comment on 'dwelling at the margins, action at the intersection? feminist and indigenous...

7/23/2019 Comment on 'Dwelling at the margins, action at the intersection? Feminist and indigenous archaeologies'

1/4

8 TARA M I L L I ON

relational dialogues; spatial co ntain m ent in archaeological practise and ideol-

ogy; and the applications of archaeology in current social, political, and cul-

tural contexts. As Conkey moves into presenting overviews of specific

archaeological work by feminist and Indigenous archaeologists, her writing

and tone become more direct. I found the subsections on archaeological in-

terpretation, Experience and Oral Traditions and Storytelling;' to be espe-

cially interesting explorations of the work that has been done , while Conkey's

interjected reflections provided considerable fo od for tho ugh t.

In general, Conk ey has been o ne o f the majo r influences on m y develop-

m en t as an archaeologist. Her w ork in the early 1990s on engende ring archae-

ology was imm ensely excit ing and compell ing for me (Conkey 1991; Gero and

Con key 1991). M on g with M ison Wylie (1991), Joan Gero (Gero a nd C onk ey

1991 , an d Janet Spector ( 1991, 1993 , Margaret C onkey was a driving force in

recognising and developing a feminist archaeology. It was durin g m y und er-

graduate years that I f irst encountered Co nkey and he r cohorts , and doing so

significantly altered m y archaeological interests and research direction. At the

same time, I began to explore my personal approaches and reactions to ar-

chaeology and realised that other Indigeno us archaeologists were doing the

same (Nicholas and A ndrew s 1997; Swidler et al. 1997). In a ddi tion to archae-

ology, Indigenous people were attempting to rework other academic disci-

plines such as anth ropo logy and general research m ethodo logies (Biolsi and

Zim me rma n 1997; Smith 1999 . I made several preliminary attempts at in-

corpo rating gender archaeology and Indigen ous perspectives into und ergra d-

uate papers, but it was not until my master's fieldwork that I began to

genuine ly engend er and Aboriginalize my practise of archaeology (Mill ion

2002, 2004).

Given my overall adm iration for Conkey, I was disappointed in this article.

I fou nd tha t in general the w riting got in the w ay of the ideas presented: the

intro duc tion is excessively apologetic; the definitions of intersection ality

Indig enou s archaeology(ies), and femin ist archaeology(ies) are unclear;

the use of qualifiers such as might, perh aps,' m ay be, and try to weaken

the a rgum ent; a nd questio ns are used excessively. Ther e were certain thing s

that I would have liked to see in both the ton e and the i ntent o f the article that

simply were not present. I tho ugh t the writ ing needed to be stronger and more

direct and the head ings m ore accurate reflections of each section's content. I

felt that the i ntro duc tion a nd title needed to state more strongly that this ar-

ticle is prima rily an overview of fem inist and Indigeno us archaeology, bo th

m etho ds a nd practitioners, with a secondary focus on prese nting som e possi-

ble directions for collaboration. In general, I would have liked this article ei-

ther to be an explicit overview~retrospective/compilation of current and past

work in Indigenous and feminist archaeology, or to become two articles fo-

cussing on the overview and the collaborative possibilities separately. If this


2/4

8 T A RA M I L L IO N

re la t ional d ia logues ; spat ia l co nta inm en t in archaeological pract ise a nd ideol-

ogy; an d th e a ppl ica t ions o f archaeology in cur re nt socia l, pol i tica l , an d cu l-

tura l contexts . As Conkey moves in to present ing overviews of speci f ic

a rchaeo log ica l wo rk by f em in i s t and Ind igen ous a rchaeo log i s ts , he r wr i t ing

and tone beco me m ore d i rec t . I fou nd the subsec tions on a rchaeo log ica l in -

terpre ta t io n , Expe r ience an d Oral Tradi t ions an d S toryte l l ing; ' to be espe-

c ial ly in te rest ing exp lo ra tions o f the w ork tha t has been done , wh i le Conkey ' s

in te r jec ted r e f lec t ions p rov ided cons ide rab le fo od fo r tho ugh t .

In general , Con key has been one o f the m ajo r in f luences on m y deve lop-

m en t a s an a rchaeo log is t . Her w ork in the ea r ly 1990s on engende r ing a rchae-

o logy was imm ense ly exc i ting and com pel l ing fo r m e (Con key 1991 ; Gero a nd

Co nkey 1991). M on g wi th M ison Wyl ie (1991), Joan Gero (Gero a nd Co nkey

1991 , an d Janet Spector ( 1991, 1993 , Margare t C onkey was a d r iv ing fo rce in

recogn i sing and deve lop ing a f emin i s t a rchaeo logy . I t was du r ing m y un der -

g radua te yea r s tha t I f i rs t encou n te red C onk ey and he r coh or t s , and do ing so

s ignif icant ly a l tered m y archaeological in teres ts an d research d i rec t ion . At the

same t ime , I began to exp lo re my per sona l approaches and r eac t ions to a r -

chaeo logy an d real ised tha t o ther Indig eno us archaeologis ts were doing the

same (Nicholas and A ndrews 1997; Swidler e t a l . 1997) . In add i t ion to archae-

o logy , Ind igenous peop le were a t t empt ing to r ework o the r academic d i s c i -

p l ines such as an th ropo logy an d genera l r e sea rch m ethodo log ies (B io ls i and

Z i m m e r m a n 1 9 97 ; S m i th 1999 . I ma de s everal p re l imin ary a t t empts a t in -

co rpora t ing g ender a r chaeo logy and Ind igeno us per spec tives in to un derg ra d -

ua te paper s , bu t i t was no t un t i l my mas te r ' s f i e ldwork tha t I began to

gen u ine ly eng end er and Abor ig ina l ize m y p rac ti s e o f a r chaeo logy (Mi l l ion

2002, 2004).

Given m y overall adm ira t io n for Co nkey, I was d isap poin ted in th is ar t ic le .

I fou nd tha t in genera l the w r i t ing go t in the way o f the ideas p resen ted : the

in t r od uc t ion is excess ively apologet ic ; the def in i t ions of in terse ct ion al i ty

Ind ige nou s archaeology( ies) , an d fem inis t archaeology ( ies ) are unclear ;

the use o f qua l if ie r s such as migh t , pe rha ps , ' m ay be, and t ry to weaken

the argu m ent ; a nd ques t ions are used excessively . The re were cer ta in th ing s

tha t I wou ld have l iked to s ee in bo th the ton e an d the in ten t o f the a r ti c le tha t

s imply were no t p resen t . I tho ug h t the wr i t ing needed to be s t ronger and m ore

direct and th e head ings m ore accurate ref lec t ions of each sect ion ' s conten t . I

f e lt tha t the in t rod uc t io n a nd t it l e needed to s ta t e more s t rong ly tha t th i s a r -

t ic l e is p r im ar i ly an overv iew o f f emin i s t and Ind igenous a rchaeo logy , bo th

m etho ds a nd p rac t i t ioner s , w i th a s econdary focus on p resen t ing som e poss i-

b le d i rec t ions for co l labo rat ion . In genera l , I wo uld have l iked th is ar t ic le e i-

ther to be a n exp l ic it overview~retrospective/compilation o f c u r r e n t a n d p a s t

wo rk in In d igeno us and f emin i s t a rchaeo logy , o r to b ecom e two a r t ic l e s fo -

cussing on the overview and the collaborative possibil i t ies separately. I f this


3/4

Co m m en t on Dw e t fi ng a t t he Mar g ins , Ac t i on a t t he I n te r sec ti on? 69

ar ti c le were m ore f i rmly focus sed on be ing an overv iew o r were b roken in to

two separa te art ic les, i t / they cou ld beco m e very impress ive an d usefu l refer-

ence tools .

In terms of the idea of in tersect ional i ty that is presented in th is wo rk I

have several though ts . Fi rs t, I f ind Con key 's ho pe that a ll a rchae olo gis ts . . , wi ll

f i n d s o m e t h i n g o f v a lu e i n . . . t h e i n t e r se c t io n a l it y o f c u r r e n t f e m i n i s t a n d I n -

d igeno us archaeologies bo th lauda ble and idealist ic (11). Al th ou gh i t wo uld

be n ice to th ink th at the col laborat ive ef for t of two m arginal grou ps wi ll resul t

in subs tant ia l changes to the d isc ip l ine , I h ighly do ub t th is wi ll occur. Ins tead I

th i nk there is a r isk of fur th er m arginal is ing an d iso la t ing fem inis t and Indige-

no us archaeologis ts . A n ar t ic le on in tersect iona l i ty between fem inis t an d In-

d igenous a rchaeo logy is p r imar i ly go ing to be r ead by f em in i s t and Ind igenous

archaeo log i st s, and I wond er bo th how m an y m ains t r eam a rchaeo log i st s a re

go ing to r ead th i s a r ti c le an d wha t th ey w i ll make o f i t i f they do . In shor t , wh i le

in tersect ional i ty betwe en feminis t an d Indige nou s archaeolog y is in teres t ing

to some, i t i s no t enoug h. In order for in tersect ional i ty to have a s ignif icant

and widesp read impa ct on the d isc ip l ine , there nee d to be in tersect ions created

be tween a ll ar eas o f a rchaeo logy : the m arg in a nd the m ains t ream; the m ore

power fu l and the l es s power fu l; the academic an d the c om m uni ty ; W es tern a r-

chaeolog is ts an d Ind ige no us archaeologis ts ; an d processualists, postproc essu-

alists, and unclassifiables.

Last ly , Co nk ey walks her ta lk , so to speak. In th is ar t ic le , she has m ad e a

s ign i fi can t con t r ibu t ion to the beg inn ings o f a rchaeo log ica l in te r sec t iona l -

i ty in severa l ways. She has iden t i f ied two areas in curren t arc haeolo gy wh ere

in te rsec t ions a re beg inn ing to be exp lo red , fem in i s t a r chaeo logy and Ind ige -

nou s a rchaeo logy , and has obv ious ly pu l l ed toge the r a g rea t dea l o f l i te r a tu re

research and review on these two areas, as seen in the subs tant ia l b ib l iography.

As wel l, Co nk ey creates som e o f the very in tersect ions she is advoc at ing for, by

incorp ora t ing the w ork o f you ng , emerg ing a rchaeo log i st s in to h e r overv iew

of f emin i s t and Ind igen ous a rchaeo logy and by conn ec t ing these theo re ti ca l

appro ache s to the pract ise of archaeology.

R e fe r e nc e s i t e d

Biolsi, T., an d L. Zimm erman (editors)

1997. Indians an d Anthropologists: Vine D eloria Jr. and the C ri tique of Anthropol-

ogy. University of A rizona Press, Tucson.

Conkey, M.

1991. Contextsof Action, Con texts for Pow er: M aterial Culture a nd Gen der in the

Magdalenian. In Engender ing Archaeology: Wom en an d Prehis tory edited by

J. Gero and M. Conkey.Blackwell,Oxford.


4/4

7 T R M I L L I O N

Gero, J ., and M . Con ke y editors)

1991 .

Engender ing Archaeology: Wo me n and Prehis tory .

Blackwell, Ox ford, U nited

Kingdom.

Million, T.

2002.

Using Circular Paradigms within an Archaeological Framework: Receiving

G i ft s f r o m W h i t e B u ff al o C a l f W o m a n .

Un pub lished thesis , University o f Al-

ber ta , Edmonton, Canada.

2004. Explor ing the His tory of Archaeological The ory and M ethod. In

Aboriginal

Cultural Landscapes

edited by J. Oakes, R. R iew e, Y. Belanger, S. Blady,

K. Legg e, an d P. Wiebe. A borigin al Issues Press, University of M anitob a,

W innipeg, Canada.

Nicholas, G., an d T. Andrew s editors)

1997.

A t a Crossroads: Archaeology an d First Peoples in C anada.

Archa eology Press,

Sim on Fraser University, Burnaby, British C olum bia, Canada.

Smith, L.T.

1999 .

Decolonizing M ethodologies: Research an d Indigenous Peoples .

Zed Books,

L o n d o n .

Spector, J.

1991.

W ha t This Awl Means: Towards a Feminist A rchaeology. In

EngenderingAr-

chaeology: W om en and Prehis tory

edited by 1. Ge ro an d M. C onkey. Black-

well, Oxford, United K ingdom .

1993 .

W ha t This Aw l Means: Fe min is t Archaeology a t a Wahpeton Dakota Vi llage.

Minnesota Historical Society Press, St. Paul.

Swidler, N., K. Do no gosk e, R. An yon , and A. Dow ner editors)

1997 .

Nat ive Amer icans and Archaeolog is t s : S tepping S tones to Common Ground.

M taM ira Press, W alnut Creek, California.

W ylie, A.

1991. Gen der Th eory and the Archaeological Record: W hy Is There No Archaeol-

ogy of Gender? In

Engender ing Archaeology: Women and Prehis tory

edited

by J . Gero and M. C onkey. Blackwell, Oxford, U nited Kingdom .

comment on 'dwelling at the margins, action at the intersection? feminist and indigenous...

Documents