Feminist archaeology 1

Feminist archaeologyFeminist archaeology employs a feminist perspective in interpreting past societies. It often focuses on gender, butalso considers gender in tandem with other factors, such as sexuality, race, or class. Feminist archaeology hascritiqued the uncritical application of modern, Western norms and values to past societies. It is additionallyconcerned with the androcentric biases structuring disciplinary norms of archaeology itself, and gender equalitywithin the profession.

Emergence of feminist archaeologyFeminist archaeology initially emerged in the late 1970s and early 80s, along with other objections to theepistemology espoused by the processual school of archaeological thought, such as symbolic and hermeneuticarchaeologies. Margaret Conkey and Janet Spector’s 1984 paper Archaeology and the Study of Gender summed upthe feminist critique of the discipline at that time: that archaeologists were unproblematically overlayingmodern-day, Western gender norms onto past societies, for example in the sexual division of labor; that contexts andartifacts attributed to the activities of men, such as projectile point production and butchering at kill sites, wereprioritized in research time and funding; and that the very character of the discipline was constructed aroundmasculine values and norms. For example, women were generally encouraged to pursue laboratory studies instead offieldwork (although there were exceptions throughout the history of the discipline)[1] and the image of thearchaeologist was centered around the rugged, masculine, “cowboy of science”.[2] In 1991, two publications markedthe emergence of feminist archaeology on a large scale: the edited volume Engendering Archaeology,[3] whichfocused on women in prehistory, and a thematic issue of the journal Historical Archaeology,[4] which focused onwomen and gender in post-Columbian America. Outside the Americas, feminist archaeology enjoyed an earlieremergence and greater support among the greater archaeological community.

Early feminist studiesNotable challenges raised by early feminist archaeologists have concerned hunting and stone tool-making, amongmany other topics. The Man the Hunter paradigm in anthropology, named after a symposium given in the 1960s bysome of the most prominent names in archaeology, bifurcated the hominid sexual division of labor along male andfemale sexes. Males were in charge of hunting, and presumably through this activity developed importantevolutionary traits, such as increased brain size. Meanwhile, females stayed at home and raised the young. Anassumption behind this model is that women were constrained from certain activities due to decreased mobilityresulting from pregnancy and their role in raising young children. This model has been critiqued by feministanthropologists, as underplaying the evolutionary importance of women in favor of portraying them strictly aspassive objects of reproduction and nothing more. Adrienne Zihlman, tracing the evolutionary achievements ascribedto males as hunters, pointed out that female gathering activities could just as easily account for such adaptations.[5]

Joan Gero[6] challenged androcentric explanations of tool-making on several levels. First, the common assumptionthat tool-making was almost exclusively associated with men was almost certainly false; at the least, women were farmore likely to produce their own tools as needed in domestic contexts rather than wait for a man to come along anddo it for them. The argument behind this assumption, that men possess greater upper-body strength, was dismissedby Gero, who pointed out physical strength is not an imperative quality in someone skilled at making stone tools.Additionally, Gero pointed out the great emphasis in research time and money towards studies concerned with themost “masculine” of stone tools, such as projectile points, while stone tools likely made and used by women, forexample utilized flakes, have been relatively ignored.

Feminist archaeology 2

Feminist and gender archaeologiesSince the early feminist critiques of archaeology, gender has gained enormous popularity within the discipline. Thelabel “feminist” has not been embraced by most archaeologists, however. A split between gender and feministarchaeologies formed during the 1990s.[7] Gender archaeology has become a wide umbrella, including, but notlimited to, feminist work that employs queer theory,[8] practice theory[9]), and performance theory,[10] among others.Many archaeologists engaged in gender research avoid the label of “feminist,” largely due to the perceived negativeconnotations of the word.[11] Others within the discipline have an oversimplified understanding of feministarchaeology's history and aims, and as a consequence mistakenly conflate it with postmodernism.[12] Somearchaeologists have argued against the continued incorporation of feminist thought, which is inherently political, intoarchaeological studies of gender.[13] Few works in gender archaeology have actively engaged in challengingpatriarchal power structures beyond rectifying androcentric histories. Feminist archaeology engages in challengingand changing interpretive frameworks employed by archaeologists: “Feminism is a politics aimed at changinggender-based power relations.”.[14] Noted feminist philosopher Alison Wylie delineates several guidelines imperativefor conducting feminist archaeology[15]:1.1. To propose research questions that address people oppressed by systems of inequality structured by gender, in

order to change such conditions.2.2. Feminist research should be grounded in the situated experience of women and other groups marginalized by

conventional gender structures.3.3. Researchers should be held accountable to those affected by their research; under no means should feminist

research exploit others.4.4. Feminist researchers should engage in self-reflexivity, recognizing their personal social positions, interests, and

values, and discussing how these interact with their research.In contrast, gender archaeology not employed by feminists lacks such characteristics. Gender is currently a commontopic of study in archaeology among non-feminists. Such studies focus on identifying gendered activities andmaterial culture and on the gender roles of past peoples, but do not present themselves in an overtly political way.Non-feminist archaeologists are less compelled to position themselves within their work, or reflect on how theirposition affects their work. Investigating gender independent of feminism, however, elides the aims of early studiesand represents gender and sex in a conceptually deficient manner.[16]

Ongoing feminist contributions to archaeologyFeminist archaeologists continue to challenge archaeological norms and expand research into new intellectualterritories. They argue for the incorporation of alternative forms of knowledge and representation; for example, blackand Indigenous epistemologies have been employed by feminist archaeologists.[17] There continues to be a feministcritique of the masculine character and organization of archaeology.[18]

Alternative forms of knowledge and presentationOne important realm of research for feminist archaeologists, along with some non-feminists, is de-centeringWesternized forms of history in favor of privileging alternative conceptions and interpretations of the past, andexploring non-traditional ways of conveying knowledge. A growing body of work involves involvement withdescendant communities, giving them a voice in archaeological investigations and interpretations of the past. Thepublic demand for allowing descendant communities a voice in the African Burial Ground controversy highlightedthe importance of this kind of work. Parallels have been drawn between feminist archaeology and Indigenousarchaeology, focusing on how both work to break down the male, white, middle-class, Western monopoly toaccessing knowledge about the past.[19] This type of work helps to de-center the privileged position of Westernknowledge without removing its relevance.

Feminist archaeology 3

Additionally, feminist archaeologists have engaged in the use of fiction to help access the past. This has taken theform of plays, as seen in Red-Light Voices,[20] based on letters and diaries by early 20th-century prostitutes toexplore prostitution. Another example is seen in Laurie Wilkie’s fictional worker involved in the Federal Writers'Project, interjected in her archaeological study of an African-American midwife in the post-emancipation South.[21]

Janet Spector interpreted the meaning behind a single artifact through a fictional narrative in What This AwlMeans.[22] Narrative has been argued as an effective means by which archaeologists can create multivocal and morebroadly accessible interpretations and presentations.[23] The use of storytelling “demonstrate[s] how narrative is apowerful tool for bringing texture, nuance, and humanity to women’s experiences as evidenced througharchaeology”[24]).

Intersectional analysisA common analytical technique employed by feminist (and some non-feminist) archaeologists is intersectionalanalysis, which, following the assertions of black feminists leading third-wave feminism in the U.S., maintains thatgender cannot be accessed by itself but must be studied in conjunction with other forms of identity.[25] In historicalarchaeology the linkage between gender, race, and class has been increasingly explored, but other aspects of identity,notably sexuality, have been examined as well in relation to gender.[26] Intersectional analysis has not been limited tofeminist archaeology, as illustrated by the prevalent use of gender-race-class as a means of exploring identity byhistorical archaeologists. Although many such studies have focused on white, middle-class women of the recentAnglo-American past,[27] the articulation of gender with other aspects of identity is starting to be applied to NativeAmerican women[28] and African Americans.[29] The work of Kathleen Deagan[30] on Spanish colonial sites in theUS and Caribbean has pioneered a movement of study of gender in the Spanish colonies.[31] The use of blackfeminist work, which calls to attention the inherent connectivity between gender and class in the U.S. has been animportant step in advancing the use of intersectional analysis in archaeology.[32]

Household StudiesArchaeological studies of domestic sites have been particularly affected by ongoing feminist work. Thelong-standing trend in archaeology to associate women with domestic spaces, placed in opposition to the associationwith men and “public” spaces, has been a continuous locus of feminist research. Since the advent of the newmillennium, there has been a shift away from such dichotomized spatial separation of gender. In historicalarchaeology, feminist archaeologists have been crucial to widening the definition of what constitutes a householdfrom a familial model based on Western norms, such as household archaeology projects studying brothels[33] andfraternities.[34] By engaging with broader household literature, archaeologists have begun to re-conceive household,long considered autonomous analytical units, as political spaces, occupied by social actors occupying different socialpositions shaped by gender, race, age, occupation, socioeconomic status, and so on.[35]

Feminist archaeology 4

Feminist archaeology and the study of masculinityFeminist concern has been primarily with women; however, emerging concern with the exploration and intricacies ofmasculinities in archaeology is rising. Masculine identity constructs[36] and social reproduction of normativemasculinity[37] are some of the topics that have been addressed by a limited number of archaeologists. This area ofstudy in general, however, remains relatively unexplored.

References[1] Hays-Gilpin, 2000:92. Feminist Scholarship in Archaeology. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 571:89-106.[2] Gero, 1985:342. Sociopolitics and the Woman-at-Home Ideology. American Antiquity 50:342-50[3][3] (1991, ed. Joan Gero and Margaret Conkey)[4][4] (1991 Vol. 25 No. 4)[5] 1983. Woman the Gatherer ed. Frances Dahlberg[6] 1991. Genderlithics: Women's Roles in Stone Tool Production. In Engendered Archaeology: Women in Prehistory, ed. Joan Gero and

Margaret Conkey, 163-193[7][7] Wylie 2007[8] Caesalla 2000. Bulldaggers and Gentle Ladies: Archaeological Approaches to Female Homosexuality in Convict-Era Australia.

Archaeologies of Sexuality ed. Robert Schmidt and Barbara Voss 160-178; Voss 2000. Colonial Sex: Archaeology, Structured Space, andSexuality in Alta California's Spanish-Colonial Missions. See Schmidt and Voss volume 35-61

[9] DeCunzo 1995. Reform, respite, ritual: An archaeology of institutions; The Magdalen Society of Philadelphia, 1800-1850. In HistoricalArchaeology Vol. 9 No. 23; Wilkie 2000. Magical passions: Sexuality and African-American archaeology. See Schmidt and Voss volume129-142

[10] Meskell and Joyce 2003. Embodied Lives: Figuring Ancient Maya and Egyptian Experience[11] Conkey 2003. Has Feminism Changed Archaeology? In Signs Vol. 28 No. 3[12] Geller 2009. Identity and Difference: Complicating Gender in Archaeology. In Annual Review of Archaeology Vol. 38[13] Sorenson 2000. Gender Archaeology[14] Little 1994:10. People with history: An update on historical archaeology in the United States. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory

Vol. 1 No. 1[15] 2007. Doing Archaeology as a Feminist. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory Vol. 14[16] Geller 2009. Identity and Difference: Complicating Gender in Archaeology. In Annual Review of Archaeology Vol. 38[17] Franklin 2001. A Black feminist-inspired archaeology? Journal of Social Archaeology Vol. 1 No. 1; Wilkie 2005. Inessential archaeologies:

problems of exclusion in Americanist archaeological thought. World Archaeology Vol. 37 No. 3; Conkey 2005. Dwelling at the margins,action at the intersection? Feminist and indigenous archaeologies. Archaeologies Vol. 1 No. 1; Voss 2008. The archaeology of ethnogenesis:race and sexuality in colonial San Francisco

[18] Moser 2007. On Disciplinary Culture: Archaeology as Fieldwork and Its Gendered Associations. Journal of Archaeological Method andTheory Vol. 14 No. 3

[19][19] Conkey 2005[20][20] Costello, 2000[21][21] 2003 The archaeology of mothering: an African-American midwife's tale[22][22] Spector 1993[23][23] Joyce 2002. The Languages of Archaeology[24] Wilkie and Howlett Hayes 2006:252. Engendered and Feminist Archaeologies of the Recent and Documented Pasts. Journal of

Archaeological Research Vol. 14[25] Geller 2009. Identity and Difference: Complicating Gender in Archaeology. In Annual Review of Archaeology Vol. 38[26][26] see Schmidt and Voss volume 2008[27][27] Wilkie and Hayes 2006[28] Lightfoot 2005. Indians, missionaries, and merchants: the legacy of colonial encounters on the Californian Frontiers; Howlett 2004.

Gendered Practices: Ethnohistoric and Archaeological Evidence of Native American Social Divisions of Labor. Bulletin of the ArchaeologicalSociety of Connecticut No. 66

[29] Galle and Young 2004. Engendering African American archaeology: a southern perspective[30] 1985. The archaeology of the Spanish contact period in the Caribbean. Journal of World Prehistory Vol. 2 No. 2; 1996. Colonial

Transformation: Euro-American Cultural Genesis in the Early Spanish-American Colonies. Journal of Anthropological Research Vol. 52 No.2

[31] Jamieson 2000. Domestic architecture and power: the historical archaeology of colonial Ecuador; Rothschild 2003. Colonial encounters ina Native American landscape: the Spanish and Dutch in North America; see Voss 2008

[32][32] see Franklin 2001[33][33] e.g., Seifert et al 2000. Mary Ann Hall's First-Class House: the Archaeology of a Capital Brothel. See Schmidt and Voss volume

Feminist archaeology 5

[34] Wilkie 2010. The lost boys of Zeta Psi: a historical archaeology of masculinity in a university fraternity[35] Hendon 2006. Living and Working at Home:The Social Archaeology of Household Production and Social Relations. A Companion to Social

Archaeology ed. by Lynn Meskell and Robert W. Preucel 255-271[36][36] see Wilkie 2010[37] Joyce 2000. Girling the girl and boying the boy: the production of adulthood in ancient Mesoamerica. World Archaeology Vol. 31 No. 3

External links• Feminist archaeology (http:/ / archaeology. about. com/ od/ fterms/ g/ feminist. htm)• FemArc Women's network in archaeology (http:/ / www. femarc. de/ Netzwerk/ text/ naafweb1. html)

Article Sources and Contributors 6

Article Sources and ContributorsFeminist archaeology  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=486584023  Contributors: ***Ria777, Adamsan, Aleksd, Alicefurnier, Allformweek, Aranel, Cantaire87, Cavila,Cnilep, Dakinijones, Dbachmann, EvgenyGenkin, John of Reading, LilHelpa, Maias, Marek69, Oliverpig, PigFlu Oink, Pigman, Quenbyam, Radiotik, Robofish, Stella stars, Tom Morris,X42bn6, Zazaban, 13 anonymous edits

LicenseCreative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported//creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/