Skip to main content

On Disciplinary Culture: Archaeology as Fieldwork and Its Gendered Associations

Abstract

This paper discusses the disciplinary culture of archaeology, focusing in particular on the role of fieldwork in shaping the sense of identity for the profession. Based on the examination of the professionalisation of Australian archaeology, it is argued that there is a distinctive suite of attributes relating to the activity of fieldwork, which are central to the organizational culture of the discipline. These attributes can be seen to have a gendered dimension, revealing the extent to which archaeology is shaped by different gender regimes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • Aisenberg, N., & Harrington, M. (1988). Women of academe: Outsiders in the sacred grove. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aitchison, K. (1999). Profiling the profession. York, CBA: English Heritage & IFA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aitchison, K., & Edwards, R. (2003). Archaeology labour market intelligence. Profiling the profession 20023. Kings Lynn: Cultural Heritage & IFA.

  • Andres, J., Barrett, J. C., & Lewis, J. S. C. (2000). Interpretation not record. The practice of archaeology. Antiquity, 74, 525–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, M. (1989). The search for the picturesque: Landscape aesthetics and tourism in Britain, 17601800. Aldershot: Scolar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bahn, P. (1989). Bluff your way in archaeology. West Sussex: Ravette.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barley, N. (1983). The innocent anthropologist. London: Colonnade and British Museum Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Milton Keynes: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binford, L. R. (1989). Debating archaeology. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo academicus. Cambridge: Polity Press (in association with Basil Blackwell).

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter. On the discursive limits of sex. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canadian Museum of Civilisation (1996). An exhibition about the history and meaning of hats and other headwear in Canada. Canada: Canadian Museum of Civilisation.

  • Carmen, J. (2004). Excavating Excavation: A contribution to the social archaeology of archaeology. In G. Carver (Ed.), Digging in the dirt (pp. 45–51). Oxford: BAR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr-Saunders, A. M., & Wilson, P. A. (1933). The professions. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chadwick, A. (2003). Post-procuessualism, professionalization and archaeological methodologies. Towards reflective and radical practice. Archaeological dialogues, 10(1), 97–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claassen, C. (Ed.) (1992). Exploring gender through archaeology. Monographs in world archaeology, no.11. Madison: Prehistory Press.

  • Claassen, C. (1994). Women in archaeology. Philadelphia: University of Pennslyvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, J. G. D. (1989). Prehistory at Cambridge and beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, A. (2002). The ideal and the real: Cultural and personal transformations of archaeological research on Groote Eylandt, northern Australia. World Archaeology, 34(2), 249–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Copley, S., & Garside, P. (Eds) (1994). The politics of the picturesque: Literature, landscape and aesthetics since 1770. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Cullen, T. (1996). Contributions to feminism in archaeology. American Journal of Archaeology, 100, 409–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniel, G. (1975). One hundred and fifty years of archaeology. London: Duckworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniel, G. (1976). Cambridge and the back-looking curiosity. An inaugural lecture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniel, G., & Renfrew, C. (1988). The idea of prehistory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Boer, T. (2004). Shovel bum: Comix of archaeological fieldwork. Lanham: Altamira.

    Google Scholar 

  • duCros, H., & Smith, L. (Eds.) (1993). Women in archaeology: A feminist critique. Canberra: Occasional papers in prehistory no. 23, Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University.

  • Edgeworth, M. (2003). Acts of discovery: An ethnography of archaeological practice. Oxford: BAR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edgeworth, M. (Ed.) (2006). Ethnographies of archaeological practice: Cultural encounters, material transformations. Lanham: Altamira.

  • Fabian, J. (2000). Out of our minds. Reason and madness in the exploration of colonial Africa. California: California University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flannery, K. V. (1976). The early mesoamerican village. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flannery, K. V. (1982). The golden marshalltown: A parable for the archaeology of the 1980’s. American Anthropologist, 84, 265–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frost, P. J., Moore, L. F., Louis, M. R., & Lundberg, G. C. (Eds) (1991). Reframing organisational culture. Beverly Hills: Sage.

  • Frost, P. J., Moore, L. F., Louis, M. R., Lundberg, G. C., & Martin, J. (Eds.) (1985). Organisational culture. Beverly Hills: Sage.

  • Fry, J. (2006). Studying the scholarly web: How disciplinary culture shapes online representations. International Journal of Scientometrics, Infometrics and Bibliometrics, 10(1), paper 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gero, J. M. (1983). Gender bias in archaeology: A cross-cultural perspective. In J. M. Gero, D. M. Lacy, & M. L. Blakey (Eds.), The socio-politics of archaeology (pp. 51–57). Research report no. 23. Amherst: Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts.

  • Gero, J. M. (1985). Socio-politics and the woman-at-home ideology. American Antiquity, 50, 342–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gero, J. M. (1988). Gender bias in archaeology: Here, then, and now. In S. Rosser (Ed.), Feminism within the science and health care professions: Overcoming resistance (pp. 33–43). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gero, J. M. (1993). The social world of prehistoric facts: Gender and power in Paleoindian research. In H. DuCros & L. Smith (Eds.), Women in archaeology: A feminist critique (pp. 31–40). Canberra: Occasional papers in prehistory no. 23, Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University.

  • Gero, J. M. (1994). Excavation bias and the woman at home ideology. In M. C. Nelson, S. M. Nelson, & A. Wylie (Eds.), Equity issues for women in archaeology (pp. 37–42). Washington DC: Archaeological papers of the American Anthropological Association, no.5, American Anthropological Association.

  • Gero, J. M. (1996). Archaeological practice and gendered encounters with field data. In R. Wright (Ed.), Gender and archaeology (pp. 251–280). Phildelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gero, J. M., Lacy, D. M., & Blakey, M. L. (Eds.) (1983). The socio-politics of archaeology. Research report no. 23. Amherst: Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts.

  • Gero, J. M., & Root, D. (1990). Public presentations and private concerns: Archaeology in the pages of ‘National Geographic’. In P. Gathercole, & D. Lowethal (Eds.), The politics of the past (pp. 19–48). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gheradi, S. (1995). Gender, symbolism and organisational cultures. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilchrist, R. (1992). Review of experiencing archaeology by Michael Shanks. Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 11, 188–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glover, D., & Kaplan, C. (2000). Genders. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goode, W. J. (1957). Community within a community: The professions. American Sociological Review, 22, 194–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenhalgh, S. (1996). The social construction of population science. An intellectual, institutional and political history of twentieth century demography. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 38(1), 26–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenhalgh, S. (1997). Methods and meanings: Reflections on disciplinary difference. Population and Development Review, 23(4), 819–824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heilbron, J. (2004). A regime of disciplines: Toward a historical sociology of disciplinary knowledge. In C. Camic & J. Joas (Eds.), The dialogic turn: New roles for sociology in the post disciplinary age (pp. 23–42). US: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herdt, G. (1993). Third sex, third gender. Beyond sexual dimorphism in culture and history. New York: Zone Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodder, I. (1989). Writing archaeology: Site reports in context. Antiquity, 63, 268–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodder, I. (1997). ‘Always momentary, fluid and flexible’: Towards a reflexive excavation methodology. Antiquity, 71, 691–700.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holtorf, C. (2002). Notes on the life history of a potsherd. Journal of Material Culture, 7, 49–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holtorf, C. (2006). Studying archaeological fieldwork in the field: Views from Monte Polizzo. In M. Edgeworth (Ed.), Ethnographies of archaeological practice: Cultural encounters, material transformations (pp. 81–94). Lanham: Altamira.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutson, S. (1998). Strategies for the reproduction of prestige in archaeological discourse. Assemblage, 4.

  • Kramer, C., & Stark, M. (1988). The status of women in archaeology. Anthropology Newsletter, 29(9), 111–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lake, M. (1993). The politics of respectability: Identifying the masculinist context. In S. Magarey, S. Rowley, & S. Sheridan (Eds.), Debutante nation: Feminism Contests the 1890s (pp. 1–15). Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lampert, R. J., & Thorne, A. (1980). Editorial. Australian Archaeology, 10, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langham, I. (1981). The building of british anthropology. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenoir, T. (1997). Instituting science: The cultural production of scientific disciplines. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louis, M. R. (1985). An investigators guide to workplace culture. In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, G. C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.), Organisational culture (pp. 73–93). Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, G. (2001). Critical approaches to fieldwork. Contemporary and historical archaeological practice. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDavid, C. (2002). Archaeologies that hurt; descendants that matter: A pragmatic approach to collaboration in the public interpretation of African-American archaeology. World Archaeology, 34(2), 303–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K., Reader, G. G., & Kendall, P. L. (Eds.) (1957). Student physician. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Morris, E. L. (1991). Women in british archaeology. Birmingham: Institute of Field Archaeology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moser, S. (1995). Archaeology and its disciplinary culture. The professionalisation of Australian archaeology. Ph.D. dissertation. Sydney: University of Sydney.

  • Moser, S. (1996). Science, stratigraphy and the deep sequence: Excavations vs survey and the question of gendered practice in archaeology. Antiquity, 70(270), 813–823.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moser, S., Glazier, D., Phillips, J., El Nemer, L. N., Mousa, M. S., Richardson, S., et al. (2002). Transforming archaeology through practice: Strategies for collaborative practice and the Community Archaeology project at Quseir, Egypt. World Archaeology, 34(2), 220–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, M. C, Nelson, S. M., & Wylie, A. (Eds.) (1994). Equity Issues for Women in Archaeology. Washington DC: Archaeological papers of the American Anthropological Association no.5, American Anthropological Association.

  • Nixon, L. (1994). Gender bias in archaeology. In L. J. Archer, S. Fischler, & M. Wyke (Eds.), Women in ancient societies (pp. 1–23). London: Macmillian.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, T. C. (1991). Who did archaeology in the United States before there were archaeologists and why? Preprofessional archaeologies of the nineteenth century. In R. W. Preucel (Ed.), Processual and postprocessual archaeologies: Multiple ways of knowing the past (pp. 242–250). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinsky, V. (1992). Archaeology, politics, and boundary-formation: The Boas Censure (1919) and the Development of American Archaeology during the inter-war years. In J. E. Reyman (Ed.), Rediscovering our past: Essays on the history of american archaeology (pp. 169–189). Aldershotm: Avebury Press.

  • Rainger, R. (1991). An agenda for antiquity. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reyman, J. (1994). Gender and class in archaeology: Then and now. In M. C. Nelson, S. M. Nelson, & A. Wylie (Eds.), Equity issues for women in archaeology (pp. 83–90). Washington DC: Archaeological papers of the American Anthropological Association 5, American Anthropological Association.

  • Richards, C. (1995). Knowing about the past. In I. Hodder, M. Shanks, A. Alexandri, V. Buchli, J. Carman, J. Last, & G. Lucas (Eds.), Interpreting archaeology (pp. 216–219). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saks, M. (1983). Removing the blinkers? A critique of recent contributions to the sociology of professions. The Sociological Review, 31, 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, D. W. (1978). A Conceptual framework for the sociology of archaeology. In R. C. Dunnell, & E. S. Hall (Eds.), Archaeological essays in honor of Irving B. Rouse (pp. 149–176). Mouton: The Hague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sellars, M. (1973). The secret notebook for the practising archaeologist: With preliminary notes toward an ethno-science of archaeology. Plains Anthropologist, 18, 140–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanks, M. (1992). Experiencing the past: On the character of archaeology. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanks, M. (2001). Culture/Archaeology: The dispersion of a discipline and its objects. In I. Hodder (Ed.), Archaeological theory today (pp. 284–305). Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, N. (2003). State of the discipline: Science, culture and identity in South African archaeology 1870–2003. Journal of South African Studies, 29(4), 823–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shortland, M. (1994). Darkness visible: Underground culture in the golden age of geology. History of Science, xxxii, 1–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shortland, M. (1995). Bonneted mechanic and narrative hero: The self-modelling of Hugh Miller. In M. Shortland (Ed.). Hugh Miller: New essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shumway, D. (1999). Disciplinarity, corporatization and the crisis: A dystopian narrative. Journal of Midwest Modern Language Association, 32(2/3), 2–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, M. L. S. (2000). Gender archaeology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer-Wood, S. M. (1999). The world their household: Changing meanings of the domestic sphere in the nineteenth century. In P. Allison (Ed.), The archaeology of household activities (pp. 162–189). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stocking, G. W. (1983a). History of anthropology: Whence/Whither. In G. W. Stocking (Ed.), Observers observed: Essays on ethnographic fieldwork (Vol 1. pp. 3–12). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

  • Stocking, G. W. (Ed.) (1983b). Observers observed: Essays on ethnographic fieldwork. History of anthropology (Vol 1). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

  • Thomas, K. (1978). Idlers in the land. Richmond, VIC: Hutchinson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilley, C. (1989). Excavation as theatre. Antiquity, 63, 275–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trigger, B. G. (1989). A history of archaeological thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valian, V. (1998). Why so slow the advancement of women. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vollmer, H. M., & Mills, D. L. (Eds.) (1966). Professionalisation. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

  • Walde, D., & Willows, N. (Eds.) (1991). The archaeology of gender. In Proceedings of the 22nd annual Chacmool conference, Calgary, The University of Calgary Archaeological Association.

  • Ward, R. (1958). The Australian legend. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, J. M., & Frankel, D. (1995). Gender inequity and archaeological practice: A Cypriot case study. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, 8(2), 93–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weigall, A. (1923). The glory of the pharoahs. London: Butterworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whatley, M. H. (1989). A feeling for science: Female students and biology texts. Women’s Studies International Forum, 12(3), 355–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, M. (1955). Still digging: Adventures in archaeology. London: Pan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, L. (1976). The academic man. A study in the sociology of a profession. New York: Octagon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodall, J. N., & Perricone, P. J. (1981). The archaeologist as cowboy: The consequences of the professional stereotype. Journal of Field Archaeology, 8, 506–508.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wylie, A. (1997). The engendering of archaeology. Refiguring feminist science studies. Osiris, 12, 80–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yarrow, T. (2003). Artefactual persons: The relational capacities of persons and things in the practice of excavation. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 36(1), 65–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yarrow, T. (2006a). Perspective matters: Traversing scale through archaeological practice. In G. Lock & B. Molyneaux (Eds.), Confronting scale in archaeology: Issues of theory and practice (pp. 77–87). US: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yarrow, T. (2006b). Sites of knowledge: Different ways of knowing an archaeological excavation. In M. Edgeworth (Ed.), Ethnographies of archaeological practice: Cultural encounters, material transformations. Lanham: Altamira.

  • Zeder, M. A. (1997). The American archaeologist: Results of the 1994 SAA census. Society for American Archaeology Bulletin, 15(2), 12–17.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephanie Moser.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Moser, S. On Disciplinary Culture: Archaeology as Fieldwork and Its Gendered Associations. J Archaeol Method Theory 14, 235–263 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-007-9033-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-007-9033-5

Keywords

  • Disciplinary culture
  • Archaeological fieldwork
  • Gender