3/11/20

Archaeological Theory
The Archaeology of Gender/
The Gender of Archaeological Practice

Who makes the tools?

Who uses the tools?
What assumptions do we make?

1
 3/11/20

There is a Division of Labor in All Societies

Task Men Women

Quarrying Tool Stone

Stone Tool Manufacture
Plant Collecting
Pottery
Baskets
Weaving
Shell Fish Collecting
Big Game Fishing
Child Care

Division of Labor?

Task Men Women

Quarrying Tool Stone X

Stone Tool Manufacture X
Plant Collecting X
Pottery X
Baskets X
Weaving X
Shell Fish Collecting X
Big Game Fishing X
Child Care X

2
 3/11/20

A More Accurate (General) Reckoning?

Task Men Women

Quarrying Tool Stone X X

Stone Tool Manufacture X X
Plant Collecting X X
Pottery X X
Baskets X X
Weaving X X
Shell Fish Collecting X X
Big Game Fishing X X
Child Care X X

But one that needs to be contextualized

What does this say about

our expectations?

… about our cultural norms?

3
 3/11/20

Why Gender?

Gender as a Cultural Construct

4
 3/11/20

Defining Masculinity: North Americans

Defining Masculinity: The Wodaabe

5
 3/11/20

The Wodaabe

The Wodaabe

Videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dm1t
N3SmDWs

http://humanplanet.com/timothyallen/2011/01/gere
wol_wodaabe_niger_bbc-human-planet-deserts/

6
 3/11/20

Gender as a Cultural Construct:

Parental Responsibility (Aka)

Gender roles in Aka (Pygmy) Society

Gender as a Cultural Construct:

How Many Genders?:
Two-Spirit Individuals

We-Wha,
Zuni

What does the

archaeology of third
Finds-Them-and-Kills-Them,
Crow
and fourth-gendered
individuals look like?

7
 3/11/20

Culture-specific gender terms for third-gendered individuals:

Navajo nedle (“one who is transformed”)

Lakota winkte
Cheyene he man eh
Omaha mexoga
Zuni ihamana
Zapotec ira’muxe
Yukl i-wa-musp
Crow badé (“not man, not woman)
Tewa quetho
Cree ayekkew
Mohave alyha
Shoshone ma ai’pots
Maidus osa’pu
Winnebago siange
Arapaho a-whock
Kodia Island shopan Walter Williams
Yuma elxa’ The Spirit and the Flesh

Gender as a Cultural Construct

Cheyenne hetaneman or
biological female two-spirit

1986, 1992

8
 3/11/20

Skeleton A, Tomb 7, Monte Alban

Birka, Sweden

9
 3/11/20

Cemetery Devitsa V, Russia

1st-Century Women Warriors, Mongolia

10
 3/11/20

Gendered and Feminist Archaeology

Goals of Gendered/Gender-oriented archaeology . . .

• The identification of gender (and/or women) within the archaeological

record.
• Often used to refer to women specifically
• Gender identities and roles change throughout time.
- the “origins” of gender.
- the intensification of gender hierarchies.

Gendered and Feminist Archaeology

Gendered/Gender-oriented archaeology . . .
• Focuses on indications of gender and gendered activity in the
archaeological record:
– what were people doing?
– division of labor
– social relations
• Distinguishes between “sex” and “gender”;
• Sex is biological; gender is culturally constructed and played out in daily life;
• Examines the division of labor and gender roles in terms of what women
do, what men do, and the expectations their society has for them;
• Recognizes that gender is more complex than binary opposites, and that
more than two genders exist in many societies (e.g., “two-spirit people,”
“berdache,” “manly-hearted women,” “amazons”)

11
 3/11/20

Key Viewpoints on Gender

• Gender as a sociobiological strategy
- reproductive fitness; hormonal differences
• As a social construction
- where does gender come from; how it is expressed?
• As an evolutionary process
- questions inevitability of male dominance
• As political economy
- access to means of production
- value of labor
• As agency
- means by which social identify is produced, manipulated
• As performance
- visual manifestations of gender/sexuality
Conkey and Gero
“Programme to Practice: Gender and Feminism in Archaeology” 1997

How are gender roles expressed

in your household?

12
 3/11/20

Feminist and Gendered Archaeology

Feminist Archaeology . . .

• Emerges out of the feminist movement 1960s and 1970s;

• Relates to critical theory with its focus on power and theories of

inequality;

• Works to give a voice to women (of the past) who were/are ignored
archaeologically;

• Also confronts the long-standing androcentric bias in archaeology by

asking why they have been ignored;

• Examines the sociopolitics of archaeology as a reflection of

contemporary gender roles in our society, and the degree to which this
influences our interpretation of past gender roles.

Gendered vs. Feminist Archaeology

Gender archaeology …
• foregrounds gender (the socially constructed conception of “women”
and “men,” not biological sex), with other social categories, such as class,
age, ethnicity, religion, and kin.
• may examine the relative positions of men and women in relation to
each other and how these manifest archaeologically.
• can be practiced within a non-feminist framework.

Feminist archaeology . . .
• critiques androcentric interpretative biases and validates the place of
women, either as subjects of study or as practitioners in archaeology.
• concerns the need to examine gender roles and inequalities within the
archaeological profession and how this impacts on archaeological theory
and method.

• takes a political standpoint and often examines power relations.

— Cherie De Leiuen,
“Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies: Australian Perspective,” EGA 2104

13
 3/11/20

Feminist Archaeology in Theory and Practice

Meg Joan
Conkey Gero

Alison Wylie

Feminist Theory
• Recognizes that the production of knowledge and the politics of
knowledge production are inseparabe

• Argues against dispassionate objective stance of science. They cite

the great statement by Donna Haraway in her critique of science,
“the god trick of seeing everything from nowhere” (i.e., knowledge
and knowledge production are always/must always be situated).

• Identifies non-traditional realms of exploration that look less at

things and more at relationships, but also takes a more sensuous
approach

• Recognizes that ambiguity in observations is not negative, but

informative and should not be dismissed

• Has a deep commitment to challenging the status quo

Conkey and Gero

“Programme to Practice: Gender and Feminism in Archaeology” 1997

14
 3/11/20

Operationalizing Feminist Theory

• Makes agency more visible; it is human actors (not populations)
that are the agents of culture change.

• Seeks less hierarchical structure to field projects; promotes

incorporating multiple interpretations into analysis.

• Recognizes ambiguity and role of partial and/or situated

knowledges, and the need to incorporate both subject-centered
and system-centered analyses.

• Cultural systems should be viewed not solely as self-regulating

systems of selection and adaptive change, but that cultural systems
are also contingent and negotiated.

Conkey and Gero

“Programme to Practice: Gender and Feminism in Archaeology” 1997

Standpoint Theory

• “Standpoint” refers to the place from which one observes the

world, as defined by social (i.e., class-based), not geographic
location

• Derived from Marxist thought

• Based on notion that the “socially oppressed classes can access

knowledge unavailable to the socially privileged, especially
knowledge of social relations”

• Influences how people adapting it socially construct the world

• All standpoints are partial

15
 3/11/20

Key Developments in Feminism

Chronology Goals Events/Movements Key Individuals
First-Wave Early 1800s Voting rights U.S. Civil War Susan B. Anthony
–1950s Property rights World War I and II Mary Wollstonecraft
Access to careers Passage of 19th Margaret Sanger
Birth control Amendment (US)

Second-Wave 1960s Economic equity Vietnam War Germaine Greer

–late 1980s Feminist Movement Gloria Steinem
(radical feminism) Kate Millet
Gay Rights Movement
Co-education
National Organization of
Women (NOW)

Third-Wave 1990s— Economic equity (still) Critical theory Donna Haraway

Respect for differences Post-colonialism bell hooks
(vs. seeking equality) Transnationalism Rebecca Walker
Completing the goals Critique of gender Trinh T. Minh-ha
of the Second Wave definitions/redefining
Post-structuralism

The Evolution and Flow of Ideas…

Important themes here emanating from marxist/critical approaches:

• contradictions (dialectics)

• visibility

• marginalization

• ideology being normalized/ naturalized

16
 3/11/20

A Feminist Critique of Science

1. The recognition that politics and the substantive products of knowledge

are essentially inseparable (“knowledge is power”)

2. The recognition of rationality is a mythical conflation that never exists

in actual scientific practice

3. Association with a cognitive style that favours “intimate” knowledge and

nuanced understandings of data over categorical thinking

4. A challenge to basic disciplinary arrangements and the fostering of

alternative views

Alison Wylie
“Good Science, Bad Science of Science as Usual?”

“I’m often asked what feminism can possibly

have to do with science. Feminism is, after
all, an explicitly partisan, political
standpoint; what bearing could it have on
science, an enterprise whose hallmark is a
commitment to value-neutrality and
objectivity. Is feminism not a set of personal,
political convictions best set aside … when
you engage in research as a scientists?
AW

Wylie, A.
1997 Good Science, Bad Science, or Science as Usual? Feminist Critiques of
Science. In Women in Human Evolution, edited by L. Hager, pp. 29-55.
Routledge, New York.

17
 3/11/20

Alison Wylie
“Good Science, Bad Science of Science as Usual?”

Conclusions:

1) If a bias is most likely to arise and persist

where science is practiced by a fairly
homogenous group—a group whose values
and interests are largely shared and
unquestioned—then it would seem that a
commitment to objectivity requires that we
increase the diversity of those recruited to
AW
practice science.

Alison Wylie
“Good Science, Bad Science of Science as Usual?”

Conclusions:

2) It is critical that feminists do not reject

science as a mode of inquiry, however
masculinist and inhospitable it has
become…. If we are to be effective in
changing the inequities that women still
face, we need to make full use of the tools of
science and in the process transform them.
AW

18
 3/11/20

Alison Wylie
“Good Science, Bad Science of Science as Usual?”

Conclusions:

3) A genuinely feminist transformation of

science and of society will realize a degree of
human inclusiveness—intellectually, socially,
economically—that will render feminism
unnecessary both as a political movement
and as a locus of intellectual, scientific
engagement.
AW

So….
Gendered Archaeology seeks
• understanding f gender and gender stereotypes
• awareness of cultural construction of gender
• representativeness; making gender visible

Feminist Archaeology seeks

• equity
• critical awareness of imposition of capitalism, etc., on women
• evaluation of knowledge claims
• explanation of why women have been absent in the
archaeological record and in our approaches to it.

Both have critiqued the Western norms and values related to gender
that have been projected onto past societies.

19
 3/11/20

Pioneers

Harriet Boyd Hawes (1871–145)

First Minoan settlement

Gournia, Crete
1901-1904

20
 3/11/20

Dorothy Garrod (1892–1968)

• Excavations at Gibraltar
• Work at Mt. Carmel, Palestine
- first evidence of Paleolithic and Mesolithic in Palestine
• First female professor at Cambridge University
• Pioneering work on Paleolithic

Dorothy Garrod (1892–1968)

1937-1939

21
 3/11/20

Gertrude Caton-Thompson (1888-1985)

- key early excavations in Egypt and Malta

- Great Zimbabwe

Kathleen Kenyon (1906-1978)

- photographer at Great Zimbabwe

- worked with Mortimer Wheeler in UK
- directed major excavations at Jericho

Gertrude Bell (1868–1926)

- extensive travels and work throughout Middle East

- protégé of T.E. Lawrence
- developed Baghdad Archaeological Museum
- influenced British policies in region

22
 3/11/20

Queen of the Desert (2015)

1996

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IVaqOfRVS8

Agatha Christie (with Max Mallowan)

- worked with Mallowan 1949 and 1963 at ancient city of Nimrud, Iraq

23
 3/11/20

Bertha Parker

- daughter of Arthur C. Parker (Seneca archaeologist)

- archaeological and museum work in Southwest and elsewhere.

Further Reading

24
 3/11/20

http://trowelblazers.com/articles/

Margaret Conkey
Margarita Mohring

25
 3/11/20

Biography

u Born in 1943

u Graduated from Mount Holyoke College in 1965 with a bachelors degree

in ancient history and art

u Studied biblical archaeology in Jordan

u Earned her M.A in 1969 and her Ph.D. in 1978 at University of Chicago

u Became an associate professor at the University of California at Berkeley

in 1987 and an Emerita professor in 2011

u President of the Society for American Archaeology in 2009

u Received numerous awards for her teaching and accomplishments in

archaeology

Archaeological work

u Study and interpretation of Paleolithic art

u Field research project “between the caves” in the French Midi-

Pyrenees

u Practicing archaeology with a feminist perspective

u Gender studies

u Center for digital archaeology

26
 3/11/20

Key contributions

u Feminist archaeology and theory

u The first to apply a culture-as-adaptation perspective to the question
of Ice Age art

u Publications:
• Archaeology and the Study of Gender" (1984) (With Jacey Spector)
(1984)
• Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory (edited with Joan
Gero) (1991)
• Cultivating Thinking/Challenging Authority: Some Experiments in
Feminist Pedagogy in Archaeology. (1996)
• Mobilizing Ideologies: Paleolithic 'Art', Gender Trouble, and Thinking
About Alternatives. In Women in Human Evolution. (1997)
• Rethinking Figurines: A Critical View from Archaeology of Gimbutas,
the 'Goddess' and Popular Culture (with Ruth Tringham). In Ancient
Goddesses: The Myths and the Evidence (1998)

References

Conkey, M. & Morgan, L.,

2013 Implementing Feminist Practice: A Conversation with Meg Conkey: Interview.
American Anthropologist, 115(4), pp.546–554.

Conkey, Margaret W.
2014 "Margaret W. Conkey." Anthropology Department, UC Berkeley. University of
California at Berkeley Anthropology Department.
https://anthropology.berkeley.edu/margaret-w-conkey

Digital encyclopedia of archaeologists.

2016 Margaret Conkey. Electronic document,
https://msu-anthropology.github.io/deoa-ss16/conkey/conkey.html

Dobres, Marcia-Anne.
2014 "Conkey, Margaret Wright." Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology. Ed. Claire
Smith. New York: Springer Science+Business Media. 1633-636. Springer Link.

Douglass W. Bailey
2016 "Interview with Meg Conkey." Interview by Douglass W. Bailey. Academia. N.p.,

27
 3/11/20

1991

28
 3/11/20

Feminist Archaeology in Theory and Practice

1989

1991

1991

29
 3/11/20

1991

1991

30
 3/11/20

1991

1991

31
 3/11/20

1991

Feminist Archaeology in Theory and Practice

32
 3/11/20

Feminist Archaeology in Theory and Practice

2006
2004

A Beginner’s Guide to Feminist Theorists in Archaeology

Margaret Conkey
http://anthropology.berkeley.edu/users/margaret-w-conkey
Alison Wylie
http://faculty.washington.edu/aw26/
Ruth Tringham
http://www.ruthtringham.com/Ruth_Tringham/About_Ruth_Tringham.html
Janet Spector
http://minnesotahistory.net/?p=3299

and for a non-archaeological perspective (e.g.., feminism in science), don’t forget

Donna Haraway
http://histcon.ucsc.edu/faculty/singleton.php?&singleton=true&cruz_id=haraway
Sandra Harding
http://gseis.ucla.edu/people/sharding

— plus see https://www.academia.edu for more information on individuals

33
 3/11/20

Questions?

Intermission

Jane Child – Don’t Want to Fall in Love

34
 3/11/20

Queer Theory/Queer Archaeology

-Linked to both critical and feminist theory

“An approach to the recovery, interpretation, and presentation of
archaeological data and knowledge in a way that actively and explicitly
challenges the heteronormativity of scientific practice by seeking to take
the perspective of anyone who feels marginalized sexually, intellectually,
or culturally. It is not a system of theory to explain something; rather it is
an alternative to normative archaeological discourse.”
Concise Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology

Queer theory: A term representing the diverse body of theory that takes
as its staring point the definition of queer that acquires meaning from its
opposition to the norm. Homophobic categories are reversed to represent
heterosexuality as a constructed “political fiction” or “other.” “Queer” is
also used to represent alternative positions to age differences, sexuality,
etc.
Gilchrist, Gender and Archaeology (1999)

Queer Theory/Queer Archaeology

“‘Queer archaeology’ does not mean learning

to construct the past better, but learning
new, different ways of approaching the past
altogether.” It “actively and explicitly
challenges the heteronormativity of scientific
practice.”
(Dowson 2000:163)
Thomas Dowson

35
 3/11/20

Queer Theory/Queer Archaeology

“Archaeology presents this Western idealized

notion of the family as being as ancient as
humanity. In so doing, the consumption of these
constructions justifies and legitimizes phobias
and prejudices in our society today. While
archaeology consistently underpins a
heterosexual artifice of human prehistory—
archaeologists need to be aware of their Thomas Dowson
complicity in Western society's institutionalized
homophobia” (p. 164).

Dowson, T.A.
2000 Why Queer Archaeology?: An Introduction. World Archaeology 32(2): 161-165.

Queer Theory/Queer Archaeology

“For some time after ‘coming out’ I strongly

believed my sexuality had nothing to do with
my being an archaeologist. And with the
growing interest in gender studies then, I was
determined not to get involved. I know a
number of lesbian and gay colleagues, in various
disciplines, who have had, and still have, similar
reactions. This sort of reaction does not result Thomas Dowson
from being unsympathetic with issues of
gender. Rather, it derives from an un- spoken
social rule whereby academic homosexual men
and women are forced to maintain an authority
to act by denying or downplaying their
sexuality.”
Dowson, T.A.
2000 Why Queer Archaeology?: An Introduction. World Archaeology 32(2): 161-165.

36
 3/11/20

Queering the Peopling of the Americas

“What if I don’t try to find a model or interpretation

[of this topic] that makes sense to me from my 21st-
century, feminist, heterosexual, and white, middle-
class perspective, but instead challenge myself to test
several competing models?”
Elizabeth Chilton

Chilton, E.S. 2008 “Queer Archaeology, Mathematical Modeling, and the Peopling of
the Americas”
http://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=anthro_faculty
_pubs

Queering the Peopling of the Americas

Possible variables to consider in modeling the peopling of the Americas
Fertility of men and women of reproductive age
Fecundity
Infant mortality
Age at weaning
Childhood diet and contribution of children to subsistence
Number and type of sexual relationships (and how these relate to the
possibility of pregnancy)
“Family” size and composition
Residential group size and composition
Total breeding population size and composition
Energy costs of subsistence and mobility choices
Carrying capacity of natural environment
Division of labor (sex/gender/age/other)
Social/reproductive group size
Residential group size
Colonization rate (i.e., the number of new immigrants into the system)
(Chilton 2008)

37
 3/11/20

Queering the Peopling of the Americas

Thinking Different (about research questions)
What happens if we do not assume that all adult members of the population do
not wish to become parents?
What happens if we hold the fertility and fecundity variables constant, and
instead vary infant mortality?
What factors would have the greatest impact on infant mortality in this context
and how can we model those variables?
What if we do not assume heterosexual pair bonds with dependent children, but
instead model more fluid and variable sexual and social relationships (e.g., there
is a strong case to be made for the antiquity of transgender homosexual
behavior in Native American societies?
What if we do not assume a “classic” or “traditional” or even a static sexual
division of foraging labor? To me this last question offers the most possibility.
Holding all other variables constant, one could easily model population growth
with a strict sexual division of labor on one hand, and a fluid division of labor
on the other.” (Chilton 2008)

Queer Theory/Queer Archaeology

Voss, Barbara
2000 Feminisms, Queer Theories, and the Archaeological Study of
Past Sexualities. World Archaeology 32(2).

Abstract
Archaeology faces the unique challenge of stretching social theories of
sexuality in new chronological and methodological directions. This essay
uses an analysis of citational practices to consider how feminist and queer
theories articulate with archaeological investigations of sexuality. Both
queer theories and feminist archaeological practices are shown to be
powerful tools that can be used to expand archaeological interpretations of
gender and sexuality.

38
 3/11/20

Queer Theory/Queer Archaeology

Rixecker, Stefanie
2000 Exposing Queer Biotechnology via Queer Archaeology: The Quest
to (Re) Construct the Human Body from the Inside Out. World
Archaeology 32(2).

Abstract
Relatively new endeavours in the biological and micro-sciences attempt to
construct and reconstruct the often diseased, disabled, or otherwise imperfect
human body. As such, all bodies, due to their imperfections, may be labelled
“Queer.” Queer archaeology becomes the perspective from which these new sites
and their related artefacts may be exposed, assessed, and reconstructed. In this
way, the metaphorical use of archaeology yields potential rhetorical and discursive
fields by which contemporary—not just “ancient”’—bodies and sites may be
“unearthed.” The simultaneously virtual and real (non)corporeal contexts of
biotechnology and genetic engineering enable the development of queer
archaeology. This paper is an attempt to open this field of inquiry further, thereby
rendering this a substantive, political, and biocultural topic for future excavation.

Important Reading

39
 3/11/20

SPEED SUMMARIZING GENDER!

(A 5-minute group exercise)

Hays-Gilpin, K. 2000 “Feminist Scholarship in Archaeology”

Group 1 What strategies did women use to break into
archaeology? How does this compare to feminist goals?

Group 2 Why has the label “feminist” been shunned by

archaeologists, even female archaeologists studying women?

Voss, B. 2010 “Feminisms, Queer Theories, and the

Archaeological Study of Past Sexualities”
Group 3 What new approaches did/does queer theory bring
to the table?

Group 4 What does Voss suggest was the historical context

that kept feminist and queer archaeological theories isolated from each
other?

40
 3/11/20

Four Case Studies

1) What This Awl Means

Janet Spector

41
 3/11/20

2) “Questioning Theory: Is There a Gender of Theory?

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
Margaret Conkey contributions, including their effective
ghettoization in gender and feminist archaeology.
2007 Questioning Theory: Is Insights from how feminists have been grappling
There a Gender of Theory in with theory are considered, and archaeologists
Archaeology? Journal of are urged to confront the ways in which “doing
Archaeological Method and theory” is/is not valued and how it is
Theory 14(3): 285-310. differentially valued, and to discuss the place and
uses of theory more explicitly and critically.

Is There a Gender of Theory?

Part 1
- A dialogue between a senior (male) professor
and three students.
Part 2
- Exploring the nature of archaeological theory:

a) Empiricist approaches vs. speculative modes of

inquiry
b) Questions to explore:
1) What counts as theory?
2) How does academic reproduction of theory
work?
3) How is theory involved in the gendering
dimensions of becoming an archaeologist?
4) Is that which is being theorized marked in
gendered ways?

42
 3/11/20

Is There a Gender of Theory?

1996

1998

2000

2001

Is There a Gender of Theory?

1996

1998

2000
2001

1996

1998

2000
2001

43
 3/11/20

Is There a Gender of Theory?

So ..... What are the Key Points/Questions?

Is that which is being theorized about

“marked” in gendered ways? Is (what is often
considered to be) core theory—large-scale
processes and the so-called “big” questions of
archaeology, whether technology, settlement,
or politics—more “suitable” for male
archaeologists? Are there certain domains of
theory that are more acceptable/”suitable” for
Margaret Conkey female archaeologists, such as style,
households, gender, and feminism?

Is There a Gender of Theory?

How does this volume change the

ratios reported?

2010

44
 3/11/20

Contemporary Archaeology in Practice (2nd ed.), 2010

Contemporary Archaeology in Practice (2nd ed.), 2010

45
3/11/20

46
 3/11/20

And Going Back to These … ?

47
 3/11/20

1991

1991

48
 3/11/20

1991

1991

49
 3/11/20

1991

1991

50
 3/11/20

More Meta-Analysis
“Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies: USA Perspective,”
Benjamin Aberti and
Ing-Marie Back Danielsson

(Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology 2o14)

(= 2.7%)

3) Joan Gero — Genderlithics: Women's Roles in Stone Tool Production.

In Engendering Archaeology, edited by J.M. Gero and M.W. Conkey.
Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1991

Joan Gero

Gero, J.M.
1991 Genderlithics: Women’s Roles in Stone Tool Production. In Engendering
Archaeology: Women and Prehistory, edited by J.M. Gero and M.W. Conkey, pp.
163-193. Basin Blackwell, Oxford.

51
 3/11/20

Genderlithics (Gero)

• The definition of “tool” has come to

represent retouched artefacts with
formal structure.

• The term “tool” has come to mean

only the end-product and the by-
products rather than use-applications.

• But what about utilised flakes? A

broader definition of the term tool is
essential

Genderlithics (Gero)

• The definition of “tool” has come to

represent retouched artefacts with
formal structure.

• The term “tool” has come to mean

only the end-product and the by-
products rather than use-applications.

• But what about utilised flakes? A

broader definition of the term tool is
essential

52
 3/11/20

Genderlithics (Gero)

Lithic reduction is publically male

territory.

Replication studies that focus on

hunting, and other activities of the
male dominion—e.g., projectile
points, projectile point, projectile
points, harpoons.

• Bifaces vs. utilized flakes?

Genderlithics (Gero)

In order to avoid creating an argument

that would assign men to some tasks
and women to others, Gero argues that
we can better examine some of the
common restraints on tool production
for their gender implications.

She considers four of these constraints:

- Scheduling
- Access to appropriate raw materials
- Biological strength
- Symbolic significance of production

53
 3/11/20

Scheduling

• Scheduling generally refers to time demands, such as child care

responsibilities, that restrict women to “repetitive, interruptible,
non-dangerous tasks that do not require extensive excursions.”

• The universality of this form of scheduling is, according to Gero,

rejected today on the basis that childcare duties are often shared
between members of the community/household.

• There is therefore reason to believe that stone-age women would

have found the time to produce their own lithic tools.

Access to Raw Materials

• This is the problem of gaining access to suitable raw materials in

terms of obstacles, restrictions, spiritual, and other constraints.

• Admittedly, the matter of attributing gender to material

procurement is difficult, and probably highly variable.

• It is known that quarries were visited by larger residential groups

and Gero assumes that these trips for material would also have
included women.

• Rare materials from long-distance trade were probably the

domain of males. But local materials are far more common.

54
 3/11/20

Biological Strength

• Sex differences in upper body strength, which is quite noticeable

in modern populations, even when normalised for lean body
mass, could have effect on tool production.

• However, it is not an issue as not as much force needs to be

applied to the objective piece as would be expected.

• Strength differences may only be an issue at the initial quarrying

of the raw material.

The Social Value of Tool Production

• It is in the realm of meaning, or social value, that women’s

participation in lithic creation must be considered.

• The where, when, types of tools that women make, and the task
specialised jobs that they perform within tool production will
differ in different socio-historic contexts.

• Women generally used expedient flakes.

• Did women make elaborate bifacial tools? Most likely yes?

• In societies where male/female relationships are based on

reciprocity, why must the men have been the ones making the
projectile points?

55
 3/11/20

4) Exploring Gender at EeRb 144

Exploring Gender at EeRb 144

56
 3/11/20

Exploring Gender at EeRb 144

Exploring Gender at EeRb 144

57
 3/11/20

Exploring Gender at EeRb 144

Questions?

58
 3/11/20

Discussion
In your view / experience,
how does gender affect
Archaeology?

Deconstructing the Mid-term Exam

I hope the Professor makes

the next one easier—
My arms are tired!

59
 3/11/20

Deconstructing the Mid-term Exam

Class average: 66.5 ( = C+) [historic average 67-71 = B-)

If you didn’t do well:

1. Didn’t know material
2. Know material but idn’t write a good exam:
a) stress
b) lack of confidence
c) time/energy budgeting!!
d) not reading the question carefully
e) not answering the question directly
f) lack of substance in answers
g) lack of connection to readings; no examples

These require different strategies to overcome

If You Didn’t Do Well….

Don’t Panic!

• Still ample time to do something about it—but it’s up to you.

• Course-based options:
- identify any problems, contributing factors
- meet with Chelsea or me
- catch up on your readings (see Reading Advice)
- form a study group
- take advantage of the “If You Didn’t Do Well” Option
(soon to be posted on Canvas)

• Other Options
- Student Learning Common!

60
 3/11/20

What your grade means

Near the back of the exam you’ll see something like this:

73
+2
12.5
-----
86
+5 SF
= 91

= 70

What your grade means

Near the back of the exam you’ll see something like this:

73 - points from main exam

+2 - extra credit points
12.5 - points from exam book
-----
86 = total score
+5 SF = 5 point “stink factor”
= 91 = total RAW grade
-----
= 70 = final grade (percentage of 130 possible points)

61
 3/11/20

The Importance of Instructions (1)

Read each question carefully before answering. Paper is available to use for making
notes before you actually begin to write. Make certain you are answering the
question I have actually asked. Be concise. Don't ramble. Provide examples when
appropriate. Emphasize significance in your answers because that is what I look for
when grading. Write very legibly. Think carefully and clearly. Budget your time; put
your greatest effort into questions that carry the most points. Provide real substance
in your answers.
There is a variety of question types here that range from relatively general to
relatively specific. For most parts of the examination, you have a choice of questions
to answer. …
This examination contributes 25% of your final grade. There is a total of 130 points.
Your grade will be a percentage of this total. There are 5 extra credit points available.
Some advice: Use this exam to pull together everything that we've covered so far
this semester. Make connections. Provide examples. You will find that there are lots
of things I haven't asked you about here concerning things you know, but which
can/should be incorporated into the questions I have asked. Remember: It all fits
together.
I will also be looking for you to refer to the various readings and videos, and the
examples contained therein.

The Importance of Instructions (2)

Part 1. Something to Warm Up With. (5 pts each/15 pts total)

Please answer any 3 of the following 5 questions in a paragraph of carefully
crafted sentences. Use the exam booklet if you need more space. Don’t
underestimate these seemingly simple questions: go for substance.

Part 2. The Major Components of Contemporary Archaeology (15 points)

Please provide a comprehensive, paragraph-length description of each of the
following major approaches in archaeology, including their key features. The
“complete the chart” web handout will be useful here.
(BTW – you were told to expect this)

Part 3. En Vogue: Hot Ideas in Archaeological and Related Anthropological

Theory
Please identify the key features of 10 of the following 15 terms/ideas. What is
really significant about them? You should also note associated names, dates, etc.
(4 pts each/40 pts total)

62
 3/11/20

The Importance of Instructions (3)

Part 4. People In the News: Important Individuals in Archaeological

History
Please identify the contributions to archaeological theory made by 10 of 14
individuals listed here. Use key terms or phrases. Don’t be vague (i.e., avoid
using a few descriptive terms that would also apply to several other
individuals). (4 pts each/40 pts total)

Part 5. Essays (10 pts each/20 pts total)

Your choice of two of the following four questions. Please provide real
substance in your answers, including key proponents, case studies,
contributions and limitations, and other things of note.

The Importance of Instructions (8)

• Some exams difficult to read due to incomplete sentences; poor syntax; elusive
handwriting.

• No excuse for poor spelling, even when rushed.

• Point form ok but can’t leave it to us to make connections

e.g., for Leslie White, writing “neoevolutionism” inadequate;
- was White a developer, promoter, or critic of it?

• Binford and Hodder answers should have been really solid.

• You had advance notice of some questions, plus a variety to choose from.

• Half didn’t take advantage of the Extra Credit questions (5 pts), and some “cute”
answers for Your Question/Answer were wasted.

• The exam is an example of reciprocity: the more information you give us, the
more points we give you.

63
 3/11/20

If you didn’t do well…

you have agency!—do something about it!

64