PROGRAMME TO PRACTICE: Gender and Feminism in Archaeology

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; email : j [email protected]. Formerly with the Department of Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC AtsSTRACT In the past decade, archaeologists have given considerable attention to research on gender in the human past. In this review, we attempt to acknowledge much of this diverse and abundant work from an explicitly feminist perspective. We focus on reviewing a selection of approaches to gender that are anchored to specific theoretical standpoints. In addition, we highlight several approaches that challenge an archaeology ofgender that does not explicitly engage with the implications of this topic fbr research, practice, and interpretation. 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 superhighway 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 current 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 INTRODUCTION rn 1997, the state and fate ofan archaeology ofgender rest on more than any single political agenda or any monolithic approach to the topic. The intensity with which the study of gender has infused archaeological discourse and analysis in the past five years does not mean that there is now-nor is there anticipated to be-a shared orientation to the study of gender, or a single methodology for studying gender, or, perhaps more problematically, even a commonly 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 starting assumptions as can be imagined. This review emphasizes where a feminist-inspired archaeology sits within the discipline today and where it can potentially take the discipline as we move into the next millennium. we do not review all examples of the archaeology of gender, which, in any case, are too numerous to be accountecl for individually. we also do not dwell on what is thought to be known about "women in prehistory" (but see du Cros & Smith 1993, Ehrenberg 19g9, Spielman 1995), "women in history" (but see Balme & Beck 1995, Scott 1994, Seifert 1991, Walde & Willows 199 I , Wall 1994), or "women in antiquity,' (but see Archer et al 199 4; Fantham et al 1 994 ; Kampen 1 995 ; pomeroy 197 5, I 99 I Rabinow; itz & Richlin 1993). we do not consider in any depth specific methodological approaches to reveal women (or "gender") in the archaeological record (but for an overyiew of diverse approaches, see costin 1996 or Hayd en 1992; for burial analysis, see Hollimon 1991, 1992; for cross-cultural regr.rlarities of gender roles, see Kent 1995; and for ethnohistory, ethnoarchaeology, iconographic research, see Arsenault 1991, Gero 1997,Miller 1988). Rather, today's literature requires from us a more self-conscious positioning of perspectives; no single position within the larger discourse, and cer- tainly not our own as given here, can present itself as neutral or all- encompassing or even as all-tolerant. Instead, we intend this review to move forward an explicitly feminist inquiry in archaeology, one that is committed to changing the way archaeology is practiced, the way it is presented, and the na- ture of archaeological interpretation. we begin by considering how the recent cxplosion of interest in gender is positioned in the archaeological literature, highlighting several distincl ways ofconnecting empirical archaeological study to theoretical resources and arguments. we then review a sele ction of studies in f'eminist archaeology that are particularly notable for how they have opened up transformatory and imaginative possibilities for the archaeologies of the next millennium. Despite the enormous promise of these revelatory sfudies, we recognize intemal obstacles GENDF]R AND I'-EMINISM IN ARCI]AEOLOGY 413 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 volume of gender research in archaeology, asking whether inquiry has been further opened to interested scholars or whether it has namou,ed. Finally, we address the centrality of feminist thought-specifically the feminist critiques of science-to notions of archaeology as a science, to archaeological problemsolving, to fieldwork and data collection, and to teaching and the presentation of archaeological issues. TAKING UP GE,NDER IN ARCHAEOLOGY Locating the Corpus The explosion ofliterature on archaeological gender in the past five years is concentrated in large part in published collections of papers originally presented at gender oriented conferences, or in organized speaker series (Balme & Beck 1995; Claassen 1992,1994 du Cros & Smith 1993; Gero & Conkey I 991 ; Walde & Willows 199 I ; Wright 1996), together with similarly concen* tratedspecialgenderissuesofperiodicals, e.g.HistoricalArchaeologyll99l, 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' glsl Memoir 11991 , 26], Massachusetts Archaeological Society Bulletin !994, 55(1)1, Journal ofAnthropological Research 11996,51(2)1, and CRM 11997 ,20(3)1. These topic-focused special publications on gender numerically overwhelm the articles appearing singly in journals, a recogttized historic pattern by which new subfields are introduced into archaeology (M Cabak, unpublished manuscript, 1 989). At the same time, almost all major North American journals have published at least one article that focuses on the archaeology of gender,includingAmerican Anthropologrsl (Moss 1993), American Antiquity (Wylie 7992), Archae' ology of Eastern North America (Dent 1991), Comparative Studies in Society and History (Linke 1992), Current Anthropology (Joyce 1993b, McCafferty & McCafferty 1994), Journal of Anthropological Archaeology (Allen 1996, Larick 1991 , Solomon 1992), .Iournal ctJ'Cctlifornia and Great Basin Arnthropology (McGuire & Hildebrandt 1994), Latin American Antiquity (Guillen 1993), North American Archoeologt (Sassaman 7992), Research in Economic Anthropology (Costin 1993), Visual Anthropology Review (Gifford-Gonzales 1 993), and Gender, Place and Culture (Tringham 1994). For one recent annotated bibliography, see Bacus et al (1993). Furthermore, this is far from being a local, Americanist phenomenon. Research on gender has proceeded vigorousty in many intemational contexts (e.g. Norway, Australia, South Africa, Germany), and international journals 414 CONKEY&GERO have regularly if sporadically included articles on gender, e.g. Journal of European Archaeology (Bailey 1994a, Robb 1994), Antiquie (Englestad 1991, Gilchrist 1991, Kehoe 1991, Meskell 1995), Archaologie der Schweiz (Basel) (Muller 1991), Australian Archaeology (McDonald, 1992), Oxford Journal ofArchaeology (Boardman 1991), south African Archaeological Bulletin (Mazel 1992, Wadley 1989), and llorld Archaeology (Bailey lgg4b, Dobres 1995b). International interest is apparent by other measures as well: Multiple conferences (du Cros & Smith 1993; Balme & Beck 1995; Kiistner & Karlisch 1991; Solomon, personal communication), thematic journals on or by women (e.g. K.A.N. 1985-), review articles (e.g. Dommasnes 1992), and special journal issues (Engelstad 1992) have appeared. However, French archaeologists appear perplexed by what they consider to be a historically and culturally specific Anglo-American concern with gender, a term that, they claim, has no translation into French [coudart, personal communication; see also del Valle (1993b, p. 2) who makes a similarpoint for Spanishl, suggesting that the genealogies of gendered anthropology are markedly Anglo-Saxon, linked to a new imperialist archaeology. In addition to the burgeoning number ofjournal articles, it is increasingly the case that regional or topical edited volumes will include an article on gender (e.g. Gifford-Gonzalez's 1992 contribution to a volume on archaeozoology, or Yentsch I 991 and Spencer-Wood I 99 I in a volume on inequality), and anthropological volumes on gender will sometimes include archaeological contributions (e.g. conkey & williams 1991, Nelson 1992, Silverblatt 199r). Moreover, gender issues are increasingly recognized as significant to other problem areas in archaeology (Dobres 1995b; Dobres & Hoffman 1 994 on prehistoric technology; Hingley 1991 on social archaeology of houses; Hendon 1996 on domestic labor). Gender appears, though rarely, in Cultural Resource Management reports (e.g. Walsh et al 1994; for some discussion, or the special issue of CRM in 1997 , see Rogers & Fowler 1994). According to Claassen, over 500 conference papers authored by over 400 individuals have been presented on gender since 1988, and over l0 conferences devoted to gender and archaeology have been held since 1987 (claassen, personal communication), but it remains to be seen how much of the enormous oral literature will culminate in published works. A promising sign is the September 1996 announcement by the University of Pennsylvania Press of a new book series, Regendering the Past, devoted explicitly to gender in archaeology (e.g. Claassen & Ioyce 1997). The Gender Genre Researchers in prehistory have embraced gender studies to resolve a wide spectrum of problems. Motivated by a rejection of the equation of human be- GENDER AND FEMINISM IN ARCHAEOLOGY 415 havior with the behavior of men, a primary purpose for undertaking a gendered archaeology is to identify or assert the presence and activities of women on prehistoric sites. The value of these studies begins with a recognition of female labor in a broad range of activities (e.g. Benedict 1993), many of which were once considered exclusively male domains such as Paleoindian encampments (Chilton 1994), Paleolithic cave art (Russell 1991), Natuhan transitions from foraging to agriculture (Crabtree 1991), Maya animal husbandry @ohl 1991), or pre-Columbian Moche mortuary rituals (Arsenault l99l). Similarly, the identification of women in high prestige burials has challenged the monopolization of power by men in stratihed societies (McCafferty & McCafferty 1994, Nelson 1991a). ln addition, "looking for women" (indeed, finding women!) forces self-conscious attention to starting assumptions about gender, where, for instance, traditional assessments of a division of labor are examined and either adopted (Sassaman 1992, Watson & Kennedy l99l) or revised (Crabtree 1991, Duke 1991). Such "locate-the-women" projects also take up the once unshakable redundancy of gendered task "assignments" in crosscultural perspective. For instance, by asking where women might be located in the production sequences of flaked stone tools, archaeologists have "found" women in the organization of quarrying activities (Sassaman 1997),heattteatment sequences of silicious rock, or variability in core preparation vs expedient technologies (Sassaman 1992). Looking for women also accounts for a renewed interest in iconographic representation (Levy 1995, Pollock 1991), and especially in female figurines (Bailey 1994b1' Brumfiel 1996; Dobtes 1992, Hamilton et al 1996; Joyce 1993a,b, 1991:. Lesure 1997). The results of these studies are that women have shown up at prehistoric sites and in political and economic activities all over the globe, sometimes in the most unlikely places. This literature contains sharply differing views of gender in human history: Males and females are interpreted as accepting and reproducing, or as resisting and redefining, their gendered social positions. Definitions of what it might have meant to be female or male at particular points in time alternate with descriptions of how gender meanings shift and undergo transformations. Gendered groups are lumped or split. The primacy of gender as determinant of social identity is sometimes emphasized. Other times, gender is subsumed under other social identities such as ethnicity, class, or occupational status. Some researchers use archaeological materials to focus on behavioral patterns (gender roles) of females and males, while others focus on gender relations and relative statuses of females and males, or on gender ideology as sets of meanings attached to being female or male (Robb 1994). Equally notable is the continuing development and literature in archaeology that takes an explicitly gender-sensitive approach to the sociology ofthe field. A number ofvolumes deal with the previously "hidden voices"-1v66sn 416 CONKEY&GERO as archaeologists-particularly in the history of archaeology. Biographies of previously unacknowledged or underappreciated women archeologists include the work compiled in Claassen's (1994) and Reyman,s (1992) edited volumes, as well as studies published elsewhere (S Bender 1991,1992; Bishop & Lange 1991; Chilton 1992; Claassen 1993; Cordell l99l; Ioiner 1992; Levine 1991; Nelson 1991b;Parezo 1993; Woodbury 1992). These reveal a surprising range of roles and strength of scholarship that women offered ar- chaeology on many continents, sometimes as the hidden spouse but also often publically invisible contributor. There is also a substantive body on equity issues (in Claassen 1992, tndu Cros & Smith 1993, Engelstad etal 7994, Ford & Hundt 1994, Hanen & Kelley 1992, Nelson et al 7994, Ovrevik 1991, Spielmann 1994). Equity issues in archaeology have consistently influenced, and been influenced by, the scholarly research on gender in past human societies. In fact, studies by Smith & du Cros (1995), Wylie (1994b ,1996),and Hanen & Kelley (1992) find that the interest in engendering prehistory has been directly motivated by perceived or existing gender inequities in the modern research community (see also Whelan 1995). Meanwhile, feminist ideas, theory, or perspectives are only rarely cited as having motivated participants' interest in gender as a topic of research (Wylie 1994b,1996). as a passionate but Theoretically Anchored Pos itions In this section, we highlight several theoretical approaches that have proven especially rich for engendering archaeological data and/or that present an especially well-developed theoretical position on gender. These are identified because the assumptions underlying each approach directly influence the scale of analysis, the data selected for analysis, or the interpretive meanings attached to archaeological gender research. In each case, the theoretical perspectives include a range ofexpressions rather than a single stance; further, they are neither mutually exclusive nor always compatible. we regret that our summaries may oversimplify to the point of distortion, but we provide additional references to persue. Ultimately, each of the six approaches represents a different way to connect empirical archaeological study with theoretical resources and arguments, a process that we strongly promote for the maturation of an engendered archaeology. GENDER AS SOCIOBIOLOGICAL STRATEGY Some researchers have found it useful to frame gender as the culturally mediated means by which sex groups seek to maximize their reproductive fitness by contributing more genes to the genetic constitution of future generations. Sociobiological researchers conceive of two unambiguously dichotomous sexes giving rise more or less di- GENDER AND FEMINISM IN ARCHAEOLOGY 417 rectly to two uniformly gendered classes of individuals, males and females, whose biological sexual characteristics are modeled as presumed universals, including the (male) ability to fertilize (multiple) eggs and the (female) ability to produce single ovulation events and to physically bear children, in addition to hormonal differences, lactation, menstruation, and biological strength. Any one or a combination ofseveral universal sex characteristics can be considered determinant ofthe cultural behaviors adopted by each sex group and account for why males and females are "assigned" gender-specific roles and activities. Socio-biological positions differ in the degree of determinism assigned to speas well as in the degree of cultural conditioning and mediation that intervenes between the drive for biological fitness and the expression of gendered behaviors. Thus, highly determinant sociobiological positions include Knight's (1991) argument forthe cultural implications of convergent female mensttuation and the simultaneous ovulation of proximate women (see also Golub 1992; or Zeanah et al's 1995 argument for different male and female foraging strategies in the Great Basin). Hayden (1992) similarly assoctates "well-established" sex differences such as hormonally related aggression levels with broadly observed gender preferences for particular tasks, such as group defense. At a much less direct level of sociobiological reasoning, Costin ( I 996) argues that gender difference in its many diverse aspects represents a highly general means for members of each sex group, within a given cultural context, to demonstrate their appropriateness both as marriage mates and as potcntial parents to a mate's children. cific biological factors (iENDER AS SOCIAL CONST RUCTION The concept that gender and sex are con- structed that is, not rooted in biology or procreation nor inherently dichotorlous has been integral to feminist theory in the anthropological literature since the 1970s (see especially Kessler & McKenna 1985). But meanings of "social construction" have developed and changed, from the initial liberal feminist approaches that emphasized only the social construction of masculinity and femininity, often taken as givens [see Epstein's (1988) critique], to the French feminists' focus on psychoanalysis and politics (e.g. lrigaray 1985), to the position that challenges gender as a constn.rction more important than, or even differentiable from, aspects of class, race, and/or ethnicity (e.g. Collins 1989, Hooks 1984), to the cultural feminists' (e.g. Butler 1990, Flax 1990) rejection ofthe stability ofeither sex or gender as categories. even as socially constructed ones, or to Lorber's (1994) recent analysis ofgender as a social institution. All the variant ideas within the constructionist critique start from the assumption that the construction of our analytical categories (even the very term "gender") is deeply embedded in historical, sociocultural, ideological, and material contexts. 4I8 CONKEY&GERO Archaeologically, this may take the form of questioning the ,.origins', of gender (e.g. Conroy 1993, Moore 1991, Whelan l99l): At what point and, more importantly, under what circumstances, did something like ..gender," as a social construction, come into play in human life? what is its relationship to the (sexual) division of labor? How, archaeologically, might we recognize or identifiz the emergence or existence of social phenomena that look like gender? If one accepts the idea that gender is dependent upon symbolic communication systems, it is immediately problematic to assume that australopithecines or other early hominids had "gender." There is little work within the anthropology of gender that does not take gender to be some form of social construction; perhaps only the sociobiologists reject or avoid using the concept. But the implication that necessarily fol- lows, namely a "respect for historical difference and change" (di Leonardo 1991b, p. 29), has not always been embraced, even after such compelling studies as Laqueur (1990), Jordanova (1980), and Merchant (1980) have demonstrated the importance ofhistorical change vis-d-vis gender and sexuality, just within western history. while social constructivism is widespread, varying degrees of constructionism are admitted. There is justifiable concern about the radical version of the constructivist critique, which tolerates interpretations that could be labeled "nihilistic," and there is also justifiable concern for the ways in which this constructivist critique has been polarized against a conservative objectivism (Wylie 1994a,b; see also Bergman's 1995 critique of di Leonardo's oppositionality of postmodernism with political economy). Given archaeology's concern with the materiality of past human life, an important issue arising from these debates for archaeology, and one ofarchaeology,s important contributions to them, is to probe the best means of analyzing the dialectic between human life as socially constructed and the very materiality of human life. one of the more eloquent expositions on this topic, specifically oriented toward the archaeology of gender, is by Wylie (1992; see also responses by Fotiadis 1994, Ltttle 1994, Wylie 1994c). Above all, the idea of gender as a social construction mandates that archaeologists inter:rogate their starting assumptions when setting out to do an archaeology of gender. AN EVOLTJTIONARY PROCESS Evolutionary models, which arrange discrete socioculfural instances in an order toward increasing complex1ty, may assume, and thus be useful in predicting, regular changes in the evolution of gender systems. while the egalitarian relations of foraging peoples are reiterated in nonhierarchical gender relations, an intensification ofgender hierarchy is posited to correspond with each level of increased sociocultural ranking or stratification. Thus for the evolutionists, the widely observed male dominance in present-day societies is seen as anything but normal or natural. GENDER AS GENDER AND FEMINISM IN ARCHAEOLOGY 419 llathcr, the appearance of patriarchy is linked to the emergence or incurrence ol'the state, with its admission of hegemonic power relationships and overt ruower differentials. Evolutionary models may follow more or less closely from Engels's descriptions of an early matriarchic period in human history (sometimes called (iynecentric Theory) later overturned by males who subverted the natural ordcr and balance. Fen-rinist anthropologists and ethnohistorians have used such Lrrrderstandings to explain the transformation of independent Naskapi women into submissive Christian wives after contact with Jesuits (Leacock 1981); the step-by-step erosion of Andean women's realms of feminine power, first through the rise of the Inka state and then as the Spanish conquest of what is now Peru intensified (Silverblatt I 987, 1991 ); or the undermining of Tongan women's power by the colonist invaders' transformations of social relations ((iailey 1987). There is little doubt that, given the success of archaeology with some forms of an evolutionary paradigm, the scrutiny of "gender" as part of the evolutionary translbrmations in the human past can and have yielded important new understandings of the transformations themselves. (;r,NDER AS por-rrCAL ECONOMv Although the "culture and political econonly" approach is a widespread feature ofmuch recent anthropological inquiry (scc Roseberry 1988), alnong feminist sociocultural anthropologists this view has been promoted most vigorously by Micaela di Leonardo (1991a,b, 1993). di Leonardo (1991b, p. 27) defines five key points in her feminist culture and political economy approach (di Leonardo 1991a, but see Bergman 1995 for a oritique). First, she favors a radical rejection of social evolutionism. In contrast to the evolutionist approaches noted above, she argues that "feminist anthro- pologists cannot locate the 'key' to male dominance over women in smallscalc societies," as ifthese somehow represented "living history" (di Leonardo | 99 lb, p. 28); the approach mandates a "respect for history." From this pour forth additional points, including the rejection ofessentialisnr. the potent role ofsocial constructionism (see above), and the recognition ol' the "embeddedness" of gender in other social divisions like hierarchy. Lastly, she argues for the imperative analysis of all forms of social inequality and the expiicit recognition of the "multiple layers of context through which we perceive cultural inequalities" (1991b, p. 31). For archaeological studies, there is much to be gained from engaging with thesc points and putting them to work in interpretations of the archaeological record. Foremost among those who have considered the effects of political cconorlly on gender roles and constructs is E,lizabeth Brumfiel. Brumfiel ( I 992) reminds archaeologists that "political economy" is not equivalent to the rnorc traditional "subsistence economy" approach because the former recog- GENDERAND FEMINISM IN ARCHAEOLOGY 421 420 CONKEY&GERO nizes the role of human agency, politics, and negotiations in economic decisions and actions. Brumfiel (1991) also draws on standard archaeological evidence such as ceramics and spindle whorls to demonstrate how Aztec women may have undertaken different strategies to negotiate the demand for production oftribute cloth. This provides an excellent example ofhow foregrounding gender, and in particular the role of women, in an analysis of Aztec political economy leads to more nuanced and "peopled" understanding. Furthermore, Brumfiel's study demonstrates that there is no single "women's role" but rather several alternative strategies through which tribute can be "paid" through women's labor. Brumfiel's work is a powerful reminder against the tendency to homogenize or essentialize-in this case Aztec"women" and forces our attention to what Moore (1993) has called "differences within" ralher than to the "differences between" as between the two genders, men and women-that are usually discussed. GENDER AS AGENCY Taking a cue from what has been more generally called "practice theory" (Bourdieu l9ll , Ortner 1984), some scholars have come to understand gender as one ofthe "acts" whereby social identities are produced and are constantly "in production". Gendered subjects are produced, not born. Recent anthropological thought has recognized, first, the importance ofan ongoing tension between "structure" and "agency" (after Giddens 1 979 and others) and, second, "the agency of subordinated and marginalized persons to contest meanings and engage in praxis in their social worlds" (Bergman 1995, p.235). As such, this perspective is clearly suitable for probing aspects of gender, especially in those historical circumstances in which gender, marginality, and subordination are inextricably, and perhaps inevitably, entangled. Ifgender itselfis taken to be produced by the goal-oriented actions and performances of individuals or groups, this opens the door, even within archaeology, to reassessments of everything from technology (as gendered labor practices, after Dobres 1995a) to sculptural choices (as producing and reaffirming conceptions of personhood, after Joyce 1993a) to apparently simple artifacts, such as the pins and spindle whorls (as markers of gendered identities, after Marcus 1994 or McCafferty & McCafferty 1991, respectively) to food preparation (Hastorf 1991). Arising largely from the work of Judith Butler (1988, 1990, 1993), the performativity view of gender dismisses gender as an essential quality or as any kind ofentity that individuals can "have," and is replaced by a concept of gender as how people exhibit themselves in their actions and bodily decorations. In assuming that ongoing gender "production" is crucial, Butler directs attention to the analysis of performance as a means of GENDER AS PERFORMANCE irrralyzing this production. This is appealing in that it is a "temporally attuned ir;rproach" (Hasbrouck 1996, p. 17), one that promotes the idea that both gentlcl and sexuality are very complex and fluid in each individual, continually in rr rclational flux. Moreover, in her work, and therefore differentiating her work irrrn the earlier arguments of West & Zimmerman (1987), Butler argues that gcrrdcr is constituted as a set ofacts that produce the effect or appearance ofa coherent substance, and that it works and derives its compelling force from the lact that people themselves mistake the gender acts they perform for the essence, coming to believe that such acts are genuine, inescapable moments of sclf-actualization. Thus, in Butler's terms, performatives are both generative and dissimulating, compelling certain kinds of behavior by hiding the fact that there is no essential, natural sex to which gender can refer as its starting point. In archaeology, the performativity of gender has been explored most actively by Rosemary Joyce (1993a,1996,1997) showing, for instance, how the practices of inscription required in the employment of omaments of durable nraterials (carved stone and ceramic beads, pendants, ear ornaments, etc) transform the open and generative shifting performances ofgender to closed, prcscriptional ones. f Challenges to an Archaeolog/ of Gender Within the explosive archaeological literature on gender, a small number of studies cross-cut the examples of theoretically anchored positions examined above and differentiate themselves by presenting the discipline with real challurges to research as usual. The assumptions, methodologies, and conclusions of such works must be taken seriously to anticipate the full potential of a lbrrinist-inspired archaeology of gender. For instance, although Janet Specttrr's I993 book, What this Awl Means: Feminist Archaeology at a Wahpeton l)ttkota Village, covers what might be expected in a traditional site reporl (contcxt and background of study, methodology, data, and interpretation) it also dcparts radically from traditional presentations of archaeology materials. Spector (1993,p.3) rejects an "objective, object oriented andobjectiffing" arology to position herself and other interested contemporary actors (Native Anrericans, crew, archaeological associates) at the center ofthe report. The narrative abandons the passive academic voice and the abstracted European cttcgories imposed on Indian artifacts and insistently ties archaeological inlirr-rnation back to the experiences of specific archaeologists (Spectors's own irrtcllectual roots) and relationships among specific indigenous peoples (the history and experiences of the Eastern Dakota). The reiterated use of Dakota personal names and Dakota names for things is plr'lly (literally) how Spector forces us to consider the Wahpeton Dakota in lhcir own terms, but Spector also plumbs ethnohistory and nineteenth-century chae 422 CONKEY&GERO GENDER AND FEMINISM IN ARCHAEOLOGY 423 illustrative accounts to present a richly detailed and specific reading of Dakota seasonal and gendered social life, confronting readers on another level with the enormous gulf that separates our normalizing "scientific" research from the highly individualized cultural lives that we study. Spector highlights women's activities and the relationships between men and women by examining the tasks performed by each gender, but also by presenting a fictional reconstruction of how one artifact, an incised bone awl, might have been situated and then lost in the life of one Wahpeton woman. Spector's work evokes our humility in understanding and proposing meanings for what we study in archaeology, cautioning us not to resist interpretation but rather to resist imposing 'l'hc very category of "gender" in archaeological analysis has been challcrrgcd by Roberts (1993), with particular emphasis on the implications of gentlclcrl rcsearch for archaeology. There are two especially important aspects to hcr critique, a critique with which we have considerable sympathy. First, Robcrts clcrnonstrates that while social theory is central to taking up "gender" as a calcgory of archaeological analysis, there is enormous resistance to the arclracological theorizing of gender. Because of the difficulties of importing social thcory directly into archaeology, she argues, "theorizing gender will conlinuc to be extrinsic to archaeology" (p. 17). This gives rise to the tension betwccn those "who pursue an archaeology of gender as an end in itself (most meanings from outside the experiential worlds of the people we study. Brumfiel, in her lecture as the Distinguished Archaeology Speaker at the 1991 annual meetings of the American Anthropological Association, delivered a message of considerable insight and impact, not only for the archaeology of gender but for archaeological theory more widely (Brumfiel 1992). She shows quite clearly that to take up the topic of gender is, itself, a challenge to extant theory and method. As someone trained in, skilled in, and committed to many of the tenets of "processual" archaeology, Brumfiel has particular credibility in her critique ofthe ecosystem approach that has long been a central feature of processual research. In this, Brumfiel challenges the usually dichotomous categories of "processual" and "postprocessual" that have come to characterize different approaches in contemporary archaeology. Instead, she argues forcefully that the analysis of social change has "been hampered" by certain components ofthe ecosystem approaches as used in archaeology, such as its insistence upon whole populations and whole adaptive behavioral systems as units of analysis that obscure "the visibility of gender, class, and faction in the prehistoric past." She shows that when gender, class, and faction are taken into consideration, then aspects of the prehistoric record can be explained that cannot be explained from the ecosystem perspective. Thus, the very appreciation ofthe importance ofgender, class, and faction leads directly into a stunning critique of one fundamental processual tenet, namely, that cultures are adaptive systems. Brurnfiel (1992) also shows that the recognition of gender, class, and factions and their intersections has enormous theoretical implications. While reasserting the potential ofan agent-centered or "peopled" approach, she simultaneously advocates that we can continue to pursue new versions of cross-cultural and testable models. This work is crucial to placing the archaeology gcnder case studies) and those who are critical of this approach (Conkey I 990)" (p. 18) Thus, Roberts identifies a key paradox of gender research in archaeology: "[T]hose interested in an archaeology of gender cannot afford to challenge the framework assumptions and paradigms of research praclicc...because an 'archaeology ofgender' relies upon these things for its forrnulation and expression" (p. 18). ln the second aspect of her critique, Roberts makes a clear distinction betwccn "two threads" in the use of gender as an archaeological category. She calls one "the archaeology of gender," the other "gendered archaeology." While these threads are interwoven, she says, they will necessarily have differcrrl impacts on the practice and "results" ofarchaeology. The archaeology of gcnder, while offering "crucial insights" and rectifying some gender biases, "nroves toward synthesis" and does not necessarily lead to reconceptualizations. Gendered archaeology, however, "involves the interrogation ofarchaeoIogical inquiry"; archaeology is shown to be a "highly-constructed form of l<rrowledge-seeking" (Roberts 1993,p.18). It implies that we should follow a plth that is more self-reflexive and that gender, for example, must be a fully thcorized concept, not just another analytical variable. She draws explicitly liom feminist insights, and while advocating our attention to such, she does not advocate merely replacing our existing modes with some sort of "uniquely l'crninist mode," something that, in any event is itself hotly contested (e.g. of gender in several wider frameworks, including both the history of archaeological theory and the emergent emphasis in feminist research more widely on understanding the intersection among variables such as gender, race. and class. l,ongino 1987, 1994; Stacey 1988; Wylie 1995). Roberts (1993) herselfnotes that the very introduction ofgender research in archaeology has contributed to two significant features of contemporcry arohaeology: (a) the recognition that archaeology is necessarily interpretive and therefore "must come to terms with other than common-sense explanations of human action" (p. 20); and (b) the recognition that archaeology is, more than cver, faced with developing its own distinctive understandings. This means that while there is much extrinsic to archaeology to be looked to and inspired by, gendered archaeology will necessarily need to adapt this material to the s1'rccial conditions of archaeological knowledge. We endorse this view. 424 CONKEY&GERO Critical Thoughts: The Overburden of the Cottage Industty and Other Obstacles There is much to celebrate about the enthusiastic adoption of gender in archaeological study: New questions have been put to old data, new topics and perspectives have been brought to well-studied archaeological situations, and questions have been raised about the gendered production ofboth the archaeological record and archaeological knowledge (see below). But the abovediscussed challenges also suggest that the explicit focus on gender in archaeology has more deeply exposed-or at least thrown into new relief ndamental and even irreconcilable differences between what a feminist and a traditional archaeology are, and how one thus goes about doing archaeology. 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. Dobres 1995c). In the explosion of work in archaeology about gender, some of it draws explicitly and creatively from robust and richly developed theoretical resources, from both within and outside archaeology. But much of the literature considers gender in prehistoric studies without reconfiguring archaeology in any way, without drawing from new resources to tackle new problems, without admitting the ambrguity of archaeological data, and without repositioning the otherwise authoritative scholar in the complex web of theory, data, and archaeological practice. As Bender (1997) points out, there seems to be a rush to the pragmatic, to the empiricist studies without a simultaneous engagement with the requisite theoretical resources. To her, this makes for "rather thin gruel" (B Bender 1997). This also matters to us. This is not to say that only archaeology has such problems. In her introductionto Gendered Anthropology, delValle (1993b) notes how littie of the theoretical work in gendered anthropology has impacted, much less been incorporated into, anthropology more widely, and mainstream assumptions and categories remain intact. She astutely notes that this is primarily related to the control and validation of (anthropological) knowledge, an issue to which we can only allude here (del Valie 1993b, pp. 14-16) but which is also true in archaeology. We could expect the explosion of work in the archaeology of gender to appear in wider feminist and even anthropological treatises; there should be archaeological contributions to journals like SIGNS or to the Association for Feminist Anthropology's Silvia Forman Prize competition for an outstanding student paper. This has yet to happen. In Lorber's (1994) recent overview chapter on the archaeological contexts for understanding gender, one finds only several references to Ehrenberg's (1989) general text; no other works on GENDERAND FEMINISM IN ARCHAEOLOGY 425 thc rrrchaeology of gender are taken into account. Why is it that it is discussiorrs of "the Goddess" (and citations of Gimbutas, e.g. 1989) thatare featured irr srrch overviews of the human past (but for critiques see Billington & Green l(XX). ('onkey & Tringham 1995, Meskell 1995). Why, despite the many new stLrtlics in the archaeology of gender, have most merely added gender as just rrnothcr variable into an otherwise depersonalized view ofthe past? into an archircological account in the passive voice? into a way of framing human life lhirt tlistances and categorizes more than allowing our own positionalities to inlorrn and generate engagements with the people of the past? We worry that thc rocent archaeological studies of gender have parlicipated in narrowing the I'icld rather than opening up our studies. SITUATING GENDER RESEARCH: WHY FEMINISM M ATTERS It is clcar by now that gender as a subject ofarchaeology elicits genuine conccrrr lbr much needed revisions of archaeological accounts that have systemrrlically ignored, devalued, or underestimated the roles, actions, contributions, rrrrd innovations of women. There is interest in more concentrated and inlirrnrcd inquiries into gender relations, gender dynamics, and explicity engentlclccl past human societies, and for the roles and effects ofgender (in its broadcst scnses) in human life, cultural change, and human histories. In addition, llrcrc are concerns for refocusing archaeological scrutiny to consider at least r:qtrally factions, class, gender, or other sociocultural dynamics at the human lcvcl, the concern for a more peopled past (e.g. Brumfiel 1992;McBryde 1996; 'l rirrgharn 199l, 1994). l;r'om these genuine concerrs with a newly gendered and peopled past, certrrin additional issues are immediately implicated. From the beginning, it was rrpparent that rampant biases where were the women? were entrenched in tlrc interpretations of past human societies. Clearly, the awareness and even shock ofthese and related gender biases fed on and were fed by other critiques r.rrisocl by investigators like Leone (1973,1982), Trigger (1984), or Gero et al ( I 9ll3 ). However, subsequent archaeological studies of gender and more genclll critiques of the discipline have not always taken advantage of the wellcstrblished literature on gender theory and feminist critiques ofscience, espet'irrlly as they bear on issues of interpreting human cultures and the organizalrtrrr ol' scientific practice. While Bergman (1995, p. 235) can say with confitlcrrcc that feminist anthropology has been shaped by, but also has contributed Io. irrtcrlinked critiques of essentialism and scientific authority, we are not so srrlc the same can yet be said for anthropological archaeology. 426 CONKEY & GERO We now consider feminist resources essential to understanding the produc- tion of archaeological knowledge and the sociology of the field more generally, and the potential ofgender research more specifically. These perspectives matter not merely to gender research in archaeology but to archaeology as a wider practice. The feminist literafure encompasses issues that engage us in debates about the very nature of humankind: essentialism, inequality and power relationships, social categorization, political economy, rationality and ways of knowing, ideology, meaning and symbol making, materiality and agency. Most or all of these are crucial to the archaeological enterprise. whether focgscd on gender or not, and often offer radically innovative twists and challenges to the ways in which our conventional categories operate. A recent and staunchly critical attack on women's studies by Patai & Koertge (1994) argued that while it might be productive to learn about women, it is downright dangerous to engage in the "radical reappraisal ofall the assumptions and vah-res found in traditional scholarship." We, however, find much merit in Sternhill's (1994) critical review of Patai & Koertge (and also of Sommers 1994), insisting that feminist thought is "supposed to be dangerous"; "radical reappraisal rigorous, scholarly, informed is called for." If we want to explore a configuring of contemporary archaeology, it is simply "poor research" to ignore a large and diverse body oftheoretical, analytical, and conceptual possibilities that pertain directly to and substantively inform the questions at hand. This includes the literature on gender theory, readings that span archaeological feminism (e.g. biographies of women and equity studies) and nonarchaeological feminist critiques of science. "Do I have to do the rcadings?" We would say the answer is, "yes." Feminist Critiques of Science Clearly, archaeology now adrnits a well-developed documentation of the social and political "entanglements," both for the practice ofarchaeology and for its "results" (e.g. Fotiadis 1993; Gathercole & Lowenthal 1990; Gero et al 1983; Leone 1986; Pinsky & Wylie 1989; Trigger 1980, 1989). Although no responsible archaeologist today can claim unmitigated objectivism or sociopolitical or historical innocence (Wylie 1994a,c, 1996), it is still the case that we regularly, perhaps schizophrenically, shelve our doubts and move on with assured and even definitive statements about "what the past was like." Feminist thinking, however, has long offered a foundation for a critique of authority, symbol, the canon(s) of science, and the arrangements by which science is produced-indeed, the very nature of scientific inquiry. Feminist critiques of science raise crucial questions about who can be a "knower," about the relationships between the community of knowers and the knowledge they GENDER AND FEMINISM IN ARCHAL,OLOCY 427 coopcratively produce, and about the "moralization of objectivity" (Daston & ( illison 1992). Needless to say, they hardly converge on a simple solution. Fcminists have engaged in a decade ofdebate about the degree ofrevision vcrsus rejection that would be required in today's science to make feministliicndly those versions of objectivity that exist presently in the service of hierirr.chical and positivist orderings of what is to count as knowledge. Harding's "sr.lcccssor science" project (an insistence on irreducible difference and radical rrrultiplicity of local knowledges) risks denying that realities can be known. Altornatively, Longino (1990, 1993) argues to preserve a rnodified and improvcd umbrella of universal scientific practice, in part because it is this very lrldition, supported and carried out by a highly varied set ofpractitioners, that lrlrs bcen responsible for the unveiling of androcentrism and the devaluation of rvorncn's lots. With such a long-standing association between feminism and science crititlrrcs, it is hardly surprising that fundamental questions about the organizatitrrr of archaeological inquiry have disproportionately come from archaeolo11is{s of gender. A number of points developed out of feminist critiques of scit'ncc have proved parlicularly powerful in interrogating arcliaeologicai pllctice, and we summarize some of these here, in a necessarily abbreviated lir.rn, pointing each to archaeological applications: I . Feminists, among others, recognize that politics and the substantive ptrducts of knowledge are essentially inseparable (Code 1991, Keller 1985, .lrry 1991, Rossiter 1982). Long suspicious of science as a bastion of male privilcge, feminists argue that at the least the sciences betray a pervasive disinlercst in concerns of women, and at worst that science, especially the social rrrrd nredical sciences, reproduce and legitimize precisely the ideology of gentlcr. inequity that feminists question (Wylie 1997). Moreover, the statistical abscrrcc of women in the sciences, and the ideology that has r-rnderwrittcn and srrpported this gender distribution in the sciences, has also produced "mascuI i rr i st" understandings and research conclnsions At this very general level of critique, archaeologists have provided compellirrg cvidence ofhow gendered research is coupled to specific construals of llreory and of the past. Brumfiel (-l993), for instance, has argued that a spccial lrir:lr-prestige disciplinary niche is reseled for archaeological clirectors of lrrrge rcgional field projects ("big digs"), and moreover, that this prestige sys{('nr scnerates narrow notions ofclass-based ideologies. Gero (1993) provides o,itlcuce that the exclusion of women from Paleoindian research has permitted rr tlorrrinant paradigm to persist that focuses exclusively on hunting as the esst'nlill and definitional activitv of earlv colonizers of the American continent. 428 CONKEY&GERO 2. Feminists, among others, have argued that rationality, with its attendant notions of separability of subject and object, dispassionate objectivity, and neutral transcendence ofpersonal states, is a mythical conflation that never obtains in actual scientific practice and, more significantly, itself represents a metapolitics of power relations. The insistence that thinking, feeling, and willing are not separate facilities but rather underlie all informed interpretations of data has led some archaeologists to replace, or at least amplify, their purported subjectless research conclusions with richly informed fictional interpretations of what transpired in prehistory (Handsman 7991: Pollock 1991; Schrire 1995; Spector 1991,1993; Tringham 1991). Similarly, a feminist-inspired archaeology has embraced sensuous, rather than exclusively rational or cognitive, experience as a motivating antecedent for behavior (Kus 1989); it has also focused archaeological study on sensuous domains of material life, including alcohol consumption (Lawrence-Cheney 7991, 1993), sweatlodge participation (Carman l99l). and brothel life (Seifert 1994). 3. Feminist thinking has argued for and been associated with a cognitive style that favors "intimate" knowledge and nuanced understandings of data over categorical thinking. Ambiguity in observations of data and unique expressions of phenomena are recognized and taken to be informative rather than to be dismissed as lying outside the province of "scientific" data (Haraway 1988; Keller 1983, 1985). This appreciation for the idiosyncratic and its associated tendency to distrust categorical formulations has led more specifically to an impatience with binary or dichotomous thinking (Jay 1991, Moulton 1983). Thus, archaeologists like Spector (1993) point out how common typological schemes of material inventories can bias appreciation for indigenous views, imposing foreign values and distorting native categories. All three of these areas of feminist thought and their applications to anthropological research have been explored in Haraway's (1988) rejection of omniscient scientific knowledge, "the god trick of seeing everything from nowhere," in favor of "situated knowledges," where only the partial perspective can promise objectivity: "A11 Western cultural narratives about objectivity are allegories of the ideologies governing the relations of what we call mind and body, distance and responsibility. Feminist objectivity is about limited location and situated knowledge, not about transcendence and splitting ofsubject and object" (Haraway 1988, p. 583). 4. Feminist thinking has shared a deep commitment to challenging the status quo or, minimally, to welcoming the possibility of change in basic disciplinary arangements. From its well-substantiated impatience with androcentric structures of knowledge and with the standard means of producing and reproducing that knowledge, feminists are eager for an alternative voice or voices to be heard. This proposition is explored more fully below. GENDER AND FEMINISM IN ARCHAEOLOGY 429 IIIiMINIST PRACTICE 'l hc irnplications of the feminist critique, taken seriously, point ineluctably to a r ccognition ofthe bias inherent in how archaeology is practiced, and to a dedir:ltcd effort to develop a more feminist-friendly archaeology. It is not just that rrlchaeological institutions should be more tolerant of diverse agendas that inclucle gender as a legitimate endeavor of research, nor that the range of varirrlrlcs considered relevant and the array of explanatory hypotheses considered wurth testing be expanded, but more fundamentally that we reconsider the r:cndered arrangements by which "facts" are established and subsequently acccptcd as knowledge. Of course, the implicit, taken-for-granted rules of practicc make it difficult to discover foundational principles and make their out('onrcs appear seamless, theory-neutral, and objective. If feminism, however, is [o have meaning in archaeology, we must ask how to "do archaeology" as lcrrrinists (Longino 1987, p.53). And as starting points, we suggest three lr'rxrclly defined concerns that could be involved in the practical remakins of rrrchaeology as a transformatory enterprise: | . Feminist practice might strive to increase the visibility of human agency linowledge production, becoming more conscious of, and making more public, the choices that accumulate into what is known about the past. Here, for inslirnce, we might consider publishing fuller field diaries that tie investigatory tlccisions to specific items of new knowledge, to diminish the appearance of lirr.wledge appearing directly and automatically from the field into textbooks. ( )rr a very different tack, we might study, with special attention, areas in the lrrodLrction chains of archaeological knowledge where males or females appcirr significantly clustered, questioning why predominantly one gender or the ,lhcr is cited, or why one gender or the other participates in certain symposia or' publishes in certain literatures and asking what values and priorities underpirr thcse sortings and what kinds of knowledge they authorize. 2. Especially given the destruction and nonreplicability of archaeological s ilcs of excavation, we might organize archaeological field projects in less hit'rrrlchical fashions, avoiding the situation of a single unchallengeable authorly who pronounces judgments from the top. Instead, feminist practice might .lll'r' rnultiple interpretive judgments and evaluations at each nonreversible slt'1r ,l'investigation, and coordinate multiple strategies and objectives of difinto the research of nonrenewable archaeological re- irr r ll;;::::"-t*estigators I lrcminist practice needs to admit ambiguity and partial or situated rrowlcclges in its analyses; we need to find ways to value the indeterminate, tlrr' rrrnnced, and the specific in new narrative and historical cognitive frames, l. GENDER AND FEMINISM IN 430 CONKEY&GERO rather than always circumscribing scientific models and categorical data' A related preliminary step that might be initiated by feminists would urge recognition that all generalized archaeological pronouncements, from taxonomic arrangements, to attributing cause-and-effect, to reconstructing climatic conditions, to interpreting past lifeways, are all interpretive activities, not entirely divorced from writing informed fi ctional interpretations. "Keep Your Mind on the Prize...." As research on women and gender comes of age in archaeology, the most pressing question we face is precisely that of how to do archaeology differently-how to do it better, more inclusively, more imaginatively given the 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 that an archaeology that takes feminist theory seriously is self-transformational and communal. Radical reappraisals-rigorous, scholarly, informed, purposive-emerge from feminist theory precisely because traditional assumptions and values really do look profoundly different when viewed from a woman-centered perspective. Some have wanted to call this "seeing gender everywhere," with the derogatory term "genderlirium'" But "genderlirium" is an equally apt term with which to critique Westem androcentricism, with its hard-headed rules for a single way of knowing and its single vision. While archaeology enjoyed an earlier infusion of optimism from New Archaeology-the 1960s Binfordian proclamations that "we can know anything if we just ask the right questions"-we are excited by the imaginative possibilities for what archaeology can do and say if it engages with gendered archaeology (in Roberts's sense) and with much of what is under consideration in feminist thought. In our visions for archaeologY, we see an increasing recognition that knowledge-making is a pluralistic enterprise with, for example, more recognition and institutional rewards for collaborative multiperspective research, teaching and writing, and increased recnritment of the many stillsilenced (ethnic, gender, racial) voices that should be integral to archaeological discourse. We also envision not just tolerance for but the fostering of views-including ways of presenting and writing, and what constitutes archaeology-from many "wheres" (if not from everywhere) (after Longino 1994, Wylie 1995). We would encourage the trajectory already witnessed in the archaeology of gender to giving simultaneous attention not only to gender research about the past but also to the teaching and pedagogy ofarchaeology (in Claassen 1992, Wright 1996), to the practices of archaeological research (Gero 1996, Preucel & Joyce 1994), and to its institutional sttuctures (e.g. in Nelson et al1994). l o h:rvc a ARCIIAEOLOCY 431 vision for an archaeology influenced by feminist concerns is not lo prrrrrrotc a static, prescribed utopia. While one should always "keep your lllllr(l on the prize" (Collins 1994,p.32),the feminist vision has no fixed endlrtrrrl lo bc achieved by a standardized set of rules (p. 32).Feminist destinalr()ns iu'c perhaps less important than the everyday pragmatic work of moving tlrt' lL'rninist vision along; the dignity achieved in struggling for something uorllrivhile may be more important than any predetermined endpoint of a 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 tlecrrtlc of an explicit attention to gender within archaeology. .K N( N()wLEDGMENTS lrrtill inspirations and directions for this piece were offered with grace and slririt liom Barbara Bender, Elizabeth Brumfiel, Ericka Englestad, Christine Irrslorf, Rosemary Joyce, and Ruth Tringham at a memorable Berkeley din. Spccial gratitude and thanks to Elizabeth Brumfiel for her selfless, supporlivc, and superb editing, and to Rita Wright, Cathy Costin, Julia Hendon, li oscrrary Joyce, Susan Evans, Michelle Marcus, Alison Wylie, and many otht rs wlro kindly provided us with prepublication manuscripts. Thanks, too, to llrt participants of the 1994 AAA symposium, "Gender as if it really matters: Ir'rrrirrist thinking and archaeological practice," for their thoughtful contribuI rrt'r lions to the dialogue. Joan Gero gratefully acknowledges the University of Sorrlh Carolina Josephine Abney Fellowship for Feminist Research for suppoll. While page limitations do not allow us to cite all the important papers, tlris itsclf a testimony to the vibrant state of recent scholarship. Visit the Annual Reviews home puge at http://www.AnnualRevicws.org. l itt,r'uture Cited \llerr Il. 1996. Ethnography and prehistoric BaileyDW. rrlclrircofogy in Australia. J. Anthropol. , ltLol. 15.137-59 Ar- M. 1994. Women rrt ltrcient Societies: An lllusion in the \rL lrcr 1.. Itrischler S, Wyke \rr,/il. London. Macmillan .\r ,r'rrrrrll D. 1991. The representation 1994a. Thcrepresentationofgen- der: homology or propaganda. J. Eur. Archeol.2:189 202 Bailey DW. 1994b. Reading prehistoric figu- rines as individuals. I(orld Arclrcol. 25. 321 3l ol' Balme J, Beck W, eds. 1995. Cendered Arrrrrrnclr in Moche iconography. See Walde chaeologt: 7'he SecondAustralianWomen ,('Willows 1991,pp.313-26 in Archaeology Confbrence. Canberra: ll,n u\ | . llarker AW, Bonevich JD, Dunavan Aust. Natl. Univ. \l l itzhugh JB, et al, eds. 1993. A Gen- Bender B. 1997. Introduction. In Gender and ,l, ttrl l)ost; A Critical Bibliography of MaterialCulture: RepresentdtionsofGenI t, trl(r in Archaeolopy. Ann Arbor, MI: der from Prehistory to the Present. LonI lrrrr Mioh. Mus. Anthropol. don" Maomillan GENDER AND FEMINISM IN ARCHAEOLOGY 433 432 CONKEY&GERO Bender S. 1991. Towards ahistory ofwomen in northeastern U. S. archaeology. See Walde & Willows l99l,pp.21l-16 Bender S. 1992. Marian E. White: pioneer in \ei,r York archaeology. Btrll. l\l Stare .lrcheol. Assoc. 104:14 20 Benedict JW. 1993. Excavations at Bode's Dray,: A trlomen's trl'ork Area in the Mountains Near Estes Park, Colorado. Ward, CO: Cent. Mt. Archaeol. Bergman J. 1995. The persistence ofkinship: recent contributions to feminist anthropology. Anrhropol. Q. 68'234 -40 Billington S, Green M. 1996. 7'he Concept of the Goddess. London: Routledge Bishop R, Lange F. 1991. The Ceramic Legacy o;f Anna O. Shepard. Niwot, CO: Univ. Press Colo. Boardman i. 1991. Naked truIh. Oxford J. Ar- cheol.10.119-21 Bourdietr P. 1977 . Outline o;fa Theory oJ Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press Brumfiel E. 1991. Weaving and cooking: women's oroduction in Aztec Mexico. Ses Gero & Conkey 1991,pp.224-51 Brumfiel E. \992. Breaking and entering the ecosystem: gender, class, and faction steal the show. Am. Anthropol. 94(3):551-67 Brumfiel E. 1993. Review of"ldeology and Pre-Columbian Civilization," ed. A Demarest, C Conrad. ,./. Anthropol. Res. 49'. 412-14 Brumfiel E. 1996. Figurines and the Aztec state: testing the effectiveness ofideological domination. See Wright 1996, pp. 143-66 Rutler J. 1988. Perfbrmative acts and gender constitution: an essay in phenomenology and feminist theory . Theatre J. 40:5 I 9-30 Butler J. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion oJ ldentity. New York: Routledge Butler J. 7993. Bod.ies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of "Sex ". New York/ London: Routledge Carman CJ. 1991. Sweatlodge participation among Nez Perce women. See Walde & Willows 1991, pp. 159-64 Chilton E. 1992. Archaeological investigations at the Goat Island rockshelter: new light from old legacies. Hudson Valley Ree. Rev.9'.47-75 Chilton E. 1994. In search of paleo-women: gender implications of remains from Paleoindian sites in the Northeast. Berll Mass. Archeol. Soc. 55:8-14 Claassen C, ed. 1992. Exploring Gender Through Archaeologgt. Madison, WI: Pre- historv Press C. 1993. Black and white women at Irene Mound. South. Archeol. 12:13747 Claassen C, ed. 1994. Women in Archaeologt. Philadelohia: Univ. Pa. Press '[;[/omen in Claassen C, Joyce R" eds. 1997. Prehistory. North America and Mesoamerica. Philadelohia: Univ. Pa. Press Code L. l99l. What Can She Knov,? Feminist Claassen Theory and the Construction of Knowl- edge. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press Collins PH. 1989. The social construction of Black feminist thought. SIGNS: J. It/omen Cult. Soc. 14.745-73 Collins PH. 1994. Keep your mind on the prize a review of "Theorizing Black Feminisms: The Visionary Pragarnatism of Black Women," ed. SM James, APA Busia. Wonten's Rev. Books 12:32 Conkey M, Tringham R 1995. Archaeology and the goddess: exploring the contours of feminist archaeology. See Stanton & Stewafi 1995, pp. 199-247 Conkey M, Williams S. 1991. Original narratives: the political economy of gender in archaeology. See di Leonardo l99la, pp. ( r'rt.t.trttttl.r o/ Knowledge: Feminist Antltrrtlntltryy' in the Post-Modern Era. BerLt'lcy llrriv. Calif. Press rlr I corrirrtkr M l99lb. Introduction: gender, e r rllrr c irrrtl political economy, feminist anllrropologv in historical perspective. See di I corritrtlo lt)t)la, pp. l-48 rlr I t orlrrtkr M 1993. WhatadifTerencepolitit ;rl e r'orrorny makes: feminist anthropolrryt! rrr llre lrostmodern era. Anthropol. Q. (r| /(r l{0 l)rrlre:. M-A. 1992. Reconsidering lcchnology: on the social agency oftechnirll slrategies. World Archeol.27:2549 M-A. 1995c. Beyond gender attributron. some methodological issues for en- ( | )olrrr"s r02-39 Conroy LP. 1993. Female figurines ofthe Upper Paleolithic and the emergence of gen- der. See du Cros 1 & Smith 1993, pp. lr'rrtlcring the past. See Balme l()()5. pp.51-66 L. 1991. Sisters of sun and spade. r.romen archaeologists in the Southwesl. See Walde & Willows 1991"pp.502-9 Costin CL. 1993. Textiles, women and political economy in late prehispanic Peru. Res. Econ. Anthropol. 14:3-28 Costin CL. 1996. Exploring the relationship between gender and craft in complex societies: methodological and theoretical issues of gender attribution. See Wright 1996,pp.111-42 Crabtree P. 1991. Gender hierarchies and the division oflabor in the Natufian culture of the southern Levant. See Walde & Wil- lows 1991, pp.384 91 L. 1991. Marvelous facts and miraculous evidence in early modern Europe. Crit. Inq. 18:93-124 Daston L, Galison P. 1992. The image of ob- Daston jectivity. Representations 40: 8l-128 del Valle T, ed. 1993a. Gendered Anthropologr. London/New York: Routledge del Valle T. 1993b. Introduction. See del Valle 1993a, pp. 1-16 Dent RJ. 1991. Deeo time in the Potomac River Valley: thorights in Paleoindian lifeways and revisionist archaeology. Archeol. East. North Am. 19.2341 di Leonardo M, ed. 1991a. Gender at the & Beck M-A, Hoflman C. 1994. Social agency rrrrtl thc dynamics of prehistoric technol- ,,t,.t, ..1. Archaeol. Method Theory 1: ., il 5ll l)rrrrrrrfrfsfrcs LH. 1992. Two decades of u orrrcn in prehistory and in archaeology in Nrrrrvuty. A review. Nor. Archeol. Rev. 25. I rlrr l.t ( ros II. Smith L, eds. 1993. U/omen in Ar- Feminist Critique. Canberra: '\rrst. Natl. tJniv. )rrl,e I l'. 1991. Recognizing gender in Plains lrrrrrting groups: Is it possible or even necr'ssary? See Walde & Willows 1991, pp. , lttctslo5Xt: A .,1t0 83 I lrl(rbcfg M. 1989. Women in Prehistory. ( )lilahoma City, OK: Univ. Okla. Press I rrle lsl rd E. I991. Images of power and contrirtliction: feminist theory and post-pror cssrrirl archaeol ogy. Antiquity 65: 502 14 I rrle lslad I'.. ed,. 1992. Nor. Archaeol. Rev. I 's(l):l r11,r'lslrrtl 72 ll, Mandt G, Naess J-R 1994. Eq- rrrlr issues inNorwegian archaeology. See f lclsirrr et al 1994,pp.13946 I I',r( llr ('1 . 1988. Deceptive Distinctions: '', t. ( lt,nder and the Social Order. New I l;rve rr. CT: Yale Univ. Press | ,rntlr;rnr lr. Iroley HP, Kampen NB, Porneroy I' Slrrrpiro HA 1994. Women in the Classi'rl ll orld; lmctge and le.r/. New York. orlirrd , Iiniv. Press Angeles: Univ. Calif. Press Ford A, Flundt A. 1994. Equity in academiawhy the best men still win: an examination of women and men in Mesoamerican archaeology. See Nelson et al 1994, pp. 147 56 Fotiadis M. 1993. Regions of the imagination: archaeologists, local people and the archaeological record in fieldwork, Greece. J. Eur. Archeol. 1: 151-70 Fotiadis M. 1994. What is arohaeology's "mitigated objectivism" mitigated by? Comments on \Nylie. An. Antiq.59(3):545-55 Gailey C. 1987. From Kinship to Kingship: Gender Hierarchy and State Formation in the Tongan Islands. AusIin, TX: Univ. Tex. Press Gathercole P, Lowenthal D, eds. \990. The Politics of the Past London/Boston: Unwin Hyman Gero J. 1993. The social world ofprehistoric tacts: gender and power in Paleoindian research. See du Cros & Smith 1993, pp. 3 l*40 Gero | ),rlrre s 53-60 Cordell Venus Ir1'rrincs: a feminist inspired re-analysis. ln lltc ,lrchaeologt o;f ldeologt, ed. AS t ioltlsrnith. S Garvie, D Setin, J Smith, pp. .'.15 62. Calgary: Archeol. Assoc. Univ. ( itl!titry l)rrlrts M-A. 1995a. Gender in the Making: I trtc Alagdalenian Social Relations of ProrltrL lion in the French Midi-Pyrdndes. PhD llrt sis. Univ. Calif., Berkeley l )rrlrrt s M-A. 1995b. Gender and prehistoric Flax J. 1990. Thinking f'ragments: Psychoanalysis, Feminism, and Postmodernism in the Contemporary tr;[/est. Berkeley/Los J. 1996. Archaeological practice and gendered encounters with fleld data. See Wright 1996, pp 251-B0 Gero J. I 997. La iconogratia Recuay y el estudio de genero. Caceta Andina 25126:In press Gero J, Conkey M, eds. 1991. Engendering Archaeolopy. Women and Prehistory. Oxford: Blackwell Gero J. Lacey D, Blakey M" eds. 1983. /fta Socio-Politics of Archaeolopy. Res. Rep. No. 23, Amherst: ljniv. Mass. Giddens A. 1979. Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure, and Contradiction in Social Analysis. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press GifTord-Gonzalez D. 1992. Gaps in zooarchaeological analyses ofbutchery: Is gender an issue? In Bones to Behavior, ed. J Hudson, pp. 181-99. Carbondale: So. Ill. ljniv. Cent. Archeol. lnvest. Gifford-GonzalezD. 1993. You can hide, but you can't run: representations ofwomen's work in illustrations of Paleolithic life. Visual Anthropol. Rev. 9.3-21 Gilchrist R. 1991. Women's archaeology? Po' litical feminism, gender theory and historical revision. Antiquity 65:459-50 1 Gimbutas M. 1989. The Language of the Goddess. San Francisco: Harper & Row Golub S. 1992. Periods: From Menarche to Menopctuse. London: Sage Guillen AC. 1993. Women. rituals and social GENDER AND FEMINISN4IN ARCHAEOLOGY 435 434 CONKEY&GERO dynamics at ancient Chalcatzlngo. Lat. Am. Antiq. 4:209-24 Hamilton N, Marcus J, Bailey D, Haaland G, Haaland R, Ucko P. 1996. Viewpoint: Can we interpret figurines? Cambridge Ar- cheol. J.6:281 307 Handsman R. 1991. Whose art was fbund at Lepenski Vir? Cender relations and power in archaeology. See Gero & Conkey 1991, pp.329-65 Hanen M, Kelley J. 1992. Gender and archaeo- fogical knowledge. ln Meta Archaeologt, ed. L Embree, pp. 195 225. Netherlands: Kluwer Ilaraway D. 1988. Situated knowledgcs. the science question in feminrsm as a site of discourse in the privilege of partial perspective. Fem. Stud. l4:575-600 Hasbrouck J. 1996. Goy liberation or gq) colc.nizalion? lssues and suggestions Jbr the global lesbian, gay and bisexuctl movement. Presenled at Annu. Mcct. ln. Anthropol. Assoc., 95th. San Francisco HastorfC. 1991. Gender. space, and food in prehistory. See Gero & Conkey 1991, pp. 132 59 Hayden B. 1992. Obscrving prehistoric women. See Claassen 1992. pp. 33 48 Hendon JA. 1996. Archasological approaches to the organization of domestic labor: household practice and dornestic relations. Annu. Rey. Anthropol.25:45 6l Hingley R. 1991. Domestic organization and gender relations in lron Age and RomanoBritish households. ln The Social Archae- ologt of Houses, ed. R Samson, pp. 125-48. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ. Press Hollimon SE. 1991. Health conscquences o1' the division of labor among the Chumash lndians of southern California. See Walde & Willows 1991, pp. 462-69 Flollimon SE. 1992. Health consequences of the division of labor among prehistoric native Americans: the churnash of southern California and the Arikara of the pp. North Plains. See Claassen 1992. 81 88 hooks b. 1984. Feninist Theory: From Margin to Center. Boston: South End Press L. 1985. (1974). Specuhm oJ the Other Woman. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Llniv. lrigaray Press Jay N. 1991. Gender and dichotomy. male theories of power. In A Reader in l;eminist Knowledge, ed. S Cunew, pp. 89 106. New York: Routledge Jordanova LJ. 1980. Natural facts: a historical perspective on science and sexuality. In Nature, Culture, and Gender, ed. C Mac- Cormack, M Strathern, pp. 42-69. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press Joyce RA. 1993a. Embodying Persctnhood in Prehispanic Costa Rica. Wellesley, MA: Davis Mus. Cult. Cent.. Wellesley Coll. Jo1'ce RA. 1993b. Women's work: images olproduction and reproduction in preFlispanic sor.rthern Central America. (-'zlrr. nill ton" DC .loyce RA. 1997. Perfbrming gender in prel lispanic Central America: ornamentation. representation and the oonstruction of the body. RES: ,4nlhropol. Aesthet. ltlptess K. A. N. 1985-. Kvinner i arkeolctgi i Norge (Women irr Archacology in ztrm Symposium: Feminismus und Archaologie?! Ttibingen, Ger: lnst. Fr0h- ,\rr'.7.414 9l Ml). 1973. Archaeology as the science rrl tcchnology. Mormon town plans and lcrrccs. In Research and Theory in Cont(ntl)a'ary Archaeologt, ed. CL Redrnan, pp 125 Ner'v York. Freeman Keller EF. 1985. Reflections on Gender ond Science. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Pross Kent S. 1995. Does sedentarizatlon promote gender inequality'? A case study from the Kalahari. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. l:513 36 Kessler S, McKenna W. 1985. (1978). Cender: An Ethnomethodological Approach. Chioago. Univ. Chicago Press t(night C. 1991. Blood Relations; Menstrua- tion an.d the Origins o;f Culture. l,ondon: Yale Univ. Press I(us S. 1 992. l oward an archaeology of body and soul. ln Represenl(rtions in Archae- C Peebles, pp. 168-77. Bloornington. Ind. LJniv. Press Laqueur T. 1990. l,laking Sex: Body and (ienderfrom the (ireeks to Freud. Cambridge, MA: Harvard ljniv. Press Larick R. 1991. Warriors and blacksmiths. mediating ethnicity in Ilast African spears. J.,lnthropo l. Arc heol. 1 0.299-33 | olopy, ed. JC Gardin, L,awrence-Chenev S. 1991. Women and alcohol: lemale influence on recreational patterns in the West, 1880 1890. See Walde & Willows 1991 , pp. 479-89 I..awrence-Cheney S. 1993. Gender on colo- 50. New York: Wiley I t orrc MP. 1982. Some opinions about recov- crirrg rnind. Am. Antiq. 47:742-60 I r'rrnc MP. 1986. Symbolic, structural and clitical archaeology. In American Archaet)l()gy, Past and Future, ed. D Meltzer, J Slblofl', D Fowler. pp. 415 38. Washing1on. I)C: Smithson. Inst. Prsss I t srrrr ll. 1997. Figurines and social identities rr carly sedentary societies of coastal ( hrapas, Mexico, 1550-800 b. c. See ('lirrrssen & Joyce 1997,pp.227 48 | ('\ rrc MA. 1991. An historical overview of rescirrch on women in archaeology. See Wrrltlc & Willows 1991,pp. 177-86 I r r r .l 1995. Gender, pcn,er and heterarchy rrt tttit.ldle-level societies. Presented at \rrrLr. Meet. Soc. Am. Archeol., 60th.. gesch. Kchoc A. 1991. No possible, probable shadow of doubt. Antiquity 65' 129-31 Kohoe A. 1992. l'he muted class: unshackling tradition. See Claassen 1992, pp.23-32 Keller EF. 1983. I h-eelingJbr the Organism. Smith I r'orrc Norway). 'I-romso: Univ. Norr'vay Tromso Kampen NB. I 995. Looking at gender: the co[umn of l ra.jan and Roman historical reliet See Stanton & Stewarl 1995, pp. 46 73 Kastner S, Karlisch SM, eds. 1991 . Reader & I r';rtook E. 1981. History, development, and tlre division of labor by sex: implications lirr rrrganization. Signs: J. Illomen Cult. Anthropol.34.255 74 .loyce RA. 1996. Pe(brmance and inscription: negotiating sex and gender in Classic Maya society. Presented at Pre-Colun1b. Stud. Symp.. Dumbarton Oaks, Washing- peripheries. See du Cros l()()-]. pp. 134-37 f\ | | Iloapolis I rnl,e ll 1992. Manhood, femaleness and lro\rcr. a cultural analysis of prehistoric t,rrlcs. Comp. stud. Soc. Hist. /() 620 , 34 lt 1994. Consider the hermaphroditic rrrrrtl: comment on "the interplay of evi,I rrliirl oonstraints and political interests: | ( ( eill archaeological research on gender." t ttt . l tttiq. 59(3):539-44 I r,rrl'rro I l. 1987. Can there be a f-eminist scietr t'l I lypatia 2:51-64 I r'111'111,1 lf. 1990. Science as Social Knoytl, ,l)t' L'alues and Objectivity in Science. l'rnccton. NJ: Princeton Univ. Press I rrrl'rro ll 1993. Essential tensions-phase tuo I'cntinist, philosophical and social ,trrtlics o1' science. In A Mind o;f One's I rttl, r )t rr lieninist Essays on Reason and Ob- t, , ttril.t'. ed. L Antony, C Witt, pp. ' , / 71. f]oulder, CO: Westview L!r1,rr1) | L 1994. ln search offeministepisterrr,rlrrlly il,/onlsl 77:472 85 | ,'rl't r I lL)t)4. Paradoxes o;f Gender. New I lrrr crr. ('1 . Yale Univ. Press \l I l()()l (ihallenging assumplions: Lorr,rrrri l)rrstun. Llniv. Chicago Mag Apr il {r \ Lrr, rr. Nl l(X)4. Dressed to kill: wornen and 1,rrr , rrr crrr'lv lran. Oxford Art J. 17 .3-15 r\ 1r.,, | .\ |()92 Gender and the lrrllrcrtl archacological record. hunter- a view from the Thukela Basin. South lfr. Ar- cheol. Bull.47:122 26 McBryde l. 1 996. Past and present indivisible? In From Prehistory ta Politics: John Mulvaney and the Making o;[a Public Intellec- T Bonyhady, T Griffiths, pp. 64-84. Melbourne: University Press McCafl'erty SD, McCafferty GG. 1991. Spinning and weaving as female gender identity in posf Classio Mexico. In Textile Traditions oJ Mesoanterica and the Andes, ed. M Schevill, JC Berlo, E Dwyer, 2:19-44. Hamden, CT: Garland McCaff'erty SD, McCafferty GG. 1994. Engendering Tomb 7 at Monte Alban: respinning an old yarn. Curr. Anthropol. 35: 143-66 McDonald J. 1992. The Great Mackerel rockshelter excavation: womsn in the archaeological record. Aust. Archeol. 35:32-50 tual, ed. McGuire K, Hildebrandt WR. 1994. The possibilities of women and men: gender and the California rnilling stone horizon. J. Calrf. Great Basin Anthropol. l6: 4 l*59 McGuire R, Paynter R. 1991. The Archcteolog,t ctf Inequali41. Oxfbrd: Blackwell Merchant C. 1980. The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology and the Scienti;fic Revolution. San Francisco: Harper & Row Meskell L. i995. Goddesses, Gimbutas and 'New Age' archaeology. Antiqltity 69: 74-86 Miller V, ed. 1988.I'he Role of Gender in PreColumbian Art and Architecture. [-anham, MD: ljniv. Press Am. Moore II. 1991. 1991. Epilogue. See Cero & Conl<ey pp.407 I I Moore H. 1993. The differences within and the differences between. See dcl Valle 1993a, pp.193-204 Moss M. 1993. Shellfish" gender and status on the Northwest coast. reconciling archaeological" ethnographic and ethnohistoric records ofthe Tlingit. An. Anthropol.95: 631 52 Moulton J. 1983. A paradigm ofphilosophy: the adversary method. In Discovering Realfty, ed. S Harding, MB Hintikka, pp. 149-64. Dordrecht: Reidel Muller F. 1991. 'Kulturelle Vielfalt': Das bild der fiau in der Schweitz vor 2350 jahren. Archao l. Sc hw e itz | 4.1 | 5-23 Nelson M, Nelson S, Wylie A, eds. 1994. E4uib,- Issues.[or l4/omen in Archcteologt. Ar- chaeological Papers 5. Washington, DC: Am. Anthropol. Assoc. Nelson S. 1991a. The'Goddess Temple' and the status of women at Niuheliang, China. See Walde & Willows l99l, pp. 302 8 436 CONKEY&GERO (iIINDER AND FEMINISM IN ARCHAEOLOCY 437 Nelson S. 1991b. Women archaeologists in Asia and the Pacif'rc. See Walde & Wil- lows 1991, pp 217-19 Nelson S. 1992. Diversity of the Upper Paleolithic "Venus" figurines and archaeologi- cal mythology. In Gender in Cross- Cultural Perspective, ed. C Brettel, C Sargent, pp. 5l 58. New York: Prentice Hall Ortner S. 1984. Theory in anthropology since the sixties. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 26: 126-66 Ovrevik S. 1991. Sex ratios in archaeological organisations in Norway. Masters thesis. Univ. Bradford, UK Parezo N, ed. 1993. Hidden Scholars: Women Anthropologists and the Natiye American Southwest. Albuquerque: Univ. N. M. Press Patai D, Koertge N. 1994 Professing Femi- nism: Inside the Strange World of l4/omen's Studies. New York: New Republic/Basic Books Pinsky V, Wylie A, eds. 1989. Critical Traditions in Archaeologlt: Essays in. the Philosophy, History and Sociopolitics of Archaectlogt. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press KE. 1997. Acquiring Stone, Acquiring Power. Presented at Annu. Meet. Soc. Am. Archeol. 62nd" Nashville, TN Schrire C. 1995. Digging Through Darkness: Sassaman Chronicles of an Archaeologist. Char- lottesville: Univ. Va. Press Scott EM. 1994. Those of Little Note: Gender, Race and Class in Historical Archaeologt. Tucson: Univ. Ariz. Press Seifert D, ed. 1991. Gender in historical archaeology. Hist. Archaeol. 25(4):1 155 Seifert D. 1994. Mrs. Starr's profession. In Those of Little Note: Gender, Race and Class in Historical Archaeology, ed. E Scott, pp. 149-74. Tucson. Univ. Ariz. Press Poht M. 1991. Women, animal reanng and social status: the case ofthe Formative period Maya of Central America. See Walde & Willows 1991.pp.392 99 Pollock S. 1991. Women in a men's world: images of Sumerian women. See Gero & Conkey 1991, pp. 366-87 Pomeroy SB. 1975. Goddesses, Whores, ll/ives and Slaves: Women in Classical Antiquity. New York: Schocken Books Pomeroy SB. l99l. Women's History and Ancient History. Chapel Hill, NC: Univ. N. C. Press Preucel R, Joyce Roseberry W. 1988. Political economy. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. I 7:161*85 Rossiter MW. i982. tr;[/omen Scien.tists in Americct: Struggles and Strategies to 1910. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press Russell P. 1991. Men only? The myths about European Paleolithic artists. See Walde & Willows 1991" pp. 346 51 Sassaman KE. 1 992. Lithic technology and the hunter-gatherer sexual division of labor. North Am. Archeol, 13:249-62 RA. 1994. Feminism,;field- v,ork, and the practice of archaeologt. Presented at Annu. Meet. Am. Anthropol. Assoc., 93rd, Atlanta Rabinowitz NS, Richlin A, eds. 1993. Feminist Theory and the Classics. New York/ London: Routledge Reyman .1" ed. 1992. Rediscovering Our Past: Essays on the History ofAmericanArchae- o/ogy. Aldershot, UK: Avebury Robb J. 1994. Gender contradictions, moral coalitions and inequality in prehistoric Italy. J. Eur. Archeol. 2:2049 Roberts C. 1993. A critical approach to gender as a category of analysis in archaeology. See du Cros & Smith 1993, pp. 16 21 Rogers CL, Fowler DD. 1994. Feminist archaeologt and cultural resource management. Presenled at Annu. Meet. Am. Anthropol. Assoc., 93rd, Atlanta l. 1987. Moon, Sun and Witches: Gender ldeologies and Class in Inca and Colonial Peru. Princeton NJ: Princeton Silverblatt Univ. Press Silverblatt I 1991. Interpreting women in states: new feminist ethnohistories. See di Leonardo 1991a, pp. 140 7 1 t{. 1995. Reflections on women in archaeology. See Balme & Beck pp. 1995. 7-21 Solomon A. 1992. Gender, representation and power in San art and ethnography. J. An- Smith L" du Cros A rc he ol. I | :291-329 CH. 'l994. U/ho Stole Feminism? thropol. Sommers How Women Have Betrayed Women. New York. Simon & Schuster Spector J. 1991. What this awl means. See Gero & Conkey 1991, pp. 388-406 Spector J. 1993. What This Aytl Means. Feminisl Archaeolctgt in a Wahpeton Dakota Village. Minneapolis: Minn. Hist. Soo. Spencer-Wood S. 1991. Toward an historical archaeology of rnaterialistic domestic reform. See McGuire & Paynter 1991, pp. 231 86 Spielman K. 1994. AJbntinist approach to archaeological field schools. Presented at Annu. Meet. Am. Anthopol. Assoc., 93rd, Atlanta Spielman K. 1995. The Archaeology ofgender in the American Southwest. J. Anthropol. Res. 51 Stacey J. I 988. Can there be a feminist ethnog- rrlrlrl') ilirl,'rr'.s ,\ltnl. Inl. l;orum 1I: i) Sle witlt A. cds. 1995. Feminisms in tltt ltttth'ill'. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. l'r r'ss (' l994. l he properstudyofwoman"lr'rrrlrrll I'nl ll rtttt'tt s l?ev. Books 12:1,3 4 I rr1,1'r'r ll l()ll0 Archaeology and the image rrl llrt Arrrcriczrn Indian. Am. Antiq. 45 'lt;lrlrrr ll |') t|i I rr1'1,e r lf I rr1'y'r'r l()1J4. Alternative archaeologies: I f ;ll l( f lf irl lsl. colonialist, imperialisl. Man I 70 lt)t\9. t1 History oJ Archaeological ltrtrtgltt. L'ambridge: Cambridge Univ. l'r css I r rrrl,,lrirnr It. 1991. Households with faces: the ofgender in prehistoric architecIrrlirl lcmains. See Gero & Conkey 1991, t hrrllcngc grp ()3-l3l I r rrrllrirnr R. 994. Engendered places in preltslLtry. Gender Place Cult. Gender l(2): 1 l(r\) 203 \\rrrllo' L. 1989. Gender relations in the lrrrkcla Basin. South Afr. Archeol. Bull. || 122 26 \\ rrlrlc l). Willows N, eds. 1991. T'he Archae, 'l,t,qy o/ Gender. Calgaty: Archeol. Assoc. I |iliv. \\,rll l). Calgary 1994. The Archaeologt ofGender: ':i,'lntraling the Spheres in Urban America. Ncrv York: Plenum \\ rrl,,lr 1,. Burke T. Markos J, t{ause L. 1994. I rrtrl lleport: Archaeological Testing and I rtrlttttlions ofFive Prehistoric Sites in In- l[ells I/alley, Kern County, CaliJbrlor lhe Proposed Redrock |-Lane Upliialc. Archeol. Res. Serv., Virginia City. ,lr,rrt trr,t NV \\,rt ,orr l)i. Kennedy M. 1991. The developrrrcrrl o1'horticulture in the Eastern Wood- l;rrtls of North America: women's role. 'iee (icro & Conkey 1991,pp.255-75 \\,'.,t ( . ZimmerrnanDll. 1987. Doinggender. t ;,'n(lar Soc. l:125.-52 \\ lrr'lrrr M. 1991. Gender and archaeology: fl uary studies and the search for the ori1'rrr:; ol'gender differentiation. See Walde || r( , ,l' Willows \\ lr llr 1991, pp.358-65 M. 1995. Beyond hearth and home on Ilr( r ilrgc: leminist approaches to Plains ar- chaeology. In Beyond Subsistence: Plains Archaeologt and the Postprocessual Critique, ed. P Duke, MC Wilson, pp. 46-65. Tuscaloosa, AL: Univ. Ala. Press Woodbury N. 1992. In the shadow of man, or just the shade of the lab Ient? SAA Bull. 9:6-7 Wright R. 1996. Gender and Archaeolog,,. Philadelohia: Univ. Penn. Press Wylie A. 1992. The interplay of evidential constraints and oolitical interests: recent archaeological risearch on gender. lil. Antiq.57:15 35 Wylie A. 1994a. On "capturing facts alive in the past" (or present): response to Fotiadis and Little. Am. Antiq. 59(3):556-60 Wylie A. 1994b. Pragmatism and politics: understanding the emergence o;f gender research in archaeologt. Presented as Skomp Disting. Lect. Anthropol., Indiana Univ., Bloomington Wylie A. 1994c. Evidential constraints: pragmatic objectivism in archaeology. In Readings in the Philosophy of Social Sci- ence, ed. M Martin, L Mcintyre, pp. 747 65. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Wylie A. 1995. Doing philosophy as a feminist: Longino on the search for a leminist epistemology. Philos. Top. 23(2):345 5B Wylie A. 1996. The constitution of archaeological evidence: gender politics and science. In I'he Disunity ofScience: Boundaries, Contexts, Power, ed. P Galison. DJ Stump, pp. 3ll-43. Stanford, CA: Stanlbrd Univ. Press W1'lie A. 1997. Good science, bad science or science as usual?: feminist critioues ofscience. f n Women in Human Evolution, ed. LD Hager, pp. 29-55. New York/London: Routledge Yentsch A. 1991. The symbolic divisions of pottery: sex-related attributes of English and Anglo-American household pots. See McGuire & Paynter 1991, pp 192130 ZeanahD. Carter J, Dugas D, Elston R, HammettJ.1995. An optimalforaging model of hunter-gatherer land use in the Carson Desert. Preoared for the IJS Fish Wildlife Serv./US D-ep. Navy. Silver City. NV: Intermountain Res.