Anthropology 45880: Archaeology of Gender

University of Notre Dame, Spring 2006

Tues/Thurs 2:00-3:15 pm

Instructor: Dr. Meredith S. Chesson

Class Location: Hammes Mowbray 306

Office: Flanner 615 1-3775

E-mail: mchesson@nd.edu (BEST way to contact me)

Office hours: MW 3:00-4:15 pm, or by appointment

Feminist archaeology means writing the prehistory of people. This means social actors who have gender, personalities, biographies.

(Tringham 1994: 183)

Under the broad theoretical, political and historical umbrella of feminism, archaeologists today are negotiating their own paths toward an engendered past from multiple directions, and this course will explore the diversity of these approaches toward creating a prehistory of people. We will consider the historical and theoretical foundations of creating an engendered past, the methodological and practical aspects of "doing" engendered archaeology, and the intersection between political feminism, archaeological knowledge production, and the politics of an engendered archaeology. Topics for consideration include feminist perspectives on science, anthropology, and archaeology; concepts of gender in prehistory and the present; women's and men's relations to craft production, state formation, and space; construction of race, gender and class relations in the past (and present); and the complex relationship between feminism, archaeology, and the politics of reconstructing the lives of women, men, and children in archaeology and the archaeological past.

Course Organization and Requirements

This course is designed for advanced undergraduate students, with sessions combining lectures, student presentations, and student discussion and debate. In general classes will involve small group activities, student presentations, and discussion of the week’s topics, with the instructor serving to direct, facilitate, and moderate discussions and provide occasional lectures. Each student’s grade will be composed of several elements:

· Attendance and participation (15%) are key elements to each student’s grade. Attendance will be taken, and students will be allowed 2 unexcused absences. An unexcused absence includes missing class for a non-serious illness (not requiring hospitalization; in cases of serious illness a signed note from a physician must be submitted to me on the day of your return to class), travel (aside from travel associated with varsity athletic competition), or any other situation that may occur. To receive the full marks for participation, students must attend and be active participants in the classroom. For each unexcused absence beyond these 2, a student’s grade will be decreased by 2 points, up to a maximum of 15 points. Regardless of the excused or unexcused nature of the absence, students will be responsible for all material covered during that class period. NOTE: More than 8 unexcused absences will result in an automatic failure of the course. Regardless of the excused or unexcused nature of the absence, students will be responsible for all material covered during that class period.

· Two Weekly Summaries (10% each, for 20% total): Each week, two students will prepare a short, written presentation of the reading materials as a team, focusing on the key issues and concerns raised in the readings; these essays must be emailed to me by Monday at 5 pm each week. These essays are to be 2 pages single-spaced in length, and ARE NOT book reports. These papers must synthesize and present the key issues for the week; this exercise requires you to critically evaluate the arguments presented by the authors. On Tuesday, 26 February, assignments of the weeks will be organized in class. The instructor will provide summaries through week 3 to provide concrete examples of how these essays should be written. This is a group project, and thus you will also be evaluated by your partner on your contribution to the assignment, and this evaluation will be considered when assessing the grade each group member will receive on the essays.

• Two preparations of Discussion Questions/Talking Points and Facilitation (5% each, for total of 10%): Students will be required twice during the semester to submit discussion questions to the instructor before the class meeting and to facilitate discussion during that class meeting. On Tuesday, 26 February, assignments of the weeks will be organized in class.

· Excavation report and assessment (20%) due on Tuesday, 7 March, 2006 in class.

· Final Presentation/Paper Project (presentation 15%/paper-project 20%, for a total of 35%) Finally, each student will be required to present a panel project in the last few weeks of the course. Potential topics will be distributed by the instructor early in the course, and each student must meet with the instructor about his/her presentation at least one week before their presentation. While creative license is granted regarding the form of presentations (for instance, dramatic presentations, interactive activities, and staged debates can be effective), all should go beyond the descriptive summaries to make clear arguments, employing case studies where appropriate. Additionally, students should be prepared to facilitate discussion of these topics. A paper component will accompany the panel presentation detailing the major issues, and explaining how the panel presentation activities treat these ideas and issues. NOTE: Attendance for these panel presentations is mandatory, with no excused absences beyond severe emergencies.

Readings:

There are two required texts (listed below, available in the bookstore, on line booksellers, and on reserve at the library) and a set of articles (in hard copy at the library, and available in a course packet). Each week students will be required to read all of the assigned readings, and be prepared to discuss them actively in class.

· Wilkie, L. 2003. The Archaeology of Mothering: An African-American Midwife’s Tale. Routledge, London.

· Gilchrist, R. 1999. Contesting the Past. Routledge, London.

Students should approach each week’s readings to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments in order to critically evaluate the methodological and theoretical framework employed by each author. In particular, I would encourage you to think about these issues as you read each week:

1. Is the problem posed by the author something that can be explored through anthropology/archaeology?

2. Do the authors explicitly state their basis of operation? How are judgments about data made and supported?

3. What are the nature of primary and secondary sources utilized by the authors? Are they being used correctly? Are they sufficient to support the authors’ arguments?

4. What are the underlying assumptions of the authors? Are they reasonable, or do they undermine the foundation of the argument?

5. Do the presentation of the problem, the data and the interpretations follow a clear line of argument?

6. What elements, if any, would strengthen the authors’ position and research?

7. Finally, why did the instructor assign this group of readings together?

Grading, assignments, and general policies

1. There will be NO make-ups for in-class presentations, essays, or assignments. A rare exception may be possible if: a) arrangements are made prior to the exam (by phone or direct contact with the instructor), and; b) some sort of valid written excuse, such as medical, is provided. If you find that you are desperately ill or have a serious emergency,

2. Assignments are handed in at the beginning of the class period on the date listed in the syllabus. Late assignments will be penalized. If you know of a conflict, and you will not be able to attend class on the day an assignment is due, then you are encouraged to complete and turn in the assignment early.

3. Plagiarism and cheating on assignments and presentations are serious violations of the University of Notre Dame policy. Violation of this policy will result in a hearing of the Honor Council, and may result in the failing of the assignment or of the class.

4. I strongly encourage students to meet with me and discuss any concerns or questions they have with their assignment grades. Due to the short length of the term, however, these concerns or questions about assignments can only be addressed within a one week period after the assignments have been returned.

5. If you have a documented learning disability and are authorized to have special arrangements for assignments, please inform me at the beginning of the course. Again, I will do all that is possible to accommodate your needs but I must be made aware of your needs and concerns as soon as possible.

6 Course grades will be assigned using the following interpretive framework:

• A Seeking and attaining excellence (generally in the top 20% of the class and mastering more than 92% of the course material)

• A- Significantly above average but not outstanding

• B+ Above average performance

• B Slightly above average to average performance, showing mastery of around 85% of the course material

• B- Performance at and just slightly below average

• C Performance below average, showing mastery of around 75% of the course material

• D Doing the absolute minimum to pass the class

• F Fail

There will be no letter grades assigned until all assignments have been graded and your final grade has been computed. If the final grades are curved at the end of the class, the mean will be set at a B-.

Weekly Discussion Topics and Readings

Historical and Theoretical Foundations of Creating Prehistories of People

Week 1: Introduction and Concepts/Foundations (17/19 Jan)

Topics: What does it mean to talk about engendered archaeology? What are the goals and benefits of engendering our reconstructions of the past? What are the relationships between feminism and the history of archaeology? What are the differences between sex and gender? How can we define feminism for the purpose of this course?

Readings:

Conkey, M. W., and J. M. Gero. 1991. Tensions, Pluralities, and Engendering Archaeology: An Introduction to Women and Prehistory. In Engendering Archaeology: Women in Prehistory, ed. J. M. Gero and M. W. Conkey, pp. 3-30. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Preucel, R. W., and I. Hodder. 1996. Understanding Sex and Gender. In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory: A Reader, ed. R. W. Preucel and I. Hodder, pp. 415-430. Blackwell, Oxford.

Week 2: Engendering Science (24/26 Jan)

Topics: Why does science need to be gendered? What are some of the myths about women that have emerged from traditional science? How does a feminist science deal with the objectivity question? Is there a women's-way-of-knowing? How would you describe the complex relationship between politically-situated feminism, objectivity, and scientific knowledge production?

Readings:

Haraway, D. 1988. "Situated Knowledge: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective." Feminist Studies 14 (3): 575-599. (Reprinted in Feminism and Science, ed. E. F. Keller and H. E. Longino, pp. 249-263. Oxford University Press, New York, 1996.)

Harding, S. 1993. Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: What is “Strong Objectivity”? In Feminist Epistemologies, ed. L. Alcoff and E. Potter. Routledge, New York (Reprinted in Feminism and Science, ed. E. F. Keller and H. E. Longino, pp. 235-248. Oxford University Press, New York, 1996.)

Wylie, A. 1997. “Good Science, Bad Science, or Science as Usual? Feminist Critiques of Science.” In Women in Human Evolution, ed. L. D. Hagar, pp. 29-55. Routledge, London.

Week 3: Engendering Anthropology (31 Jan/2 Feb)

Topics: How do conceptions of gender vary cross-culturally? What is the relation of gender to other forms of social identity (eg race, class and ethnicity)? How do ethnographers theorize gender studies?

Readings:

Lutz, C. 1995. "The Gender of Theory." In Women Writing Culture, ed. R. Behar and D. Gordon, pp. 249-266. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Rosaldo, M. 1980. The Use and Abuse of Anthropology: Reflections on Feminism and Cross-Cultural Understanding. Signs 5(3): 391-417.

Strathern, M. 1987, An Awkward Relationship: The Case of Feminism and Anthropology. Signs 12(2): 276-292.

Week 4: Engendering Archaeology (7/9 Feb)

Topics: Why has gender emerged as an interest in archaeology in the last decade? What are the relationships of gendered archaeologies and postprocessual archaeologies? How do archaeologists deal with the objectivity question?

Readings:

Conkey, M. W., and J. Spector. 1984. "Archaeology and the Study of Gender." In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 7, ed. M. B. Schiffer, pp. 1-38. Academic Press, New York.

Wylie, A. 1991. "Gender Theory and the Archaeological Record: Why is There No Archaeology of Gender?" In Engendering Archaeology: Women in Prehistory, ed. J. M. Gero and M. W. Conkey, pp. 31-54. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Tringham, R. 1991. Households with Faces: the Challenge of Gender in Prehistoric Architectural Remains. In Engendering Archaeology: Women in Prehistory, ed. J. M. Gero and M. W. Conkey, pp. 93-131. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Englestadt, E. 1991. "Images of Power and Contradiction: Feminist Theory and Postprocessual Archaeology." Antiquity 65:502-514.

Knapp, B. 1998. Boys Will Be Boys: Masculinist Approaches to a Gendered Archaeology, in Redefining Archaeology: Feminist Perspectives. Canberra: Australian National University, Research School of Pacific Studies. (reprinted in 1998, Reader in Gender Archaeology, pp. 365-373, edited by K. Hays-Gilpin and D. S. Whitley. New York: Routledge.

Practicing What We Preach: Case Studies of Engendered Archaeology

Week 5: Gender Roles and Stereotypes: Man the Hunter, Woman the Gatherer (14/16 Feb)

Topics: How have contemporary gender stereotypes been projected back in time upon prehistoric peoples? What are some of these? What are some of the different roles identified for women in different societies?

Readings:

Washburn, S. L., and C. S. Lancaster. 1968. "The Evolution of Hunting." In Man the Hunter, ed. R. Lee and I. DeVore, pp. 293-303. Aldine, Chicago.

Gifford-Gonzalez, D. 1995. "The Drudge-on-the-Hide." Archaeology 48 (2): 84.

Zihlman, A. 1997. "The Paleolithic Glass Ceiling: Women in Human Evolution." In Women in Human Evolution, ed. L. D. Hager, pp. 91-113. Routledge, London and New York.

Brumbach, J. and R. Jarvenpa. 1997. Woman the Hunter: Ethnoarchaeological Lessons from Chipewyan Life-Cycle, in Women in Prehistory: North American and Mesoamerica, edited by C. Claassen and R. Joyce, pp. 17-32. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Gero, J. M. 1991. "Genderlithics: Women's Roles in Stone Tool Production." In Engendering Archaeology: Women in Prehistory, ed. J. M. Gero and M. W. Conkey, pp. 163-193. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Week 6: Women's Work: Gender and Production (21/23 Feb)

Topics: What is the relationship between women's economic production, social reproduction, and status in different societies in different times? What types of values were associated with different types of reproduction and production behaviors?

Readings:

Watson, P. J., and M. C. Kennedy. 1991. "The Development of Horticulture in the Eastern Woodlands of North America." In Engendering Archaeology: Women in Prehistory, ed. J. M. Gero and M. W. Conkey, pp. 255-275. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Brumfiel, E. M. 1991. "Weaving and Cooking: Women's Production in Aztec Mexico." In Engendering Archaeology: Women in Prehistory, ed. J. M. Gero and M. W. Conkey, pp. 224-251. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Joyce, R. A. 1993. Women’s Work: Images of Production and Reproduction in Pre-Hispanic Southern Central America. Current Anthropology 34(3): 255-274.

Hastorf, C. 1991. Gender, Space and Food in Prehistory in Engendering Archaeology ed. Conkey and Gero pp.132-163, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Week 7: Archaeology and Third Wave Feminism (28 Feb/2 Mar)

Topics: What is the impact of third-wave feminism on the practice of engendered archaeology? How does Gilchrist define gender, and its relation to the archaeological record? How does Gilchrist’s work compare to earlier attempts to engender the past (see Weeks 4, 5, and 6 for example)? What methodological and theoretical differences and similarities do you see in the work from the 1980s and early 1990s, and case studies in Gilchrist’s book?

Readings:

Gilchrist, R. 1999. Contesting the Past. Routledge, London.

Week 8: Gender, Race and Social Inequality in the Past: Focus on Archaeology of Enslaved Africans and African Americans (7/9 Mar)

NOTE: Site Reports due on 7 March!!!!

Topics: In a general way, how do these researchers integrate the analysis of historical documents into their scholarship? What are some of the benefits and drawbacks of working with historical documents? How do historical archaeologists explore the complex relationships between race, class, and gender? What happens to the picture of the past when archaeologists deal with enslaved peoples? How can this type of research produce very politically-charged results?

Readings:

Franklin, M. 2001. A Black-Feminist-Inspired Archaeology? Journal of Social Archaeology 1: 108-125.

Franklin, M. 2001. The Archaeological Dimensions of Soul Food: Interpreting Race, Culture, and Afro-Virginian Identity. In Race and the Archaeology of Identity, ed. C.E. Orser, pp. 88-107.

Singleton, T.A. 1995. The Archaeology of Slavery in North America. Annual Reviews of Anthropology 24: 119-140.

Thomas, B.W. and Thomas, L. 2004. Gender and Presentation of Self: An Example from the Hermitage, In Engendering African American archaeology: a southern perspective, eds. Jillian E. Galle and Amy L. Young, pp. 101-131. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.

Week 9: The Archaeology of Mothering (21/23 Mar)

Topics: What types of evidence does Wilkie gather to explore culturally specific ideas about motherhood? How does she integrate anthropological ideas about race, class, gender, and lived experience into her research?

Readings:

Wilkie, L. 2003. The Archaeology of Mothering: An African-American Midwife’s Tale. Routledge, London.

NOTE: Wilkie will deliver a public lecture on her research on Monday 20 March, and I will host a dinner party the evening of the 21^st to give our class a chance to interact with her in a more relaxed atmosphere.

Week 10: Gender and Death (28/30 Mar)

Topics: How can archaeologists investigate issues of gender, personhood, and identity through mortuary practices? What types of patterning in mortuary practices might be helpful to analyze in considering issues of identity? How might or might not a person’s gender be represented in burial practices?

Readings:

McCafferty, S. D., and G. G. McCafferty, 1994. "Engendering Tomb 7 at Monte Albán." Current Anthropology 35: 143-166. (with comments and reply)

Flannery, K. V., J. Marcus, G.G McCafferty, and S. D. McCafferty. 1994. "On the Perils of 'Politically Correct' Archaeology." Current Anthropology 35: 441-445.

Pearson, M.P. 1999 Learning from the Dead. In The Archaeology of Death and Burial, pp. 1-20. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.

Weglian, E. 2001. Grave Goods Do Not a Gender Make: A Case Study from Singen am Hohentwiel, Germany. In Gender and the Archaeology of Death, eds. B. Arnold and N.L. Wicker, pp. 137-155. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

Gillespie, S.D. 2001. Personhood, Agency and Mortuary Ritual: A Case Study from the Ancient Maya. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20: 73-112.

Week 11: Archaeology of Sexuality (4/6 Apr)

Topics: How can archaeologists investigate sexual behaviors and sexuality in the past? Is it any different from researching other behaviors, like craft production or subsistence activities? Why are feminist archaeologists more likely to tackle this seemingly-taboo subject?

Readings:

Seifert, D., O'Brien, E. and J. Balicki. 2000. Mary Ann Hall's first-class house: the archaeology of a capital brothel. In The Archaeology of Sexuality, ed. by R. Schmidt and B. Voss, pp. 117-128. London: Routledge.

Costello, J. 2000. Red Light Voices. In The Archaeology of Sexuality, ed. by R. Schmidt and B. Voss, pp. 160-175. London: Routledge.

Voss, B. 2000. Colonial Sex: Archaeology, Structured Space, and Sexuality in Alta California’s Spanish-Colonial Missions, in The Archaeology of Sexuality, ed. by R. Schmidt and B. Voss, pp. 35-61. London: Routledge.

Joyce, R. 2000. A Precolumbian Gaze: Male Sexuality Among the Ancient Maya, in The Archaeology of Sexuality, ed. by R. Schmidt and B. Voss, pp. 263-283. London: Routledge.

Week 12: Feminism and Archaeology in Academic Archaeology (11/13 Apr)

Topics: Quite frequently women are underrepresented in the discipline of archaeology. In many cases, regardless of representation, women experience “chilly climate” issues or outright discrimination in departmental and university politics, as well as in wider academic circles. What are some of the roots of this problem, and what are some ways that we can collectively change this situation? Other forms of discrimination also enter the equation when considering race, sexuality, class background, religion, etc—what should be done about these issues as well?

Readings:

Wylie, A. 1994. The Trouble with Numbers: Workplace Climate issues in Archaeology. In Equity Issues for Women in Archaeology, edited by M.C. Nelson, S. N. Nelson, and A. Wylie, pp. 65-71. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association Number 5. Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association.

Anonymous. 1994. The Female Anthropologist’s Guide to Academic Pitfalls. In Equity Issues for Women in Archaeology, edited by M.C. Nelson, S. N. Nelson, and A. Wylie, pp. 5-6. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association Number 5. Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association. (originally published in Anthropology Newsletter 12(4): 8-9 in 1971).

Ford, A. and Hundt, A. 1994. Equity in Academia—Why the Best Men Still Win: an Examination of Women and Men in Mesoamerican Archaeology. . In Equity Issues for Women in Archaeology, edited by M.C. Nelson, S. N. Nelson, and A. Wylie, pp. 147-156. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association Number 5. Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association.

Kramer, C. and Stark, M. 1994. The Status of Women in Archaeology. In Equity Issues for Women in Archaeology, edited by M.C. Nelson, S. N. Nelson, and A. Wylie, pp. 17-22. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association Number 5. Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association. (originally published in Anthropology Newsletter 29(9): 11-12 in 1988).

She. 2000. Sex and a career. World Archaeology 32.2: 166-172.

Week 13: Bodies and Lived Experience (18/20 Apr)

Topics: Feminist theory has long been interested in ideas about subjectivity. In archaeology, many researchers have been exploring how to analyze the representation of humans in different formats, as well as how people in different cultures understand what it meant to be a social being in a material and biological body. How do these more recent phenomenological approaches and case studies succeed, and how might they be improved methodologically and theoretically?

Readings:

Joyce, R. 2005. Archaeology of the Body. Annual Reviews in Anthropology 34: 139-158.

McDermott, L. 1996. Self-Representation in Upper Paleolithic Female Figurines. Current Anthropology 37.2: 227-275. (with comments and reply)

Cambridge Archaeological Journal Special Section: Embodying Identity in Archaeology (Cambridge Archaeological Journal 13.2: 225-261):

Fisher, G. and Loren D.D. 2003. Introduction. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 13.2: 225-30.

Loren, D.D. 2003. Refashioning a Body Politic in Colonial Louisiana. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 13.2: 231-237.

Bachand, H., Joyce, R.A., and Hendon, J.A. 2003. Bodies Moving in Space: Ancient Mesoamerican Human Sculpture and Embodiment. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 13.2: 238-247.

Joyce, R.A. 2003. Making Something of Herself: Embodiment in Life and Death at Playa de los Muertos, Honduras. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 13.2: 248-261.

Week 14: Figurines and Goddesses?? (25 Apr discussion/27 Apr panel presentations begin)

Topics: How have figurines been interpreted? How has the Goddess been appropriated by feminists? What contradictions are produced between feminist archaeologists and feminist social activists who use the Goddess to argue for different kinds of social relations in the past?

Readings:

Conkey, M. W., and R. Tringham. 1995. "Archaeology and the Goddess: Exploring the Contours of Feminist Archaeology." In Feminisms in the Academy, ed. A. Steward and D. Stanton, pp. 199-247. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Meskell, L. 1995. "Goddesses, Gimbutas and 'New Age' Archaeology." Antiquity 69: 74-86.

Lesure, R.G. The Goddess Difracted: Thinking about the Figurines of Early Villages. Current Anthropology 43.4: 587-610. (with comments and reply)

Cambridge Archaeological Journal Special Section: Embodying Identity in Archaeology (Cambridge Archaeological Journal 6.2:281-307):

Hamilton, N. 1996. The Personal is Political. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 6.2: 282-285.

Marcus, J. 1996. The Importance of Context in Interpreting Figurines. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 6.2: 285-291.

Bailey, D. 1996. The Interpretation of Figurines: The Emergence of Illusion and New Ways of Seeing. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 6.2: 291-295.

Haaland, G. and Haaland, R. 1996. Levels of Meaning in Symbolic Objects. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 6.2: 295-300.

Ucko, P. 1996. Mother, Are You There? Cambridge Archaeological Journal 6.2: 300-307.

NOTE: Bailey will deliver a public lecture on his research on Monday 24 April, and I will host a dinner party the evening of the 25^th to give our class a chance to interact with him in a more relaxed atmosphere.

Week 15: Panel Presentations (2 May)