(PDF) PROGRAMME TO PRACTICE: Gender and Feminism in Archaeology (with Margaret Conkey)

Annu. Rer. Anthropol. 1997. 26:11 I 37 (lopyright i(lt 1997 by Annual Revrew.s Inc. All rights reserved PROGRAMME TO PRACTICE: Gender and Feminism in Archaeology Margaret W. Conkey Archaeological Research Facility, Deparlment of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California 94720-37101. e-mail: conkey@)qal. berkeley.edu Joan M. Gero Department of Anthropology, American University, Washington, DC 20016-8003; e- mail : j

. Formerly with the Department of Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC AtsSTRACT In the past decade, archaeologists have given considerable attention to re- search on gender in the human past. In this review, we attempt to acknowledge much of this diverse and abundant work from an explicitly feminist perspec- tive. We focus on reviewing a selection of approaches to gender that are an- chored to specific theoretical standpoints. In addition, we highlight several ap- proaches that challenge an archaeology ofgender that does not explicitly en- gage with the implications of this topic fbr research, practice, and interpreta- tion. From our perspective, we suggest the value of situating gender research within an explicitly feminist framework. and we draw attention to some of the impofiant insights for archaeology from the wider field of feminist critiques of science. Last, we draw attention to the crucial implications for the practice of archaeolosv. The big, unitary Answer that levels, grades and paves reality like a super- highway is not only NOT the solution, it is at the very heart ofthe problem. Utne Reader (Jan.-Feb. 1995, p.57) ...by shorving "other alternatives are thinkable by no means debunks our cur- rent beliefs, it only exposes as fraudulent the absolute authority with which we think them" (Daston 1993, as cited in M.T. 1993, p. 35) 411 0084-6570/e7lr 0| s-04 | I $08.00 412 CONKEY&GERO GENDF]R AND I'-EMINISM IN ARCI]AEOLOGY 413 INTRODUCTION or resistances that seem still to inhibit a full engagement in gender research in archaeology, and we raise questions about the overall effects ofthe increasing rn 1997, the state and fate ofan archaeology ofgender rest on more than any volume of gender research in archaeology, asking whether inquiry has been single political agenda or any monolithic approach to the topic. The intensity further opened to interested scholars or whether it has namou,ed. Finally, we with which the study of gender has infused archaeological discourse and address the centrality of feminist thought-specifically the feminist critiques analysis in the past five years does not mean that there is now-nor is there an- of science-to notions of archaeology as a science, to archaeological problem- ticipated to be-a shared orientation to the study of gender, or a single method- solving, to fieldwork and data collection, and to teaching and the presentation ology for studying gender, or, perhaps more problematically, even a com- of archaeological issues. monly held body of theory and data about gender (for a partial review of work on gender in archaeology before 1991, see Kehoe 1992).rn fact, publications now include as diverse a set ofstatements and even straight-out contradictory TAKING UP GE,NDER IN ARCHAEOLOGY starting assumptions as can be imagined. Locating the Corpus This review emphasizes where a feminist-inspired archaeology sits within the discipline today and where it can potentially take the discipline as we move The explosion ofliterature on archaeological gender in the past five years is into the next millennium. we do not review all examples of the archaeology of concentrated in large part in published collections of papers originally pre- gender, which, in any case, are too numerous to be accountecl for individually. sented at gender oriented conferences, or in organized speaker series (Balme & we also do not dwell on what is thought to be known about "women in prehis- Beck 1995; Claassen 1992,1994 du Cros & Smith 1993; Gero & Conkey tory" (but see du Cros & Smith 1993, Ehrenberg 19g9, Spielman 1995), I 991 ; Walde & Willows 199 I ; Wright 1996), together with similarly concen* "women in history" (but see Balme & Beck 1995, Scott 1994, Seifert 1991, tratedspecialgenderissuesofperiodicals, e.g.HistoricalArchaeologyll99l, Walde & Willows 199 I , Wall 1994), or "women in antiquity,' (but see Archer 25 (4)1, l{ o rw e gi an Ar c h a e o I o gi c al Rev iew 11992, 25 (1 )1, P I ains A nthr op o I o' et al 199 4; Fantham et al 1 994 ; Kampen 1 995 ; pomeroy 197 5, I 99 I Rabinow- ; glsl Memoir 11991 , 26], Massachusetts Archaeological Society Bulletin itz & Richlin 1993). we do not consider in any depth specific methodological !994, 55(1)1, Journal ofAnthropological Research 11996,51(2)1, and CRM approaches to reveal women (or "gender") in the archaeological record (but for 11997 ,20(3)1. These topic-focused special publications on gender numerically an overyiew of diverse approaches, see costin 1996 or Hayd en 1992; for burial overwhelm the articles appearing singly in journals, a recogttized historic pat- analysis, see Hollimon 1991, 1992; for cross-cultural regr.rlarities of gender tern by which new subfields are introduced into archaeology (M Cabak, un- roles, see Kent 1995; and for ethnohistory, ethnoarchaeology, iconographic re- published manuscript, 1 989). search, see Arsenault 1991, Gero 1997,Miller 1988). At the same time, almost all major North American journals have published Rather, today's literature requires from us a more self-conscious position- at least one article that focuses on the archaeology of gender,includingAmeri- ing of perspectives; no single position within the larger discourse, and cer- can Anthropologrsl (Moss 1993), American Antiquity (Wylie 7992), Archae' tainly not our own as given here, can present itself as neutral or all- ology of Eastern North America (Dent 1991), Comparative Studies in Society encompassing or even as all-tolerant. Instead, we intend this review to move and History (Linke 1992), Current Anthropology (Joyce 1993b, McCafferty & forward an explicitly feminist inquiry in archaeology, one that is committed to McCafferty 1994), Journal of Anthropological Archaeology (Allen 1996, changing the way archaeology is practiced, the way it is presented, and the na- Larick 1991 , Solomon 1992), .Iournal ctJ'Cctlifornia and Great Basin Arnthro- ture of archaeological interpretation. pology (McGuire & Hildebrandt 1994), Latin American Antiquity (Guillen we begin by considering how the recent cxplosion of interest in gender is 1993), North American Archoeologt (Sassaman 7992), Research in Economic positioned in the archaeological literature, highlighting several distincl ways Anthropology (Costin 1993), Visual Anthropology Review (Gifford-Gonzales ofconnecting empirical archaeological study to theoretical resources and ar- 1 993), and Gender, Place and Culture (Tringham 1994). For one recent anno- guments. we then review a sele ction of studies in f'eminist archaeology that are tated bibliography, see Bacus et al (1993). particularly notable for how they have opened up transformatory and imagina- Furthermore, this is far from being a local, Americanist phenomenon. Re- tive possibilities for the archaeologies of the next millennium. Despite the search on gender has proceeded vigorousty in many intemational contexts enormous promise of these revelatory sfudies, we recognize intemal obstacles (e.g. Norway, Australia, South Africa, Germany), and international journals 414 CONKEY&GERO GENDER AND FEMINISM IN ARCHAEOLOGY 415 have regularly if sporadically included articles on gender, e.g. Journal of havior with the behavior of men, a primary purpose for undertaking a gendered European Archaeology (Bailey 1994a, Robb 1994), Antiquie (Englestad archaeology is to identify or assert the presence and activities of women on 1991, Gilchrist 1991, Kehoe 1991, Meskell 1995), Archaologie der Schweiz prehistoric sites. The value of these studies begins with a recognition of female (Basel) (Muller 1991), Australian Archaeology (McDonald, 1992), Oxford labor in a broad range of activities (e.g. Benedict 1993), many of which were Journal ofArchaeology (Boardman 1991), south African Archaeological Bul- once considered exclusively male domains such as Paleoindian encampments letin (Mazel 1992, Wadley 1989), and llorld Archaeology (Bailey lgg4b, (Chilton 1994), Paleolithic cave art (Russell 1991), Natuhan transitions from Dobres 1995b). International interest is apparent by other measures as well: foraging to agriculture (Crabtree 1991), Maya animal husbandry @ohl 1991), Multiple conferences (du Cros & Smith 1993; Balme & Beck 1995; Kiistner & or pre-Columbian Moche mortuary rituals (Arsenault l99l). Similarly, the Karlisch 1991; Solomon, personal communication), thematic journals on or by identification of women in high prestige burials has challenged the monopoli- women (e.g. K.A.N. 1985-), review articles (e.g. Dommasnes 1992), and spe- zation of power by men in stratihed societies (McCafferty & McCafferty cial journal issues (Engelstad 1992) have appeared. However, French archae- 1994, Nelson 1991a). ln addition, "looking for women" (indeed, finding ologists appear perplexed by what they consider to be a historically and cultur- women!) forces self-conscious attention to starting assumptions about gender, ally specific Anglo-American concern with gender, a term that, they claim, has where, for instance, traditional assessments of a division of labor are examined no translation into French [coudart, personal communication; see also del and either adopted (Sassaman 1992, Watson & Kennedy l99l) or revised Valle (1993b, p. 2) who makes a similarpoint for Spanishl, suggesting that the (Crabtree 1991, Duke 1991). Such "locate-the-women" projects also take up genealogies of gendered anthropology are markedly Anglo-Saxon, linked to a the once unshakable redundancy of gendered task "assignments" in cross- new imperialist archaeology. cultural perspective. For instance, by asking where women might be located in In addition to the burgeoning number ofjournal articles, it is increasingly the production sequences of flaked stone tools, archaeologists have "found" the case that regional or topical edited volumes will include an article on gen- women in the organization of quarrying activities (Sassaman 1997),heattteat- der (e.g. Gifford-Gonzalez's 1992 contribution to a volume on archaeozool- ment sequences of silicious rock, or variability in core preparation vs expedi- ogy, or Yentsch I 991 and Spencer-Wood I 99 I in a volume on inequality), and ent technologies (Sassaman 1992). Looking for women also accounts for a re- anthropological volumes on gender will sometimes include archaeological newed interest in iconographic representation (Levy 1995, Pollock 1991), and contributions (e.g. conkey & williams 1991, Nelson 1992, Silverblatt 199r). especially in female figurines (Bailey 1994b1' Brumfiel 1996; Dobtes 1992, Moreover, gender issues are increasingly recognized as significant to other Hamilton et al 1996; Joyce 1993a,b, 1991:. Lesure 1997). The results of these problem areas in archaeology (Dobres 1995b; Dobres & Hoffman 1 994 on pre- studies are that women have shown up at prehistoric sites and in political and historic technology; Hingley 1991 on social archaeology of houses; Hendon economic activities all over the globe, sometimes in the most unlikely places. 1996 on domestic labor). Gender appears, though rarely, in Cultural Resource This literature contains sharply differing views of gender in human history: Management reports (e.g. Walsh et al 1994; for some discussion, or the special Males and females are interpreted as accepting and reproducing, or as resisting issue of CRM in 1997 , see Rogers & Fowler 1994). According to Claassen, and redefining, their gendered social positions. Definitions of what it might over 500 conference papers authored by over 400 individuals have been pre- have meant to be female or male at particular points in time alternate with de- sented on gender since 1988, and over l0 conferences devoted to gender and scriptions of how gender meanings shift and undergo transformations. Gen- archaeology have been held since 1987 (claassen, personal communication), dered groups are lumped or split. The primacy of gender as determinant of so- but it remains to be seen how much of the enormous oral literature will culmi- cial identity is sometimes emphasized. Other times, gender is subsumed under nate in published works. A promising sign is the September 1996 announce- other social identities such as ethnicity, class, or occupational status. Some re- ment by the University of Pennsylvania Press of a new book series, Regender- searchers use archaeological materials to focus on behavioral patterns (gender ing the Past, devoted explicitly to gender in archaeology (e.g. Claassen & roles) of females and males, while others focus on gender relations and relative Ioyce 1997). statuses of females and males, or on gender ideology as sets of meanings at- tached to being female or male (Robb 1994). The Gender Genre Equally notable is the continuing development and literature in archae- Researchers in prehistory have embraced gender studies to resolve a wide ology that takes an explicitly gender-sensitive approach to the sociology ofthe spectrum of problems. Motivated by a rejection of the equation of human be- field. A number ofvolumes deal with the previously "hidden voices"-1v66sn 416 CONKEY&GERO GENDER AND FEMINISM IN ARCHAEOLOGY 417 as archaeologists-particularly in the history of archaeology. Biographies of rectly to two uniformly gendered classes of individuals, males and females, previously unacknowledged or underappreciated women archeologists in- whose biological sexual characteristics are modeled as presumed universals, clude the work compiled in Claassen's (1994) and Reyman,s (1992) edited including the (male) ability to fertilize (multiple) eggs and the (female) ability volumes, as well as studies published elsewhere (S Bender 1991,1992; Bishop to produce single ovulation events and to physically bear children, in addition & Lange 1991; Chilton 1992; Claassen 1993; Cordell l99l; Ioiner 1992; to hormonal differences, lactation, menstruation, and biological strength. Any Levine 1991; Nelson 1991b;Parezo 1993; Woodbury 1992). These reveal a one or a combination ofseveral universal sex characteristics can be considered surprising range of roles and strength of scholarship that women offered ar- determinant ofthe cultural behaviors adopted by each sex group and account chaeology on many continents, sometimes as the hidden spouse but also often for why males and females are "assigned" gender-specific roles and activities. as a passionate but publically invisible contributor. There is also a substantive Socio-biological positions differ in the degree of determinism assigned to spe- body on equity issues (in Claassen 1992, tndu Cros & Smith 1993, Engelstad cific biological factorsas well as in the degree of cultural conditioning and me- etal 7994, Ford & Hundt 1994, Hanen & Kelley 1992, Nelson et al 7994, Ovre- diation that intervenes between the drive for biological fitness and the expres- vik 1991, Spielmann 1994). sion of gendered behaviors. Thus, highly determinant sociobiological posi- Equity issues in archaeology have consistently influenced, and been influ- tions include Knight's (1991) argument forthe cultural implications of conver- enced by, the scholarly research on gender in past human societies. In fact, gent female mensttuation and the simultaneous ovulation of proximate women studies by Smith & du Cros (1995), Wylie (1994b ,1996),and Hanen & Kelley (see also Golub 1992; or Zeanah et al's 1995 argument for different male and (1992) find that the interest in engendering prehistory has been directly moti- female foraging strategies in the Great Basin). Hayden (1992) similarly assoct- vated by perceived or existing gender inequities in the modern research com- ates "well-established" sex differences such as hormonally related aggression munity (see also Whelan 1995). Meanwhile, feminist ideas, theory, or perspec- levels with broadly observed gender preferences for particular tasks, such as tives are only rarely cited as having motivated participants' interest in gender group defense. At a much less direct level of sociobiological reasoning, Costin as a topic of research (Wylie 1994b,1996). ( I 996) argues that gender difference in its many diverse aspects represents a Theoretically Anchored Pos itions highly general means for members of each sex group, within a given cultural context, to demonstrate their appropriateness both as marriage mates and as In this section, we highlight several theoretical approaches that have proven potcntial parents to a mate's children. especially rich for engendering archaeological data and/or that present an es- pecially well-developed theoretical position on gender. These are identified (iENDER AS SOCIAL CONST RUCTION The concept that gender and sex are con- because the assumptions underlying each approach directly influence the scale structed that is, not rooted in biology or procreation nor inherently dichoto- of analysis, the data selected for analysis, or the interpretive meanings attached rlous has been integral to feminist theory in the anthropological literature to archaeological gender research. In each case, the theoretical perspectives in- since the 1970s (see especially Kessler & McKenna 1985). But meanings of clude a range ofexpressions rather than a single stance; further, they are nei- "social construction" have developed and changed, from the initial liberal ther mutually exclusive nor always compatible. we regret that our summaries feminist approaches that emphasized only the social construction of masculin- may oversimplify to the point of distortion, but we provide additional refer- ity and femininity, often taken as givens [see Epstein's (1988) critique], to the ences to persue. Ultimately, each of the six approaches represents a different French feminists' focus on psychoanalysis and politics (e.g. lrigaray 1985), to way to connect empirical archaeological study with theoretical resources and the position that challenges gender as a constn.rction more important than, or arguments, a process that we strongly promote for the maturation of an engen- even differentiable from, aspects of class, race, and/or ethnicity (e.g. Collins dered archaeology. 1989, Hooks 1984), to the cultural feminists' (e.g. Butler 1990, Flax 1990) re- jection ofthe stability ofeither sex or gender as categories. even as socially GENDER AS SOCIOBIOLOGICAL STRATEGY Some researchers have found it constructed ones, or to Lorber's (1994) recent analysis ofgender as a social in- useful to frame gender as the culturally mediated means by which sex groups stitution. All the variant ideas within the constructionist critique start from the seek to maximize their reproductive fitness by contributing more genes to the assumption that the construction of our analytical categories (even the very genetic constitution of future generations. Sociobiological researchers con- term "gender") is deeply embedded in historical, sociocultural, ideological, ceive of two unambiguously dichotomous sexes giving rise more or less di- and material contexts. 4I8 CONKEY&GERO GENDER AND FEMINISM IN ARCHAEOLOGY 419 Archaeologically, this may take the form of questioning the ,.origins', of llathcr, the appearance of patriarchy is linked to the emergence or incurrence gender (e.g. Conroy 1993, Moore 1991, Whelan l99l): At what point and, ol'the state, with its admission of hegemonic power relationships and overt more importantly, under what circumstances, did something like ..gender," as ruower differentials. a social construction, come into play in human life? what is its relationship to Evolutionary models may follow more or less closely from Engels's de- the (sexual) division of labor? How, archaeologically, might we recognize or scriptions of an early matriarchic period in human history (sometimes called identifiz the emergence or existence of social phenomena that look like gender? (iynecentric Theory) later overturned by males who subverted the natural or- If one accepts the idea that gender is dependent upon symbolic communication dcr and balance. Fen-rinist anthropologists and ethnohistorians have used such systems, it is immediately problematic to assume that australopithecines or Lrrrderstandings to explain the transformation of independent Naskapi women other early hominids had "gender." into submissive Christian wives after contact with Jesuits (Leacock 1981); the There is little work within the anthropology of gender that does not take step-by-step erosion of Andean women's realms of feminine power, first gender to be some form of social construction; perhaps only the sociobiolo- through the rise of the Inka state and then as the Spanish conquest of what is gists reject or avoid using the concept. But the implication that necessarily fol- now Peru intensified (Silverblatt I 987, 1991 ); or the undermining of Tongan lows, namely a "respect for historical difference and change" (di Leonardo women's power by the colonist invaders' transformations of social relations 1991b, p. 29), has not always been embraced, even after such compelling stud- ((iailey 1987). There is little doubt that, given the success of archaeology with ies as Laqueur (1990), Jordanova (1980), and Merchant (1980) have demon- some forms of an evolutionary paradigm, the scrutiny of "gender" as part of strated the importance ofhistorical change vis-d-vis gender and sexuality, just the evolutionary translbrmations in the human past can and have yielded im- within western history. while social constructivism is widespread, varying portant new understandings of the transformations themselves. degrees of constructionism are admitted. There is justifiable concern about the radical version of the constructivist critique, which tolerates interpretations (;r,NDER AS por-rrCAL ECONOMv Although the "culture and political econ- that could be labeled "nihilistic," and there is also justifiable concern for the only" approach is a widespread feature ofmuch recent anthropological inquiry ways in which this constructivist critique has been polarized against a conser- (scc Roseberry 1988), alnong feminist sociocultural anthropologists this view vative objectivism (Wylie 1994a,b; see also Bergman's 1995 critique of di has been promoted most vigorously by Micaela di Leonardo (1991a,b, 1993). Leonardo's oppositionality of postmodernism with political economy). Given di Leonardo (1991b, p. 27) defines five key points in her feminist culture and archaeology's concern with the materiality of past human life, an important is- political economy approach (di Leonardo 1991a, but see Bergman 1995 for a sue arising from these debates for archaeology, and one ofarchaeology,s im- oritique). First, she favors a radical rejection of social evolutionism. In contrast portant contributions to them, is to probe the best means of analyzing the dia- to the evolutionist approaches noted above, she argues that "feminist anthro- lectic between human life as socially constructed and the very materiality of pologists cannot locate the 'key' to male dominance over women in small- human life. one of the more eloquent expositions on this topic, specifically scalc societies," as ifthese somehow represented "living history" (di Leonardo oriented toward the archaeology of gender, is by Wylie (1992; see also re- | 99 lb, p. 28); the approach mandates a "respect for history." sponses by Fotiadis 1994, Ltttle 1994, Wylie 1994c). Above all, the idea of From this pour forth additional points, including the rejection ofessential- gender as a social construction mandates that archaeologists inter:rogate their isnr. the potent role ofsocial constructionism (see above), and the recognition starting assumptions when setting out to do an archaeology of gender. ol' the "embeddedness" of gender in other social divisions like hierarchy. Lastly, she argues for the imperative analysis of all forms of social inequality GENDER AS AN EVOLTJTIONARY PROCESS Evolutionary models, which ar- and the expiicit recognition of the "multiple layers of context through which range discrete socioculfural instances in an order toward increasing complex- we perceive cultural inequalities" (1991b, p. 31). 1ty, may assume, and thus be useful in predicting, regular changes in the evolu- For archaeological studies, there is much to be gained from engaging with tion of gender systems. while the egalitarian relations of foraging peoples are thesc points and putting them to work in interpretations of the archaeological reiterated in nonhierarchical gender relations, an intensification ofgender hi- record. Foremost among those who have considered the effects of political erarchy is posited to correspond with each level of increased sociocultural cconorlly on gender roles and constructs is E,lizabeth Brumfiel. Brumfiel ranking or stratification. Thus for the evolutionists, the widely observed male ( I 992) reminds archaeologists that "political economy" is not equivalent to the dominance in present-day societies is seen as anything but normal or natural. rnorc traditional "subsistence economy" approach because the former recog- 420 CONKEY&GERO GENDERAND FEMINISM IN ARCHAEOLOGY 421 nizes the role of human agency, politics, and negotiations in economic deci- irrralyzing this production. This is appealing in that it is a "temporally attuned sions and actions. Brumfiel (1991) also draws on standard archaeological evi- ir;rproach" (Hasbrouck 1996, p. 17), one that promotes the idea that both gen- dence such as ceramics and spindle whorls to demonstrate how Aztec women tlcl and sexuality are very complex and fluid in each individual, continually in may have undertaken different strategies to negotiate the demand for produc- rr rclational flux. Moreover, in her work, and therefore differentiating her work tion oftribute cloth. This provides an excellent example ofhow foregrounding firrrn the earlier arguments of West & Zimmerman (1987), Butler argues that gender, and in particular the role of women, in an analysis of Aztec political gcrrdcr is constituted as a set ofacts that produce the effect or appearance ofa economy leads to more nuanced and "peopled" understanding. coherent substance, and that it works and derives its compelling force from the Furthermore, Brumfiel's study demonstrates that there is no single lact that people themselves mistake the gender acts they perform for the es- "women's role" but rather several alternative strategies through which tribute sence, coming to believe that such acts are genuine, inescapable moments of can be "paid" through women's labor. Brumfiel's work is a powerful reminder sclf-actualization. Thus, in Butler's terms, performatives are both generative against the tendency to homogenize or essentialize-in this case Aztec- and dissimulating, compelling certain kinds of behavior by hiding the fact that "women" and forces our attention to what Moore (1993) has called "differ- there is no essential, natural sex to which gender can refer as its starting point. ences within" ralher than to the "differences between" as between the two In archaeology, the performativity of gender has been explored most ac- genders, men and women-that are usually discussed. tively by Rosemary Joyce (1993a,1996,1997) showing, for instance, how the practices of inscription required in the employment of omaments of durable GENDER AS AGENCY Taking a cue from what has been more generally called nraterials (carved stone and ceramic beads, pendants, ear ornaments, etc) "practice theory" (Bourdieu l9ll , Ortner 1984), some scholars have come to transform the open and generative shifting performances ofgender to closed, understand gender as one ofthe "acts" whereby social identities are produced prcscriptional ones. and are constantly "in production". Gendered subjects are produced, not born. Challenges to an Archaeolog/ of Gender Recent anthropological thought has recognized, first, the importance ofan on- going tension between "structure" and "agency" (after Giddens 1 979 and oth- Within the explosive archaeological literature on gender, a small number of ers) and, second, "the agency of subordinated and marginalized persons to studies cross-cut the examples of theoretically anchored positions examined contest meanings and engage in praxis in their social worlds" (Bergman 1995, above and differentiate themselves by presenting the discipline with real chal- p.235). As such, this perspective is clearly suitable for probing aspects of gen- lurges to research as usual. The assumptions, methodologies, and conclusions der, especially in those historical circumstances in which gender, marginality, of such works must be taken seriously to anticipate the full potential of a and subordination are inextricably, and perhaps inevitably, entangled. lbrrinist-inspired archaeology of gender. For instance, although Janet Spec- Ifgender itselfis taken to be produced by the goal-oriented actions and per- ttrr's I993 book, What this Awl Means: Feminist Archaeology at a Wahpeton formances of individuals or groups, this opens the door, even within archae- l)ttkota Village, covers what might be expected in a traditional site reporl (con- ology, to reassessments of everything from technology (as gendered labor tcxt and background of study, methodology, data, and interpretation) it also practices, after Dobres 1995a) to sculptural choices (as producing and reaf- dcparts radically from traditional presentations of archaeology materials. firming conceptions of personhood, after Joyce 1993a) to apparently simple Spector (1993,p.3) rejects an "objective, object oriented andobjectiffing" ar- artifacts, such as the pins and spindle whorls (as markers of gendered identi- chae ology to position herself and other interested contemporary actors (Native ties, after Marcus 1994 or McCafferty & McCafferty 1991, respectively) to Anrericans, crew, archaeological associates) at the center ofthe report. The food preparation (Hastorf 1991). narrative abandons the passive academic voice and the abstracted European cttcgories imposed on Indian artifacts and insistently ties archaeological in- GENDER AS PERFORMANCE Arising largely from the work of Judith Butler lirr-rnation back to the experiences of specific archaeologists (Spectors's own (1988, 1990, 1993), the performativity view of gender dismisses gender as an irrtcllectual roots) and relationships among specific indigenous peoples (the essential quality or as any kind ofentity that individuals can "have," and is re- history and experiences of the Eastern Dakota). placed by a concept of gender as how people exhibit themselves in their ac- The reiterated use of Dakota personal names and Dakota names for things is tions and bodily decorations. In assuming that ongoing gender "production" is plr'lly (literally) how Spector forces us to consider the Wahpeton Dakota in crucial, Butler directs attention to the analysis of performance as a means of lhcir own terms, but Spector also plumbs ethnohistory and nineteenth-century 422 CONKEY&GERO GENDER AND FEMINISM IN ARCHAEOLOGY 423 illustrative accounts to present a richly detailed and specific reading of Dakota 'l'hc very category of "gender" in archaeological analysis has been chal- seasonal and gendered social life, confronting readers on another level with the lcrrgcd by Roberts (1993), with particular emphasis on the implications of gen- enormous gulf that separates our normalizing "scientific" research from the tlclcrl rcsearch for archaeology. There are two especially important aspects to highly individualized cultural lives that we study. Spector highlights women's hcr critique, a critique with which we have considerable sympathy. First, Rob- activities and the relationships between men and women by examining the crts clcrnonstrates that while social theory is central to taking up "gender" as a tasks performed by each gender, but also by presenting a fictional reconstruc- calcgory of archaeological analysis, there is enormous resistance to the ar- tion of how one artifact, an incised bone awl, might have been situated and clracological theorizing of gender. Because of the difficulties of importing so- then lost in the life of one Wahpeton woman. Spector's work evokes our hu- cial thcory directly into archaeology, she argues, "theorizing gender will con- mility in understanding and proposing meanings for what we study in archae- linuc to be extrinsic to archaeology" (p. 17). This gives rise to the tension be- ology, cautioning us not to resist interpretation but rather to resist imposing twccn those "who pursue an archaeology of gender as an end in itself (most meanings from outside the experiential worlds of the people we study. gcnder case studies) and those who are critical of this approach (Conkey Brumfiel, in her lecture as the Distinguished Archaeology Speaker at the I 990)" (p. 18) Thus, Roberts identifies a key paradox of gender research in ar- 1991 annual meetings of the American Anthropological Association, deliv- chaeology: "[T]hose interested in an archaeology of gender cannot afford to ered a message of considerable insight and impact, not only for the archae- challenge the framework assumptions and paradigms of research prac- ology of gender but for archaeological theory more widely (Brumfiel 1992). licc...because an 'archaeology ofgender' relies upon these things for its for- She shows quite clearly that to take up the topic of gender is, itself, a challenge rnulation and expression" (p. 18). to extant theory and method. As someone trained in, skilled in, and committed ln the second aspect of her critique, Roberts makes a clear distinction be- to many of the tenets of "processual" archaeology, Brumfiel has particular twccn "two threads" in the use of gender as an archaeological category. She credibility in her critique ofthe ecosystem approach that has long been a cen- calls one "the archaeology of gender," the other "gendered archaeology." tral feature of processual research. In this, Brumfiel challenges the usually di- While these threads are interwoven, she says, they will necessarily have differ- chotomous categories of "processual" and "postprocessual" that have come to crrl impacts on the practice and "results" ofarchaeology. The archaeology of characterize different approaches in contemporary archaeology. Instead, she gcnder, while offering "crucial insights" and rectifying some gender biases, argues forcefully that the analysis of social change has "been hampered" by "nroves toward synthesis" and does not necessarily lead to reconceptualiza- certain components ofthe ecosystem approaches as used in archaeology, such tions. Gendered archaeology, however, "involves the interrogation ofarchaeo- as its insistence upon whole populations and whole adaptive behavioral sys- Iogical inquiry"; archaeology is shown to be a "highly-constructed form of tems as units of analysis that obscure "the visibility of gender, class, and fac- l<rrowledge-seeking" (Roberts 1993,p.18). It implies that we should follow a tion in the prehistoric past." She shows that when gender, class, and faction are plth that is more self-reflexive and that gender, for example, must be a fully taken into consideration, then aspects of the prehistoric record can be ex- thcorized concept, not just another analytical variable. She draws explicitly plained that cannot be explained from the ecosystem perspective. Thus, the liom feminist insights, and while advocating our attention to such, she does very appreciation ofthe importance ofgender, class, and faction leads directly not advocate merely replacing our existing modes with some sort of "uniquely into a stunning critique of one fundamental processual tenet, namely, that cul- l'crninist mode," something that, in any event is itself hotly contested (e.g. tures are adaptive systems. l,ongino 1987, 1994; Stacey 1988; Wylie 1995). Brurnfiel (1992) also shows that the recognition of gender, class, and fac- Roberts (1993) herselfnotes that the very introduction ofgender research in tions and their intersections has enormous theoretical implications. While re- archaeology has contributed to two significant features of contemporcry ar- asserting the potential ofan agent-centered or "peopled" approach, she simul- ohaeology: (a) the recognition that archaeology is necessarily interpretive and taneously advocates that we can continue to pursue new versions of cross-- therefore "must come to terms with other than common-sense explanations of cultural and testable models. This work is crucial to placing the archaeology human action" (p. 20); and (b) the recognition that archaeology is, more than of gender in several wider frameworks, including both the history of ar- cver, faced with developing its own distinctive understandings. This means chaeological theory and the emergent emphasis in feminist research more that while there is much extrinsic to archaeology to be looked to and inspired widely on understanding the intersection among variables such as gender, by, gendered archaeology will necessarily need to adapt this material to the race. and class. s1'rccial conditions of archaeological knowledge. We endorse this view. 424 CONKEY&GERO GENDERAND FEMINISM IN ARCHAEOLOGY 425 Critical Thoughts: The Overburden of the Cottage Industty and thc rrrchaeology of gender are taken into account. Why is it that it is discus- Other Obstacles siorrs of "the Goddess" (and citations of Gimbutas, e.g. 1989) thatare featured There is much to celebrate about the enthusiastic adoption of gender in ar- irr srrch overviews of the human past (but for critiques see Billington & Green chaeological study: New questions have been put to old data, new topics and l(XX). ('onkey & Tringham 1995, Meskell 1995). Why, despite the many new perspectives have been brought to well-studied archaeological situations, and stLrtlics in the archaeology of gender, have most merely added gender as just questions have been raised about the gendered production ofboth the archaeo- rrnothcr variable into an otherwise depersonalized view ofthe past? into an ar- logical record and archaeological knowledge (see below). But the above- chircological account in the passive voice? into a way of framing human life discussed challenges also suggest that the explicit focus on gender in archae- lhirt tlistances and categorizes more than allowing our own positionalities to ology has more deeply exposed-or at least thrown into new relief nda- inlorrn and generate engagements with the people of the past? We worry that mental and even irreconcilable differences between what a feminist and a tra- thc rocent archaeological studies of gender have parlicipated in narrowing the ditional archaeology are, and how one thus goes about doing archaeology. I'icld rather than opening up our studies. That is, not all archaeologists will embrace the pursuit of an archaeology of gender, even when the point is clear that not everyone must "find" gender (e.g. SITUATING GENDER RESEARCH: WHY FEMINISM Dobres 1995c). M ATTERS In the explosion of work in archaeology about gender, some of it draws ex- plicitly and creatively from robust and richly developed theoretical resources, It is clcar by now that gender as a subject ofarchaeology elicits genuine con- from both within and outside archaeology. But much of the literature considers ccrrr lbr much needed revisions of archaeological accounts that have system- gender in prehistoric studies without reconfiguring archaeology in any way, rrlically ignored, devalued, or underestimated the roles, actions, contributions, without drawing from new resources to tackle new problems, without admit- rrrrd innovations of women. There is interest in more concentrated and in- ting the ambrguity of archaeological data, and without repositioning the other- lirrnrcd inquiries into gender relations, gender dynamics, and explicity engen- wise authoritative scholar in the complex web of theory, data, and archaeologi- tlclccl past human societies, and for the roles and effects ofgender (in its broad- cal practice. As Bender (1997) points out, there seems to be a rush to the prag- cst scnses) in human life, cultural change, and human histories. In addition, matic, to the empiricist studies without a simultaneous engagement with the llrcrc are concerns for refocusing archaeological scrutiny to consider at least requisite theoretical resources. To her, this makes for "rather thin gruel" (B r:qtrally factions, class, gender, or other sociocultural dynamics at the human Bender 1997). This also matters to us. lcvcl, the concern for a more peopled past (e.g. Brumfiel 1992;McBryde 1996; 'l rirrgharn 199l, 1994). This is not to say that only archaeology has such problems. In her introduc- tionto Gendered Anthropology, delValle (1993b) notes how littie of the theo- l;r'om these genuine concerrs with a newly gendered and peopled past, cer- retical work in gendered anthropology has impacted, much less been incorpo- trrin additional issues are immediately implicated. From the beginning, it was rated into, anthropology more widely, and mainstream assumptions and cate- rrpparent that rampant biases where were the women? were entrenched in gories remain intact. She astutely notes that this is primarily related to the tlrc interpretations of past human societies. Clearly, the awareness and even control and validation of (anthropological) knowledge, an issue to which we shock ofthese and related gender biases fed on and were fed by other critiques can only allude here (del Valie 1993b, pp. 14-16) but which is also true in ar- r.rrisocl by investigators like Leone (1973,1982), Trigger (1984), or Gero et al chaeology. ( I 9ll3 ). However, subsequent archaeological studies of gender and more gen- We could expect the explosion of work in the archaeology of gender to ap- clll critiques of the discipline have not always taken advantage of the well- pear in wider feminist and even anthropological treatises; there should be ar- cstrblished literature on gender theory and feminist critiques ofscience, espe- chaeological contributions to journals like SIGNS or to the Association for t'irrlly as they bear on issues of interpreting human cultures and the organiza- Feminist Anthropology's Silvia Forman Prize competition for an outstanding lrtrrr ol' scientific practice. While Bergman (1995, p. 235) can say with confi- student paper. This has yet to happen. In Lorber's (1994) recent overview tlcrrcc that feminist anthropology has been shaped by, but also has contributed chapter on the archaeological contexts for understanding gender, one finds Io. irrtcrlinked critiques of essentialism and scientific authority, we are not so only several references to Ehrenberg's (1989) general text; no other works on srrlc the same can yet be said for anthropological archaeology. 426 CONKEY & GERO GENDER AND FEMINISM IN ARCHAL,OLOCY 427 We now consider feminist resources essential to understanding the produc- coopcratively produce, and about the "moralization of objectivity" (Daston & tion of archaeological knowledge and the sociology of the field more gener- ( illison 1992). Needless to say, they hardly converge on a simple solution. ally, and the potential ofgender research more specifically. These perspectives Fcminists have engaged in a decade ofdebate about the degree ofrevision matter not merely to gender research in archaeology but to archaeology as a vcrsus rejection that would be required in today's science to make feminist- wider practice. The feminist literafure encompasses issues that engage us in liicndly those versions of objectivity that exist presently in the service of hier- debates about the very nature of humankind: essentialism, inequality and irr.chical and positivist orderings of what is to count as knowledge. Harding's power relationships, social categorization, political economy, rationality and "sr.lcccssor science" project (an insistence on irreducible difference and radical ways of knowing, ideology, meaning and symbol making, materiality and rrrultiplicity of local knowledges) risks denying that realities can be known. agency. Most or all of these are crucial to the archaeological enterprise. Altornatively, Longino (1990, 1993) argues to preserve a rnodified and im- whether focgscd on gender or not, and often offer radically innovative twists provcd umbrella of universal scientific practice, in part because it is this very and challenges to the ways in which our conventional categories operate. lrldition, supported and carried out by a highly varied set ofpractitioners, that A recent and staunchly critical attack on women's studies by Patai & Ko- lrlrs bcen responsible for the unveiling of androcentrism and the devaluation of ertge (1994) argued that while it might be productive to learn about women, it rvorncn's lots. is downright dangerous to engage in the "radical reappraisal ofall the assump- With such a long-standing association between feminism and science cri- tions and vah-res found in traditional scholarship." We, however, find much titlrrcs, it is hardly surprising that fundamental questions about the organiza- merit in Sternhill's (1994) critical review of Patai & Koertge (and also of Som- titrrr of archaeological inquiry have disproportionately come from archaeolo- mers 1994), insisting that feminist thought is "supposed to be dangerous"; "radical reappraisal rigorous, scholarly, informed is called for." 11is{s of gender. A number of points developed out of feminist critiques of sci- If we want to explore a configuring of contemporary archaeology, it is sim- t'ncc have proved parlicularly powerful in interrogating arcliaeologicai ply "poor research" to ignore a large and diverse body oftheoretical, analyti- pllctice, and we summarize some of these here, in a necessarily abbreviated cal, and conceptual possibilities that pertain directly to and substantively in- lir.rn, pointing each to archaeological applications: form the questions at hand. This includes the literature on gender theory, read- I . Feminists, among others, recognize that politics and the substantive ings that span archaeological feminism (e.g. biographies of women and equity ptrducts of knowledge are essentially inseparable (Code 1991, Keller 1985, studies) and nonarchaeological feminist critiques of science. "Do I have to do .lrry 1991, Rossiter 1982). Long suspicious of science as a bastion of male the rcadings?" We would say the answer is, "yes." privilcge, feminists argue that at the least the sciences betray a pervasive disin- lercst in concerns of women, and at worst that science, especially the social Feminist Critiques of Science rrrrd nredical sciences, reproduce and legitimize precisely the ideology of gen- Clearly, archaeology now adrnits a well-developed documentation of the so- tlcr. inequity that feminists question (Wylie 1997). Moreover, the statistical ab- cial and political "entanglements," both for the practice ofarchaeology and for scrrcc of women in the sciences, and the ideology that has r-rnderwrittcn and its "results" (e.g. Fotiadis 1993; Gathercole & Lowenthal 1990; Gero et al srrpported this gender distribution in the sciences, has also produced "mascu- 1983; Leone 1986; Pinsky & Wylie 1989; Trigger 1980, 1989). Although no I i rr i st" understandings and research conclnsions responsible archaeologist today can claim unmitigated objectivism or socio- At this very general level of critique, archaeologists have provided compel- political or historical innocence (Wylie 1994a,c, 1996), it is still the case that lirrg cvidence ofhow gendered research is coupled to specific construals of we regularly, perhaps schizophrenically, shelve our doubts and move on with llreory and of the past. Brumfiel (-l993), for instance, has argued that a spccial assured and even definitive statements about "what the past was like." lrir:lr-prestige disciplinary niche is reseled for archaeological clirectors of Feminist thinking, however, has long offered a foundation for a critique of lrrrge rcgional field projects ("big digs"), and moreover, that this prestige sys- authority, symbol, the canon(s) of science, and the arrangements by which sci- {('nr scnerates narrow notions ofclass-based ideologies. Gero (1993) provides ence is produced-indeed, the very nature of scientific inquiry. Feminist cri- o,itlcuce that the exclusion of women from Paleoindian research has permitted tiques of science raise crucial questions about who can be a "knower," about rr tlorrrinant paradigm to persist that focuses exclusively on hunting as the es- the relationships between the community of knowers and the knowledge they st'nlill and definitional activitv of earlv colonizers of the American continent. 428 CONKEY&GERO GENDER AND FEMINISM IN ARCHAEOLOGY 429 2. Feminists, among others, have argued that rationality, with its attendant IIIiMINIST PRACTICE notions of separability of subject and object, dispassionate objectivity, and neutral transcendence ofpersonal states, is a mythical conflation that never ob- 'l hc irnplications of the feminist critique, taken seriously, point ineluctably to a tains in actual scientific practice and, more significantly, itself represents a r ccognition ofthe bias inherent in how archaeology is practiced, and to a dedi- metapolitics of power relations. The insistence that thinking, feeling, and will- r:ltcd effort to develop a more feminist-friendly archaeology. It is not just that ing are not separate facilities but rather underlie all informed interpretations of rrlchaeological institutions should be more tolerant of diverse agendas that in- data has led some archaeologists to replace, or at least amplify, their purported clucle gender as a legitimate endeavor of research, nor that the range of vari- subjectless research conclusions with richly informed fictional interpretations rrlrlcs considered relevant and the array of explanatory hypotheses considered of what transpired in prehistory (Handsman 7991: Pollock 1991; Schrire 1995; wurth testing be expanded, but more fundamentally that we reconsider the Spector 1991,1993; Tringham 1991). Similarly, a feminist-inspired archae- r:cndered arrangements by which "facts" are established and subsequently ac- ology has embraced sensuous, rather than exclusively rational or cognitive, ex- ccptcd as knowledge. Of course, the implicit, taken-for-granted rules of prac- perience as a motivating antecedent for behavior (Kus 1989); it has also fo- ticc make it difficult to discover foundational principles and make their out- cused archaeological study on sensuous domains of material life, including al- ('onrcs appear seamless, theory-neutral, and objective. If feminism, however, cohol consumption (Lawrence-Cheney 7991, 1993), sweatlodge participation is [o have meaning in archaeology, we must ask how to "do archaeology" as (Carman l99l). and brothel life (Seifert 1994). lcrrrinists (Longino 1987, p.53). And as starting points, we suggest three 3. Feminist thinking has argued for and been associated with a cognitive lr'rxrclly defined concerns that could be involved in the practical remakins of style that favors "intimate" knowledge and nuanced understandings of data rrrchaeology as a transformatory enterprise: over categorical thinking. Ambiguity in observations of data and unique ex- pressions of phenomena are recognized and taken to be informative rather than | . Feminist practice might strive to increase the visibility of human agency to be dismissed as lying outside the province of "scientific" data (Haraway irr linowledge production, becoming more conscious of, and making more pub- 1988; Keller 1983, 1985). This appreciation for the idiosyncratic and its asso- lic, the choices that accumulate into what is known about the past. Here, for in- ciated tendency to distrust categorical formulations has led more specifically slirnce, we might consider publishing fuller field diaries that tie investigatory to an impatience with binary or dichotomous thinking (Jay 1991, Moulton tlccisions to specific items of new knowledge, to diminish the appearance of 1983). Thus, archaeologists like Spector (1993) point out how common ty- lirr.wledge appearing directly and automatically from the field into textbooks. pological schemes of material inventories can bias appreciation for indigenous ( )rr a very different tack, we might study, with special attention, areas in the views, imposing foreign values and distorting native categories. lrrodLrction chains of archaeological knowledge where males or females ap- All three of these areas of feminist thought and their applications to anthro- pcirr significantly clustered, questioning why predominantly one gender or the pological research have been explored in Haraway's (1988) rejection of om- ,lhcr is cited, or why one gender or the other participates in certain symposia niscient scientific knowledge, "the god trick of seeing everything from no- or' publishes in certain literatures and asking what values and priorities under- where," in favor of "situated knowledges," where only the partial perspective pirr thcse sortings and what kinds of knowledge they authorize. can promise objectivity: "A11 Western cultural narratives about objectivity are 2. Especially given the destruction and nonreplicability of archaeological allegories of the ideologies governing the relations of what we call mind and s ilcs of excavation, we might organize archaeological field projects in less hi- body, distance and responsibility. Feminist objectivity is about limited loca- t'rrrlchical fashions, avoiding the situation of a single unchallengeable author- tion and situated knowledge, not about transcendence and splitting ofsubject rly who pronounces judgments from the top. Instead, feminist practice might and object" (Haraway 1988, p. 583). .lll'r' rnultiple interpretive judgments and evaluations at each nonreversible 4. Feminist thinking has shared a deep commitment to challenging the slt'1r ,l'investigation, and coordinate multiple strategies and objectives of dif- status quo or, minimally, to welcoming the possibility of change in basic disci- into the research of nonrenewable archaeological re- plinary arangements. From its well-substantiated impatience with androcen- ll;;::::"-t*estigators tric structures of knowledge and with the standard means of producing and re- I lrcminist practice needs to admit ambiguity and partial or situated producing that knowledge, feminists are eager for an alternative voice or l.rrowlcclges in its analyses; we need to find ways to value the indeterminate, voices to be heard. This proposition is explored more fully below. tlrr' rrrnnced, and the specific in new narrative and historical cognitive frames, 430 CONKEY&GERO GENDER AND FEMINISM IN ARCIIAEOLOCY 431 l o h:rvc a vision for an archaeology influenced by feminist concerns is not rather than always circumscribing scientific models and categorical data' A re- lo prrrrrrotc a static, prescribed utopia. While one should always "keep your lated preliminary step that might be initiated by feminists would urge recogni- lllllr(l on the prize" (Collins 1994,p.32),the feminist vision has no fixed end- tion that all generalized archaeological pronouncements, from taxonomic ar- rangements, to attributing cause-and-effect, to reconstructing climatic condi- lrtrrrl lo bc achieved by a standardized set of rules (p. 32).Feminist destina- lr()ns iu'c perhaps less important than the everyday pragmatic work of moving tions, to interpreting past lifeways, are all interpretive activities, not entirely tlrt' lL'rninist vision along; the dignity achieved in struggling for something divorced from writing informed fi ctional interpretations. uorllrivhile may be more important than any predetermined endpoint of a "Keep Your Mind on the Prize...." It'rrr inist world. As such, we are impressed by the heretofore unimagined inter- ('sl. concern, genuine thoughtfulness, and diversity of"results" from the first As research on women and gender comes of age in archaeology, the most tlecrrtlc of an explicit attention to gender within archaeology. pressing question we face is precisely that of how to do archaeology differ- ently-how to do it better, more inclusively, more imaginatively given the N( .K N()wLEDGMENTS realization of the ways in which our thinking and practices have been confined by androcentric and many other "taken-for-granteds." Our essential premise is lrrtill inspirations and directions for this piece were offered with grace and slririt liom Barbara Bender, Elizabeth Brumfiel, Ericka Englestad, Christine that an archaeology that takes feminist theory seriously is self-trans- I Irrslorf, Rosemary Joyce, and Ruth Tringham at a memorable Berkeley din- formational and communal. Radical reappraisals-rigorous, scholarly, in- rrt'r. Spccial gratitude and thanks to Elizabeth Brumfiel for her selfless, sup- formed, purposive-emerge from feminist theory precisely because tradi- porlivc, and superb editing, and to Rita Wright, Cathy Costin, Julia Hendon, tional assumptions and values really do look profoundly different when li oscrrary Joyce, Susan Evans, Michelle Marcus, Alison Wylie, and many oth- viewed from a woman-centered perspective. Some have wanted to call this t rs wlro kindly provided us with prepublication manuscripts. Thanks, too, to "seeing gender everywhere," with the derogatory term "genderlirium'" But "genderlirium" is an equally apt term with which to critique Westem andro- llrt participants of the 1994 AAA symposium, "Gender as if it really matters: Ir'rrrirrist thinking and archaeological practice," for their thoughtful contribu- centricism, with its hard-headed rules for a single way of knowing and its sin- lions to the dialogue. Joan Gero gratefully acknowledges the University of gle vision. Sorrlh Carolina Josephine Abney Fellowship for Feminist Research for sup- While archaeology enjoyed an earlier infusion of optimism from New Ar- poll. While page limitations do not allow us to cite all the important papers, chaeology-the 1960s Binfordian proclamations that "we can know anything tlris itsclf a testimony to the vibrant state of recent scholarship. if we just ask the right questions"-we are excited by the imaginative possi- bilities for what archaeology can do and say if it engages with gendered ar- Visit the Annual Reviews home puge at http://www.AnnualRevicws.org. chaeology (in Roberts's sense) and with much of what is under consideration in feminist thought. In our visions for archaeologY, we see an increasing recog- nition that knowledge-making is a pluralistic enterprise with, for example, more recognition and institutional rewards for collaborative multiperspective l itt,r'uture Cited research, teaching and writing, and increased recnritment of the many still- \llerr Il. 1996. Ethnography and prehistoric BaileyDW. 1994a. Thcrepresentationofgen- silenced (ethnic, gender, racial) voices that should be integral to archaeologi- rrlclrircofogy in Australia. J. Anthropol. Ar- der: homology or propaganda. J. Eur. Ar- cal discourse. We also envision not just tolerance for but the fostering of , ltLol. 15.137-59 cheol.2:189 202 \rL lrcr 1.. Itrischler S, Wyke M. 1994. Women Bailey DW. 1994b. Reading prehistoric figu- views-including ways of presenting and writing, and what constitutes ar- rrt ltrcient Societies: An lllusion in the rines as individuals. I(orld Arclrcol. 25. \rr,/il. London. Macmillan chaeology-from many "wheres" (if not from everywhere) (after Longino .\r ,r'rrrrrll D. 1991. The representation 321 3l ol' Balme J, Beck W, eds. 1995. Cendered Ar- 1994, Wylie 1995). We would encourage the trajectory already witnessed in rrrrrnclr in Moche iconography. See Walde chaeologt: 7'he SecondAustralianWomen the archaeology of gender to giving simultaneous attention not only to gender ,('Willows 1991,pp.313-26 in Archaeology Confbrence. Canberra: ll,n u\ | . llarker AW, Bonevich JD, Dunavan Aust. Natl. Univ. research about the past but also to the teaching and pedagogy ofarchaeology \l l itzhugh JB, et al, eds. 1993. A Gen- Bender B. 1997. Introduction. In Gender and (in Claassen 1992, Wright 1996), to the practices of archaeological research ,l, ttrl l)ost; A Critical Bibliography of MaterialCulture: RepresentdtionsofGen- I t, trl(r in Archaeolopy. Ann Arbor, MI: der from Prehistory to the Present. Lon- (Gero 1996, Preucel & Joyce 1994), and to its institutional sttuctures (e.g. in I lrrrr Mioh. Mus. Anthropol. don" Maomillan Nelson et al1994). 432 CONKEY&GERO GENDER AND FEMINISM IN ARCHAEOLOGY 433 C. 1993. Black and white women at ( r'rt.t.trttttl.r o/ Knowledge: Feminist An- Flax J. 1990. Thinking f'ragments: Psycho- Bender S. 1991. Towards ahistory ofwomen Claassen in northeastern U. S. archaeology. See Irene Mound. South. Archeol. 12:13747 tltrrtlntltryy' in the Post-Modern Era. Ber- analysis, Feminism, and Postmodernism Walde & Willows l99l,pp.21l-16 Claassen C, ed. 1994. Women in Archaeologt. Lt'lcy llrriv. Calif. Press in the Contemporary tr;[/est. Berkeley/Los Bender S. 1992. Marian E. White: pioneer in Philadelohia: Univ. Pa. Press rlr I corrirrtkr M l99lb. Introduction: gender, Angeles: Univ. Calif. Press '[;[/omen e r rllrr c irrrtl political economy, feminist an- Ford A, Flundt A. 1994. Equity in academia- \ei,r York archaeology. Btrll. l\l Stare .lr- Claassen C, Joyce R" eds. 1997. in cheol. Assoc. 104:14 20 Prehistory. North America and Meso- llrropologv in historical perspective. See di why the best men still win: an examination Benedict JW. 1993. Excavations at Bode's america. Philadelohia: Univ. Pa. Press I corritrtlo lt)t)la, pp. l-48 of women and men in Mesoamerican ar- Code L. l99l. What Can She Knov,? Feminist rlr I t orlrrtkr M 1993. WhatadifTerencepoliti- chaeology. See Nelson et al 1994, pp. Dray,: A trlomen's trl'ork Area in the Moun- Theory and the Construction of Knowl- t ;rl e r'orrorny makes: feminist anthropol- 147 56 tains Near Estes Park, Colorado. Ward, CO: Cent. Mt. Archaeol. edge. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press rryt! rrr llre lrostmodern era. Anthropol. Q. Fotiadis M. 1993. Regions of the imagination: (r| /(r l{0 archaeologists, local people and the ar- Bergman J. 1995. The persistence ofkinship: Collins PH. 1989. The social construction of recent contributions to feminist anthropol- Black feminist thought. SIGNS: J. It/omen l)rrlre:. M-A. 1992. Reconsidering Venus chaeological record in fieldwork, Greece. ogy. Anrhropol. Q. 68'234 -40 Cult. Soc. 14.745-73 Ir1'rrincs: a feminist inspired re-analysis. J. Eur. Archeol. 1: 151-70 Billington S, Green M. 1996. 7'he Concept of Collins PH. 1994. Keep your mind on the ln lltc ,lrchaeologt o;f ldeologt, ed. AS Fotiadis M. 1994. What is arohaeology's "miti- prize a review of "Theorizing Black t ioltlsrnith. S Garvie, D Setin, J Smith, pp. gated objectivism" mitigated by? Com- the Goddess. London: Routledge Bishop R, Lange F. 1991. The Ceramic Legacy Feminisms: The Visionary Pragarnatism .'.15 62. Calgary: Archeol. Assoc. Univ. ments on \Nylie. An. Antiq.59(3):545-55 ( itl!titry Gailey C. 1987. From Kinship to Kingship: o;f Anna O. Shepard. Niwot, CO: Univ. of Black Women," ed. SM James, APA Press Colo. Busia. Wonten's Rev. Books 12:32 l)rrlrts M-A. 1995a. Gender in the Making: Gender Hierarchy and State Formation in Boardman i. 1991. Naked truIh. Oxford J. Ar- Conkey M, Tringham R 1995. Archaeology I trtc Alagdalenian Social Relations of Pro- the Tongan Islands. AusIin, TX: Univ. and the goddess: exploring the contours of rltrL lion in the French Midi-Pyrdndes. PhD Tex. Press cheol.10.119-21 Bourdietr P. 1977 . Outline o;fa Theory oJ Prac- feminist archaeology. See Stanton & llrt sis. Univ. Calif., Berkeley Gathercole P, Lowenthal D, eds. \990. The l )rrlrrt s M-A. 1995b. Gender and prehistoric Politics of the Past London/Boston: Un- tice. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press Stewafi 1995, pp. 199-247 Brumfiel E. 1991. Weaving and cooking: Conkey M, Williams S. 1991. Original narra- lcchnology: on the social agency oftechni- win Hyman women's oroduction in Aztec Mexico. Ses tives: the political economy of gender in ( rll slrategies. World Archeol.27:2549 Gero J. 1993. The social world ofprehistoric Gero & Conkey 1991,pp.224-51 archaeology. See di Leonardo l99la, pp. | )olrrr"s M-A. 1995c. Beyond gender attribu- tacts: gender and power in Paleoindian re- Brumfiel E. \992. Breaking and entering the r02-39 tron. some methodological issues for en- search. See du Cros & Smith 1993, pp. ecosystem: gender, class, and faction steal Conroy LP. 1993. Female figurines ofthe Up- lr'rrtlcring the past. See Balme & Beck 3 l*40 the show. Am. Anthropol. 94(3):551-67 per Paleolithic and the emergence of gen- l()()5. pp.51-66 Gero J. 1996. Archaeological practice and Brumfiel E. 1993. Review of"ldeology and der. See du Cros & Smith 1993, pp. | ),rlrre s M-A, Hoflman C. 1994. Social agency gendered encounters with fleld data. See rrrrtl thc dynamics of prehistoric technol- Wright 1996, pp 251-B0 Pre-Columbian Civilization," ed. A De- 1 53-60 marest, C Conrad. ,./. Anthropol. Res. 49'. Cordell L. 1991. Sisters of sun and spade. ,,t,.t, ..1. Archaeol. Method Theory 1: Gero J. I 997. La iconogratia Recuay y el estu- ., il 5ll dio de genero. Caceta Andina 25126:In 412-14 r.romen archaeologists in the Southwesl. l)rrrrrrrfrfsfrcs LH. 1992. Two decades of press Brumfiel E. 1996. Figurines and the Aztec See Walde & Willows 1991"pp.502-9 state: testing the effectiveness ofideologi- Costin CL. 1993. Textiles, women and politi- u orrrcn in prehistory and in archaeology in Gero J, Conkey M, eds. 1991. Engendering Nrrrrvuty. A review. Nor. Archeol. Rev. 25. Archaeolopy. Women and Prehistory. Ox- cal domination. See Wright 1996, pp. cal economy in late prehispanic Peru. Res. 143-66 Econ. Anthropol. 14:3-28 I l.t ford: Blackwell rlrr ( ros II. Smith L, eds. 1993. U/omen in Ar- Gero J. Lacey D, Blakey M" eds. 1983. /fta Rutler J. 1988. Perfbrmative acts and gender Costin CL. 1996. Exploring the relationship constitution: an essay in phenomenology between gender and craft in complex so- Feminist Critique. Canberra: , lttctslo5Xt: A Socio-Politics of Archaeolopy. Res. Rep. and feminist theory . Theatre J. 40:5 I 9-30 cieties: methodological and theoretical is- '\rrst. Natl. tJniv. No. 23, Amherst: ljniv. Mass. I )rrl,e l'. 1991. Recognizing gender in Plains Giddens A. 1979. Central Problems in Social Butler J. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism sues of gender attribution. See Wright 1996,pp.111-42 lrrrrrting groups: Is it possible or even nec- Theory: Action, Structure, and Contradic- and the Subversion oJ ldentity. New York: Routledge Crabtree P. 1991. Gender hierarchies and the r'ssary? See Walde & Willows 1991, pp. tion in Social Analysis. Berkeley: Univ. division oflabor in the Natufian culture of .,1t0 83 Calif. Press Butler J. 7993. Bod.ies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of "Sex ". New York/ the southern Levant. See Walde & Wil- I lrl(rbcfg M. 1989. Women in Prehistory. GifTord-Gonzalez D. 1992. Gaps in zooar- ( )lilahoma City, OK: Univ. Okla. Press chaeological analyses ofbutchery: Is gen- London: Routledge lows 1991, pp.384 91 L. 1991. Marvelous facts and miracu- I rrle lsl rd E. I991. Images of power and con- der an issue? In Bones to Behavior, ed. J Carman CJ. 1991. Sweatlodge participation Daston among Nez Perce women. See Walde & lous evidence in early modern Europe. trirtliction: feminist theory and post-pro- Hudson, pp. 181-99. Carbondale: So. Ill. Willows 1991, pp. 159-64 Crit. Inq. 18:93-124 r cssrrirl archaeol ogy. Antiquity 65: 502 14 ljniv. Cent. Archeol. lnvest. I rrle lslad I'.. ed,. 1992. Nor. Archaeol. Rev. Gifford-GonzalezD. 1993. You can hide, but Chilton E. 1992. Archaeological investiga- Daston L, Galison P. 1992. The image of ob- tions at the Goat Island rockshelter: new jectivity. Representations 40: 8l-128 's(l):l 72 you can't run: representations ofwomen's light from old legacies. Hudson Valley del Valle T, ed. 1993a. Gendered Anthropol- I r11,r'lslrrtl ll, Mandt G, Naess J-R 1994. Eq- work in illustrations of Paleolithic life. ogr. London/New York: Routledge rrrlr issues inNorwegian archaeology. See Visual Anthropol. Rev. 9.3-21 Ree. Rev.9'.47-75 f lclsirrr et al 1994,pp.13946 Gilchrist R. 1991. Women's archaeology? Po' Chilton E. 1994. In search of paleo-women: del Valle T. 1993b. Introduction. See del Valle I I',r( llr ('1 . 1988. Deceptive Distinctions: gender implications of remains from Pa- 1993a, pp. 1-16 litical feminism, gender theory and histori- '', t. ( lt,nder and the Social Order. New cal revision. Antiquity 65:459-50 1 leoindian sites in the Northeast. Berll Dent RJ. 1991. Deeo time in the Potomac I l;rve rr. CT: Yale Univ. Press Gimbutas M. 1989. The Language of the God- Mass. Archeol. Soc. 55:8-14 River Valley: thorights in Paleoindian life- | ,rntlr;rnr lr. Iroley HP, Kampen NB, Porneroy dess. San Francisco: Harper & Row Claassen C, ed. 1992. Exploring Gender ways and revisionist archaeology. Ar- I' Slrrrpiro HA 1994. Women in the Classi- Golub S. 1992. Periods: From Menarche to Through Archaeologgt. Madison, WI: Pre- cheol. East. North Am. 19.2341 historv Press di Leonardo M, ed. 1991a. Gender at the , 'rl ll orld; lmctge and le.r/. New York. orlirrd Menopctuse. London: Sage Iiniv. Press Guillen AC. 1993. Women. rituals and social 434 CONKEY&GERO GENDER AND FEMINISN4IN ARCHAEOLOGY 435 dynamics at ancient Chalcatzlngo. Lat. Cormack, M Strathern, pp. 42-69. Cam- nill peripheries. See du Cros & Smith from the Thukela Basin. South lfr. Ar- l()()-]. pp. 134-37 cheol. Bull.47:122 26 Am. Antiq. 4:209-24 bridge: Cambridge Univ. Press I r';rtook E. 1981. History, development, and McBryde l. 996. Past and present indivisible? Hamilton N, Marcus J, Bailey D, Haaland G, Joyce RA. 1993a. Embodying Persctnhood in 1 Prehispanic Costa Rica. Wellesley, MA: tlre division of labor by sex: implications In From Prehistory ta Politics: John Mul- Haaland R, Ucko P. 1996. Viewpoint: Can we interpret figurines? Cambridge Ar- Davis Mus. Cult. Cent.. Wellesley Coll. lirr rrrganization. Signs: J. Illomen Cult. vaney and the Making o;[a Public Intellec- cheol. J.6:281 307 Jo1'ce RA. 1993b. Women's work: images ol- ,\rr'.7.414 9l tual, ed. T Bonyhady, T Griffiths, pp. Handsman R. 1991. Whose art was fbund at production and reproduction in pre- I r'orrc Ml). 1973. Archaeology as the science 64-84. Melbourne: University Press Lepenski Vir? Cender relations and power Flispanic sor.rthern Central America. (-'zlrr. rrl tcchnology. Mormon town plans and McCafl'erty SD, McCafferty GG. 1991. Spin- lcrrccs. In Research and Theory in Con- ning and weaving as female gender iden- in archaeology. See Gero & Conkey 1991, Anthropol.34.255 74 pp.329-65 .loyce RA. 1996. Pe(brmance and inscrip- t(ntl)a'ary Archaeologt, ed. CL Redrnan, tity in posf Classio Mexico. In Textile Tra- Hanen M, Kelley J. 1992. Gender and archaeo- tion: negotiating sex and gender in Classic pp 125 50. New York: Wiley ditions oJ Mesoanterica and the Andes, ed. fogical knowledge. ln Meta Archaeologt, Maya society. Presented at Pre-Colun1b. I t orrc MP. 1982. Some opinions about recov- M Schevill, JC Berlo, E Dwyer, 2:19-44. crirrg rnind. Am. Antiq. 47:742-60 Hamden, CT: Garland ed. L Embree, pp. 195 225. Netherlands: Stud. Symp.. Dumbarton Oaks, Washing- I r'rrnc MP. 1986. Symbolic, structural and McCaff'erty SD, McCafferty GG. 1994. En- Kluwer ton" DC Ilaraway D. 1988. Situated knowledgcs. the .loyce RA. 1997. Perfbrming gender in pre- clitical archaeology. In American Archae- gendering Tomb 7 at Monte Alban: respin- t)l()gy, Past and Future, ed. D Meltzer, J ning an old yarn. Curr. Anthropol. 35: science question in feminrsm as a site of l lispanic Central America: ornamentation. Slblofl', D Fowler. pp. 415 38. Washing- 143-66 discourse in the privilege of partial per- representation and the oonstruction of the 1on. I)C: Smithson. Inst. Prsss McDonald J. 1992. The Great Mackerel rock- spective. Fem. Stud. l4:575-600 body. RES: ,4nlhropol. Aesthet. ltlptess I t srrrr ll. 1997. Figurines and social identities shelter excavation: womsn in the archaeo- Hasbrouck J. 1996. Goy liberation or gq) K. A. N. 1985-. Kvinner i arkeolctgi i Norge colc.nizalion? lssues and suggestions Jbr (Women irr Archacology in Norway). rr carly sedentary societies of coastal logical record. Aust. Archeol. 35:32-50 'I-romso: Univ. Norr'vay Tromso ( hrapas, Mexico, 1550-800 b. c. See McGuire K, Hildebrandt WR. 1994. The the global lesbian, gay and bisexuctl move- ('lirrrssen & Joyce 1997,pp.227 48 possibilities of women and men: gender ment. Presenled at Annu. Mcct. ln. An- Kampen NB. I 995. Looking at gender: the co[- | ('\ rrc MA. 1991. An historical overview of umn of l ra.jan and Roman historical reliet and the California rnilling stone horizon. thropol. Assoc., 95th. San Francisco HastorfC. 1991. Gender. space, and food in See Stanton & Stewarl 1995, pp. 46 73 rescirrch on women in archaeology. See J. Calrf. Great Basin Anthropol. l6: Wrrltlc & Willows 1991,pp. 177-86 4 l*59 prehistory. See Gero & Conkey 1991, pp. Kastner S, Karlisch SM, eds. 1991 . Reader I r r r .l 1995. Gender, pcn,er and heterarchy McGuire R, Paynter R. 1991. The Archcte- 132 59 ztrm Symposium: Feminismus und Ar- Hayden B. 1992. Obscrving prehistoric chaologie?! Ttibingen, Ger: lnst. Fr0h- rrt tttit.ldle-level societies. Presented at olog,t ctf Inequali41. Oxfbrd: Blackwell women. See Claassen 1992. pp. 33 48 gesch. \rrrLr. Meet. Soc. Am. Archeol., 60th.. Merchant C. 1980. The Death of Nature: f\ | | Iloapolis Women, Ecology and the Scienti;fic Revo- Hendon JA. 1996. Archasological approaches Kchoc A. 1991. No possible, probable shadow I rnl,e ll 1992. Manhood, femaleness and lution. San Francisco: Harper & Row to the organization of domestic labor: of doubt. Antiquity 65' 129-31 Meskell L. i995. Goddesses, Gimbutas and household practice and dornestic relations. Kohoe A. 1992. l'he muted class: unshackling lro\rcr. a cultural analysis of prehistoric Annu. Rey. Anthropol.25:45 6l tradition. See Claassen 1992, pp.23-32 t,rrlcs. Comp. stud. Soc. Hist. 34 'New Age' archaeology. Antiqltity 69: Hingley R. 1991. Domestic organization and Keller EF. 1983. I h-eelingJbr the Organism. , /() 620 74-86 gender relations in lron Age and Romano- Ner'v York. Freeman I rttl, lt 1994. Consider the hermaphroditic Miller V, ed. 1988.I'he Role of Gender in Pre- Keller EF. 1985. Reflections on Gender ond rrrrrtl: comment on "the interplay of evi- Columbian Art and Architecture. [-anham, British households. ln The Social Archae- ,I rrliirl oonstraints and political interests: MD: ljniv. Press Am. ologt of Houses, ed. R Samson, pp. Science. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Pross | ( ( eill archaeological research on gender." Moore II. 1991. Epilogue. See Cero & Conl<ey 125-48. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ. Kent S. 1995. Does sedentarizatlon promote t ttt . l tttiq. 59(3):539-44 pp.407 I I gender inequality'? A case study from the 1991. Press I r,rrl'rro I l. 1987. Can there be a f-eminist sci- Moore H. 1993. The differences within and the Hollimon SE. 1991. Health conscquences o1' Kalahari. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. l:513 36 Kessler S, McKenna W. 1985. (1978). Cen- etr t'l I lypatia 2:51-64 differences between. See dcl Valle 1993a, the division of labor among the Chumash I r'111'111,1 lf. 1990. Science as Social Knoytl- pp.193-204 lndians of southern California. See Walde der: An Ethnomethodological Approach. , ,l)t' L'alues and Objectivity in Science. Moss M. 1993. Shellfish" gender and status on & Willows 1991, pp. 462-69 Chioago. Univ. Chicago Press t(night C. 1991. Blood Relations; Menstrua- l'rnccton. NJ: Princeton Univ. Press the Northwest coast. reconciling archaeo- Flollimon SE. 1992. Health consequences I rrrl'rro ll 1993. Essential tensions-phase logical" ethnographic and ethnohistoric of the division of labor among prehis- tion an.d the Origins o;f Culture. l,ondon: tuo I'cntinist, philosophical and social records ofthe Tlingit. An. Anthropol.95: toric native Americans: the churnash of Yale Univ. Press ,trrtlics o1' science. In A Mind o;f One's 631 52 southern California and the Arikara of the I(us S. 1 992. l oward an archaeology of body )t rr lieninist Essays on Reason and Ob- and soul. ln Represenl(rtions in Archae- r Moulton J. 1983. A paradigm ofphilosophy: North Plains. See Claassen 1992. pp. ed. L Antony, C Witt, olopy, ed. JC Gardin, C Peebles, pp. t, , ttril.t'. pp. the adversary method. In Discovering Re- 81 88 hooks b. 1984. Feninist Theory: From Margin 168-77. Bloornington. Ind. LJniv. Press ' , / 71. f]oulder, CO: Westview alfty, ed. S Harding, MB Hintikka, pp. L!r1,rr1) | L 1994. ln search offeministepiste- 149-64. Dordrecht: Reidel to Center. Boston: South End Press Laqueur T. 1990. l,laking Sex: Body and (ien- lrigaray L. 1985. (1974). Specuhm oJ the derfrom the (ireeks to Freud. Cambridge, rrr,rlrrlly il,/onlsl 77:472 85 Muller F. 1991. 'Kulturelle Vielfalt': Das bild | ,'rl't r I lL)t)4. Paradoxes o;f Gender. New der fiau in der Schweitz vor 2350 jahren. Other Woman. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Llniv. MA: Harvard ljniv. Press I lrrr crr. ('1 . Yale Univ. Press Archao l. Sc hw e itz | 4.1 | 5-23 Press Larick R. 1991. Warriors and blacksmiths. \l I l()()l (ihallenging assumplions: Lor- N. 1991. Gender and dichotomy. male mediating ethnicity in Ilast African spears. Nelson M, Nelson S, Wylie A, eds. 1994. E4- Jay J.,lnthropo l. Arc heol. 1 0.299-33 | r,rrrri l)rrstun. Llniv. Chicago Mag Apr uib,- Issues.[or l4/omen in Archcteologt. Ar- theories of power. In A Reader in l;eminist il {r Knowledge, ed. S Cunew, pp. 89 106. L,awrence-Chenev S. 1991. Women and alco- chaeological Papers 5. Washington, DC: \ Lrr, rr. Nl l(X)4. Dressed to kill: wornen and Am. Anthropol. Assoc. New York: Routledge hol: lemale influence on recreational pat- Jordanova LJ. 1980. Natural facts: a historical terns in the West, 1880 1890. See Walde 1,rrr , rrr crrr'lv lran. Oxford Art J. 17 .3-15 Nelson S. 1991a. The'Goddess Temple' and perspective on science and sexuality. In & Willows 1991 , pp. 479-89 r\ 1r.,, | .\ |()92 Gender and the hunter- the status of women at Niuheliang, China. Nature, Culture, and Gender, ed. C Mac- I..awrence-Cheney S. 1993. Gender on colo- lrrllrcrtl archacological record. a view See Walde & Willows l99l, pp. 302 8 436 CONKEY&GERO (iIINDER AND FEMINISM IN ARCHAEOLOCY 437 Nelson S. 1991b. Women archaeologists in Roseberry W. 1988. Political economy. Annu. Asia and the Pacif'rc. See Walde & Wil- Rev. Anthropol. I 7:161*85 rrlrlrl') ilirl,'rr'.s ,\ltnl. Inl. l;orum 1I: chaeology. In Beyond Subsistence: Plains lows 1991, pp 217-19 Rossiter MW. i982. tr;[/omen Scien.tists in Archaeologt and the Postprocessual Cri- Nelson S. 1992. Diversity of the Upper Paleo- Americct: Struggles and Strategies to 'lt;lrlrrr i) witlt A. cds. 1995. Feminisms in Sle tique, ed. P Duke, MC Wilson, pp. 46-65. lithic "Venus" figurines and archaeologi- 1910. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press tltt ltttth'ill'. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Tuscaloosa, AL: Univ. Ala. Press cal mythology. In Gender in Cross- Russell P. 1991. Men only? The myths about l'r r'ss Woodbury N. 1992. In the shadow of man, or Cultural Perspective, ed. C Brettel, C Sar- European Paleolithic artists. See Walde & (' l994. l he properstudyofwoman- just the shade of the lab Ient? SAA Bull. gent, pp. 5l 58. New York: Prentice Hall Willows 1991" pp. 346 51 I'nl ll rtttt'tt s l?ev. Books 12:1,3 4 "lr'rrrlrrll 9:6-7 I rr1,1'r'r ll l()ll0 Archaeology and the image Wright R. 1996. Gender and Archaeolog,,. Ortner S. 1984. Theory in anthropology since Sassaman KE. 1 992. Lithic technology and the the sixties. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 26: hunter-gatherer sexual division of labor. rrl llrt Arrrcriczrn Indian. Am. Antiq. 45 Philadelohia: Univ. Penn. Press 126-66 North Am. Archeol, 13:249-62 Wylie A. 1992. The interplay of evidential Ovrevik S. 1991. Sex ratios in archaeological Sassaman KE. 1997. Acquiring Stone, Acquir- I rr1'y'r'r ll l()1J4. Alternative archaeologies: constraints and oolitical interests: recent organisations in Norway. Masters thesis. ing Power. Presented at Annu. Meet. Soc. I f ;ll l( f lf irl lsl. colonialist, imperialisl. Man archaeological risearch on gender. lil. Univ. Bradford, UK Am. Archeol. 62nd" Nashville, TN |') t|i 70 Antiq.57:15 35 I rr1'1,e r lf lt)t\9. t1 History oJ Archaeological Wylie A. 1994a. On "capturing facts alive in Parezo N, ed. 1993. Hidden Scholars: Women Schrire C. 1995. Digging Through Darkness: I ltrtrtgltt. L'ambridge: Cambridge Univ. the past" (or present): response to Fotiadis Anthropologists and the Natiye American Chronicles of an Archaeologist. Char- Southwest. Albuquerque: Univ. N. M. l'r css and Little. Am. Antiq. 59(3):556-60 lottesville: Univ. Va. Press Press Scott EM. 1994. Those of Little Note: Gender, I r rrrl,,lrirnr It. 1991. Households with faces: the Wylie A. 1994b. Pragmatism and politics: un- Patai D, Koertge N. 1994 Professing Femi- Race and Class in Historical Archaeologt. t hrrllcngc ofgender in prehistoric architec- derstanding the emergence o;f gender re- nism: Inside the Strange World of Tucson: Univ. Ariz. Press Irrlirl lcmains. See Gero & Conkey 1991, search in archaeologt. Presented as grp ()3-l3l Skomp Disting. Lect. Anthropol., Indiana l4/omen's Studies. New York: New Repub- Seifert D, ed. 1991. Gender in historical ar- I r rrrllrirnr lic/Basic Books chaeology. Hist. Archaeol. 25(4):1 155 R. 994. Engendered places in pre- 1 Univ., Bloomington Pinsky V, Wylie A, eds. 1989. Critical Tradi- Seifert D. 1994. Mrs. Starr's profession. In ltslLtry. Gender Place Cult. Gender l(2): Wylie A. 1994c. Evidential constraints: prag- tions in Archaeologlt: Essays in. the Phi- Those of Little Note: Gender, Race and l(r\) 203 matic objectivism in archaeology. In losophy, History and Sociopolitics of Ar- Class in Historical Archaeology, ed. E \\rrrllo' L. 1989. Gender relations in the Readings in the Philosophy of Social Sci- chaectlogt. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Scott, pp. 149-74. Tucson. Univ. Ariz. Ilrrrkcla Basin. South Afr. Archeol. Bull. ence, ed. M Martin, L Mcintyre, pp. Press Press || 122 26 747 65. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press \\ rrlrlc l). Willows N, eds. 1991. T'he Archae- Wylie A. 1995. Doing philosophy as a femi- Poht M. 1991. Women, animal reanng and so- Silverblattl. 1987. Moon, Sun and Witches: nist: Longino on the search for a leminist cial status: the case ofthe Formative peri- Gender ldeologies and Class in Inca and , 'l,t,qy o/ Gender. Calgaty: Archeol. Assoc. od Maya of Central America. See Walde & Colonial Peru. Princeton NJ: Princeton |iliv. Calgary epistemology. Philos. Top. 23(2):345 5B Willows 1991.pp.392 99 Univ. Press \\,rll l). 1994. The Archaeologt ofGender: Wylie A. 1996. The constitution of archaeo- ':i,'lntraling the Spheres in Urban America. logical evidence: gender politics and sci- Pollock S. 1991. Women in a men's world: im- Silverblatt I 1991. Interpreting women in Ncrv York: Plenum ence. In I'he Disunity ofScience: Bounda- ages of Sumerian women. See Gero & states: new feminist ethnohistories. See di Conkey 1991, pp. 366-87 \\ rrl,,lr 1,. Burke T. Markos J, t{ause L. 1994. ries, Contexts, Power, ed. P Galison. DJ Leonardo 1991a, pp. 140 7 1 Pomeroy SB. 1975. Goddesses, Whores, Smith L" du Cros t{. 1995. Reflections on I rrtrl lleport: Archaeological Testing and Stump, pp. 3ll-43. Stanford, CA: Stan- ll/ives and Slaves: Women in Classical An- women in archaeology. See Balme & Beck I rtrlttttlions ofFive Prehistoric Sites in In- lbrd Univ. Press tiquity. New York: Schocken Books 1995. pp. 7-21 ,lr,rrtl[ells I/alley, Kern County, CaliJbr- W1'lie A. 1997. Good science, bad science or Pomeroy SB. l99l. Women's History and An- Solomon A. 1992. Gender, representation and lor lhe Proposed Redrock |-Lane Up- trr,t science as usual?: feminist critioues ofsci- cient History. Chapel Hill, NC: Univ. N. C. power in San art and ethnography. J. An- liialc. Archeol. Res. Serv., Virginia City. ence. f n Women in Human Evolution, ed. NV LD Hager, pp. 29-55. New York/London: Press thropol. A rc he ol. I | :291-329 \\,rt ,orr l)i. Kennedy M. 1991. The develop- Preucel R, Joyce RA. 1994. Feminism,;field- Sommers CH. 'l994. U/ho Stole Feminism? Routledge v,ork, and the practice of archaeologt. How Women Have Betrayed Women. New rrrcrrl o1'horticulture in the Eastern Wood- Yentsch A. 1991. The symbolic divisions of Presented at Annu. Meet. Am. Anthropol. York. Simon & Schuster l;rrtls of North America: women's role. pottery: sex-related attributes of English Assoc., 93rd, Atlanta Spector J. 1991. What this awl means. See 'iee (icro & Conkey 1991,pp.255-75 and Anglo-American household pots. See \\,'.,t ( . ZimmerrnanDll. 1987. Doinggender. McGuire & Paynter 1991, pp 192130 Rabinowitz NS, Richlin A, eds. 1993. Femi- Gero & Conkey 1991, pp. 388-406 t ;,'n(lar Soc. nist Theory and the Classics. New York/ Spector J. 1993. What This Aytl Means. Femi- l:125.-52 ZeanahD. Carter J, Dugas D, Elston R, Ham- London: Routledge nisl Archaeolctgt in a Wahpeton Dakota \\ lrr'lrrr M. 1991. Gender and archaeology: mettJ.1995. An optimalforaging model of Reyman .1" ed. 1992. Rediscovering Our Past: Village. Minneapolis: Minn. Hist. Soo. fl uary studies and the search for the ori- || r( , hunter-gatherer land use in the Carson Essays on the History ofAmericanArchae- Spencer-Wood S. 1991. Toward an historical 1'rrr:; ol'gender differentiation. See Walde Desert. Preoared for the IJS Fish Wildlife o/ogy. Aldershot, UK: Avebury archaeology of rnaterialistic domestic re- ,l' Willows 1991, pp.358-65 Serv./US D-ep. Navy. Silver City. NV: In- Robb J. 1994. Gender contradictions, moral form. See McGuire & Paynter 1991, pp. \\ lr llr M. 1995. Beyond hearth and home on termountain Res. coalitions and inequality in prehistoric It- Ilr( r ilrgc: leminist approaches to Plains ar- 231 86 aly. J. Eur. Archeol. 2:2049 Spielman K. 1994. AJbntinist approach to ar- Roberts C. 1993. A critical approach to gender chaeological field schools. Presented at as a category of analysis in archaeology. Annu. Meet. Am. Anthopol. Assoc., 93rd, See du Cros & Smith 1993, pp. 16 21 Atlanta Rogers CL, Fowler DD. 1994. Feminist ar- Spielman K. 1995. The Archaeology ofgender chaeologt and cultural resource manage- in the American Southwest. J. Anthropol. ment. Presenled at Annu. Meet. Am. An- Res. 51 thropol. Assoc., 93rd, Atlanta Stacey J. I 988. Can there be a feminist ethnog-