A Gendered Past: A Critical Bibliography of Gender in Archaeology

193 Pages·1993·18.214 MB·English

by  Elisabeth A. Bacus

Technical Report No. 25
A Gendered Past
A Critical Bibliography of
Gender in Archaeology
Edited by
Elisabeth A. Bacus Alex W. Barker Jeffrey D. Bonevich
Sandra L. Dunavan J. Benjamin Fitzhugh Debra L. Gold
Nurit S. Goldman-Finn William Griffin Karen M. Mudar
with contributions by
Kurt F. Anschuetz Elisabeth A. Bacus Alex W. Barker
Jeffrey D. Bonevich Sandra L. Dunavan Starr Farr Michael Finn
Lynn E. Fisher J. Benjamin Fitzhugh Debra L. Gold Nurit S. Goldman-Finn
William Griffin Karin Jones Karen M. Mudar Tineke Van Zandt
and with a foreword by
Alison Wylie
Ann Arbor
1993
©19T9h3Re e geonftt hUsen iveorfMs iicthyi gan
ThMeu seuAnmt horfo pology
Alrli grhetsse rved
Prinitentd h e
UniStetda otefAms e rica
ISBN 978-0-9e1r5)703-31-9 (pap
ISBN 978-1-951538-23-1 (ebook)
ThUen ivteoyrsMf i ichMiugsaenou fAnm t hropcourrleongptlyuy b litshhrmeeosen ogrsaeprihe s:
AnthropoloPgapeir,cMs ale moainrTdse ,c hRneipcoalWr eth sao.vv ese erv etnittipylnri ensFt o.r
ac ompclaetatlweor git,tMo eu seoufAm n throPpuoblloigc4ya009 t MiuosnesBu,um isl Adnni ng,
ArboMlr ,4 8109-o1rc0 a(7l39l1,7 3 6)4 -0485
Covdeers iKganth:e rCilnaeh asFsrmeo "y.Th eirsei tatimtne ga teen,g"rb ayTv eheodd doeBr r y,
aftJeorh Whni teo'rsi gwiantearlcp oulbolrii,nts hh1ee5 d9e 0d iotiAfoB nr iaefen Trdu e
Repoorft thN ee wF ouLnadn ofd V irgbiyThn ioam,asHarl ot.
Thep apuesrei dnt hpiusb limceaetttihrsoee n q uirofe tmheen ts
ANSIS tan23d9a.r4d8 -(1P9e8r4ma noefPn acpee r)
Table of Contents
LIST OF CONTRffiUTORS iv
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS v
FOREWORD vii
Alison J. Wylie
PREFACE xiv
Alex W. Barker
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xviii
INTRODUCTION 1
Nurit Goldman-Finn, Sandra L. Dunavan and
J. Benjamin Fitzhugh
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
Citations A-B 7
Citations C-D 26
Citations E-F 47
Citations G-H 54
Citations I-J 76
Citations K-L 79
Citations M-N 87
Citations O-P 100
Citations Q-R 105
Citations S-T 115
Citations U-V 137
Citations W-X 139
Citations Y-Z 155
Additional References 161
AUTHOR INDEX 163
SUBJECT INDEX 167
III
List of Contributors
Kurt F. Anschuetz KFA
Elisabeth A. Bacus EAB
Alex W. Barker AWB
Jeffrey D. Bonevich JDB
Sandra L. Dunavan SLD
Starr Farr SF
Michael R. Finn MRF
Lynn E. Fisher LEF
J. Benjamin Fitzhugh JBF
Debra L. Gold DLG
Nurit S. Goldman-Finn NGF
William D. Griffin WDG
Karin Jones KJ
Karen M. Mudar KMM
Tineke Van Zandt TVZ
List of Illustrations
Mesolithic rock painting from Lakhajoar, India. Redrawn from Prehistoric 11
Indian Rock Painting (1983), by Erwin Neumayer, Oxford University Press,
Figure 44, p. 89. Drawn by J. Benjamin Fitzhugh.
Effigy ear ornaments (gold, ca. 4.5 cm high), possibly Nasca, from Ica, Peru. 25
Redrawn from Indian Art in South America (1967), by Frederic J. Dockstader,
\New York Graphic Society Publishers, Ltd., Plate 153. Drawn by J. Benjamin
Fitzhugh.
Ceramic figurines from the Evolved Preclassic period, Chupfcuaro, Guanajuato. 58
Redrawn from Arts of Ancient Mexico (1967), by Jacques Soustelle, Viking Press,
Plate 23. Drawn by Laada Bilaniuk.
Prehistoric petroglyphs from the Great Lakes Region (near Peterborough, 106
Ontario). Redrawn from Native Arts ofN orth America, Africa, and the South
Pacific (1988), by George A. Corbin, Harper & Row Publishers, Figure 28, p.
107. Drawn by Laada Bilaniuk.
Euro-American oil on composition board painting, "American Gothic" (1930), by 119
Grant Wood. Redrawn from Grant Wood: The Regionalist Vision (1983), by
Wanda M. Corn, Yale University Press, Figure 206, p. 142. Drawn by Katherine
Clahassey.
Indian painting, "Ragini Malkos" (Rajasthani, Raghogarh School, ca. 1700). 129
Redrawn from A Collector's Dream: Indian Art in the Collections ofB asant
Kumar and Saraladevi Birla and the Birla Academy of Art and Culture (1987), by
Karl Khandalavela and Saryv Doshi, Marg Publications, p. 135, accession num-
ber v3. Drawn by Nurit Goldman-Finn.
Design in low relief of Tutankhamen and queen, back of king's throne, from 144
Egyptian Museum, Cairo (New Kingdom, XVIllth dynasty). Redrawn from
Egypt: The Art of the Pharoahs (1965), by Irmgard Woldering, translated by Ann
E. Keep, Methuen, Plate 31, p. 154. Drawn by Nurit Goldman-Finn.
v

Foreword
Gender Archaeology/Feminist
Archaeology
Alison Wylie
University of Western Ontario
When Sandra Morgen compiled a series of promise of archaeological research on gender to
critical review essays and curriculum guidelines appear in the field; they report that, five years later,
for publication just three years ago (the American it "continues to accurately describe the general
Anthropological Association "Project on gender state of archaeology" (Spector and Whelan 1989:
and the curriculum," Gender and Anthropology: 66). In both articles, the authors note that, although
Critical Reviewsf or Research and Teaching, 1989), "there is virtually no systematic work on the ar
she had to acknowledge that, for the most part, "a chaeological study ofg ender" (Conkey and Spector
feminist archaeology is a vision for the future" 1984:2; quoted by Spector and Whelan 1989:66),
(Morgen 1989:5). In this she echoed the assess much is claimed or presumed, in extant interpreta
ment of Spector and Whelan who contributed an tions oft he record, about sexual divisions oflabour,
essay to Gender and Anthropology outlining the gender roles, gendered social structures, and the
potential and value for "incorporating gender in presence, role, or status of women in prehistory.
archaeology courses" (the title of their contribu Very often these interpretations depend upon, and
tion, 1989:65): reinforce, ethnocentric and presentist assumptions
about gender relations and their stability over time
Since there is as yet no body ofliterature that and across cultural contexts; where Conkey and
is both informed by recent feminist scholar Spector document ways in which this limits the
ship and also uses archaeological data and scope and compromises the integrity of primary
research strategies to study gender, we could research in archaeology (Conkey and Spector 1984:
not create our module utilizing current ar 2,5-14), Spector and Whelan show how it trans
chaeological studies of prehistoric men and lates into manifest androcentrism in many of the
women. (Spector and Whelan 1989: 66) texts used to teach archaeology (1989:66-68). This
lack of critical analysis of androcentrism and the
Spector and Whelan, in tum, take as a silence on questions about gender as a focal topic
benchmark Conkey and Spector's 1984 paper, the for research is particularly striking, Spector and
first systematic discussion of the need for and Whelan observe, given the interest and ingenuity
Vll
that anthropological archaeologists have displayed 1987 -1988 and on presentations made at the annual
in taking up questions about (other) social and Theoretical Archaeology Group Conferences held
cultural dimensions of past cultures (Spector and in the U.K. in 1987 (with antecedents in 1982 and
Whelan 1989: 65), and given the enormous expan 1985; see Arnold et al. in ARC 1988: 1, abstracted
sion of research on gender in closely aligned fields, below). Also in this period, the Women's Caucus
especially socio-cultural anthropology (Conkey and of the Society for Historical Archaeology orga
Spector 1984: 14). nized a number of groundbreaking workshops and
Spector and Whelan do observe, hope conference sessions for the SHA annual meetings
fully, that by 1989 the situation of neglect de that provided a forum for gender research and
scribed by them, and by Conkey and Spector before feminist theory in historical archaeology. In retro
them,had begun to change (1989: 66). And,infact, spect, the year Spector and Whelan's curriculum
by the time their contribution to the AAA curricu review appeared was something of a turning point.
lum project appeared (in Morgen 1989), their de a watershed. in the fortunes of archaeological work
tailed and optimistic assessment of the potential for on gender.
gender research in archaeology had begun to be Since 1989 an increasing number of con
realized-with a vigor and enthusiasm that they ferences, workshops. symposia, and annual meet
could scarcely have anticipated when they set out to ing sessions have been devoted to research on
review existing curriculum resources in the area. women and gender in archaeology: a conference on
Most visibly, an open and international call for "Women in Archaeology" was held at Charles Sturt
papers on the topic ''The Archaeology of Gender," University in Australia in January 1990 (the pro
issued by the organizers of the 1989 Chacmool ceedings are now in press; du Cros and Smith
Conference in Calgary, drew over a hundred sub 1992); two very successful open invitation confer
missions, from as far afield as New Zealand, ences on gender research have been organized by
Scandinavia, the U.K., western EUrope, and all Cheryl Claassen at Appalachian State University in
over North America. This was dramatic testimony North Carolina (proceedings of the first of these
that the "promise of a gender-conscious archaeol have just appeared; Claassen 1992a); and a number
ogy" was beginning to be widely recognized (to ofp rominent anthropology departments have spon
paraphrase Barker's introduction to this volume) sored curriculum development seminars and work
and, given the scope of the submissions, that it was shops on gender research in archaeology (e.g .• the
beginning to impinge on an extremely wide range "Feminist Mainstreaming Project in Anthropol
of subfields, geographical and temporal interests, ogy" at the University of Michigan which was
technical specialities and problem areas (for an responsible, in part, for the genesis of the bibliog
analysis of the scope of these submissions, see raphy that follows). Although I have focused here
Hanen and Kelley 1992, and the published pro on developments in predominantly English lan
ceedings, Walde and Willows 1991, abstracted guage contexts, these are by no means the earliest
below). or most vigorous initiatives in the areas. In fact,
The 1989 Chacmool conference was by no they were anticipated, by a decade, by a prescient
means an isolated initiative. The previous spring group of Norwegian archaeologists who organized
(1988) a small working conference on "Women a conference called "Were They All Men?" in
and Production in Prehistory" was convened by November 1979 (the proceedings, which were not
Gero and Conkey in South Carolina; it issued in a published until 1987, are abstracted below:
session on this topic at the 1989 annual meeting of Bertelsen, Lillehammer, Naess 1987); this gave
the Society for American Archaeology and in the rise, subsequently, to "Norwegian Women in Ar
collection Engendering Archaeology: Women and chaeology" (the acronym is "KAN" in Norwegian),
Prehistory (Gero and Conkey 1991). In the same a group that has been meeting and producing a
year, a special issue of Archaeological Reviewf rom journal, KAN, since 1985 (much of this history of
Cambridge appeared on "Women and Archaeol development is discussed in endnotes in Wylie
ogy" (Spring 1988), based in part on the "Cam 1992).
bridge Feminist Archaeology Workshops" in Although there was no very visible body of
Vlll
literature on the "archaeology of gender" or on Morgen's "vision for the future" has begun to be
archaeological studies of women before 1988- realized. This is why the present bibliography is
1989--certainly there was nothing comparable to such an important and welcome contribution to the
the dynamic programs of research which had existing literature; it was unthinkable, even a few
emerged in socio-cultural anthropology and his years ago, that anyone could compile such a rich
tory by that time-a number of papers had ap offering of published archaeological research on
peared, or were circulating as the texts of confer women and gender.
ence presentations, which did address questions The question whether this body ofresearch
about gender relations and women in archaeologi constitutes a "feminist archaeology"-where
cal tenns. Where publications are concerned, these Morgen's vision is of a "feminist archaeology"
include: archaeological contributions to region or (1989: 5), and Spector and Whelan specifically
culture-specific literatures where there existed a regret the lack of archaeological work informed by
developed anthropological and historical interest feminist scholarship (1989: 66)--is a vexed one,
in the status and roles of women (e.g., Barstow and one which the editors of this bibliography
1978, Kehoe 1983, and Rohrlich-Leavitt 1977); the identify as a point of disagreement which they
work of some postprocessualists who endorse femi themselves encountered. Certainly any answer to
nist initiatives and have, on occasion, explored this question depends on how you define "femi
gender as a dimension of cultural life relevant to nism" as much as on your reading of the new work
their studies of the "insides" of prehistoric life and on gender in archaeology, and this is a notoriously
action (e.g., Hodder 1984, and Braithwaite 1984; controversial issue; contra the presumption ofm uch
but see Engelstad 1991); and the work of non media coverage, there is no party line here. Where
archaeologists who recognize the importance of archaeological practice is concerned, many of those
archaeological research, and have attempted to now taking up questions about gender do not
integrate what they could learn of it into their own identify themselves as feminists and are not moti
historical or anthropological research on the ori vated by explicitly (or even implicitly) feminist
gins, evolution, and diversity of gender systems concerns. Certainly many are wary of claiming any
(e.g., Rapp 1977). very close association with an overtly political
In addition, Claassen has compiled an on movement--now famously the object of a wide
line bibliography of papers on archaeology and spread "backlash"-even if their interest in under
gender that were delivered at archaeological con standing the status of women and gender relations
ferences (and/or appeared in conference proceed in the past arises, in part, from a politically grounded
ings) from 1964-1992 in which, as she summarizes suspicion of contemporary gender stereotypes and
her results, 24 of a total of 284 entries were pre a commitment to gender equity in the present and
sented prior to January 1988 (Claassen 1992b: future. Strategically this stance of disengagement
"Introduction"), only two of which have appeared may be justified. But it is worth reiterating a point
in print (Kehoe 1976 and Spector 1983). But even I have argued elsewhere (Wylie 1991): that femi
given this evidence of antecedent interest in ques nist commitments by no means entail a systematic
tions about women and gender, Claassen's analysis partiality, a retributive dogmatism, along gender
bears out the pessimistic assessments published by lines.
Conkey and Spector in 1984, and by Spector and For one thing, feminist commitments do
Whelan in 1989. Over half oft he conference papers not entail anyone particular conclusion, or set of
she lists were presented at conferences between conclusions, about the significance of gender as an
1988 and 1990 (altogether 151; Claassen 1992b: organizing principle (past or present), about the
Introduction), with another 98 presented in the last status of women relative to men, or about their
two years. And oft his total, she finds that "there are relationship to public vs. private spheres, domestic
102 published conference papers, the vast majority contexts, productive or reproductive labour prac
of those published in 1991" (Claassen 1992b: In tices. Famously, "radical" feminists of the 1970s
troduction). tended to view gender as a fundamental and quasi
It is, then, a very recent phenomenon that autonomous organizing principle in social, politi-
ix