It is excellent to see that Haughton takes up gender as a ‘hot’ topic again. As pointed out by Haughton, for some time studies on gender and gender inspired studies have mainly focused on the body (e.g. Hamilakis et al. 2002, Borić and Robb 2008, Harris et al. 2013). A paper that instead focuses on gender relations is a welcome contribution in these #MeToo times. The paper by Haughton is clearly set within the British Bronze Age. My own speciality is the Nordic Bronze Age, and this background will be seen in the material I chose to bring into this discussion, though I think the topic is relevant for a wider Bronze Age area as well. Haughton argues that the paper is concerned with social ‘ideology’ and not with identity. This section lacks references, which makes it difficult to fully follow the foundation of his opinion here. Haughton connects identity with ‘the personal sense of self, or how a person might describe who they are’ and ‘ideology denotes the generally shared, yet often ill-defined, notions which communities hold about how certain types of people could or should act and be’. The use of identity in archaeology has a long history of including both these concepts (see e.g. Austvoll 2017, Insoll 2007, Hansen 2012, Sørensen 2013, Röst 2016). I would argue that most researchers coming from a gender theoretical background and who are based in the classical definition of gender as ‘...culturally and socially constructed, as historically and culturally contingent, recognising that gender roles and relations are constituted and given meaning in historically and culturally specific ways’ (Conkey and Gero 1991, p. 8), probably see gender and identity as social and relational from the start. There are some studies focusing on a particular type of identity, such as the priestess or the smith (e.g. Anderson 2018, Goldhahn 2007, Kristiansen and Larsson 2005, Varberg 2013), but those are seldom built on a gender theoretical ground. Without a fuller discussion and bibliography it is unclear if the author is only critiquing a part of the archaeological study of identity or if he is proposing to abandon the term identity and exchange it with social ideology within gender studies. As pointed out by the author gender is relational, in contrast to e.g. women studies (Minnich 1990), though there are many things that structure these relations. Gender is not the only factor that structures our relations; gender/sex can be one, but for example class/status and race also play parts (Kamarck 1990, p. 58–71). In other words, gender is as complex as the terms class and race (Kamarck 1990, p. 138). In order to understand gender relations in the Bronze Age fully, we do need to comprehend in which circumstances some people hold power over others and in which cases power relations do not exist. Mann (1986, p. 6) argues that power in itself is not a resource, but that social power is exercised through different resources. The four

中文翻译：

---

重振性别？

很高兴看到霍顿再次将性别作为一个“热门”话题。正如 Haughton 所指出的，一段时间以来，关于性别和性别启发的研究主要集中在身体上（例如，Hamilakis 等人 2002、Borić 和 Robb 2008、Harris 等人 2013）。在这些#MeToo 时代，一篇专注于性别关系的论文是受欢迎的贡献。霍顿的论文显然是在英国青铜时代。我自己的专长是北欧青铜时代，这一背景将在我选择带入本次讨论的材料中看到，尽管我认为该主题也与更广泛的青铜时代领域相关。霍顿认为，这篇论文关注的是社会“意识形态”而不是身份。这部分缺乏参考资料，这使得在这里很难完全遵循他的观点的基础。霍顿将身份与“个人自我意识，或一个人如何描述他们是谁”联系起来，“意识形态表示社区对某些类型的人可以或应该如何行动和行为持有普遍共享但通常不明确的观念。是'。在考古学中使用身份的历史悠久，包括这两个概念（参见 Austvoll 2017、Insoll 2007、Hansen 2012、Sørensen 2013、Röst 2016）。我认为大多数研究人员来自性别理论背景，并且基于性别的古典定义为“......文化和社会构建的，历史和文化偶然的，认识到性别角色和关系是在历史和文化特定的方式”（Conkey 和 Gero 1991，第 8 页），可能从一开始就将性别和身份视为社会和关系。有一些研究关注特定类型的身份，例如女祭司或铁匠（例如 Anderson 2018、Goldhahn 2007、Kristiansen 和 Larsson 2005、Varberg 2013），但这些研究很少建立在性别理论基础上。如果没有更全面的讨论和参考书目，我们就不清楚作者是否只是在批评身份考古研究的一部分，或者他是否提议放弃身份一词，并在性别研究中将其与社会意识形态进行交换。正如作者所指出的，与女性研究（Minnich 1990）相反，性别是相关的，尽管有很多东西可以构建这些关系。性别不是构建我们关系的唯一因素；性别/性别可以是一，但例如阶级/地位和种族也有影响（Kamarck 1990，第 58-71 页）。换句话说，性别与阶级和种族这两个术语一样复杂（Kamarck 1990，第 138 页）。为了充分理解青铜时代的性别关系，我们确实需要理解在哪些情况下有些人对其他人拥有权力，在哪些情况下不存在权力关系。Mann (1986, p. 6) 认为权力本身并不是一种资源，而是通过不同的资源来行使社会权力。四个 6）认为权力本身不是一种资源，而是通过不同的资源来行使社会权力。四个 6）认为权力本身不是一种资源，而是通过不同的资源来行使社会权力。四个