SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Marmara Üniversitesi Kadın ve Toplumsal Cinsiyet Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 9 Sayı: 2

Arkeolojide Toplumsal Cinsiyetin İnşası

Serdar Özbilen(Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi)0000-0003-4061-5897
Pages
35–58
Publication Date
2025-12-31
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Hukuk belgeleri, erkeğin ve kadının konumu hakkında bize detaylı bilgiler sunmaktadır.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Avcı ve toplayıcılık dönemlerinden beri kadın ve erkek cinsiyetlerinin aynı statüde yaşayıp yaşamadığı tartışılagelen insanoğlu, tarımın keşfiyle birlikte cinsiyet kimliklerinin inşasını oluşturmaya başlamış görünmektedir.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Androsantrik merkezli görüş doğrultusunda fiziksel güç ve cinsiyet arasındaki ilişki, iş bölümlerinin oluşumunu tetiklemiş, bu da kadın ve erkeklerin farklı statülere sahip olmasına neden olmuştur.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Hukuk belgeleri, erkeğin ve kadının konumu hakkında bize detaylı bilgiler sunmaktadır.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Cinsiyet · toplumsal cinsiyet · cinsiyet arkeolojisi

Özet

Avcı ve toplayıcılık dönemlerinden beri kadın ve erkek cinsiyetlerinin aynı statüde yaşayıp yaşamadığı tartışılagelen insanoğlu, tarımın keşfiyle birlikte cinsiyet kimliklerinin inşasını oluşturmaya başlamış görünmektedir. Androsantrik merkezli görüş doğrultusunda fiziksel güç ve cinsiyet arasındaki ilişki, iş bölümlerinin oluşumunu tetiklemiş, bu da kadın ve erkeklerin farklı statülere sahip olmasına neden olmuştur. Cinsellikle ilgili normlar, tarihte ve günümüzde, öncelikli olarak dini sistemler tarafından şekillendirilmiştir. Bedenin cinselizasyonu ve biyolojik kader konuları, feminist teoriler içerisinde oldukça tartışılan bir konu olmuştur. Erkek ve kadın merkezli yaklaşımların yanı sıra, cinsiyet algısını kabul etmeyen yaklaşımlar da vardır. Devam eden süreçte geleneksel aile modelleri ve cinsel bağlanma normları değişerek hem biyolojik hem de sosyal olarak cinsel farklılığın koşulları geniş kapsamlı değişikliklere uğramıştır. Bugün sosyal cinsiyet tanımı, biyolojik tanıma baskın gelmektedir. Kadınların geçmişteki rolünü aydınlatmak için en çok başvurulan yöntemlerden birisi de cinsiyete dayalı iş bölümü analizidir. Bu konuda arkeolojik bulgular, cinsiyet temsillerini doğrulamaktadır. Mezopotamya'da kentleşmeyle birlikte iş bölümüne dayalı bir cinsiyet ayrımına gidilmiştir. Hukuk belgeleri, erkeğin ve kadının konumu hakkında bize detaylı bilgiler sunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Özbilen, S. (2025). Arkeolojide Toplumsal Cinsiyetin İnşası. Marmara Üniversitesi Kadın ve Toplumsal Cinsiyet Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 2, 35–58. https://ajindex.com/articles/1525944

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (102)

  1. Algaze, G. (2008). Ancient Mesopotamia at the Dawn of Civilization. University of Chicago Press.
  2. Anati, E. (1986). The question of "fertility cults". A. Bonanno ve diğ., (Ed.), Archaeology and Fertility Cult in the Ancient Mediterranean: Papers Presented at the First International Conference on Archaeology of the Ancient Mediterranean içinde (s. 2-15), Amsterdam: Publishing Company.
  3. Arsenault, D. (1991). The representation of women in Moche iconography. D. Walde ve diğ., (Ed.), The Archaeology of Gender: Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Conference of the Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary içinde (s. 313-326), Calgary.
  4. Bachofen, J. J. (1967). Myth, Religion and Mother Right: Selected Writings of J. J. Bachofen. (Tr. R. Mannheim). Princeton University Press.
  5. Bahrani, Z. B. (2001). Women of Babylon. Gender and Representation in Mesopotamia. London: Routledge Publishing.
  6. Balandier, G. (2021). Sahnelenen İktidar. (Çev. Ö. Karakaş). İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
  7. Barrett, J. C. (1989). Food, gender and metal: Questions of social reproduction. M. Louise ve diğ., (Ed.),The Bronze AgeIron Age Transition in Europe: Aspects of Continuity and Change in European Societies, c. 1200 to 500 Bc, içinde (s. 304-320), British Archaeological Series 483(ii).
  8. Barstow, A. (1978). The uses of archaeology for women's history: James Mellaart's work on the Neolithic Goddess at Çatal Hüyük. Feminist Studies 4(3): 7-17.
  9. Bar-Yosef, O. (2007). The Emergence of Social Complexity in the Neolithic of the Near East. D. R. Edwards ve diğ., (Ed.), The Archaeology of Difference Gender, Ethnicity, Class and the Other içinde (s. 19-40). ATASORVol. 60/61.
  10. Belcher, E. H. (2016). Identifying Female in the Halaf: Prehistoric Agency and Modern Interpretations. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 23, 921-948.
  11. Belmonte, J. A. (2015). Finding Our Place in the Cosmos: The Role of Astronomy In Ancient Cultures. Ancient Astronomy of India, Egypt, China, Maya, Inca, Aztec, Greece, Rome, Genesis, Hebrews, Christians, the Neolithic and Paleolithic içinde (s. 31-49), Cambridge: Cosmology Science Publishers.
  12. Bender, B. (1987). The roots of inequality. M. Rowlands ve diğ., (Ed.), Domination and Resistance içinde (s. 83-95), Cambridge University Press.
  13. Biaggi, C. (1986). The significance of the nudity, obesity and sexuality of the Maltese Goddess Figures. A. Bonanno ve diğ., (Ed.), Archaeology and Fertility Cult in the Ancient Mediterranean: Papers presented at the First International Conference on Archaeology of the Ancient Mediterranean, (s. 131-140), Amsterdam: Publishing Company.
  14. Biga, M. G. (2021). The Veil in Ancient Near Eastern Religions and Cultures Some Remarks. R. del Fabbro, F. M. Fales, H. D. Galter (Ed.), Headscarf and Veiling Glimpses from Sumer to Islam içinde (s. 73-88), Venezia: Digital Publishing.
  15. Binford, S. R. (1982). Are goddesses and matriarchies merely figments of feminist imagination? C. Spretnak (Ed.), The Politics of Women's Spirituality: Essays on the Rise of Spiritual Power within the Feminist Movement içinde (s. 541-549), New York.
  16. Bowlby, R. (2007). Freudian Mythologies: Greek Tragedy and Modern Identities. Oxford University Press.
  17. Butler, J. (1999). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. London: Routledge Publishing.
  18. Churchward, A. (1924). The Origin and Evolution of Religion. London: George Alen & Unwin Ltd.
  19. Conkey, M. W. ve Spector, J. D. (1984) Archaeology and the Study of Gender. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 7 içinde (s. 1-38), New York: Academic Press.
  20. Cooper, J. S. (2016). The Job of Sex: The social and economic role of prostitutes in ancient Mesopotamia. B. Lion ve diğ., (Ed.), The Role of Women in Work and Society in the Ancient Near East (s. 209-227), SANER, Vol. 13. De Gruyter Publishing.
  21. Costin, C. L. (1996). Exploring the relationship between gender and craft in complex societies: methodological and theoretical issues of gender attribution. R. P. Wright (Ed.) Gender and Archaeology içinde, (s. 111-140), University of Pennsylvania Press.
  22. Couto-Ferreira, M. E. (2017).Let me be your canal’: Some Thoughts on Agricultural Landscape and Female Bodies in Sumero-Akkadian Sources L. Feliú ve diğ., (Ed.), Studies in Honor of Miquel Civil on the Occasion of his 90th Birthday içinde, (s. 54-69), Berlin: De Gruyter Publishing.
  23. Couto-Ferreira, M. E. (2018). Cuerpos mansos: sobre la domesticación sexual y reproductiva de la mujer en las fuentes sumerias. Claroscuro, Año 17, Vol. 17, 1-16.
  24. Crabtree, P. J. (1991). Gender hierarchies and the sexual division of labor in the Natufian culture of the southern Levant. D. Walde ve diğ., (Ed.), The Archaeology of Gender: Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Conference of the Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, (s. 384-391), Calgary.
  25. Crawford, H. (2010). Sümer ve Sümerler. (Çev. N. Uzan), Ankara: Arkadaş Yayınevi.
  26. Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. The University of Chicago Legal Forum 1989(1): 139–167.
  27. Darwin, C. (2021). Cinsel Seçilim. (Çev. B. Kılıç). İstanbul: Alfa Yayınları.
  28. de Beauvoir, S. (1989). The Sexond Sex. New York: Vintage.
  29. Démare-Lafont, S. (2016). Women at Work in Mesopotamia: An attempt at a legal perspective. B. Lion ve diğ., (Ed.), The Role of Women in Work and Society in the Ancient Near East (s. 310-327), SANER, Vol. 13. De Gruyter Publishing.
  30. Direk, Z. (2021). Judith Butler: Toplumsal Cinsiyet ve Bedenin Maddeleşmesi. Z. Direk (Der.), Cinsiyetli Olmak: Sosyal Bilimlere Feminist Bakışlar içinde (s. 67-84), İstanbul: YKY Yayınları.
  31. Eliade, M. (2003). Dinsel İnançlar ve Düşünceler Tarihi/Cilt I: Taş Devrinden Eleusis Mysteria'larına. (Çev. A. Berktay). İstanbul: Kabalcı Yayınevi.
  32. Fales, F. M. (2021). Veiling in Ancient Near Eastern Legal Contexts. R. d. Fabbro ve diğ., (Ed.), Headscarf and Veiling Glimpses from Sumer to Islam (s. 89-100), Venezia: Digital Publishing.
  33. Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality. New York: Basic Books.
  34. Fleming, A. (1969).The myth of the mother‐goddess. World Archaeology, 1:2, 247-261.
  35. Foucault, M. (1986). The history of sexuality, Vol 2: The use of pleasure (Tr. R. Hurley). New York: Vintage Books.
  36. French, M. (2008). From Eve to Dawn: A History of Women. Vol 1: Origins. The Feminist Press at the City University of New York.
  37. Freud, S. (1939). Moses and Monotheism.
  38. Galter, H. D. (2021). Veil and Headscarf: Five Aspects of a Cultural Phenomenon. R. del Fabbro, F. M. Fales, H. D. Galter (Ed.), Headscarf and Veiling Glimpses from Sumer to Islam içinde (s. 21-72), Venezia: Digital Publishing.
  39. Gansell, A. R. (2012). Women in Ancient Mesopotamia. S. L. James ve diğ., (Ed.), A Companion to Women in the Ancient World içinde (s. 11-23). Wiley - Blackwell Publishing.
  40. Gibbs, L. (1987). Identifying gender representation in the archaeological record: A contextual study. I. Hodder (Ed.), The Archaeology of Contextual Meanings içinde (s. 79-89), Cambridge University Press.
  41. Gilchrist, R. (1994). Gender and Material Culture: The Archaeology of religious women. Routledge Publishing.
  42. Gilchrist, R. (1999). Gender and Archaeology: Contesting the past. Routledge Publishing.
  43. Gimbutas, M. (1989). The Language of the Goddess: Unearthing the Hidden Symbols of Western Civilization. London: Thames and Hudson.
  44. Gimbutas, M. (1991). The Civilization of the Goddess: The World of Old Europe. San Francisco: Harper Collins Publishing.
  45. Gobert, E. G. (1965). Sur les Venus Aurignaciennes. La Prehistoire: Probltmes et Tendances (English summary) içinde (s. 209-214). Paris: CNRS.
  46. Godard, A. (1962). The Art of Iran. New York – Washington: Frederick A. Praeger Publishers.
  47. Hallo, W. W. ve van Dijk, J. J. A. (1968). The Exaltation of Inanna. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  48. Harding, S. (1986). The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca–London: Cornell University Press.
  49. Hayden, B. (1986). Old Europe: Sacred matriarchy or complementary opposition. A. Bonanno ve diğ., (Ed.), Archaeology and Fertility Cult in the Ancient Mediterranean: Papers presented at the first International Conference on Archaeology of the Ancient Mediterranean, içinde (s. 17-30), Amsterdam: Publishing Company.
  50. Herdt, G. H. (1981). Guardians of the flute: Idioms of masculinity. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  51. Hodder, I. (1991). Gender representations and social reality. D. Walde ve diğ., (Ed.), The Archaeology of Gender: Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Conference of the Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, (s. 11-16), Calgary.
  52. Hodder, I. ve Meskell, L. (2010). The symbolism of Çatalhoyuk in its regional context. I. Hodder (Ed.), Religion in the Emergence of Civilization: Çatalhöyük as a Case, içinde (s. 32-72). Cambridge University Press.
  53. Hodder, I. ve Meskell, L. (2011). A Curious and Sometimes a Trifle Macabre Artistry: Some Aspects of Symbolism in Neolithic Turkey. Current Anthropology Vol. 52/2, 235–263.
  54. Irigaray, L. (1993). An Ethics of Sexual Difference. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
  55. Jacobsen, T. ve Kramer, S. N. (1953). The Myth of Inanna and Bilulu. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 12/3, 160-188.
  56. Jacobsen, T. (2017). Karanlığın Hazineleri: Mezopotamya Dininin Tarihi. (Çev. S. Erduman). İstanbul: Paris Yayınları.
  57. James, E. O. (1900). The Ancient Gods: The History and Diffusion of Religion in the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
  58. Joyce, R. A. (2004). Embodied Subjectivity: Gender, Femininity, Masculinity, Sexuality. L. Meskell ve diğ., (Ed.), A Companion to Social Archaeology içinde (s. 82-95), Blackwell Publishing.
  59. Kılıç, Y. ve Uncu, E. (2011). Eski Mezopotamya İnanç Sisteminin Yunanlılara Etkisi (İstar- Aphrodite Örneği). History Studies, (3/1), 183-201.
  60. Kutsal Kitap. (2014). Eski ve Yeni Antlaşma, (Tevrat, Zebur, İncil), Yeni Çeviri. Kitabı Mukaddes Şirketi.
  61. Lacan, J. (1978). The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis, Seminar XI, (Tr. A. Sheridan). New York: Norton Publishing.
  62. Lafont, B. (2016). Women at Work and Women in Economy and Society during the Neo-Sumerian Period. B. Lion ve diğ., (Ed.), The Role of Women in Work and Society in the Ancient Near East içinde (s. 149-173), SANER, Vol. 13. De Gruyter Publishing.
  63. Lesure, R. G. (2011). Interpreting Ancient Figurines: Context, Comparison, and Prehistoric Art. Cambridge University Press.
  64. Mellaart, J. (1967). Çatal Hüyük: A Neolithic Town in Anatolia, McGraw-Hill Com. Thames and Hudson.
  65. Melville, S. C. (2005). Royal Women and the Exercise of Power in the Ancient Near East. D. C. Snell (Ed.), A Companion to the Ancient Near East, içinde (s. 219-228), Blackwell Publishing.
  66. Meskell, L. (1995). Goddesses, Gimbutus and the “New Age” Archaeology. Antiquity, 69: 74–86.
  67. Meskell, L. ve Preucel, R. W. (2004). Identities. L. Meskell ve diğ., (Ed.), A Companion to Social Archaeology içinde (s. 121-141), Blackwell Publishing.
  68. Moore, H. (2000). Bodies on the move: gender, power and material culture: gender difference and the material World. J. Thomas (Ed.), Interpretive Archaeology: A Reader içinde (s. 317-328), Leicester University Press.
  69. Moore, J. (2000). Who Lights The Fire? Gender and the Energy of Production. M. Donald ve diğ., (Ed.), Gender and Material Culture in Archaeological Perspective içinde (s. 123-133).
  70. Morin, E. (2014). Yitik Paradigma: İnsan Doğası. (Çev. D. Çetinkasap), İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
  71. Nadali, D. (2021). To See or Not to See. The Issue of Visuality in Ancient Near Eastern Art Images of Queens, High Priestesses, and Other Elite Women in the 3rd Millennium BC. R. del Fabbro, F. M. Fales, H. D. Galter (Ed.), Headscarf and Veiling Glimpses from Sumer to Islam içinde (s. 101-118), Venezia: Digital Publishing.
  72. Nashat, G. (2004). Women in the Middle East, 8000 bce to 1700 bce. T. A. Meade ve diğ., (Ed.), A Companion to Gender History içinde (s. 229-248). Blackwell Publishing.
  73. Neumann, E. (2015). The Great Mother: An Analysis of the Archetype. (Trs. R. Manheim), Princeton University Press.
  74. Nye, R. A. (2004). Sexuality. A. Meade ve diğ., (Ed.), A Companion to Gender History içinde (s. 11-25). Blackwell Publishing.
  75. Oates, J. (2004). Babil. (Çev. F. Çizmeli), Ankara: Arkadaş Yayınevi.
  76. Otto, A. (2016). Professional Women and Women at Work in Mesopotamia and Syria (3rd and early 2nd millennia BC): The (rare) information from visual images. B. Lion ve diğ., (Ed.), The Role of Women in Work and Society in the Ancient Near East içinde (s. 112-148), SANER, Vol. 13. De Gruyter Publishing.
  77. Özçatal, E. Ö. (2011). Ataerkillik, Toplumsal Cinsiyet ve Kadının Çalışma Yaşamına Katılımı. Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(1), 21-39.
  78. Pollock, S. (1999). Ancient Mesopotamia. The Eden that Never Was. Cambridge University Press.
  79. Postgate, J. N. (1992). Early Mesopotamia: Society and economy at the dawn of history. Routledge Publishing.
  80. Rice, P. C. (1982). Prehistoric Venuses: Symbols of motherhood or womanhood? Journal of Anthropological Research 37: 402–414.
  81. Roller, L. E. (1999). In Search of God the Mother: The Cult of Anatolian Cybele. University of California Press.
  82. Rosengren, M. (2012). Cave Art, Perception and Knowledge. Palgrave Macmillan.
  83. Roth, M. T. (1998). Gender and Law: A Case Study From Ancient Mesopotamia. V. H. Matthews ve diğ., (Ed.), Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East (s. 173-184), JfSOTS Series 262. Sheffield Academic Press.
  84. Roth, M. T. (2014). Women and Law. M. C. Chavalas (Ed.), Women in the Ancient Near East içinde (s. 144-174). Routledge Publishing.
  85. Schmidt, W. (1930). Origin and Growth of Religion: Facts and Theories. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd.
  86. Schniedewind, W. M. ve Hunt, J. H. (2007). A Primer on Ugaritic Language, Culture, and Literature. Cambridge University Press.
  87. Sjöberg, Åke W. (1977). Miscellaneous Sumerian Texts, II. JCS 29: 3-45.
  88. Spender, D. (1991). Women of Ideas: And What Men Have Done to Them. Pandora Press.
  89. Stol, M. (1988). Old Babylonian Fields. BSA IV, Part I: 173-188.
  90. Stol, M. (1995). Private Life in Ancient Mesopotamia. J. Baines ve diğ., (Ed.), Civilization of the Ancient Near East Vol I, içinde (s. 485-501).
  91. Stol, M. (2016). Women in the Ancient Near East. De Gruyter Publishing.
  92. Strathern, M. (1988). The Gender of the Gift: Problems with Women and Problems with Society in Melanesia. University of California Press.
  93. Talalay, L. (2012). The Mother Goddess in Prehistory: Debates and Perspectives. S. L. James ve diğ., (Ed.), A Companion to Women in the Ancient World içinde (s. 7-10). Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.
  94. Voigt, M. (2000). Çatal Höyük in Context: Ritual at Early Neolithic Sites in Central and Eastern Turkey. I. Kuijt (Ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation, içinde (s. 253-293), New York.
  95. Weiershäuser, F. (2008). Die königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie von Ur. Göttinger Beiträge zum Alten Orient Band 1. Universitätsverlag Göttingen.
  96. Wiesner-Hanks, M. E. (2011). Gender in History: Global Perspectives. Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.
  97. Wiggermann, F. A. M. (2000). Agriculture in the Northern Balikh Valley The Case of Middle Assyrian Tell Sabi Abyad. R.M. Jas (Ed.), Rainfall and Agriculture in Northern Mesopotamia içinde (s. 171-231),İstanbul.
  98. Wilcke, C. (2007). Early Ancient Near Eastern Law: A History of Its Beginnings. The Early Dynastic and Sargonic Periods. Eisenbrauns.
  99. Yon, M. (2006). The City of Ugarit at Tell Ras Shamra. Winona Lake, Indiana Eisenbrauns.
  100. https://theconversation.com/a-handful-of-bronze-age-men-could-have-fathered-two-thirds-of-europeans-42079. Erişim Tarihi: 10/07/2025.
  101. https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8152. Erişim Tarihi: 10/07/2025).
  102. https://isac.uchicago.edu/article/lecture-colin-renfrew-marija-rediviva-dna-and-indo-european-origins. Erişim Tarihi: 10/07/2025).