Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 264–284 | Cite as

Mapping a Future: Archaeology, Feminism, and Scientific Practice

Article

Abstract

Drawing on work in science studies, I argue for the importance of fieldwork and research practices when considering the relative significance of feminism within archaeology. Fieldwork, often presented as the unifying hallmark of all of anthropology, has a different resonance in archaeology at the level of material practice and specific techniques. In order to understand the relationship between archaeology and feminism we need to investigate methods, methodology, and interpretations of the material record simultaneously. Examining one practice, that of map making, I suggest venues amenable to feminist insights.

Keywords

Archaeological practice Fieldwork Feminism Mapping 

References

  1. Abu El-Haj, N. (2001). Facts on the ground: Archaeological practice and territorial self-fashioning in Israeli society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Abu-Lughod, L. (1990). Can there be a feminist ethnography? Women and Performance: Journal of Feminist Theory, 9, 7–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashmore, W. (2004). Social archaeologies of landscape. In L. Meskell & R. Preucel (Eds.), A companion to social archaeology (pp. 255–271). Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  4. Behar, R., & Gordon, D. (Eds.) (1995). Women writing culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bender, B. (1999). Subverting the western gaze: Mapping alternative worlds. In P. J. Ucko & R. Layton (Eds.), The archaeology and anthropology of landscape: Shaping your landscape (pp. 31–45). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Bender, B., Hamilton, S., & Tilley C. (1997). Leskernick. Stone worlds; alternative narratives; nested landscapes. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 63, 147–178.Google Scholar
  7. Berggren, A., & Hodder, I. (2003). Social practice, method, and some problems of field archaeology. American Antiquity, 68, 421–434.Google Scholar
  8. Biagoli, M. (Ed.) (1999). The science studies reader. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Blunt, A., & Rose, G. (Eds.) (1994). Writing women and space: Colonial and postcolonial geographies. London: Guildford Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bunkse, E. (1990). Saint-Exupery’s geography lesson: Art and science in the creation and cultivation of landscape studies. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 80, 96–108.Google Scholar
  11. Chadwick, A. (2003). Post-processualism, professionalization, and archaeological methodologies. Towards reflective and radical practices. Archaeological Dialogues, 10, 97–117.Google Scholar
  12. Chippindale, C. (2000). Capta and data: On the true nature of archaeological information. American Antiquity, 65, 605–612.Google Scholar
  13. Clifford, J., & Marcus, G. (Eds.) (1986). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  14. Colwell-Chanthaphonh, C., & Ferguson, T. J. (2006). Memory pieces and footprints: Multivocality and the meanings of ancient times and ancestral places among the Zuni and Hopi. American Anthropologist, 108, 148–162.Google Scholar
  15. Conkey, M. W. (2003). Has feminism changed archaeology? Signs, 28, 867–880.Google Scholar
  16. Conkey, M. W. (2005). Dwelling at the margins. Action at the intersection? Feminist and indigenous archaeologies 2005. Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress, 1, 9–80.Google Scholar
  17. Conkey, M. W., & Gero, J. M. (1997). Programme to practice: Gender and feminism in archaeology. Annual Reviews in Anthropology, 26, 411–437.Google Scholar
  18. Conkey, M., & Tringham, R. (1994). Archaeology and the goddess: Exploring the contours of feminist archaeology. In D. C. Stanton & A. J. Steward (Eds.), Feminisms in the academy: Rethinking disciplines (pp. 199–247). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  19. Cooper, F., & Stoler, A. (1989). Introduction: Tensions of empire: Colonial control and visions of rule. American Ethnologist, 16, 609–621.Google Scholar
  20. Craib, R. B. (2000). Cartography and power in the conquest and creation of new Spain. Latin American Research Review, 35, 7–36.Google Scholar
  21. Demeritt, D. (1996). Social theory and the reconstruction of science and geography. Transactions of the Institute of the British Geographers, 21, 484–503.Google Scholar
  22. Devault, M. L. (1996). Talking back to sociology: Distinctive contributions of feminist methodology. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 29–50.Google Scholar
  23. Díaz-Andreu, M., & Stig Sørenson, M-L. (Eds.) (1998). Excavating women: A history of women in European archaeology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Ebron, P. (2002). Performing Africa. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Enslin, E. (1994). Beyond writing: Feminist practice and the limitations of ethnography. Cultural Anthropology, 9, 537–568.Google Scholar
  26. Fischer, M. J. M. (1999). Emergent forms of life: Anthropologies of late or postmodernities. Annual Review of Anthropology, 28, 455–478.Google Scholar
  27. Gallison, P., & Stump, D. (Eds.) (1996). The disunity of science: Boundaries, contexts, and power. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Gero, J. (1985). Socio-politics of archaeology and the woman at home ideology. American Antiquity, 50, 342–350.Google Scholar
  29. Gero, J. (1994). Gender division of labor in the construction of archaeological knowledge in the United States. In G. C. Bond & A. Gilliam (Eds.), Social construction of the past: Representation as power (pp. 144–153) New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Gero, J. (1996). Archaeological practice and gendered encounters with field data. In R. Wright (Ed.), Gender and archaeology (pp. 251–280). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  31. Gifford-Gonzalez, D. (1993). You can hide, but you can’t run: Representations of women’s work in illustrations of Paleolithic life. Visual Anthropology Review, 9, 21–41.Google Scholar
  32. Gimbutas, M. (1982). The goddesses and gods of old Europe 6500–3500 BC: Myths and Cult images. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  33. Gimbutas, M. (1989). The language of the goddess. San Francisco: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  34. Gimbutas, M. (1991). The civilization of the goddess. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  35. Godlewska, A. (1995). Map, text, and image. The mentality of enlightened conquerors: A new look at the description de l’Egypte. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, 20, 5–28.Google Scholar
  36. Godlewska, A., & Smith, N. (Eds.) (1994). Geography and empire. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  37. Gosden, C. (2001). Postcolonial archaeology: Issues of culture, identity and knowledge. In I. Hodder (Ed.), Archaeological theory today (pp. 241–261) Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  38. Gregory, D. (1994). Geographical imaginations. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  39. Gumerman, G. J., & Phillips, D. A., Jr. (1978). Archaeology beyond anthropology. American Antiquity, 43, 184–191.Google Scholar
  40. Gupta, A., & Ferguson, J. (Eds.) (1997). Anthropological locations. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  41. Haraway, D. (1989). Primate visions: Gender, race, and nature in the world of modern science. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Haraway, D. (1997) Modest_witness@second_millenium. femaleman ©_ meets_ oncoMouse™. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Harley, B. J. (1992). Rereading the maps of the Columbian encounter. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 82, 522–536.Google Scholar
  46. Hendon, J. (2000). Theory and practice in the archaeology of gender: Recent research in Mesoamerica. Paper presented at the 65th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology.Google Scholar
  47. Hill, E. (1998). Gender-informed archaeology: The priority of definition, the use of analogy, and the multivariate approach. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 5, 99–128.Google Scholar
  48. Hodder, I. (1997). Always momentary, fluid and flexible: towards a reflexive excavation methodology. Antiquity, 71, 691–700.Google Scholar
  49. Hutson, S. (2001). Synergy through disunity, science as social practice: Comments on Vanpool and Vanpool. American Antiquity, 66, 349–360.Google Scholar
  50. Jacobs-Huey, L. (2002). The natives are gazing and talking back: Reviewing the problematics of positionality, voice, and accountability among “native” anthropologists. American Anthropologist, 104, 791–804.Google Scholar
  51. Joyce, R. A. (2002). The languages of archaeology: Dialogue, narrative, and writing. Malden: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  52. Katz, C. (1995). Major/minor: Theory, nature and politics. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 85, 164–168.Google Scholar
  53. Keller, E. F. (1985). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Keller, E. F. (1992). Secrets of life, secrets of death: Essays on language, gender, and science. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Kirsch, G. E. (1999). Ethical dilemmas in feminist research: The politics of location, interpretation, and publication. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  56. Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, truth, and democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Kuklick, H. (1991). The savage within: The social history of British anthropology, 1885–1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Kuklick, H. (1997). After Ishmael: The fieldwork tradition and its future. In A. Gupta & J. Ferguson (Eds.), Anthropological Locations: Boundaries and Grounds of a Field Science (pp. 47–65). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  59. Kuklick, H., & Kohler, R. E. (Eds.) (1996). Science in the field, Osiris, 2nd Series, Vol. 11. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Journals.Google Scholar
  60. Kwan, M.-P. (2002a). Is GIS for women? Reflections on the critical discourse in the 1990’s. Gender, Place and Culture, 9, 271–279.Google Scholar
  61. Kwan, M.-P. (2002b). Feminist visualization: Re-envisioning GIS as a method in feminist geographic research. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 92, 645–661.Google Scholar
  62. Landes, R. (1947). City of women. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  63. Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Leone, M. P. (1972). Issues in anthropological archaeology. In M. P. Leone (Ed.), Contemporary archaeology (pp. 14–27). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Lewis, G. M. (1987). Misinterpretation of Amerindian information as a source of error on Euro–American maps. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 77, 542–563.Google Scholar
  67. Lewis, M. W., & Wigen, K. (1997). The myth of continents: A critique of metageography. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  68. Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Longino, H. (1994). In search of feminist epistemology. Monist, 77, 472–485.Google Scholar
  70. Longino, H. (2001). The fate of knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Lucas, G. (2001). Critical approaches to fieldwork: Contemporary and historical archaeological practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  72. Lutz, C. (1990). The erasure of women’s writing in socio-cultural anthropology. American Ethnologist, 17, 611–625.Google Scholar
  73. Maasen, S., & Winterhagen, M. (Eds.) (2001). Science studies. Probing the dynamics of scientific knowledge. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.Google Scholar
  74. Malinowski, B. (1922). Argonuats of the western pacific: An account of native enterprise and adventure in the archipelagoes of melanesian New Guinea. New York: E.P.Dutton & Co.Google Scholar
  75. Marcus, G., & Cushman, D. (1982). Ethnographies as texts. Annual Review of Anthropology, 11, 25–69.Google Scholar
  76. Maurer, B. (2005). Introduction to ‘Ethnographic emergencies’. American Anthropologist, 107, 1–4.Google Scholar
  77. McDowell, L. (1992). Doing gender: Feminism, feminists and research methods in human geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographer, 17, 399–416.Google Scholar
  78. McDowell, L. (1999). Gender, identity and place: Understanding feminist geographies. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  79. McDowell, L., & Sharp, J. P. (Eds.) (1997). Space, gender, knowledge: Feminist readings. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  80. Moser, S. (1996). Science, stratigraphy and the deep sequence: Excavation vs. regional survey and the question of gendered practice in archaeology. Antiquity, 70, 813–823.Google Scholar
  81. Moss, P. (Ed.) (2002). Feminist geography in practice: Research and methods. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  82. Moss, P. (2005). A Bodily notion of research: Power, difference, and specificity in feminist methodology. In L. Nelson & J. Seager (Eds.), A companion to feminist geography (pp. 41–59). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  83. Mundy, B. (1996). The mapping new Spain: Indigenous cartography and the maps of the relaciones geográficas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  84. Naples, N. (2003). Feminism and method. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  85. Parsons, E. C. (1913). The old fashioned woman: Primitive fancies about the sex. New York: Putnam and Sons.Google Scholar
  86. Pickering, A. (Ed.) (1992). Science as practice and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  87. Rabinow, P. (1977). Reflections on fieldwork in Morocco. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  88. Reed, R., & Traweek, S. (2000). Doing science and culture. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  89. Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  90. Reiter, R. (Ed.) (1975). Toward an anthropology of women. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
  91. Renfrew, C. (1981). Space, time and man. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 6, 257–278.Google Scholar
  92. Rocheleau, D. (1995). Maps, numbers, text, and context: Mixing methods in feminist political ecology. The Professional Geographer, 47, 458–466.Google Scholar
  93. Rosaldo, M., & Lamphere, L. (Eds.) (1974). Woman, culture and society. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  94. Rose, G. (1993). Feminism and geography: The limits of geographical knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  95. Rose, G. (2001). Visualizing methodologies: An introduction to the interpretation of visual materials. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  96. Rudwick, M. (1982). Charles Darwin in London: The integration of public and private science. Isis, 73, 186–206.Google Scholar
  97. Ruiz, C. A. (2002). Nationals and foreigners in Mexican archaeology 1890’s–1930’s. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
  98. Rundstrom, R. A. (1990). A cultural interpretation of Inuit map accuracy. Geographical Review, 80, 155–168.Google Scholar
  99. Schuurman, N. (2000). Trouble in the heartland: GIS and its critics in the 1990s. Progress in Human Geography, 24, 569–590.Google Scholar
  100. Schuurman, N., & Pratt, G. (2002). Care of the subject: Feminism and critiques of GIS. Gender, Place and Culture, 9, 291–299.Google Scholar
  101. Seager, J., & Nelson, L. (Eds.) (2004). Companion to feminist geography. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  102. Shanks, M., & McGuire, R. (1996). The craft of archaeology. American Antiquity, 61, 75–88.Google Scholar
  103. Smith, C. (1999). Ancestors, place and people: Social landscapes in aboriginal Australia. In P. J. Ucko & R. Layton (Eds.), The archaeology and anthropology of landscape: Shaping your landscape (pp. 189–205). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  104. Spector, J. (1993). What this awl means: Feminist archaeology at a Wahpeton Dakota Village. St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society Press.Google Scholar
  105. Stacey, J. (1988). Can there be feminist ethnography? Women’s Studies International Forum, 11, 163–182.Google Scholar
  106. Strum, S., & Fedigan, L. (Eds.) (2003). Primate encounters: Models of science, gender, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  107. Taylor, W. (1948). Study of archaeology. Memoir Series of the American Anthropological Association 69.Google Scholar
  108. Thomas, J. (2004). Archaeology and modernity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  109. Tomášková, S. (2003). Nationalism, local histories and the making of data in archaeology. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 9, 485–507.Google Scholar
  110. Traweek, S. (1988). Beamtimes and lifetimes: The world of high energy physicists. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  111. Valentine, G. (2004). Public space and the culture of childhood. London: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  112. van Reybrouck, D. (2002). Boule’s error: On the social context of scientific knowledge. Antiquity, 76, 158–164.Google Scholar
  113. Visweswaran, K. (1988). Defining feminist ethnography. Inscriptions, 3/4, 27–46.Google Scholar
  114. Visweswaran, K. (1997). Histories of feminist ethnography. Annual Reviews of Anthropology, 26, 591–621.Google Scholar
  115. Wheatley, D., & Gillings, M. (2002). Spatial Technology and Archaeology. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  116. Wheatley, E. (1994). How can we engender ethnography with a feminist imagination: A rejoinder to Judith Stacey. Women’s Studies International Forum, 17, 403–416.Google Scholar
  117. Wolf, D. (Ed.) (1996). Feminist dilemmas in fieldwork. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  118. Wylie, A. (1995). Doing philosophy as a feminist: Longino on the search for a feminist epistemology. Philosophical Topics, 23, 345–358.Google Scholar
  119. Wylie, A. (1996). The constitution of archaeological evidence: Gender, politics and science. In P. Galison & D. J. Stump (Eds.), The disunity of science: Boundaries, contexts, and power (pp. 311–343). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  120. Wylie, A. (2000). Questions of evidence, legitimacy, and the disunion of science. American Antiquity, 652, 227–237.Google Scholar
  121. Wylie, A. (2001). Doing social science as a feminist: The engendering of archaeology. In A. N. H. Creager, E. Lunbeck & L. Schiebinger (Eds.), Science, Technology, Medicine: The difference feminism has made (pp.23–45). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  122. Yellen, J. (2004). Archaeology and the National Science Foundation. The SAA Archaeological Record, 4, 38–41.Google Scholar
  123. Yellen, J., & Greene M. (1985). Archaeology and the National Science Foundation. American Antiquity, 50, 332–341.Google Scholar
  124. Young, I. M. (1990). Throwing like a girl and other essays in feminist philosophy and social theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Curriculum in Women’s Studies and the Department of AnthropologyUNC-Chapel HillChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations