Abstract
Feminism is inescapably political, a qualification that generates ambivalence for archaeologists. Skeptics argue that integration compromises scientific objectivity. Advocates explain that political alignment engenders better practice in the present, while feminist perspectives deepen understanding of past social organizations. The contribution is not unidirectional for feminism is well served by archaeological evidence that calls notions about human nature into question, like the sexual division of labor. Despite paradigmatic changes, however, there are aspects of archaeology that resist transformation; demographic composition, acceptable research foci, and pedagogical emphases are discussed. In explanation, I explore the connection between truth and power. The presence of subtle and obvious sexisms in institutional settings, as well as the facility with which both are disappeared, provides entry for deliberation. Reflection makes transparent how violence—whether structural, symbolic, or interpersonal—may seem idiosyncratic but in fact is pervasive and exists collectively. Suggestions about destabilizing entrenched gender inequities are offered.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In 2008, Norder and Rizvi (2008: 14) put forth a list of 12 recommendations designed to foster diversity within the SAA, though the extent to which these have been implemented is unclear.
- 2.
The organization currently operates as a listserv and not a formal organization. For more information see www.societyofblackarchaeologists.com/about-us.html.
- 3.
The dearth of Native Americans earning doctorates is not unique to archaeology. In all academic fields, Patel (2014) reports, they “represented 1.2 % of the U.S. population in 2012 but earned just 0.3 % of the doctorates awarded to U.S. citizens and permanent residents.” While discrimination has historically been a factor, low numbers today are often tied to faculty mentorship (or the lack thereof), cultural values, and impoverishment. That poverty impacts Native Americans’ decisions, or rather constrains them, speaks to the aforementioned issue of intersectionality’s complexity.
- 4.
COSWA was established in 1974 and involvement has ebbed and flowed in the intervening years (Tomásková 2008).
- 5.
This information was taken from the Archaeology Academic Jobs Wikis (http://academicjobs.wikia.com/wiki/Archaeology_Jobs_2012-2013) and includes tenure-track assistant professorships, associate or full professorships, non-tenure track positions, and postdoctoral research jobs. Information about the 2012–2014 academic year can be found here: http://academicjobs.wikia.com/wiki/Archaeology_Jobs_2013-2014.
- 6.
Of course, I realize that the frequency of menstruation in the present is debatable as underscored by Strassman’s (1997) ethnographic study of the Dogon. Her findings, which stress the impact that activity and nutritional stress have on menstrual frequency, are certainly applicable to past peoples, as well.
- 7.
“[F]eminist theorists who, giving way to habits of thought, expect political liberation to come from the ‘raising of consciousness’—ignoring the extraordinary inertia which results from the inscription of social structures in bodies, for lack of a dispositional theory of practices” (Bourdieu 1997: 172).
- 8.
The 2003 survey did not have a question about gender inequity with regard to hiring, whether in academia or commercial contract work.
- 9.
They do, however, presume that males and females are involved in heterosexual relations; in their words, there is a high degree of “intimate interdependence between the ‘in-group’ and ‘out-group’” (Glick and Fiske 2011: 533). Hence, the heteronormative presumptions at work in their analysis require further attention.
- 10.
In response, AAA released a statement about the organization’s zero tolerance policy for sexual harassment. See http://blog.aaanet.org/2013/04/16/zero-tolerance-for-sexual-harassment/.
- 11.
SEAC, which brings together archaeologists working in the southeastern United States, has a smaller number of members than the SAA. As of spring 2002, the organization was comprised of 1020 members (http://www.southeasternarchaeology.org/about/history/).
- 12.
Often this is abbreviated as M/F/H/V, which means minorities, women, people with disabilities, and military veterans. AAA has added information about discrimination with regard to gender identity/expression and sexual orientation/preference. This language does differ contingent on nation, as indicated by postings for positions in Canada.
- 13.
On the Academic Archaeology Jobs Wiki, 2013–2014, I have seen only one instance where a named person was identified as having received the job position advertised. A debate continues on the wiki about the ethicality of posting the names of those who get jobs. Most respondents still advocate for anonymity.
References
Allen, S. H. (2002). The archaeology of the AIA: An introduction. In S. Allen (Ed.), Excavating our past: Perspectives on the history of archaeological Institute of America (pp. 1–28). Boston: Archaeological Institute of America.
Anzaldúa, G. (1987). Borderlands/La frontera: The new mestiza. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books.
Archaeological Institute of America. (1997). Code of professional standards. http://www.archaeological.org/news/advocacy/132. Accessed May 30, 2014.
Battle-Baptiste, W. (2011). Black feminist archaeology. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Baxter, J. E. (2005). Gendered perceptions of archaeology: A perspective from the SAA member needs assessment survey. The SAA Archaeological Record, 5(4), 7–9.
Baxter, J. E., Mayfield, T., O’Gorman, J., Peterson, J., & Stone, T. (2008). Mentoring strategies for women in archaeology: A report of the 2008 COSWA working group. The SAA Archaeological Record, 8(4), 15–18.
Bertelsen, R., Næss, J.-R., & Lillehammer, A. (Eds.) (1987). Were they all men? An examination of sex roles in prehistoric society. Acts from a workshop held at Ulstein Kloster, Rogaland, Nov. 2–4, 1979. Stavanger, Norway: Arkeologisk Museum i Stavanger.
Boites, S., Geller, P. L., & Patterson, T. (2004). The growth and changing composition of anthropology: 1966–2002. http://www.aaanet.org/resources/researchers/upload/Changing-Composition-1966-2002.pdf. Accessed May 27, 2014.
Bolger, D. (2013). Gender, labor, and pottery production in prehistory. In D. Bolger (Ed.), A companion to gender prehistory (pp. 161–179). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Bourdieu, P. (1997). Pascalian meditations. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.
Chomsky, N. (2010). Noam Chomsky: speaking of truth and power (interview by D. Tresilian). Al-Ahram Weekly, June 3. http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20100603.htm/. Accessed Aug 20, 2014.
Clancy, K. (2013). “I had no power to say ‘that’s not okay:’” Reports of harassment and abuse in the field. Scientific American. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/context-and-variation/2013/04/13/safe13-field-site-chilly-climate-and-abuse/. Accessed Oct 30, 2013.
Clark, B. (2008). On the edge of purgatory: An archaeology of place in Hispanic Colorado. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Combahee River Collective. (1982/1977). Combahee river collective statement. In G. Hull, P. Bell-Scott, B. Smith (Eds.), All the women are white, all the blacks are men, but some of us are brave: Black women’s studies (pp. 13–22). Old Westbury, NY: Feminist Press.
Conkey, M. (1997). Mobilizing ideologies: Paleolithic “art”, gender trouble, and thinking about alternatives. In L. Hager (Ed.), Women in human evolution (pp. 172–207). London: Routledge.
Conkey, M. (2007). Questioning theory: Is there a gender of theory in archaeology? Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 14(3), 285–310.
Conkey, M. (2013). The future of gender in prehistoric archaeology. In D. Bolger (Ed.), A companion to gender prehistory (pp. 108–120). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Conkey, M., & Spector, J. (1984). Archaeology and the study of gender. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 7, 1–38.
Conrad, J., Hopkins, N., Orr-Weaver, T., Potter, M., Rizzoli, P., Sive, H., Staffilani, G., Stubbe, J., Chisholm, S., Gibson, L., Goldwasser, S., Liskov, B., Newman, D., Ross, C., & Samson, L. (2011). Report on the status of women faculty in the Schools of Science and Engineering at MIT, 2011. http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/images/documents/women-report-2011.pdf/. Accessed Mar 21, 2011.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1279.
Curtis, J., & Thornton, S. (2013). Here’s the new: The annual report on the economic status of the profession 2012–2013. http://www.aaup.org/file/2012-13Economic-Status-Report.pdf. Accessed Oct 30, 2013.
Davis, A. (1981). Women, race, and class. New York: Random House.
Delle, J., Mrozowski, S., & Paynter, R. (Eds.). (2000). Lines that divide: Historical archaeologies of race, class and gender. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.
Eshed, V., Gopher, A., Galili, E., & Hershkovitz, I. (2004). Musculoskeletal stress markers in Natufian hunter-gatherers and Neolithic farmers in the Levant: The upper limb. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 123(4), 303–315.
Flannery, K. (2006). On the resilience of anthropological archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 35, 1–13.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline & punish. New York: Random House Inc.
Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality. New York: Pantheon Books.
Foucault, M. (1982a). The subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 8(4), 777–795.
Foucault, M. (1982b). This is not a pipe. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Franklin, M. (1997). Power to the people: Sociopolitics and the archaeology of black Americans. Historical Archaeology, 31(3), 36–50.
Galloway, P. (1997). Where have all the menstrual huts gone? The invisibility of menstrual seclusion in the late prehistoric Southeast. In: C. Claassen & R. Joyce (Ed.), Women in prehistory: North America and Mesoamerica (pp. 47–62). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Geertz, C. (1983). Local knowledge. New York: Basic Books.
Geller, P. L. (2004). Transforming bodies, transforming identities: A consideration of pre-Columbian Maya corporeal beliefs and practices. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.
Geller, P. L. (2005). Skeletal analysis and theoretical complications. World Archaeology, 37(4), 597–609.
Geller, P. L. (2009a). Bodyscapes, biology, and heteronormativity. American Anthropologist, 111(4), 504–516.
Geller, P. L. (2009b). Identity and difference: Complicating gender in archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 38, 65–81.
Gero, J. (1985). Sociopolitics of archaeology and the woman-at-home ideology. American Antiquity, 50, 342–350.
Gero, J. (1993). The social world of prehistoric facts: Gender and power in Paleo-Indian research. In H. du Cros & L. Smith (Eds.), Women in archaeology: A feminist critique (pp. 31–40). Canberra: Australian National University.
Gero, J. (1996). Archaeological practice and gendered encounters with field data. In R. Wright (Ed.), Gender and archaeology (pp. 251–280). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Gifford-Gonzalez, D. (1993). You can hide, but you can’t run: Representations of women’s work in illustrations of Paleolithic life. Visual Anthropology Review, 9(1), 3–21.
Glenn, E. N. (1985). Racial ethnic women’s labor: The intersection of race, gender and class oppression. Review of Radical Political Economics, 17(3), 86–108.
Glenn, N. D. (2005/1977). Cohort analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. (1997). Hostile and benevolent sexism: Measuring ambivalent sexist attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 119–135.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. (2011). Ambivalent sexism revisited. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35, 530–535.
Hegmon, M. (2003). Setting theoretical egos aside: Issues and theory in North American archaeology. American Antiquity, 68(2), 213–243.
Hendon, J. (1997). Women’s work, women’s space, and women’s status among the Classic-period Maya elite of the Copán valley, Honduras. In C. Claassen & R. Joyce (Eds.), Women in prehistory: North America and Mesoamerica (pp. 33–46). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Hendon, J. (2006). Feminist perspectives and the teaching of archaeology: Implications from the inadvertent ethnography of the classroom. In P. L. Geller & M. Stockett (Eds.), Feminist anthropology: Past, present, and future (pp. 129–142). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Hewitt, E. (1999). What’s in a name? Gender, power, and Classic Maya women rulers. Ancient Mesoamerica, 10(2), 251–262.
Joyce, R. (2000a). Gender and power in prehispanic Mesoamerica. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Joyce, R. (2000b). Girling the girl and boying the boy: The production of adulthood in ancient Mesoamerica. World Archaeology, 31(3), 473–483.
Kokkinidou, D., & Nikolaidou, M. (2000). A sexist present, a human-less past: Museum archaeology in Greece. In M. Donald & L. Hurcombe (Eds.), Gender and material culture in archaeological perspective (pp. 33–55). London: Palgrave MacMillan.
Larsen, C. S. (1997). Bioarchaeology: Interpreting behavior from the human skeleton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lazos, S. R. (2012). Are student teaching evaluations holding back women and minorities? The perils of ‘doing’ gender and race in the classroom. In G. Gutiérrezy Muhs, Y. Niemann, & C. González (Eds.), Presumed incompetent: The intersections of race and class for women in academia. Logan: Utah State University Press.
Looper, M. (2002). Women-men (and men-women): Classic Maya rulers and the third gender. In T. Ardren (Ed.), Ancient Maya women (pp. 171–202). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Maggiano, I., Schultz, M., Kierdorf, H. S., Sosa, T., Maggiano, C., & Tiesler Blos, V. (2008). Cross-sectional analysis of long bones, occupational activities and long-distance trade of the Classic Maya from Xcambó: Archaeological and osteological evidence. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 136(4), 170–177.
Marchi, D., Sparacello, V., Holt, V., & Formicola, V. (2006). Biomechanical approach to the reconstruction of activity patterns in Neolithic western Liguria, Italy. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 131(4), 447–455.
McGuire, R. (2008). Archaeology as political action. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Meskell, L. (1999). Archaeologies of social life: Age, sex, class, et cetera in ancient Egypt. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Meskell, L. (2000). Cycles of life and death: Narrative homology and archaeological realities. World Archaeology, 31(3), 423–441.
Mohanty, C. T. (1988). Under Western eyes: Feminist scholarship and colonial discourses. Feminist Review, 30, 61–88.
Moraga, C., & Anzaldúa, G. (Eds.). (1984). This bridge called my back: Writings by radical women of color. New York: Kitchen Table Press.
Moser, S. (2007). On disciplinary culture: Archaeology as fieldwork and its gendered associations. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 14(3), 235–263.
Norder, J., & Rizvi, U. (2008). Reassessing the present for an archaeology of the future: Equity, diversity, and change. The SAA Archaeological Record, 8(4), 12–14.
Ortner, S. (2003). New Jersey dreaming: Capital, culture, and the class of ‘58. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Ortner, S. (2006). Anthropology and social theory: Culture, power, and the acting subject. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Patel, V. (2014). Why so few American Indians earn Ph.D.’s, and what colleges can do about it. The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 27. http://chronicle.com/article/Why-So-Few-American-Indians/146715/. Accessed Jun 2, 2014.
Patterson, T. (1999). The political economy of archaeology in the United States. Annual Review of Anthropology, 28, 155–174.
Robin, C. (2002). Outside of houses: The practices of everyday life at Chan N´oohol, Belize. Journal of Social Archaeology, 2(2), 245–268.
Romanowicz, J., & Wright, R. (1996). Gendered perspectives in the classroom. In R. Wright (Ed.), Gender and archaeology (pp. 199–223). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Rosin, H. (2012). The end of men: And the rise of women. New York: Viking Press.
Ruff, C. (2000). Biomechanical analyses of archaeological human skeletal samples. In M. A. Katzenberg & S. Saunders (Eds.), Biological anthropology of the human skeleton (pp. 71–102). New York: Wiley-Liss.
Ryder, N. (1965). The cohort as a concept in the study of social change. American Sociological Review 30, 843–861.
Sandberg, S. (2013). Lean in: Women, work, and the will to lead. New York: Alfred A Knopf.
Sládek, V., Berner, M., Sosna, D., & Sailer, R. (2007). Human manipulative behavior in the central European late Eneolithic and early bronze age: Humeral bilateral asymmetry. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 133(1), 669–681.
Slaughter, A.-M. (2012). Why women still can’t have it all. The Atlantic, July/August. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-cant-have-it-all/309020/. Accessed Oct 2, 2013.
Smith, B. (Ed.). (1983). Home girls: A black feminist anthology. New York: Kitchen Table/Women of Color Press.
Society for American Archaeology (2006). Statement on diversity. http://www.saa.org/AbouttheSociety/tabid/54/Default.aspx/. Accessed May 27, 2014.
Sofaer Derevenski, J. (2000). Sex differences in activity-related osseous change in the spine and the gendered division of labor at Ensay and Wharram Percy, UK. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 111, 333–354.
Sørensen, M. L. S. (2000). Gender archaeology. Cambridge: Polity.
Spector, J. (1993). What this awl means: Feminist archaeology at a Wahpeton Dakota Village. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press.
Standen, V., Arriaza, B., & Santoro, C. (1997). External auditory exostosis in prehistoric Chilean populations: A test of the cold water hypothesis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 103(1), 119–129.
Stockett, M. (2005). On the importance of difference: Re-envisioning sex and gender in ancient Mesoamerica. World Archaeology, 37(4), 566–578.
Strassman, B. (1997). The biology of menstruation in Homo sapiens: Total lifetime menses, fecundity, and nonsynchrony in a natural-fertility population. Current Anthropology, 38(1), 123–129.
Surface-Evans, S., & Jackson, M. (2012). Feminine voices in archaeology: Promoting community, collaboration, and mentoring. The SAA Archaeological Record, 12(1), 22–25.
Tomásková, S. (2008). History of COSWA: Beginnings, ruptures, and continuities. The SAA Archaeological Record, 8(4), 8–11.
Trigger, B. (1989). A history of archaeological thought. London: University of Cambridge Press.
Valian, V. (1998). Why so slow: The advancement of women. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Valian, V. (2005). Beyond gender schemas: Improving the advancement of women in academia. Hypatia, 20(3), 198–213.
Villotte, S., Churchill, S. E., Dutour, O. J., & Henry-Gambier, D. (2010). Subsistence activities and the sexual division of labor in the European upper paleolithic and mesolithic: Evidence from upper limb enthesopathies. Journal of Human Evolution, 59(1), 35–43.
Voss, B., & Casella, E. (Eds.). (2011). The archaeology of colonialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walker, P. (1995). Problems of preservation and sexism in sexing: Some lessons from historical collections for palaeodemographers. In S. Saunders & A. Herring (Eds.), Grave reflections: portraying the past through cemetery studies (pp. 31–47). Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.
Watson, P. J., & Kennedy, M. (1991). The development of horticulture in the eastern woodlands of North America: Women’s role. In J. Gero & M. Conkey (Eds.), Engendering archaeology: Women and prehistory (pp. 255–275). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
West, M. S., & Curtis, J. (2006). AAUP faculty gender equity indicators 2006. Washington, DC: American Association of University Professors.
Whitehouse, R. (2007). Gender archaeology and archaeology of women: Do we need both? In S. Hamilton, R. Whitehouse, & K. Wright (Eds.), Archaeology and women: Ancient and modern (pp. 27–40). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Wolf, A. (2013). The XX factor: How working women are creating a new society. London: Profile Books Ltd.
Wright, R. (2003). Gender matters—A question of ethics. In L. Zimmerman, K. Vitelli, & J. Hollowell-Zimmer (Eds.), Ethical issues in archaeology (pp. 225–237). Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
Wright, R. (2008). Sexual harassment and professional ethics. The SAA Archaeological Record, 8(4), 27–30.
Wylie, A. (1992). The interplay of evidential constraints and political interests. American Antiquity, 57, 15–35.
Wylie, A. (1996). The constitution of archaeological evidence: Gender politics and science. In P. Galison & D. Stump (Eds.), The disunity of science: Boundaries, contexts, and power (pp. 311–343). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Wylie, A. (1997). The engendering of archaeology: Refiguring feminist science studies. Osiris, 12, 80–99.
Wylie, A. (2006). Afterword: On waves. In P. L. Geller & M. Stockett (Eds.), Feminist anthropology: Past, present, and future (pp. 167–175). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Wylie, A. (2007). Doing archaeology as a feminist: Introduction. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 14(3), 209–216.
Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Zernike, K. (2011). Gains, and Drawbacks, for Female Professors. The New York Times, March 21.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Geller, P.L. (2016). This is not a Manifesto: Archaeology and Feminism. In: Amoretti, M., Vassallo, N. (eds) Meta-Philosophical Reflection on Feminist Philosophies of Science. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, vol 317. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26348-9_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26348-9_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-26346-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-26348-9
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)