Skip to main content

Mapping a Future: Archaeology, Feminism, and Scientific Practice

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.

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

References

  • 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 

  • Abu-Lughod, L. (1990). Can there be a feminist ethnography? Women and Performance: Journal of Feminist Theory, 9, 7–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Behar, R., & Gordon, D. (Eds.) (1995). Women writing culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Bender, B., Hamilton, S., & Tilley C. (1997). Leskernick. Stone worlds; alternative narratives; nested landscapes. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 63, 147–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berggren, A., & Hodder, I. (2003). Social practice, method, and some problems of field archaeology. American Antiquity, 68, 421–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biagoli, M. (Ed.) (1999). The science studies reader. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blunt, A., & Rose, G. (Eds.) (1994). Writing women and space: Colonial and postcolonial geographies. London: Guildford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Chadwick, A. (2003). Post-processualism, professionalization, and archaeological methodologies. Towards reflective and radical practices. Archaeological Dialogues, 10, 97–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chippindale, C. (2000). Capta and data: On the true nature of archaeological information. American Antiquity, 65, 605–612.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clifford, J., & Marcus, G. (Eds.) (1986). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Conkey, M. W. (2003). Has feminism changed archaeology? Signs, 28, 867–880.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Conkey, M. W., & Gero, J. M. (1997). Programme to practice: Gender and feminism in archaeology. Annual Reviews in Anthropology, 26, 411–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Cooper, F., & Stoler, A. (1989). Introduction: Tensions of empire: Colonial control and visions of rule. American Ethnologist, 16, 609–621.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craib, R. B. (2000). Cartography and power in the conquest and creation of new Spain. Latin American Research Review, 35, 7–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Devault, M. L. (1996). Talking back to sociology: Distinctive contributions of feminist methodology. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 29–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Díaz-Andreu, M., & Stig Sørenson, M-L. (Eds.) (1998). Excavating women: A history of women in European archaeology. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebron, P. (2002). Performing Africa. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enslin, E. (1994). Beyond writing: Feminist practice and the limitations of ethnography. Cultural Anthropology, 9, 537–568.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, M. J. M. (1999). Emergent forms of life: Anthropologies of late or postmodernities. Annual Review of Anthropology, 28, 455–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallison, P., & Stump, D. (Eds.) (1996). The disunity of science: Boundaries, contexts, and power. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Gimbutas, M. (1982). The goddesses and gods of old Europe 6500–3500 BC: Myths and Cult images. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gimbutas, M. (1989). The language of the goddess. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gimbutas, M. (1991). The civilization of the goddess. New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Godlewska, A., & Smith, N. (Eds.) (1994). Geography and empire. London: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Gregory, D. (1994). Geographical imaginations. Cambridge: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gumerman, G. J., & Phillips, D. A., Jr. (1978). Archaeology beyond anthropology. American Antiquity, 43, 184–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A., & Ferguson, J. (Eds.) (1997). Anthropological locations. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. (1989). Primate visions: Gender, race, and nature in the world of modern science. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. (1997) Modest_witness@second_millenium. femaleman ©_ meets_ oncoMouse™. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harley, B. J. (1992). Rereading the maps of the Columbian encounter. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 82, 522–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutson, S. (2001). Synergy through disunity, science as social practice: Comments on Vanpool and Vanpool. American Antiquity, 66, 349–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Joyce, R. A. (2002). The languages of archaeology: Dialogue, narrative, and writing. Malden: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, C. (1995). Major/minor: Theory, nature and politics. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 85, 164–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, E. F. (1985). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, E. F. (1992). Secrets of life, secrets of death: Essays on language, gender, and science. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, truth, and democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuklick, H. (1991). The savage within: The social history of British anthropology, 1885–1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kuklick, H., & Kohler, R. E. (Eds.) (1996). Science in the field, Osiris, 2nd Series, Vol. 11. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Journals.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Landes, R. (1947). City of women. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Lewis, M. W., & Wigen, K. (1997). The myth of continents: A critique of metageography. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. (1994). In search of feminist epistemology. Monist, 77, 472–485.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. (2001). The fate of knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Lutz, C. (1990). The erasure of women’s writing in socio-cultural anthropology. American Ethnologist, 17, 611–625.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maasen, S., & Winterhagen, M. (Eds.) (2001). Science studies. Probing the dynamics of scientific knowledge. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Marcus, G., & Cushman, D. (1982). Ethnographies as texts. Annual Review of Anthropology, 11, 25–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maurer, B. (2005). Introduction to ‘Ethnographic emergencies’. American Anthropologist, 107, 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • McDowell, L. (1999). Gender, identity and place: Understanding feminist geographies. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDowell, L., & Sharp, J. P. (Eds.) (1997). Space, gender, knowledge: Feminist readings. London: Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Moss, P. (Ed.) (2002). Feminist geography in practice: Research and methods. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Mundy, B. (1996). The mapping new Spain: Indigenous cartography and the maps of the relaciones geográficas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naples, N. (2003). Feminism and method. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, E. C. (1913). The old fashioned woman: Primitive fancies about the sex. New York: Putnam and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, A. (Ed.) (1992). Science as practice and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabinow, P. (1977). Reflections on fieldwork in Morocco. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, R., & Traweek, S. (2000). Doing science and culture. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiter, R. (Ed.) (1975). Toward an anthropology of women. New York: Monthly Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renfrew, C. (1981). Space, time and man. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 6, 257–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rocheleau, D. (1995). Maps, numbers, text, and context: Mixing methods in feminist political ecology. The Professional Geographer, 47, 458–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosaldo, M., & Lamphere, L. (Eds.) (1974). Woman, culture and society. Stanford University Press.

  • Rose, G. (1993). Feminism and geography: The limits of geographical knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, G. (2001). Visualizing methodologies: An introduction to the interpretation of visual materials. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudwick, M. (1982). Charles Darwin in London: The integration of public and private science. Isis, 73, 186–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Rundstrom, R. A. (1990). A cultural interpretation of Inuit map accuracy. Geographical Review, 80, 155–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuurman, N. (2000). Trouble in the heartland: GIS and its critics in the 1990s. Progress in Human Geography, 24, 569–590.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuurman, N., & Pratt, G. (2002). Care of the subject: Feminism and critiques of GIS. Gender, Place and Culture, 9, 291–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seager, J., & Nelson, L. (Eds.) (2004). Companion to feminist geography. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanks, M., & McGuire, R. (1996). The craft of archaeology. American Antiquity, 61, 75–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Spector, J. (1993). What this awl means: Feminist archaeology at a Wahpeton Dakota Village. St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, J. (1988). Can there be feminist ethnography? Women’s Studies International Forum, 11, 163–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strum, S., & Fedigan, L. (Eds.) (2003). Primate encounters: Models of science, gender, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, W. (1948). Study of archaeology. Memoir Series of the American Anthropological Association 69.

  • Thomas, J. (2004). Archaeology and modernity. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomášková, S. (2003). Nationalism, local histories and the making of data in archaeology. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 9, 485–507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Traweek, S. (1988). Beamtimes and lifetimes: The world of high energy physicists. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valentine, G. (2004). Public space and the culture of childhood. London: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Reybrouck, D. (2002). Boule’s error: On the social context of scientific knowledge. Antiquity, 76, 158–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Visweswaran, K. (1988). Defining feminist ethnography. Inscriptions, 3/4, 27–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Visweswaran, K. (1997). Histories of feminist ethnography. Annual Reviews of Anthropology, 26, 591–621.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheatley, D., & Gillings, M. (2002). Spatial Technology and Archaeology. New York: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Wolf, D. (Ed.) (1996). Feminist dilemmas in fieldwork. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wylie, A. (1995). Doing philosophy as a feminist: Longino on the search for a feminist epistemology. Philosophical Topics, 23, 345–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Wylie, A. (2000). Questions of evidence, legitimacy, and the disunion of science. American Antiquity, 652, 227–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Yellen, J. (2004). Archaeology and the National Science Foundation. The SAA Archaeological Record, 4, 38–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yellen, J., & Greene M. (1985). Archaeology and the National Science Foundation. American Antiquity, 50, 332–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, I. M. (1990). Throwing like a girl and other essays in feminist philosophy and social theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to the editors of the special issue for inviting me to join this project. This essay has seen more permutations than I wish to recall, beginning with a Women’s Studies colloquium at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 2001. I particularly appreciate the encouragement of Jane Burns who suggested patience as a needed contemplative practice. Peter Redfield has patiently read and edited every version of the article. Most importantly I thank Wendy Ashmore, James Skibo, Barbara Bender and an anonymous reviewer for their thoughtful reading and insightful responses that restored my belief in reviewers. I am grateful for all their time and generosity.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Silvia Tomášková.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tomášková, S. Mapping a Future: Archaeology, Feminism, and Scientific Practice. J Archaeol Method Theory 14, 264–284 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-007-9038-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-007-9038-0

Keywords

  • Archaeological practice
  • Fieldwork
  • Feminism
  • Mapping