 6
[27] Jenkins, p912
 

How have Archaeologists’ Interpretations of Sex and Gender changed

Gender, as a point of request in the investigation of prehistoric studies, has not been of essential enthusiasm until late history. It has just been as of late in the last thirty or forty years that the investigation of sex and gender relations as far as examining it in archaeological revelation has been a point that archaeologists have been truly seeking after. The subject of gender has still not been argued to the degree that which we need it to be, the sub topics considered a detail of investigation as opposed to the core interest. One of the obstinate conclusions on this theme is on account of it is for the most part accepted that the patriarchal society has been the prevailing social structure all through the current societies, along these lines to study sexual orientation relations is to summon a similar outcome through numerous social orders (Bettina and Wicker 2001).However, this is the centre issue with the path in which societies have been celebrated internationally through western conviction frameworks hence making suppositions about the way that sex and sex are considered inside those social orders subject to present day gauges of understanding it is imperative re-evaluate the way of social structures that have been resolved through one-sided suspicions keeping in mind the end goal to better build a photo of an antiquated social orders.

Get Help With Your Essay
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Essay Writing Service

In the last 40 years or so, Feminism has become one of the key influences for archaeologists, especially the post-processualists. Feminism was also one of the driving forces behind the interest in practice, meaning and identity in archaeological theory. It originated when women questioned why there was an absence of women in archaeological fields and also from the past that archaeologists wrote about. For instance, there were only a small number of fields that were run by women and although, there are usually more women that study archaeology than men, after they graduate, more men decide to get a job in archaeology. There is a drop off in number of female archaeologists with age. You could ask, why does feminism matter in archaeology? Some people would say that it is just about diversity, when it comes to feminism, allowing more equality between men and women. However, it is not just about this. It is also about the potential of archaeology as a subject. Many statements or ‘stereotypes’ made about gender and sexuality are still presented as timeless; Women care for children, men are superior leaders, etc. However, it can be argued that, the time depth of archaeology gives us the chance to modify these views and instead offer different narratives for the history of gender and sexuality. To show that it is not always the same, that it has changed through time and space. It is because archaeology is a potentially powerful subject that we have to think about these issues in the long term.
In order to tackle the issue of gender, we must discuss what gender is and whether there is an absolute biological difference. One of the standard definitions of bodily identity is the classic biological description which is of two genders dictated by chromosomes, with females having XX chromosomes and males XY. The traditional biological view that sex defines gender was criticised by Simone de Beavoir who showed that the ideas of what a woman should be were not natural but cultural, “I was not born, but rather, became a woman”. People were expected to behave in certain ways. The idea that girls like pink, that they play with dolls not guns and that they’re passive quiet and submissive. Those classic ideas about what a woman was, particularly at the time Beavoir was writing are not at all natural but in fact cultural that are learned, that society placed upon us. In the New Archaeology, there was no consideration of gender. There was always the constant use of ‘man’ and a failure to engage with gender meant that there were essentially no roles for women in the past, and even if there were a role, it would most likely be secondary work and usually based on assumption rather than evidence. A particular example would be the idea that man was the hunter and woman the gatherer.
Feminism had a huge impact in archaeology in the form of three waves which challenged he status quo. The first wave asked simple questions such as; where are the women in the past? Why aren’t there that many female archaeology professors? Why do men receive more benefits than women? Meg Conkey and Joan Gero who wrote the book Engendering Archaeology­, which was the first active attempt to think about what the role of women in prehistory was. A lot of first wave feminism comes out of these two archaeologists (Gero and Conkey 1991). The second wave of feminism is even more concerned with the role of women and the sense that archaeologists have always presumed that men did all the important stuff (Nelson et al 1994). Janet Spector’s book What This Awl Means thinks about the role of women in Dakota Village. As a result of all this, we get an increasing emphasis on the study of past gender relations. So, it is not just about what women are doing but about what the relationship between men and women in the past. The third wave of Feminism begins to critique the other waves by asking whether the gender categories are universal, why do we assume that categories such as men and women have any meaning in the past? It also began to ask about transgender people, alternative genders and also different histories of sexualities. It is about thinking in a more complicated way and by this point, were not basing upon basic categories about men and women. Mary Louise Sorensen’s book Gender Archaeology focuses more on gender archaeology rather than feminist archaeology, thinking about the different gender combinations and how it all plays out.
At this point, it can be argued that it is not just about women now. Archaeologists have taken a huge interest in masculinity, asking questions such as; How were male identities constructed in the past? How has the role of men changed? A solid example can be found in the works of Paul Treharne on the bronze age in Europe where he is looking at the idea of a warrior identity which we see in some of the graves in central and eastern Europe. This idea that there was a particular role in society and that they also had a particular look.
The traditional sex model suggests that sex is biologically determined, that its clear genetically but also through sexual characteristics and the idea that sex is universal and natural. Opposed to this, we get the concept of gender, and gender in this sense is culturally determined, the product of our own experiences and the society that we grow up in as well as demonstrating through clothing, behaviour and possible bodily alterations. If we argue that that this is what it is about, if its sex being biological and gender being cultural, then isn’t this just a nature/culture divide. In a sense, no. It is a lot more complicated; XX and XY are just two of eleven different possible chromosome combinations. Some people can be genetically XX but have male characteristics and vice-versa. In fact, the two-sex model, the idea that sex is just these two opposed identities is just a particular product of the way that we have thought about science in the west, in the same way that gender is a construction and that we are easily willing to accept that. We see it as culturally determined, the product of the society we grow up in.
Judith Butler looked at what we call Gender Performativity which was the attempt to move beyond the nature culture divide in our thinking about sexuality in the past. She argues that gender and sex are not pre-determined by our biology but something that we produce through practice and performance. Butler argues that there are male and female regulatory ideals and so it is not that we are born male and female but from the very moment we are born, our gender identity begins to be constructed and it is certainly affected by the regulatory ideals that society has for us (i.e. parents etc.). Butler uses the example of “girling the girl”; this notion that the midwife lifts up the baby and says ‘it’s a girl’. Begins the process for gender performance. Her argument is that in acting and performing the gendered regulatory ideals, we also sustain the gender performance. Her idea of a regulatory ideal is the idea that there are key concepts of what it is to be male and what it is to be female and that these are very particular and historically constructed and that we often attempt to try and live up to them or perhaps to question them? So, the idea that wearing certain clothes, acting in certain ways, having particular ideas about how one would want their life to work out, the idea that women should want to have children. All of these help us to live up the standards that we can never actually quite achieve. In doing so, we help to sustain these regulatory ideals. At one point, we can undermine and challenge regulatory ideals. By doing this we can act to shift them.
Butler is often accused of playing the body. We do not choose our genitalia so how can we perform our gender. Butler points out that we are not meant to deny the role of the body but instead to argue that our bodies and biology are caught up in social discourse. We do not live in a world where we can only understand our bodies through brute biology, our understandings of our bodies are also always shaped by our cultural context. You can think about how you think about your own body, whether you think about it as biological, the product of our DNA and genes we inherit from our parents, or whether is it cultural, eat particular foods to look a particular way. Modifications to the body can also be thought about; tattoos and piercing, as cultural things. As a result of this, they are often viewed as superficial.
What is personhood? “The condition or state of being a person” (Fowler). Not everyone understands sex, gender or the body in the same way across time and space and equally different cultures understand what it means to be a person differently. Who we recognise as a person, at what point do we recognise a person is different across culturally. In the west, we understand people and personhood to be about individualism, the idea that we are physically determined by our biology, that people have free will and as a result, they are responsible or their own actions and that we think this is the same in all time and space, and we consider the idea of the individual to be a natural state of being. This is a person who is bounded and defined by their skin. When the same way our bodies are not natural, the production of the western individual is not natural at all. Our individualism is created and sustained by our technology and culture. So, we have mobile phones, sleep in private beds, have diaries etc. All of these are cultural choices about the way we organise our world. The opposite of individual personhood is relational personhood and in this model a person is defined by the relationships that they have with others. There are differing ideas about free will and personal responsibility. If a person is defined by their relationships and the other people that surround them then free will and responsibility shift. In a more modern view, boundaries of the body, skin and person are viewed as more permeable.
The point is that if personhood isn’t the same everywhere today, was it the same everywhere in the past? As a result, should we be walking about individuals in the past? In one sense, yes. People such Hodder and Meskell would argue that we should be looking for individuals in the past and tell their stories. However, there are other archaeologists such as Thomas and Fowler, who believe that we shouldn’t talk about individuals in the past as they are just a concept as a result of western philosophy. We should recognise that although past personhood might have some familiar aspects we cannot assume people in the past were individuals. Personhood allows us to think in interesting ways about what it means to be a person in the past. This stops us universally and presuming that everyone always and everywhere understands what it means to be human in the same way.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Fowler, C. 2004. The Archaeology of Personhood: An Anthropological Approach. London: Routledge.
Butler, J. 1993. Bodies that Matter: on the Discursive Limits of ‘Sex’. London: Routledge.
Gero, J. and Conkey, M. (eds.) 1991. Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. Oxford: Blackwell.
Meskell, L. 1996. The somatization of archaeology: institutions, discourses, corporeality. Norwegian Archaeological Review 29 (1): 1-16.
Nelson, S. 1997. Gender in Archaeology. London: AltaMira.
Sørenson, M.L.S. 2000. Gender Archaeology. Oxford: Blackwell.
Spector, J.D. 1991. What this awl means: towards a feminist archaeology. In J.M. Gero and M.W. Conkey (eds.) Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 388-407.
Treherne, P. 1995. The warrior’s beauty: the masculine body and self-identity in Bronze Age Europe. Journal of European Archaeology 3 (1): 105-144
Gilchrist, R. 1999. Gender and Archaeology: Contesting the Past. London: Routledge.