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

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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 

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

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

Keywords

  • Archaeological practice
  • Fieldwork
  • Feminism
  • Mapping