The papers in this collection were presented at the Anthropology and Archaeology of Women Conference, held at Appalachian State University in Boone, North Carolina, May 1991. The idea of the conference lurked about me for several years and two events precipitated its planning in Fall 1990: Joan Gero's simple bitnet message that one didn't need money to have a conference and my appointment as interim director of Women's Studies at Appalachian State. The conference, held May 2-4, 1991, was planned from Universidad de las Americas, Puebla, Mexico, where I was teaching at the time and the chair of Antropología, Gabriela Uruñella provided postage and facilitated my obtaining a bitnet account, via which most of the advertising was disseminated. Sue Keefe, Chair of the Anthropology Department and Don Sink, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, both of Appalachian State University, also provided monetary and other tangible support.
Women in archaeology are eager for intellectual forums such as this one. I incorrectly surmised that there would not be enough archaeological material/thought on gender at this time to hold a conference on such short notice exclusively focusing on archaeology so I broadened the topic to Anthropology and Archaeology of Women. Contrary to my expectations, I received 4 cultural anthropology papers and 14 archaeology papers, as well as numerous calls from women archaeologists wanting to attend. To better serve those attenders not presenting papers, three workshops were created: teaching about gender, engendering the Pleistocene-Holocene environmental transition, and engendering the Contact period. Prehistory Press is to be applauded for agreeing that informal as well as formal discussion of this topic merits publication. James Knight was supportive, from the beginning, of my idea to publish not only the papers but transcriptions of the workshops and teaching syllabi. A publication of the archaeology papers alone was possible because three of the four cultural anthropology papers were to be published elsewhere.
A History of Gender and Archaeology as a Topic
After the Conkey and Spector article appeared in Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 1984, the authors expected a flood of response, papers, symposia--but it did not follow for some time. In 1987, there was a session at the Plains conference, and a session at the American Anthropological Association. In 1988, The Role of Gender in Precolumbian Art and Architecture (Miller 1988) appeared in print and the entire issue of the Cambridge Archaeology Review was dedicated to gender issues. Joan Gero and Meg Conkey began organizing the Wedge Conference in 1987 which brought 12 archaeologists and anthropologists from the US, England, and Australia together on the topic of gender and archaeology in April of 1988. It was supported by NSF and Wenner-Gren, and had a publisher in Basil Blackwell from its inception. Several of those participants repeated their papers at the 1989 Society for American Archaeology meetings in Atlanta. The Fall 1989 Chacmool conference qualifies as the first truly public meeting on the topic of gender and archaeology anywhere in the world given its widely advertised open invitation to participate. Symposia on gender and anthropology with archaeology papers followed at the 1990 Central States meeting, and the 1990 AAAs, and the 1990 Society for Historic Archaeology meetings in Tucson featured a large symposium on gender in historic archaeology. In the Fall of 1990 there were at least two courses offered in the US on archaeology and gender--one at University of South Carolina, the other at Oberlin.
In 1991 there have been even more meetings at which this topic is the focal point. The year began with a mini-plenary session on current gender issues in Historical archaeology at the annual Society for Historical Archaeology meeting in Richmond. A large conference on archaeology and gender was held in February in Albury Australia, the plenary session at the Mid-Atlantic Archaeological conference focused on gender and the following May, at Appalachian State University, this conference was held. In the midst of them all came the publication of Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory, the Wedge Conference papers. Courses on the topic were taught in the Spring semester at Appalachian State and Fall semester of the 1991-1992 academic year at New York University. As an outgrowth of the Boone conference,
Ruth Trocolli and Kathy Bolen organized a gender session for the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, held late in 1991. The second Boone conference, to focus on women in the discipline of archaeology, will be held in October 1992. Not since the early Binford papers, the birth of the New Archaeology, has there been such a flurry of intellectual activity in archaeology as now surrounds the topic of gender.
Seeing Gender Archaeologically
The New Archaeology argued it could know anything about past human life if it only asked the right question. While the 1960s saw an interesting focus on social organization, such as residence patterns and burial population variability, it soon lost interest in society. In spite of a commitment to recover past societies, archaeologists of the 1970s and 80s persistently de-gendered and de-cultured the past. As Barbara Bender reminded us in 1985 (1985: 52), we had rejected "both specific history and principals of social structure in favor of an assumed ecological common denominator". The common act of de-gendering, even de-peopling activities is done for three reasons--a) the gender of the actor is deemed unimportant to the study, b) assumptions of gender seem unwarranted, or c) the investigator believes that all (or both) genders of the society performed the activity. In all three cases, researchers seem to recognize no merit in pursuing more specific behavioral information about the social organization of activities.
Just which sex or gender made tool X or invented pottery or were the handaxe manufacturers can not be known. Since gender assignments are untestable, gender is irrelevant in archaeology, goes the argument. However, gender can be productively incorporated into our enterprise and indeed provides nothing short of a revitalization movement for archaeology, offering new vigor to research undertakings as it has in many other academic fields. Without a doubt, gender impacts the archaeological record as well as archaeologists and our inquiry; gender must be an issue for us all and testability cannot stand as the only criterion by which so fundamental a social phenomenon is admitted into archaeology.
In the initial meeting of this conference, the teaching gender workshop, two very crucial questions were raised. The first was our collective understanding of the difference between an archaeology of gender and a feminist archaeology. The second was the archaeological visibility of gender.
The discussion about an archaeology of gender or a feminist archaeology emphasized the different research programs and differences in methodology. While Alice Kehoe voiced her opinion that the two are interwoven, Joan Gero referred to a recent paper by Alison Wylie which argues a feminist archaeology is better archaeology than is typically performed because it is explicit about assumptions and paradigm.
Can We Find Gender in the Distant Past?
For many feminists, exploring the social status of the genders "man" and "woman" in the past is a major program of a feminist archaeology. Smaller numbers of investigators want to see an inquiry into the number of genders in different past societies, and an exploration of when sex became gendered (see for instance, Whelan 1991). Many assume that burials will provide the most obvious and reliable source of data from which to address these questions. Sex, the biological condition, and gender, the cultural condition, a dichotomy accepted by most but not all anthropologists, have different degrees of archaeological visibility.
Mary Whelan (1991: 362) critiques B. Bender's (1989) claim of male dominance in the Upper Paleolithic saying that the evidence could just as well be interpreted as the beginning of gendered rituals, not hierarchy. In looking for relative social status of the genders "man" and "woman", where should we look? David Thomas (1979: 342) states that equalitarian societies are characterized by generally equal access to important resources while ranked societies have people with unequal access to the basic life sustaining resources. Important resources can be different from life sustaining resources. Life sustaining resources are certainly food, water, shelter, and human companionship. But how do we define important resources? Is an important resource recognized by its numerical rarity, such as galena or copper in Woodland period burials,
or by its numerical superiority, such as shell beads? If the average age at death or the life expectancy at age 5 or at age 25 is the same for men and women, does this mean they had equal access to life sustaining resources? Does it mean that the society was egalitarian? If women had equal access to life sustaining resources or to important resources through their connections with adult men, how would we see their dependency, their lack of autonomy?
Elenor Leacock (1978) distinguished "egalitarian" from "autonomous" stating that while no one really wants to be equal to another human, many people want autonomy. The issue of women's autonomy was more at the heart of the inquiry, she suggested. Autonomy is as difficult to see archaeologically as is gender.
An Unanswerable Question?
I propose that the question of how many genders there were in Inuit society at 1300AD or among the Bantu speaking tribes of 2000 years ago is unanswerable from the perspective of material culture, spatial associations, or archaeological context. I furthermore propose that while the assumption is that there have always been two sexes and two genders, we do not know that this is the case, nor do we understand adequately how gender is encoded in the material culture of different societies. We may well have had but one gender yet two sexes at some point in our history.
Peebles and Kuz (1977) found at Moundville that "adult" status was indicated by unworked deer bones, bird claws, turtle bones; adult males alone had stone celts; and "child" status was marked by miniature pottery, undecipherable clay things, and unworked freshwater shells. These artifactual associations with age and sex suggest that there may be artifactual associations with gender as well. Within a burial context there are only two sexes. If we demand at least some unique material markers or unique combinations of material culture for each gender, wouldn't the items be assigned to the sex of the associated burial and then to the typical gender attributed to that sex thus eliminating any possibility of identifying gender independent of sex?
The gender coding on artifacts could well be misattributed to craft specialists, broader sex roles, class differences, or even special activity areas, not a different gender. In an early introductory archaeology textbook, the authors Hole and Heizer (1973:397) made the following comment
"One would normally expect to find male artifacts buried with males and female artifacts
with females. That this may not always have been the custom is suggested by data from
central California. . . mortars and pestles occurred with about the same frequency in graves
of both sexes; the same is true of arrow-points. . .presumably made, owned, and used by men."
In a recent presentation, Jay Custer (1991) discussed the burials from the Island Field Site in Delaware. The only individuals with grave goods were several females with complete flintknapping tool kits. The author's conclusion was that women did the flintknapping in this community, not men as is stereotypically assumed. But, I wonder, what would a different gender look like from an artifactual perspective? Manipulation of lithic raw materials could be an activity assigned by this society to a third gender, assuming there were two others. Within the village area of a prehistoric community, objects associated with the activities of a third gender and deposited around work areas would most likely be interpreted as evidence of special activities of either men or women. Berdache individuals of Native American cultures are arguably a third gender, or a between-gender, but their material culture is indistinguishable from that of women or men. (See Spector 1991 for a more optimistic perspective.)
If all unusual, or un-stereotypic associations of artifacts and sex are interpreted as additional genders, we will be limited to four genders, all possible combinations of sex and artifacts, and we will never challenge sex-role stereotyping in reconstructions of the past.
The Social Function of Gender
What, in fact, is the social function of two genders? What would be the social function of three or more genders? If, as is commonly assumed, the function of gender is to organize labor, it would seem that the number of genders is infinite. What types of labor are sufficient to "cause gender"? In a capitalistic society are not laborer and manager marked by clothing, language, and labor? Are they two genders? Within modern American universities there are janitorial staff and senior faculty. Are they two genders? Surely in 1991 there are differences in labor performed by different classes that far exceed any labor differences between males and females, now or in the past. Are these labor differences equivalent to "achieved gender"? Within other societies there are castes with strikingly different labors. Are classes and castes, barrios and guilds, all ways of organizing dramatically different
labors, genders? (Have they replaced the need for genders?)
I think not. Instead, the social function of gender is to mark appropriate sexual partners (e.g. Butler 1990:1-20). Gender hierarchies and gender oppression are to insure that sexual partners will be available. If the reader accepts this social function of gender, then an archaeology of gender is an archaeology of sexuality. Such a definition of gender does seem to describe its function among the Maya (Rosemary Joyce, Teaching Workshop, Chapter 13.)
Contrary to my demand for a single utility for gender distinctions, Rosemary Joyce would expect different social functions for gender in different societies. Both she and Joan Gero would further expect gendering to function differently within the same society at different points in its history (from workshop discussions).
If Not Gender, Sex?
The problem with gender is that its cultural construction is inextricably linked to physical bodies. If gender is constructed, who does the constructing of archaeological skeletal populations? Most certainly the archaeologist. If gender is indeed too elusive to attempt to follow through the past or to assign to burials and past actors, then perhaps we can be satisfied with a focus on sex, particularly sex roles, rather than gender roles.
Not all feminists or anthropologists agree that sex is simply biological, distinct from cultural influence or cultural definition. Within archaeology or physical anthropology, sex is certainly culturally created. Consider the following example: sex is assigned to a complete adult skeleton using either an implicit or explicit set of observations. At the end of the examination, the tally of traits within the male range of variation and the tally of traits within the female range of variation are summed and the percentage of traits typically male, for instance, is used to determine a sex for the skeleton. That a body should be and must be declared either male or female is cultural baggage carried by the investigator. That statistics are used for deciding a sex is cultural baggage. Furthermore, sexing biases have been identified among the methods used in sexing skeletons. In fact, when sex is assigned to a skeleton of unknown sex, it is a cultural act. Within the realm of archaeology and skeletons, sex is cultured. Admitting that both gender and sex are culturally determined would seem to indicate that there is no point in distinguishing these terms and that all exploration into the subject will be fraught with points of contention (post-processual concerns).
Clarifying the Question(s)
Is it the history of the sex roles that we want to explore? Many would answer yes but the inquiry is based on the assumption that two genders derive from the two sexes. Sex roles derived from burial data can obscure gender roles. Is it the occurrence of egalitarian societies? How much longer will we tolerate the archaeological definition of egalitarian as "all things being equal accept along gender lines". Just who is equal to whom, then? And which type of egalitarianism do we find, among hunter/gatherers, in PaleoIndian times, in any particular egalitarian society? Is it equality at birth (the American ideal) with equal opportunity to become unequal, or leveling mechanisms within a society that operate on adults (the Amish reality)? How could we see a difference between these two types of egalitarianism in material culture? (Tocqueville, in one comparison of the Americans and Europeans remarked on the European's quest for autonomy and the American's obsession with equality. Is the notion of egalitarian societies in American archaeology so easily assigned to this 200 year old obsession?)
Joan Gero argued at this conference (see Workshop 3) that a more interesting question would be when, and under what conditions, are gender distinctions emphasized and when are they relaxed.
The question for which archaeological inquiry is best suited is probably the temporal depth, or history, of modern social stratification and sex roles. Perhaps the only way to see gender in prehistory is through art and text, where gender is symbolized and sex is ambiguous or unknown. This point would mean that only in recent literate past societies can gender relationships and the number of genders be addressed.
We need to clarify our questions, clarify the term "egalitarian", recognize the politics involved in the inquiry, and recognize that we are bound by two significant problems--(1) the probable impossibility of fruitfully exploring the assumption that two genders have always characterized human history, and (2) the probable impossibility that prehistoric gender(s) can be seen, measured, probed and prodded. This argument for the invisibility of gender is diametrically opposed to the writings of Spector and to Whelan's (1991)
assertion that "[gender] may be more accessible [than any other prehistoric behavior] because gender systems tend to be materially and spatially rich (i.e. archaeologically visible). Her examples, however,-- division of labor and male/female status--are examples of sex difference rather than gender difference. I do think we can see social hierarchy, sometimes, but our inability to pin down gender, separate from sex, means that the source of the stratification or hierarchy is forever clouded for us.
Engendering Archaeology: Who and What
Before discussing selected individual papers presented in this volume, I want to point out two sociological aspects of their authors. There were, essentially, four generations of archaeologists presenting papers these two days. Undergraduates, graduate students, both Masters and doctoral candidates, professionals who received their degrees since 1982, and professionals who received degrees before 1977. This age structure is itself a feature of feminism which has argued that all women should be heard. In keeping with this attitude, all papers that were delivered and submitted are included and transcriptions of the workshops, rather than summaries, are offered.
One way to put this symposium into perspective is to summarize how the papers here either echo others now available or break new ground. From a personal bibliography of 237 entries of gender and archaeology conference papers, (to be published in Vol. 1, No. 2 of Annotated Bibliographies for Anthropologists), I found but 21 papers looking at North American prehistory. The three papers reprinted here-Hollimon, Mitchel, Sassaman- account for 15% of those available about this prehistoric region.
Historic archaeology is a far more popular arena for a gendered inquiry (46 entries in bibliography). Three papers in this volume, those by Stine, Trocolli, and Hollimon, address the historical archaeological record. The paper by Mitchel concerns an historical data base and many would consider Rosemary Joyce's paper to fall into this category also, dealing as it does with the literate Maya.
Several of the archaeology papers presented at the Boone conference were theoretical in content (Gero, Kehoe, Claassen, Hayden, Mitchel, Mann, Bolen) as are most of those in the bibliography. Eagerness to theorize and the reluctance to address data and the archaeological record could be indicating that, like archaeology generally in the 1990s, theoretical issues predominate and constitute what some would call dominant discourse. (Only 17 of the bibliography articles appeared before 1989). Women, in particular, believe they have something to say on gender and the topic is dominated by women; the articles listed in the bibliography represent the work of 167 different women. Not only do women have something to say, many women anthropologists have appropriate theoretical backgrounds via their own participation in the Women's Movement to contribute to this discourse. There are rewards for being identified as a theoretician in archaeology and some women are rushing to make their mark in this emerging literature. The lack of published papers dealing with gender and archaeology suggests that we aretalking to ourselves, however.
Perhaps more than all these things, the lack of papers which directly confront excavated data suggests to me an uncertainty about how to proceed, how to do an engendered archaeology. The workshops included in this collection--Engendering the Pleistocene-Holocene transition and Engendering the Contact Period-- were formulated specifically to address this uncertainty. In the transcriptions of both workshops, data bases are identified and research questions specified. Papers by Rosemary Joyce, Sandra Hollimon, and Ken Sassaman successfully engender prehistoric data.
There are, of course, many topics that could have been treated from a gender perspective but were not addressed at this conference. One topic that was very successfully presented at the Australian conference in February of 1991 was the interaction of gender and cultural resource management work, particularly the ghettoization of women in CRM, CRM as archaeological housework, and feminist issues in cultural resource management. What do American women have to say about CRM work?
Also missing, is any serious discussion of children (see Hammond and Hammond 1981, and Lillehammer 1989); the role they played in past social organizations, material culture distribution, site formation processes, site destruction. While traveling in several other cultures, I have been struck by the activities of children. Children taking care of children primarily, on the streets, in shops, in yards. Childhood is a cultural construct, the one familiar to us Westerners being no older than the Enlightenment. Because childhood is and was perceived differently, mothering was different, in activities, in attention. (See Kathy Bolen's paper for some much needed alternative models of mothering).
Children are non-productive members of our imagined past societies. They distract, they demand, they serve. They do not build, destroy, achieve, share, contribute to basic survival or environmental adaptation. Mothers must do everything for them, from feed to entertain to indulge, think archaeologists, in spite of anthropological literature to the contrary. But the activities of mothers and the activities of children in non-middle class settings today do not conform to this stereotype. A study of 186 cultures with particularly good information on childcare (Barry and Paxton 1971) found that while in 46% of these societies mothers were the principal or sole caretakers of infants, in less than 20% of these societies were mothers the principal caretakers of children. I have observed among the Tarahumara, girls and boys under the age of eight mending corrals and stock pens, herding animals, grinding maize on adult as well as their own smaller metates, washing dishes and babies, making wheeled toys, carrying, walking, tending younger children, shopping. I saw rock shelters where children had built corrals and simple beds
for themselves, for overnight and longer stays with goats. In those places, both boys and girls had built innumerable fires, broken pottery, and were possibly responsible for lithic debris. Male children took my group to burial caves some distance from their homes. (What, Lewis Binford, was the territorial knowledge of Nunimuit Eskimo children? or of women?) I was struck by the fact that the archaeological record of the Sierra Tarahumara is being strongly influenced by the constructive and destructive activities of children. I was also struck by how often I saw Tarahumara women in towns, pueblos, paths, roads, and fields without children. I am unwilling to speculate on the degree of autonomy of Tarahumara women but it seems great for Tarahumara children. The several studies which document the amount of time mothers and children devote to particular activities in different cultural settings and economic adaptations (Barry and Paxton 1971; Levine 1987, 1988; Nag et al. 1978; Nerlove 1974; Van Esterik and Greiner 1981; Weisner and Gallimore 1977) make this point quite clearly. When will we see ethnoarchaeology reports about women and children?
Undoubtedly, these topics and dozens of others will appear in the near future as the enterprise grows. Essentially everything in archaeology can and should be examined from a gender perspective.
Introduction to the Papers
This collection begins with the paper by Katharine Victor and Mary Beaudry, a particularly forboding paper about the probability of women archaeologists being heard, contributing to the discourse, and participating in the reward structure of the profession. Earlier papers by Gero (1985) on NSF funding and Beaudry and White (1991) on publications in Historic Archaeology have painted a similarly grim impression. What explains why so few women are published in these other forums? Many women professionals teach at smaller colleges and universities that are not publish or parish--consequently those individuals may wait longer to formulate their statements and/or may not seek publication in these two journals. What are the statistics for various monograph series, the New York State Archaeology Bulletin, Northwest Archaeological Research Notes,Southeastern Archaeology or book series such as those sponsored by Academic Press and Cambridge Press? What are the rejection rates for women and men at journals and presses. Many conference papers end up as publications--what are the ratios of presenters at conferences? Given that symposium organizers contact potential symposium members, what are the ratios of female and male organizers? How do we change the pattern of decreasing publications by women?
Carol Mason's paper was first aired in 1989 at the SAA meetings in Atlanta, and was represented at this conference. There have been several additional papers since chronicling aspects of women's history and archaeology's history. Mason's paper deals with particular women working in archaeology in the 1940s and 1950s primarily in the Eastern US.
There are many histories to write. Susan Bender's 1989 Chacmool paper (Bender 1991) covers some of the same geography as does Mason's yet none of the same women. We need histories of women in particular graduate programs and critical analyses of, even sociological/psychological studies of, particular scholars and teachers. I would like to see those men who refuse/ed to take women into the field or as graduate students, named. We have no detailed account of the Black women WPA excavation crews--who were those women at Irene Mound? What communities did they come from, what was the impact of the WPA experience on the rest of their lives, were any of those women promoted beyond the worker category? What shape did their community of women take? There have been subsequent all-women expeditions and crews, in the United States and abroad. What stories are untold? What post processual concerns would be unveiled in a feminist analysis of say, East European prehistory as penned by Gimbutas and/or Tringham and that by Renfrew, Milisauskas, and/or Jovanovich?
Alice Kehoe's keynote presentation discussed the partnership of class, sex and race discrimination and then entertained us with slides which reinterpreted many of the famous Venus figurines as penises. The paper she presented for publication however, focuses on the former topic and will make apparent to the reader one point of discord among those doing a gendered archaeology. In correspondence that has passed between Kehoe and Gero since the conference, Gero has objected to Kehoe's interpretation of the role of the Wedge conference, presented in her paper here, in the emerging discourse on gender. Gero insists that the discourse and issues are open to any and all while Kehoe insists that the use of an exclusive conference and the selection of "experts" to participate as well as the history of the topic contained in the Conkey and Gero Preface to Engendering Archaeology
sets up dominant discourse which effectively excluded voices.
Brian Hayden provides, in his own words "a male perspective on the issue of gender in prehistory". His position is one of logical positivism and his paper caused some controversy by his failure to embrace feminist literature which contradicts some of his points. It was thus labelled "dominant discourse" by one participant in this conference who also called for its exclusion. Not only is there a new research arena being developed in this conference and other forums like it, but there is a history being made as well, a history of this discourse. The testy areas were identified for Hayden, whose paper was read in absentia, and he was asked to consider anew his discussion, but the topic remains open to any and all. There will not be a single female perspective, a single male perspective, or a single feminist perspective in this enterprise of engendering the Past or the profession.
Kathy Bolen draws needed attention to the unquestioned application by archaeologists of the contemporary notions of mothering. She draws on literature from many fields outside anthropology and distinguishes biological mothering from social mothering. Her points require a consideration of past social systems, so often overlooked by archaeologists. In our field, in explanations of problems as seemingly disparate as bipedal posture and sex role attribution, all women have babies, the most productive part of a woman's life is spent in child bearing and caring, and all women reproduce and were reproducing all their lives.
Rosemary Joyce presents the most defensible discussion of gender, that in Mayan stone carving. Gender confusion and bi-gendered figures were the norm in Mayan carvings. Joyce sees gender and sexual complementarity in those images, a complementarity used to construct statements of political power. Alice Kehoe emphasizes this same type of complementarity for native American groups in the Pleistocene/ Holocene workshop.
Ken Sassaman has hit upon a particularly important realization for North American prehistorians----our incongruity in data when categorizing a site as either Woodland or Archaic. That the Archaic markers of stone are most often found at temporary camps and the Woodland markers of clay are most often found at long term settlements, that the former artifacts are associated primarily with men and the latter primarily with women, mean that our pictures of prehistoric life in these two major time divisions are incomparable. This paper is his third in a series engendering the Archaic-Woodland transition.
Sandra Hollimon provides some much needed data from biological anthropology on the physical differences in male and female skeletons in two groups with very different subsistence practices. There is a glaring lack of precisely this kind of data which is so valuable for engendering past cultures. Her bibliography will bring to the reader's attention a recent literature relevant to prehistoric Chumash women's lives.
Christi Mitchel critiques James Deetz's classic work on the Arikara. Under scrutiny here are his selection of sources, his avoidance of examples of active, rather than passive, Arikara women, and his insistence on a single cause for the change in pottery design associations. Several points raised by Mitchel are contradicted by discussion in the Contact period workshop.
Ruth Trocolli's paper discusses the impact of colonization on Timucuan peoples of Florida and women in particular. Timucuan women were conservative in their material culture and continued teaching Indian skills to their mestizo children after contact in their roles of housekeepers, cooks, and field laborers for the Spanish.
Linda Stine continues to develop her thoughts on rural women evident in the historic archaeological record, in this, her third paper on this topic. Her setting is the Stine family home and that of a neighboring family, exploring how gender, race, and class affect the material culture record.
As the individual papers clearly demonstrate, a gendered archaeology is not so simplistic as to ask what men were doing and what women were doing in xBP. There is nothing sacred in the archaeological cannon and the smorgasbord offered in this collection and that from the Chacmool conference The Archaeology of Gender and the Engendering Archaeology books should provide ample example and stimulation for new research endeavors.
Barry, H. and L. M. Paxton
1971 Infancy and Early Childhood: Cross-cultural Codes 2. Ethnology 10:466-508.
Beaudry, Mary C., and Jacqueline White
1991 "Cowgirls with the Blues? The Experience of Women in Historical Archaeology." Paper presented at the 24th annual meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Richmond, VA.
1985 Emergent Tribal Formations in the American Midcontinent. American Antiquity 50:52-62.
1989 The Roots of Inequality. In Domination and Resistance, edited by D. Miller, M. Rowlands, and C. Tilley, pp. 83-95. Unwin Hyman, Boston.
1991 The History of Women in Northeastern American Archaeology. In The Archaeology of Gender, edited by Dale Walde and Noreen Willows, pp. 211-216. Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary.
1990 Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge, New York.
Conkey, Margaret and Janet Spector
1984 Archaeology and the Study of Gender. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 7, edited by Michael Schiffer, pp. 1-38. Academic Press, New York.
1991 "Women's Work" in Middle Woodland Times: Tool Kits From the Island Field Site, Kent County, Delaware. Paper presented at the Mid-Atlantic Archaeological Conference, Ocean City.
1985 Socio-politics of Archaeology and the Woman-at-Home Ideology.American Antiquity 50:342-350.
Gero, Joan and Margaret Conkey
1991 Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Hole, Frank and Robert Heizer
1973 An Introduction to Prehistoric Archeology. Holt, Rinehart, Winston, New York.
Hammond, Gawain and Norman Hammond
1981 Child's Play: A Distorting Factor in Archaeological Distribution. American Antiquity 46:634-636.
1978 Women's Status In Egalitarian Society: Implications for Social Evolution. Current Anthropology 19:247-275.
Levine, Nancy E.
1987 Differential Child Care in Three Tibetan Communities: Beyond Son Preference. Population and Development Review 13:281-304.
1988 Women's Work and Infant Feeding: A Case From Rural Nepal. Ethnology 27:231-252.
1989 A Child is Born. The Child's World in an Archaeological Perspective. Norwegian Archaeological Review 22:90-105.
Miller, Virginia E. (editor)
1988 The Role of Gender in Precolumbian Art and Architecture. University Press of America, Washington.
Nag, Moni, B. White, and R. C. Peet
1978 An Anthropological Approach to the Economic Value of Children in Java and Nepal. Current Anthropology 19:293-306.
Peebles, Christopher and Susan Kus
1977 Some Archaeological Correlates of Ranked Societies. American Antiquity 42:421-448.
1991 What this Awl Means. In Engendering Archaeology: Women in Prehistory, edited by J. Gero and M. Conkey, pp. 388-406. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Thomas, David Hurst
1979 Archaeology. Holt, Rinehart, Winston, New York.
Van Esterik, P. and T. Greiner
1981 Breastfeeding and Women's Work: Constraints and Opportunities. Studies in Family Planning 12:184-197.
Weisner, Thomas S. and Ronald Gallimore
1977 My Brother's Keeper: Child and Sibling Caretaking.Current Anthropology 18(2):169-190.
1991 Gender and Archaeology: Mortuary Studies and the Search for Gender Differentiation. In The Archaeology of Gender, edited by Dale Walde and Noreen Willows, pp. 358-365. Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary.