​ The Evolution of Feminist Archaeology

Jenna Hallinger

Abstract

​ This paper aims to discuss what inspired feminist archaeology. The influences that

inspired this approach to archaeology, such as postmodern theory and Rosaldo’s feminist

anthropology, will be a central focus to contextualize where feminist theory is now in

anthropology. Since archaeology deals with specific sites and material culture, a case study will

be examined for how feminist archaeology is used in the field. Different subsets of feminist

archaeology, such as black feminist archaeology will be discussed. This is with the goal to

discuss the potential future for feminist archaeology as well as serving as a critique to past

methods used.

Introduction

​ Feminist archaeology came as a part of the post-processual movement in archaeology.

This was during the late 1970s and was part of the second wave of feminism, drawing on the

1960s feminist movement. Feminist archaeology applies feminist theory to sites and the cultural

assessment of the site. Former archaeologists tended to focus on the male perspective and the

men that inhabited a site. This also came as a movement of more women entering the field.

Feminist archaeology is a Western archaeological perspective that came out of the

post-processual period and aims to present a “critical perspective from the point of view of

women in contemporary society.”1 This perspective assumes there are universal cultural aspects

rather than focusing on male-dominated behaviors and sex-linking activities. Some may view

this approach as solely being in response to the critique that archaeology is male-focused, but the

approach ultimately provides a perspective that was ignored previously.

Understanding the roots of feminist anthropology helps explain the work of feminist

archaeology. Michelle Rosaldo was certainly not the first feminist anthropologist, however, her

ideas were important in providing an outline for what feminist anthropology could look like.

Women, Culture, and Society is a 1974 work that Rosaldo contributed to and edited. She opens

the discussion for this perspective by talking about asymmetries in cultural evaluations of the

sexes. This was originally an idea discussed by Margaret Mead as there is a fact that Western

audiences tend to understand gender as a natural endowment that is universal, when that is not

the case.2 There is typically a predisposed idea towards the male and female sexes and what their

roles should be, from the Western eye, when this is not at all typical. There are different roles

that are given to the sexes/individuals through different societies and with a male dominant

perspective the intricacies of either experience can be missed.

​ Rosaldo’s major point with her paper was to explore this asymmetry and bring to light the

areas that women have power. Often the activities that women do are lessened and seem to be

unimportant compared to the male activities that are centralized. Part of the problem that lends to

this asymmetry are the spheres of “public” vs. “domestic.” The domestic is focused more around

women and caretaking of children whereas in the public sphere there is a direct opposition to

this. The public sphere is what separates these groups of mothers and children, there is a

structural framework that supports men in the public and women in the domestic.3 Feminist

anthropology works to fight these frameworks. It does not assume a natural order or separation

between the sexes and their roles in society.

Other Applicable Methods of Theory

2
(Bamberger 1974, 18)
3
(Bamberger 1974, 23)
 This was not just how feminist anthropology started but how it continued. Feminist

anthropology works to dismantle these frameworks that place men to be inherently important.

There are a few methods that work hand in hand with feminist anthropology. These methods

include activist anthropology, anthropology of the good, and marxist anthropology. The

beginning movement of feminist anthropology was inclusive to marxist anthropology as it

surveyed patriarchal structures and the resulting class structure.4

Feminist anthropology or archaeology is inherently activist as it works to go against the

already constructed patriarchal grain. Because of most anthropologies and studies being

male-centered and focused, anything outside of that is an active approach to dismantle this view

and influence. Activist anthropology typically focuses on building a framework that is supportive

of a community or group that is facing oppression. As such, feminist anthropology inherently can

be an activist anthropology as it provides a different perspective and works to create a framework

that is not necessarily sex-linked. This method of anthropology works to empower and uplift

women by showing where they have power within their societies and decentering the male

perspective.

Anthropology of the good was a perspective that was brought about by Joel Robbins.

This perspective aims to take subjects out of the ‘suffering’ slot and instead to focus on the good.

This looks to expand what the definition of good is and find more perfect ways of living. With

this way of examining there is more humanity within the community that is exposed. The values

of what is “good” are defined by the community and culture rather than the anthropologists. This

is similar to feminist anthropology as feminist anthropology does not look to shape the ideas of

what people’s roles are based on already defined terms. Instead these theories of anthropology

shed light on different structures than those that are often harped upon.
4
(Spencer-Wood 2011, 7)
 Feminist anthropology is not necessarily free from placing subjects in the ‘suffering’ slot.

However, it does not assume positions of failure or suffering inherently. Feminist anthropology is

not focused on the ways in which women have not been included or disenfranchised from

society. Instead it focuses on what women have done, what people have done, without gendered

biases being placed.

Marxist-feminism applies dominance and resistance to analyses of gender dynamics.5

This framework works to compare the structures of the patriarchy and capitalism. Each

inherently playing into the other. Capitalism is supported by a patriarchal framework with men

being the breadwinners and women existing to serve the home and complete domestic activities.5

This framework emphasizes the domestic work that women do as a productive part of the

economy.

Feminist Archaeology

​ Feminist archaeology exists as a runoff of feminist anthropology. Feminist archaeology

uses material culture to critique the patriarchal generalization that women are biologically

inferior and are unable to hold certain positions due to such.6 This is all to argue that women can

have an active role in culture. While this may seem like a no brainer, it must be considered that

past archaeologists predominantly focused on the male’s contribution to material culture and the

life of a man. Rather, feminist archaeology is able to expand on this and show the active role that

each activity a woman participates in has an impact on the culture and society.

​ There are different ways to look at feminist archaeology. Ian Hodder, a British

archaeologist, argues that a feminist examination of material culture “may tell us more about the

attempts to value or devalue men and women than it tells us about the ‘real’ power of men and

5
(Spencer-Wood 2011, 8)
6
(Spencer-Wood 2011, 4)
women in the control of resources.”7 This is all to say that it only offers a superficial view of the

reality that was. However, that does not demean the importance of the work. Seeing the attempts

to place value or devalue men and women is important to showing the placement of these

individuals in society. It is reflective of the power structure that exists to value and devalue and

shows the respective treatment of men or women in the given society.

Case Study: Feminist Science and Chacoan Archaeology

​ Using Carol Heitman’s feminist analysis of Chacoan archaeology discusses the gender

asymmetries discussed previously. Heitman’s work comes in 2016, 42 years after Michelle

Rosaldo discussed this idea. The issue with gender inequalities as presented by archaeology has

not disappeared and continues to inspire feminist archaeology, lending to the fact that this is a

form of activism in archaeology. This focus of Heitman’s archaeological critique is on Chaco

Canyon, New Mexico and the diminishing of female contributions in Pueblo social history.8 The

central focus of this is on Ware’s presentation of this history, focusing on Pueblo sodalities and

mainly male sodalities.

​ From the perspective that is given by Ware, Heitman argues that one would assume the

dominant presence of men in such groups but from a feminist perspective it is Ware that is

creating this asymmetry.9 There is a presumed gender stratification rather than engaging with

alternative theories of gender praxis. When Heitman engages with these theories it is seen that

there was not originally an existence of religious space to be inherently male or separated from

the “female” grinding space.9 This discussion opens up the possible past of the Puebloans: what

is it that created the gender praxis in Ware’s analysis and how did their gender stratification

change are questions that come up.

7
(Hodder 2003, 230)
8
(Heitman 2016, 472)
9
(Heitman 2016, 474)
​ Heitman continues into a discussion of how women gained power and status in Chaco

Canyon. Archaeological evidence suggested that “women in the heart of Chaco Canyon” were

living in wealthier houses and were protected from violence, expanding on the diverse human

history that existed.10 With power in the southwestern indigenous culture being tied to

supernatural and spiritual means, how is it that women are disconnected from those spaces when

they were clearly able to gain status? Heitman argues that archaeologists commonly ignore the

importance of women in analyses that are affected by these gendered lines.

​ Women are at the basis of religion and ritual for the Western Puebloans, the ritual

performance of men imitating that of women ‘giving life.’11 This lends to a notion that it was not

only a male centered space in religion. The view that Heitman then asserts is one of ritual and

religion as a basis for power. Women may have held more power however, in the public and

economic spheres having a socially work based power.

​ When it comes to labor in these Pueblo societies, it is typically grinding stones that are

perceived as evidence for women’s activities. Studies prior to Heitman’s struggled finding

evidence; as many of the excavators discarded the ground stones.12 While this way of perceiving

a gendered object does not go with feminist archaeology, there has been a historical ignorance of

evidence that had been tied to women. This places the archaeologist’s perceived notion of

women’s activities as being unimportant and ignorable in the presence of sites. From not

ignoring these activities it can be seen that these “grinding groups” could have been the epicenter

of social activity in these Chacoan sites.13 This supports the idea that women held a social power

in their workspaces, as these spaces were often larger than dwellings themselves. These

10
(Heitman 2016, 476)
11
(Heitman 2016, 477)
12
(Heitman 2016, 480)
13
(Heitman 2016, 482)
“grinding groups” were important to these sites as they provided for prayers and rituals. This

provides that women were important to these ritualistic spaces even though they may not have

been present. The importance came from their activities and they held power in their

contributions.

​ Heitman’s study emphasizes the continuing importance of gender representation in

archaeology. Archaeology feeds into patriarchal notions when archaeologists focus on male

centered activities, gendering spaces, and creating asymmetries through the created idea of these

oppositions. The problems that lie within archaeology come with the selectiveness of the

archaeologists themselves. Archaeologists suffer the same problem as anthropologists, where

their inherent biases are then laid upon their work. The issue with archaeology specifically is that

the culture might not still be active as it is a practice that is focused on the past. When the culture

is not active, sometimes the only ideas that archaeologists come to are through theorizing and not

through interaction with the community itself. This theorizing can then lend to these biases as

those theorizing will likely lean towards ideas they have already held in their mind or placed

onto society. That is specifically present in the cases of male focused archaeology or creating

gendered oppositions, as it is often a Western perspective that is overlaid onto a different culture.

Critiques of Feminist Archaeology

​ Although feminist archaeology is itself a critique of typical archaeology, it is not free

from facing critiques. Early feminist archaeology is critiqued by third-wave feminism which

works to dismantle systems that automatically perceive gender, instead viewing it as a culturally

constructed concept.14 The critiques that come towards second wave feminism and early feminist

archaeology is that the focus is from a middle class white woman perspective, rather than being

diverse and showing multitudes of the human experience.

​ Black Feminist Archaeology is a critique of feminist archaeology and an archaeological

theory introduced by Whitney Battle-Baptiste. While not outwardly critiquing feminist

archeology, it is a critique in that it recognizes what traditional feminist archaeology may have

overlooked and expands upon the perspectives that can be displayed. Battle-Baptiste wrote a

book on this theory and did it with the intention to “present the components of a methodological

tool kit that will enable American archaeologists to analyze issues of race, class, and gender in

the field of archaeological practice.”15 With this framework, Black Feminist Archaeology goes

beyond the original goals of feminist archaeology, working to understand a myriad of human

experiences.

​ Black Feminist Archaeology is a personal pursuit of Whitney Battle-Baptiste. She entered

the field of archaeology looking to encourage the post-contact discussions of the African

diaspora. As a personally inspired pursuit, Battle-Baptiste is able to bring a unique perspective to

archaeology. She saw the slow reaction archaeology had to change. This, combined with the

view of the Black woman as an alternative in society, encouraged Battle-Baptiste to seek stories

from African descendant women describing the experience with the goal of an archaeology that

could create inclusive dialogues.16

​ Part of Whitney Battle-Baptiste’s goal is to look at the meaning behind material artifacts

in order to provide a narrative that is whole and healing. These dialogues look at a historically

underrepresented and ignored group, bringing their contributions to the surface as a healing

practice. Just as traditional feminist archaeology looks at the power that women held, Black

Feminist Archaeology does the same but with the intention to promote a broader conversation.

15
(Battle-Baptiste 2016, 20)
16
(Battle-Baptiste 2016, 36)
Black Feminist Archaeology is activist practice that works to show the ways in which people,

particularly Black women, have been disenfranchised. This is not to focus on that fact or to place

Black women in a “suffering slot,” however it is to open a discussion on these structures that

have contributed to the oppression of Black women.

Cheryl Rodriguez was a contributor to African American anthropological theory with an

emphasis on Afro-centrist feminism and Whitney Battle-Baptiste proposes a framework similar

to what Rodriguez was hoping to encourage. Rodriguez encouraged activist community research

which looks much like the work that Battle-Baptiste was doing herself while developing Black

Feminist Archaeology. Both are community based approaches which seek to actively propose

structures that are different from what is considered traditional. Each is about creating space for

those that have historically not been given any.

While Battle-Baptiste introduces a framework that is ‘Black feminist’ it is not exclusive

to only Black women’s experience. This framework is able to contextualize the position of Black

men post contact as well as open up a broader discussion moving away from the Eurocentric

ideas that permeate the space. Through Black Feminist Archaeology, there are discussions

opened up on the family structure and how it was affected by slavery.17 Traditional narratives

typically ignored the human stories, holding stereotypes and generalizations that were unable to

convey the experience that people had.

Whitney Battle-Baptiste’s Black Feminist Archaeology comes decades after Rodriguez’s

introductory work in the late 90’s. This emphasizes the long struggle that Rodriguez said there

would be when reflecting on what the current state of anthropology was. Rodriguez

acknowledged that the road to inclusive and Afro-centrist work was not an easy one, nor would

17
(Battle-Baptiste 2016, 51)
changes be made to the field overnight.18 However, she noted that it was a transformative process

and Battle-Baptiste’s Black Feminist Archaeology seems to be a development from such a

process.

Third-Wave Feminism and Feminist Archaeology Now

On third wave feminism: “The analysis of complex intersections between cultural constructed

categories of gender, sexuality, and other social dimensions of identity has become a significant

paradigm in archaeological research, especially in historical archaeology.”19​

Third-wave feminism was touched on previously and Black feminism is a part of that

movement. Third wave feminism is an activist practice that looks to queer gendered ideas and

constructions. This comes with the movement to acknowledge a myriad of perspectives rather

than solely that of white cis men. The emphasized point of this being that the human experience

cannot be described by a monolith, nor should it. Feminism in this case can be viewed through

different lenses in order to communicate these experiences. There are now archaeologies that

have come following the movement to feminist archaeology to argue for queer and inclusive

ideologies.

​ These perspectives in archaeology are forced to pave the way for themselves. Queer

archaeologists have to think outside the box and create a space for their work.20 This is similar to

what feminist anthropologists have to do, however the framework of feminist archaeology is

generally more accepted. The very notion of these ideologies being included in archaeology is

activist, in that there is no space held for these discourses outside of their own respective realms.

​ Third-wave feminism does not assume gender and continues to include the individual

perspective. This not only becomes more inclusive, but it sheds light further on the enforced

18
(Rodriguez 1996, 428)
19
(Spencer-Wood 2011, 16)
20
(Cook 2019)
patriarchal structure. As gender becomes less of a focus and instead the focus is placed on the

individual experience, there are other pieces of identity that are shown. Third-wave feminism

promotes intersectionality and the idea that people don't have one part of their identity, but many

different perspectives and parts of them that allow them to exist within many different groups.

Queer Theory

​ Queer theory is a significant development of third-wave feminism. This theory came

from lesbian feminist theory and focuses on deconstructing ideas centered around hierarchical

positions of the sexes. Instead queer theory looks to elevate the intersections that exist between

sexuality, gender, biological sex while considering other “social dimensions” such as race, class,

and ethnicity.21 Queer theory is present in a postmodern framework of archaeology and exists as

a part of third-wave feminist archaeology.

Masculinity Theory

​ Masculinity theory exists as a critique to the created spheres of masculinity. There is not a

monolith to how masculinity exists, however there is a diversity of ideas with which it is shaped

and portrayed in gender roles. This theory looks at the differing aspects of masculinity. A way

with which it is used in archaeology is by examining the change in masculinity from the past to

the present.22

Material Feminist Theory

​ Material Feminist Theory works to view material culture as “an active force in the

construction and negotiation of gender and its intersections with other social dimensions.”23 This

is a theory that was touched upon by Ian Hodder, as the material evidence was suggested to show

21
(Spencer-Wood 2011, 17)
22
(Spencer-Wood 2011, 18)
23
(Spencer-Wood 2011, 19)
evidence to the value or lack of that may have been given to certain genders.24 Material culture as

an active part of a perspective is important. The materials unearthed in excavation were used at

one point in time, what the implications of their use was for those that used the materials is

detrimental to understanding the different experiences that could have been had at a given site.

​ Feminist archaeology now employs these different theories as needed. Ultimately the

current state of feminist archaeology is one that looks to celebrate all perspectives. Feminist

archaeology now also sheds light on structures that have created certain barriers that remain

consistent, what plays into gendered power dynamics, and race and class struggles.

Feminist Archaeology as Activist; Future of the Field

​ Feminist archaeology will always inherently be activist. There is not a part of feminist

archaeology that looks to conform to already set and traditional methods. This form of

archaeology not only is creating a space that was previously ignored and undermined, but it is

changing the field of archaeology. Archaeology has a history of lending to white men that focus

on a Western perspective. Feminist archaeology looks at what possibilities exist beyond that

perspective, while creating a positive shift to include more focus on women in their culture.

The inclusivity that is promoted within feminist archaeology is influential to the rest of

the field as well. This is particular to the importance of intersectionality. It is difficult to narrow

an individual’s experience to a few factors without acknowledging the ways in which their

identity interacts with the social world. An example of this can be seen in Irma McClaurin’s

Incongruities: Dissonance and Contradiction in the Life of a Black Middle-Class Woman.

McClaurin argued for “an approach to the study of gender as a dynamic creation, always

historically and culturally specific–and dialectically constituted together with other aspects of

24
(Hodder 2003, 230)
social stratification, including class and race.”25 This approach does not assume a position for

gender, but presumes that it is something that is always evolving and is culturally created such as

other ideas used to separate people in favor of social stratification.

The future of the field in feminist archaeology seems to be one that focuses on this

intersectional approach. While an intersectional approach allows feminist archaeology to become

very broad, it ultimately strengthens the perspectives that are garnered. In cases of intersectional

identities, not one portion can be viewed in a vacuum and give the full picture. Instead, all parts

of identity must be considered in order to understand the context and situation.

There is potential for feminist archaeology to become increasingly digital. This does not

mean that it is remote or a practice that does not exist in the field, however, it means that

following inclusive archaeology there is use of digital archaeology to amplify voices. An

example of the use of digital archaeology is the website “Hidden in Plain Site.”26 This website

takes viewers through a digital tour of important sites to Black history in Richmond and Roanoke

Virginia. Digital accessibility to archaeology is important as it can be reached practically

anywhere. A broader audience is able to be reached and overall the perspectives offered become

more accessible.

Digital archives are another helpful tool in the 21st century. 3D photogrammetry and

laser models are published online. Increasingly more people are able to interact with digital

versions of artifacts and material culture that they would otherwise not have access to. Not only

this but there exist digital projects that work to further the goals within feminist archaeology,

creating an inclusive framework in the digital realm.27 Future frameworks for feminist

25
(McClaurin 1990, 316)
26
https://www.hiddeninplainsite.org/
27
(Cook 2019)
archaeology can use this digital aspect to gain support for projects and spread awareness for new

perspectives.

Conclusion

​ Feminist archaeology is an activist approach to archaeology that seeks to inform

perspectives on the human experience. Feminist archaeology can take place in the field or after

the fact as a critique of past archaeology. This form of archaeology comes as a response to the

historical ignorance of women in archaeology. Gendered focuses in archaeology often put

male-centered activities in places of higher importance than women. There was often an

assumption that the domestic role would be taken up by the woman and the public role would be

held by the man.

​ This came with Western assumptions towards gender and the sexes. There was a

presumed view of the position man or woman held in society, such as domestic or public, but

extending further to include importance and assumed activity. These views were often thought to

be universal depictions of the sexes, however they were not found outside Western society. The

struggle for those of Western society to understand differing roles from their own within society

is has lent to this long development of feminist archaeology.

​ As feminist archaeology continued to develop so did different approaches towards the

subject. Carol Heitman serves as an example for a critique following an archaeological survey.

The previous archaeologists not only ignored women when discussing their theory for the

Puebloan culture but also had discarded evidence of their presence during excavation. With the

resources that were available to her, Heitman was able to put together a cohesive picture of what

the women were doing and fill in what was left out. Not only providing stories that were ignored
but through this work, Heitman was able to contextualize the bigger picture of Chaco Canyon

and what the people there were involved with.

​ Feminist archaeology did not start out as inclusive as it became and Black Feminist

Archaeology sought to change that. Whitney Battle-Baptiste developed a framework that was

inclusive of race, gender, and class to use for archaeological investigations. With most

post-contact archaeology focusing on certain aspects of enslaved life, this framework was

important in broadening the stories that are told. Rather than relying on generalizations, it is the

individual story that becomes important.

​ The current state of feminist archaeology has come as third-wave feminism sought to

right the wrongs of second-wave feminism. The theory has developed to become more inclusive

and focus on intersectionality within identity. This importance placed on intersectionality is a key

feature to what feminist archaeology is and is what allows it to be such an inclusive dialogue. In

conclusion, feminist archaeology has changed through many strides. Feminist archaeology seeks

to change the field and fight inherent biases and prejudice that work in favor of patriarchal goals.
 References

Bamberger, Joan. 1974. Woman, Culture, and Society. Edited by Michelle Z. Rosaldo, Louise

Lamphere, and Joan Bamberger. N.p.: Stanford University Press.

Battle-Baptiste, Whitney. 2016. Black Feminist Archaeology. Walnut Creek, California: Left

Coast Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315096254.

Cook, Katherine. 2019. “EmboDIYing Disruption: Queer, Feminist and Inclusive Digital

Archaeologies.” European Journal of Archaeology 22, no. 3 (08): 398-414.

10.1017/eaa.2019.23.

Heitman, Carol C. 2016. ““A Mother for All the People”: Feminist Science and Chacoan

Archaeology.” American Antiquity 81, no. 3 (07): 471-489.

10.1017/S0002731600003954.

Hodder, Ian. 2003. Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology.

Third Edition ed. N.p.: Cambridge University Press.

McClaurin, Irma. 1990. Uncertain Terms: Negotiating Gender in American Culture. Edited by

Faye Ginsburg and Lowenhaupt Tsing. N.p.: Beacon Press.

Rodriguez, Cheryl. 1996. “African American Anthropology and the Pedagogy of Activist

Community Research.” Anthropology and Education Quarterly 27 (3): 414-431.

Spencer-Wood, Suzanne M. 2011. “Introduction: Feminist Theories and Archaeology.”

Archaeologies 7, no. 1 (04): 1-33. 10.1007/s11759-011-9169-5.