Questioning Theory: Is There a Gender of Theory in Archaeology?

Abstract

This paper raises questions about the practice of theory in anthropological archaeology. Particular attention is given to questions surrounding the gender of theory: what genders are more heralded in the theoretical spotlights and how the subject position of doing theory is gendered. An analysis of the contents of four Readers of Archaeological Theory shows the problematic selection and thus representation of women’s theoretical contributions, including their effective ghettoization in gender and feminist archaeology. Insights from how feminists have been grappling with theory are considered, and archaeologists are urged to confront the ways in which “doing theory” is/is not valued and how it is differentially valued, and to discuss the place and uses of theory more explicitly and critically.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Anzaldúa, G. (1990). Haciendo caras, una entrada. In G. Anzaldúa (Ed.), Making face, making soul, Haciendo Caras. Creative and critical perspectives by women of color (pp. xv–xxvii). San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ascher, R.(1960). Archaeology and the public image. American Antiquity, 25(3), 402–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Barrett, M. & Phillips, A. (Eds.) (1992). Destabilizing theory: Contemporary feminist debates. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

  4. Bawden, G. (Ed.) (2003). Readings in American archaeological theory. Selections from American antiquity, 1962–2002. Washington, DC: Society for American Archaeology Press.

  5. Behar, R. (1995). Introduction: Out of exile. In R. Behar & D. Gordon (Eds.), Women writing culture (pp. 1–32). Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bergrren, A., & Hodder, I. (2003). Social practice, method, and some problems of field archaeology. American Antiquity, 68(3), 421–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Binford, L. R. (1981). Bones: Ancient men and modern myths. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Binford, L. R. (2001). Where do research problems come from? American Antiquity, 66(4), 669–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Brumfiel, E. (1992). Breaking and entering the ecosystem: Gender, class and faction steal the show. American Anthropologist, 94(3), 551–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Brumfiel, E. (1993). Review of ideology and pre-Columbian civilization. In A. Demarest & G. Conrad (Eds.). Journal of Anthropological Research, 49(4), 412–414.

  11. Cantor, N., & Lavine, S. (2006). Taking public scholarship seriously. Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(40), B20.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Carroll, B. (1990). The politics of ‘originality’: Women and the class system of the intellectual. Journal of Women’s History, 2(2), 136–163.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Chamblee, J., & Mills, B. (2001). Archaeology in 2001: Current research based on the annual meeting program of the Society for American Archaeology. SAA Record, 1(5), 24–28.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Christian, B. (1990).The race for theory. In G. Anzaldúa (Ed.), Making face, making soul, Haciendo Caras. Creative and critical perspectives by women of color (pp. 335–345). San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Collins, P. H. (1999). Moving beyond gender: Intersectionality and scientific knowledge. In M. M. Ferree, J. Lorber, & B. B. Hess (Eds.), Revisioning gender (pp. 261–284). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Coudart, A. (1999). Why is there no post-processual archaeology in France? Antiquity, 73(279), 161–167.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Culler, J. (1992). Literary theory. In J. Garibaldi (Ed.), Introduction to scholarship in modern languages and literatures (pp. 201–235). New York: The Modern Language Association.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Culler, J. (1994). Introduction: What’s the point? In M. Bal & I. Boer (Eds.), The point of theory: Practices of cultural analysis (pp. 13–17). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Daly, M. (1978). Gyn/Ecology. Boston: Beacon.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Dobres, M.-A. (2000). Technology and social agency. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Dobres, M.-A., & Robb, J. (2000). Archaeology and agency. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Engelstad, E. (1991). Images of power and contradiction: Feminist theory and post-processual archaeology. Antiquity, 65(248), 502–514.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Enloe, C. (2004). The curious feminist. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Evans, M. (1995). Ivory towers: Life in the mind. In L. Morley & V. Walsh (Eds.), Feminist academics: Creative agents for change (pp. 73–85). London: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Goldstein, L. (1998). Editor’s corner. American Antiquity, 63(1), 5–6.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Gupta, A., & Ferguson, J. (1998). Discipline and practice: “The field” as site, method, and location in anthropology. In A. Gupta & J. Ferguson (Eds.), Anthropological locations. Boundaries and grounds of a field science (pp. 1–46). Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism as a site of discourse on the privilege of the partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hegmon, M. (2003). Setting theoretical egos aside: issues and theory in North American archaeology. American Antiquity, 68(2), 213–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hegmon, M. (2005). No more theory wars: A response to Moss. American Antiquity, 70(3), 588–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hirsch, M., & Keller, E. F. (1990). Conflicts in feminism. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hodder, I. (1987). The archaeology of contextual meanings. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Hodder, I. (1991). The domestication of Europe. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Hodder, I. (2001). Archaeological theory today. Oxford and Malden, MA: Polity Press and Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Hutson, S. (2002). Gendered citation practices in American Antiquity and other journals. American Antiquity, 68(2), 213–243.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Joyce, R. (2002). The languages of archaeology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Joyce, R., & Gillespie, S. (2000). Beyond kinship: Social and material reproduction in house societies. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Joyce, R. with Preucel, R. (2002). Writing the field of archaeology. In R. Joyce (Ed.), The languages of archaeology (pp. 18–38). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  40. Kleindienst, M., & Watson, P. J. (1956). Action archaeology: The archaeological inventory of a living community. Anthropology Tomorrow, 5, 75–78.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Kluckhohn, C. (1939). The place of theory in anthropological studies. Philosophy of Science, 6, 328–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Lâm, M. C. (1994). Feeling foreign in feminism. SIGNS: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 19(4), 865–893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Leone, M. (1972). Issues in contemporary archaeology. In M. Leone (Ed.), Contemporary archaeology (pp. 14–27). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Le Roy Ladurie, E. (1975). Montaillou: The promised land of error. New York: George Brazillier (English version, 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Levine, M. (1994). Presenting the past: A review of research on women in archaeology. In M. Nelson, S. Nelson, & A. Wylie (Eds.), Equity issues for women in archaeology. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, 5. American Anthropological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 23–36.

  46. Lloyd, E. (1995). Feminism as method: What scientists get that philosophers don’t. Philosophical Topics, 23(2), 37–68.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Longino, H. (1994). In search of feminist epistemology. The Monist, 77(4), 472–485.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Lugones, M., & Spelman, E. (1983). Have we got a theory for you! Feminist theory, cultural imperialism and the demand for the ‘woman’s voice’. Women’s Studies International Forum, 6(6), 573–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Lutz, C. (1990). The erasure of women’s writing in socio-cultural anthropology. American Ethnologist, 17, 611–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Lutz, C. (1995a). The gender of theory. In R. Behar & D. Gordon (Eds.), Women writing culture (pp. 249–266). Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Lutz, C. (1995b). Discussant’s commentary: Ungendering theory. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Anthropological Association. Washington, DC.

  52. Mihesuah, D. A. (2003). Indigenous American women: Decolonization, empowerment, activism. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Minow, M. (1988). Feminist reason: Getting it and losing it. Journal of Legal Education, 38, 47–60.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Moore, H. (1994). The feminist anthropologist and the passion(s) of New Eve. In H. Moore (Ed.), A passion for difference (pp. 129–150). Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  55. 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 

  56. Moser, S. (1998). Ancestral images: The iconography of human evolution. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Moss, M. (1999). Engendering archaeology in the Pacific Northwest. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes, 33(2), 245–262.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Moss, M. (2005). Rifts in the theoretical landscape of archaeology in the United States: A comment on Hegmon and Watkins. American Antiquity, 70(3), 581–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Moulton, J. (1980). Duelism in philosophy. Teaching Philosophy, 3(4), 419–433.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Moulton, J. (1983). A paradigm of philosophy: The adversary method. In S. Harding & M. B. Hintikka (Eds.), Discovering reality: Feminist perspectives on epistemology, metaphysics, methodology, and philosophy of science (pp.149–164). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Nieman, F. (1995). Stylistic variation in evolutionary perspective: Inferences from decorative diversity and inter-assemblage distance in Illinois Woodland ceramics. American Antiquity, 60(1), 7–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. O’Brien, M., Lyman, R. L., & Leonard, R. (2003). What is evolution, A reply to Bamforth. American Antiquity, 68(3), 573–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. O’Connell, J. (1995). Ethnoarchaeology needs a general theory of behavior. Journal of Archaeological Research, 3(3), 205–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Odell, G. (2001) Research problems r us. American Antiquity, 66(4), 679–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. O’Rand, A. M. (1989). Scientific thought styles and the construction of gender inequality. In J. F. O’Barr (Ed.), Women and a new academy: Gender and cultural contexts (pp. 103–121). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Patterson, T. (1995). Toward a social history of archaeology in the United States. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt, Brace College Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Pauketat, T. (2001). The archaeology of traditions: Agency and history before and after Columbus. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Preucel, R. (1995). The post-processual condition. Journal of Archaeological Research, 3(2), 147–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Preucel, R., & Hodder, I. (1996). Contemporary archaeology in theory. Oxford: Basil, Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Pyburn, K. A. (2003). Introduction. In K. A. Pyburn (Ed.), Ungendering civilization: Rethinking the archaeological record (pp. 1–46). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Raab, M., & Goodyear, A. (1984). Middle-range theory in archaeology: A critical review of origins and applications. American Antiquity, 49, 255–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Shanks, M. (1992). Experiencing the past. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Smith, D. (1999). Writing the social: Critique, theory, and investigations. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Sørenson, M. L. S. (2000). The archaeology of gender. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Spurling, A. (1990). Report of the women in higher education research project. Cambridge: King’s College, Cambridge University.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Stahl, A. (2002). Colonial entanglements and the practices of taste: An alternative to logocentric approaches. American Anthropologist, 104(3), 827–845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Suchman, L. (2007). Agencies in technology design: Feminist reconfigurations. In L. Schiebinger (Ed.), Gendered innovations in science and engineering. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Thomas, J. (Ed.) (2000). Interpretive archaeology: A reader. London and New York: Leicester University Press.

  79. Trigger, B. (2003). Archaeological theory: The big picture. Grace Elizabeth Shallit Lecture, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Salt Lake City, UT.

  80. Whitley, D. (Ed.) (1998). Reader in archaeological theory. London and New York: Routledge.

  81. Wobst, H. M., & Keene, A. (1983). Archaeological explanation as political economy. In J. Gero, D. Lacey, & M. Blakey (Eds.), The sociopolitics of archaeology, research reports 23 (pp. 59–65). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Wylie, A. (1981). Positivism and the new archaeology. Ph D dissertation, Department of Philosophy, State University of New York, Binghamton.

  83. Wylie, A. (1991). Gender theory and the archaeological record: Why is there no archaeology of gender? In J. Gero & M. Conkey (Eds.), Engendering archaeology: Women and prehistory (pp. 31–56). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Wylie, A. (1995). Doing philosophy as a feminist: Longino on the search for a feminist epistemology. Philosophical Topics, 23(2), 345–358.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Wylie, A. (2002). Thinking with things. Essays in the philosophy of archaeology. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Znaniecki, F. (1968). The social role of the man of knowledge. New York: Harper Row.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Many have contributed to the nascent ideas being expressed in this paper, and I owe an enormous debt to the School of American Research, for its support of the Advanced Seminar (April 1998) where some of these ideas were first tried out, and to all the participants: Leora Auslander, Liz Brumfiel, Cheryl Claassen, Joan Gero, Rosemary Joyce, Stephanie Moser, Janet Spector, and co-convener, Alison Wylie. Additional gratitude is for the fine and inspirational work of Cathy Lutz. Randy McGuire has organized several sessions at professional meetings where these and related ideas could be aired for discussion and critique. I am deeply thankful for the excellent comments of Madonna Moss, Ann Pyburn and several anonymous reviewers, as well as those of JAMT editor, Jim Skibo. I regret that I could not do justice to two important sets of materials. On the one hand, there has been inspirational discussion among feminists over the past 35 years regarding theory. On the other hand,much that has been discussed regarding theory by many and varied scholars in archaeology could not be cited or included. Several colleagues or students assisted with the preparation of materials stemming from the SAR Seminar and in preparing these papers for the Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, whose editors have been exceptionally supportive. We all are particularly grateful to Laura Scheiber, Rentia Ouzman, Kathleen Sterling and Darren Modzelewski. Many thanks to Lynn Gale (Center for the Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences) for the Theory Reader graphs.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Margaret W. Conkey.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Conkey, M.W. Questioning Theory: Is There a Gender of Theory in Archaeology?. J Archaeol Method Theory 14, 285–310 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-007-9039-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Theory
  • Gender
  • Feminism
  • Archaeological practice