In this paper I argue that the practice of archaeology over-emphasizes and over-rewards unambiguous certainty in our interpretations, even though our conclusions are usually drawn from necessarily partial, underdetermined and complex evidence. I argue that full or partial erasure of ambiguity from our data and from our interpretive assertions does not serve the long-term interests of the discipline; that a feminist practice aimed at more nuanced understandings of the past and open to more subtle, multivalenced notions of reality, must accept ambiguity as a central feature of archaeological interpretation. After I review familiar strategies that are used to obscure troubling areas of uncertainty in archaeology, I urge feminist practice to resist employing these “mechanisms of closure” in our work. It is only by openly recognizing and preserving the ambiguity that resides in messy data arrangements today that we stand any hope of fuller and richer understandings in the future.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Clearly, issues surrounding uncertainty and ambiguity are neither restricted to archaeology nor distributed homogeneously throughout archaeology. British archaeology may suffer less from the exaggerated certitude we recognize in North America, related, perhaps, to North America’s greater pretensions to archaeology as a rigorous science. Community and indigenous archaeologies are similarly tempered by a deliberate attention to alternative sensibilities and sources of knowledge. At the same time, I am reminded of a vibrant literature from computer science on such issues as representational authorship and accuracy (cf. for example Ryan 1996, and Gillings 2000).
Issues of underdetermined conclusions raise the closely related problem of equifinality: that equally satisfactory interpretations can be drawn from the same observations.
Many of these ambiguity-reducing strategies are also in use in other science disciplines but I am concerned here specifically with their applications in archaeology.
The ambiguity we confront when we are making sense of data is guided by a large archaeological literature covered under the topic of “inference”. Archaeologists are aware of and attentive to the leaps of faith involved in inference, and the stabilization of interpretation at this level is not ignored. In fact, ethnoarchaeology, experimental archaeology, the study of formation processes, the direct historical method and the application of analogies are all methods developed to deal with archaeological inference. Nevertheless, the argument I am making—that archaeologists regularly overstate their confidence in their inferred meanings—still holds.
Motivations for asserting certitude and authority clearly differ in different scholarly contexts. Presentations to the public, for instance, demand their own voice of clarity and disciplinary authority (archaeology can deliver!), while presentations to granting agencies must sound confident because money will be given to people and projects that are seen as having the greatest chance of definitive success.
Adavasio, J. M., Soffer, O., & Page, J. (2007). The invisible sex. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Books.
Barker, J., & Dumont, C. (2006). Contested conversations: Presentations, expectations, and responsibility at the National Museum of the American Indian. American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 30, 111–140.
Bourque, B. (1995). Diversity and complexity in prehistoric maritime societies. New York: Plenum.
Canuto, M. A. (1991). The practice and praxeography of archaeology. Department of Anthropology, Harvard University.
Code, L. (1991). What can she know? Feminist theory and the construction of knowledge. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Conkey, M. W. (2003). Has feminism changed archaeology? SIGNS, 28, 867–880.
Conkey, M. W. (2005). Dwelling at the margins, action at the intersection? Feminist and indigenous archaeologies, 2005. Archaeologies, 1, 9–59.
Conkey, M. W., & Gero, J. M. (1991). Tensions, pluralities and engendering archaeology. In J. Gero & M. Conkey (Eds.), Engendering archaeology (pp. 3–30). Oxford: Blackwell.
Conkey, M. W., & Gero, J. M. (1997). Programme to practice: Gender and feminism in archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 26, 411–437.
Costin, C. (2007). Thinking about production: Phenomenological classification and lexical semantics. Rethinking craft specialization in complex societies. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association No. 17, 143–162.
Daston, L. (1994). Baconian facts, academic civility and the prehistory of objectivity. In A. Megill (Ed.), Rethinking objectivity (pp. 37–63). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Dumbar, J. S., & Webb, S. D. (1996). Bone and ivory tools from submerged Paleoindian sites in Florida. In D. Anderson & K. Sassman (Eds.), The Paleoindian and early archaic southeast (pp. 331–353). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Emerson, T. (1991). Cahokia and the hinterlands: Middle Mississipian cultures of the midwest. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Emerson, T. (1997). Cahokia and the archaeology of power. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Franklin, M. (2004). A black feminist inspired archaeology? Journal of Social Archaeology, 1, 108–125.
Gatens, M. (1991). Feminism, philosophy, and riddles without answers. A reader in feminist knowledge (pp. 181–198). Sneja Gunew. New York: Routledge.
Geller, P., & Stockett, M. (Eds.) (2006). Feminist anthropology: Past, present and future. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Gero, J. M. (n.d.) Archaeology (In) Forms. Paper presented to the Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, Nov. 1991.
Gero, J. M. (1993). The social world of prehistoric facts: Gender and power in paleoindian research. In H. D. Cros & L. Smith (Eds.), Women in archaeology: A feminist critique (pp. 31–40). Department of Prehistory Research School of Pacific Studies Australian National University.
Gero, J. M. (1996). Archaeological practice and gendered encounters with field data. In R. P. Wright (Ed.), Gender and archaeology (pp. 251-280). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Gero, J. M., & Loring, S. (2005). At the intersection—yellow light!—go fast! Paper presented at American Anthropological Association meetings, Washington, DC.
Gillings, M. (2000). Plans, elevations and virtual worlds: The development of techniques for the routine construction of hyperreal simulations. In J. Barceló, M. Forte, & D. Sanders (Eds.), Virtual reality in archaeology. Oxford: BAR International Series.
Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism as a site of discourse in the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14, 575–600.
Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Harding, S. (1998). Is science multi-cultural? Postcolonialisms, feminisms and epistemologies. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Hekman, S. (1997). Truth and method: Feminist standpoint theory revisited. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 22, 341–365.
Jasanoff, S. (1996). Beyond epistemology: Relativism and engagement in the politics of science. Studies of Science, 26, 393–418.
Kus, S. (2006). In the midst of the moving waters: Material, metaphor and feminist archaeology. In P. Geller & M. Stockett (Eds.), Feminist anthropology (pp. 105–114). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
Laughlin, W. S. (1980). Aleuts: Survivors of the Bering land bridge. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Liapunova, R. G. (1996). Essays on the ethnography of the Aleuts. Kingston, Ontario: Rasmuson Library Historical Translation Series Volume IX.
Lightfoot, R. R. (1994). The duckfoot site, volume 2: Archaeology of the house and household. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center Occasional Papers, No. 4. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Lippert, D. (1997). In front of the mirror: Native Americans and academic archaeology. In N. K. Swidler, K. E. Dongoske, R. Anyon, & A. S. Downer (Eds.), Native Americans and archaeologists: Stepping stones to common ground (pp. 120–127). Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira Press.
Megill, A. (Ed.) (1994). Rethinking objectivity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Meltzer, D. J. (2006). Folsom. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Meskell, L. M. (2000). Feminism in archaeology. In L. Code (Ed.), Encyclopedia of feminist theories (pp. 26–27). London: Routledge.
Milner, G. R. (1986). Mississippian period population density in a segment of the Central Mississippi River Valley. American Antiquity, 51, 227–238.
Pauketat, T. (2002). A fourth-generation synthesis of Cahokia and Mississippianization. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology, 27, 149–170.
Ryan, R. (1996). Computer based visualization of the past: Technical ‘realism’ and historical credibility. In T. Higgins, P. Main, & J. Lang (Eds.), Imaging the past. London: British Museum Press.
Sandlin, J., & Bey, G. (2006). Trowels, trenches and transformation. Journal of Social Archaeology, 6, 255–276.
Sassaman, K. (1996). Early archaic settlement in the South Carolina Coastal plain. In D. Anderson & K. Sassman (Eds.), The Paleoindian and early archaic southeast (pp. 58–83). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Schiebinger, L. (1999). Has feminism changed science? Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Shapin, S. (1994). A social history of truth: Civility and science in seventeenth-century England. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Smith, L. (2004). Archaeological theory and the politics of cultural heritage. London: Routledge.
Smith, C., & Ward, G. K. (Eds.) (2000). Indigenous cultures in an interconnected world. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
Smith, C., & Wobst, H. M. (Eds.) (2005). Indigenous archaeologies: Decolonizing theory and practice. London: Routledge.
Spector, J. D. (1993). What this awl means: Feminist archaeology at a Wahpeton Dakota village. St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society Press.
Suchman, L. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions (2nd expanded ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wilkie, L. (2003). The archaeology of mothering: An African-American midwife’s tale. New York: Routledge.
Wylie, A. (1992). The interplay of evidential constraints and political interests: Recent archaeological research on gender. American Antiquity, 57, 15–35.
Wylie, A. (1997). The engendering of archaeology: Reconfiguring feminist science studies. Osiris, 12, 80–99.
Wylie, A. (2000). Standpoint matters—in archaeology, for example. In S. Strum & L. Fedigan (Eds.), Primate encounters: Models of science, gender and society (pp. 243–260). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wylie, A. (2003). Why standpoint matters. In R. Figueroa & S. Harding (Eds.), Philosophical explorations of science, technology and diversity (pp. 26–48). New York: Routledge.
Wylie, A. (2006). Afterword: On waves. In P. Geller & M. Stockett (Eds.), Feminist anthropology (pp. 167–175). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
Young, B., & Fowler, M. (2000). Cahokia: The great native American metropolis. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Profound thanks to Meg Conkey and Alison Wylie for their long years of loyal struggle to bring these papers to publication, and to all the members of the April Collective for the stimulating seminar we shared at SAR; thanks to the School of American Research for their gracious accommodations. Special gratitude is due, overdue and double-due to Meg Conkey for constantly reiterating the courage to keep at these ideas and for being a model of dignity and compassion through it all. I appreciate the extremely thoughtful comments from anonymous reviewers which doubtlessly improved the paper, but I also accept responsibility for all areas where the paper is still flawed. Finally, I thank Stephen Head for his steadfast support in allowing ambiguity to be.
About this article
Cite this article
Gero, J.M. Honoring Ambiguity/Problematizing Certitude. J Archaeol Method Theory 14, 311–327 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-007-9037-1
- Feminist practice