Women in Archaeology: Intersectionalities in Practice Worldwide (Women in Engineering and Science) 3031276493, 9783031276491

Citation preview

Women in Engineering and Science

Sandra L. López Varela   Editor

Women in Archaeology

Intersectionalities in Practice Worldwide

Women in Engineering and Science Series Editor Jill S. Tietjen, Greenwood Village, CO, USA

The Springer Women in Engineering and Science series highlights women’s accomplishments in these critical fields. The foundational volume in the series provides a broad overview of women’s multi-faceted contributions to engineering over the last century. Each subsequent volume is dedicated to illuminating women’s research and achievements in key, targeted areas of contemporary engineering and science endeavors.The goal for the series is to raise awareness of the pivotal work women are undertaking in areas of keen importance to our global community.

Sandra L. López Varela Editor

Women in Archaeology Intersectionalities in Practice Worldwide

Editor Sandra L. López Varela Facultad de Filosofía y Letras Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Mexico City, Mexico

ISSN 2509-6427     ISSN 2509-6435 (electronic) Women in Engineering and Science ISBN 978-3-031-27649-1    ISBN 978-3-031-27650-7 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27650-7 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023, corrected publication 2023 Chapter 11 is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). For further details see licence information in the chapter. This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

To the daughters, mothers, and wives in our families

Preface

Women in Archaeology joins The Springer Women in Engineering and Science series at the invitation of Jill S. Tietjen, editor of the series. The series aims to raise awareness of the fundamental contributions of women in science and engineering, going deep into their experiences in practicing in an unusual combination of the personal and professional. Women in Archaeology extends the series to the social sciences and the humanities with the support of 43 remarkable female archaeologists working in different socio-economic and political environments in six world regions at all levels of their professional careers. The 29 chapters in this volume introduce their research and experiences in practicing archaeology in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Australia. In uniting this group of dedicated archaeologists, I made sure to represent the concerns and experiences of those women from less privileged areas in the world. Together, they tell the stories of many women worldwide who dedicate themselves to advancing knowledge and human understanding in academia and the private and public sectors. The authors in this volume celebrate women who are no longer with us, reminding us of their contributions to archaeology at a time when women had almost no voice, nor were they credited for their work by their brothers, fathers, husbands, and male colleagues. Thus, this volume demonstrates that women have always been present in the development of archaeology as a profession. Despite the vast literature covering women in archaeology, this volume is different. It not only brings together an international group of scholars but also extends beyond gender and feminist approaches to investigate the difficulties of practicing archaeology. Yet, the contributions in this volume debunk the androcentric construction of archaeological knowledge. Indeed, the practice of archaeology has systematically privileged men to a point in which the default history contributes to “mankind,” not humankind. However, the volume is not “anti-men.” It reminds us that, on many occasions, their actions have managed to obscure the indisputable fact that women have always been in the field while being mothers, sisters, or wives. Practicing archaeology in a world where men have been and continue to be inherently more powerful is not the only challenge to practicing archaeology by female archaeologists. vii

viii

Preface

Closing the gap to empower women and achieve equality in our profession requires far more than a gender perspective. Gender studies are interested mainly in the intersecting categories of age, sex, race, sexuality, and class. However, encountered barriers, as demonstrated by the contributions to this volume, extend beyond gender, identity, and discrimination. Contributors in this volume have referenced a long list of social, economic, and political phenomena affecting the practice of archaeology, including colonialism, poverty, global economics, politics, and even war. These challenges become self-evident when the practice of archaeology is placed at an international level. Therefore, this volume contributes to women’s studies in general, not only to gender in archaeology, as it explores many more barriers hindering women in the world of work. Thus, I relied on the concept of intersectionality to introduce the contributions of this group of scholars, for it is a better framework to explain their facing differential micro- and macro-complexities in the practice of archaeology. In 1989, Kimberlé Crenshaw introduced intersectionality as a legal term to address the constraints and conditions that characterize the subordination of Black women within antidiscrimination and feminist theories and politics. Crenshaw claimed the legal system privileged black men and white women in matters of discrimination, sexism, or racism. Thus, to protect black women from discrimination, it was not enough to consider they were just black, for they faced many other challenges than black men. Like Crenshaw, I, too, believe that addressing the difficulties in the practice of archaeology from a gender perspective is not enough, for women archaeologists are not a homogenous group. The use of intersectionality is meant to appreciate women in archaeology positions differently worldwide regarding existing inequalities in practicing archaeology. Inequality in the practice of archaeology and its varying and interrelated forms of oppression acquire different meanings depending on the social context in which they occur. Ignoring the challenges women archaeologists face in less privileged areas of the world leads to further inequality in the practice of archaeology, if not discriminatory practices, for these are subtle and extend to knowledge production. Adopting intersectionality as the weaving thread to bring these contributions together in the introduction to this volume intends to describe the many ways female archaeologists from different backgrounds worldwide encounter our profession. The centrism of the West has made us believe that we all share the same living reality or have the same needs. When we step out of our conventional reality, it is easier to diagnose inequality in the practice of archaeology. If we are interested in eliminating power imbalances in the practice of archaeology, we have to acknowledge that others do not share the reality we live in. Many of the challenges described in this volume are shared with western practitioners of archaeology. However, these challenges shape differently when placed in others’ social realities. Even if several contributors in this volume originate from impoverished countries or emerging economies, they know their writing originates from a context of privilege not shared by other archaeologists in their own country. Many archaeologists, regardless of gender, are excluded or affected by western academic dynamics, and with this understanding, I insist this volume is not anti-men. However, acknowledging their

Preface

ix

situation does not erase the fact that those men still practice archaeology in a setting where they have been and continue to be inherently more powerful. The use of intersectionality in this volume requests the archaeological community to take others into account when analyzing the status of women in our profession. The authors in this volume have not purposefully embraced intersectionality while addressing the disparities and inequalities in practicing archaeology. Thus, I am solely responsible for introducing their contributions to the theory of intersectionality to acknowledge the different economic, political, and social realities in which women practice archaeology. Mexico City, Mexico

Sandra L. López Varela

About the Editor

Since 2013, I, Prof. Dr. Sandra L. López Varela (Ph.D. in Archaeology, University of London, 1996; RPA 15480), have been a full-time Professor at the Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM). Behind where I am now is my parents’ history. I am the proud daughter of a civil engineer who attended school barefoot in the early 1920s and a remarkable woman who learned how to read and write later in life. After lifting himself from poverty, my father offered me the best education he could afford. I was privileged to be brought up learning four languages, taking piano lessons, and practicing challenging sports. Disclosing my interest in becoming an archaeologist was not welcomed by my father, for I had to be an architect, an unusual profession for a family forged by nineteenth-century ideas of what a Mexican woman should be. Nonetheless,  my daughter Nathalie is now fulfilling my father’s dream of having a woman in the family following a “man-oriented” profession. My eldest sister Araceli (†), an accountant who lived for her family, shared her household income with me to support my B.A. studies in Archaeology. There were hardly any graduate programs and grants in Mexico fulfilling my interests in archaeology. My sister Graciela, a high school teacher, drove me around Mexico City’s streets to visit embassies and find grants without much success, but it brought us closer. Since my parents’ passing, she has been my most avid supporter. When the Institute of Archaeology of the University College London accepted my application in 1987 to study an M.A. in Archaeology, my father modestly supported me. Once in London, I soon worked limited hours cleaning toilets and selling hamburgers at MacDonald’s on Tottenham Court Road, and later classifying microfiches at a company on Oxford Street to support my graduate studies. In 1996, I earned my Ph.D. in Archaeology from the University of London with a thesis on Formative Maya ceramics from Belize. Since my graduation did not come with a job, soon after, I applied for a Humboldt postdoctoral fellowship—one of the most prestigious grants a scholar could receive from the German government. I became the first woman archaeologist in Latin America to receive this distinction. At the University of Bonn, I became interested in archaeological sciences and

xi

xii

About the Editor

technology. The Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung remains the center of who I am as a professional. In 1998, I became a full-time professor at the Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos. Supported by the National Council of Science and Technology (CONACyT), I conducted ethnoarchaeological investigations of pottery production technologies at Cuentepec, Morelos. The research experience took me to adopt a critical and analytical stance toward economic and development growth policies to combat poverty in Mexico. Results from these investigations received the Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel-Forschungspreis award of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation in 2012, granted for the first time to a Latin American woman archaeologist for her outstanding research accomplishments. I am a survivor of the violence that took over Morelos, Mexico, which forced me to resign from my position at the university. The scar I carry has given me the strength to continue my research at UNAM with a new mission, preserving Mexico’s heritage. In 2015, I developed a mobile application for iOS and Android Devices, México Alternativo, promoting peoples’ heritage values (www.mexicoalternativounam.com). My most recent publications critically approach the national and institutional discourses of heritage and ethnicity in Mexico. My commitment to the discipline has taken me to serve as President and Vice President of the Society for Archaeological Sciences (SAS 2009–2011). After being elected to the Executive Board of the AAA, holding the Archaeology Seat (2011–2014), I became Treasurer of the Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología (SMA 2015–2017) and Secretary of the Archaeology Division of the American Anthropological Association (2018-2020). Additionally, I have served as co-chair of the task force revising the Society for American Archaeology ethics principles (2021–2023). Now that Springer is honoring me as editor of Women in Archaeology: Intersectionalities in Practice Worldwide, I am hoping this volume’s contributions highlight women’s invaluable participation in shaping our profession.

Acknowledgments

Women in Archaeology is the result of a collaborative effort of an international group of female archaeologists who wrote their contributions during the Covid-19 crisis. Therefore, we all share the complications of contracting the virus, losing our loved ones, the emotions of their passing, and those raised by forced confinement. Resilience is what made this volume possible. I want to extend my gratitude to all the contributors in this volume for their time and dedication, including those who found themselves in unforeseen circumstances and could no longer participate. Many contributors share their experiences in English as a foreign language. Thus, their writing in English for scientific communication should be highly praised and appreciated. I am grateful to Jill S. Tietjen for choosing me, a Mexican archaeologist, to lead these remarkable women through the production and editing of this volume, shedding light on the imperceptible challenges female archaeologists face beyond the Western confines. It is an undeserved honor to share their knowledge and experiences for The Springer Women in Engineering and Science series.

xiii

Contents

Part I Introduction 1

Women Practicing Archaeology��������������������������������������������������������������    3 Sandra L. López Varela

Part II The Americas 2

Women in US Cultural Resource Management: Stories of Courage, Ingenuity, Perseverance, and Intellect������������������   37 Teresita Majewski

3

Women in the Emergence of Archaeology of Mexico and Central America��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   65 Rosemary Joyce

4

Digging in Our Grandmother’s Gardens: Black Women Archaeologists in the United States from the 1930s to the Present������������������������������������������������������������������   77 Ayana Omilade Flewellen

5

The History of Teotihuacan Through the Eyes of Women Scholars����������������������������������������������������������������������������������   95 Linda R. Manzanilla

6

Las Mexicanas and their Clay Griddles: Lessons from Ethnoarchaeology for the Fight Against Poverty������������������������  115 Sandra L. López Varela

7

Las Invisibles: The Unrecognized Contributions of Women to Ecuadorian Archaeology��������������������������������������������������  141 María Auxiliadora Cordero

8

Myriam N. Tarragó, a Woman at the Crossroads of Argentinian Archaeology��������������������������������������������������������������������  157 Geraldine Andrea Gluzman xv

xvi

9

Contents

Indigenous Archaeologies and the (Re)Action of Women Archaeologists: An Overview of the Brazilian Archaeology Context�������������������������������������������������������������������������������  179 Fabíola Andréa Silva

Part III Europe 10 Prehistoric  Archaeology in Spain from a Feminist Perspective: Thirty Years of Reflection and Debate ��������������������������������������������������  201 Margarita Sánchez Romero 11 Women’s  Pathways in the History of Spanish Archaeology: A New Synthesis ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  221 Margarita Díaz-Andreu 12 The  Professionalization of Female Prehistorians in France in the Twentieth Century������������������������������������������������������������������������  243 Sophie A. de Beaune and Nathalie Richard 13 Female  and Male Archaeologists in Italy from the Unification (1871) to Contemporary Times ��������������������������������������������������������������  269 Francesca Fulminante 14 Women’s  Contributions to Archaeology in Germany Since the Nineteenth Century ����������������������������������������������������������������  283 Doris Gutsmiedl-Schümann, Julia Katharina Koch, and Elsbeth Bösl 15 Women  as Actors and Objects: The Discovery of ‘Venus’ Figurines in Present-Day Austria ����������������������������������������������������������  309 Katharina Rebay-Salisbury 16 A  Safe Space for Women Archaeologists? The Impact of K.A.N. on Norwegian Archaeology����������������������������������������������������  327 Lisbeth Skogstrand 17 Moving  Big Slabs: Lili Kaelas and Märta Strömberg – Two Swedish Pioneers in European Megalith Research����������������������  345 Tove Hjørungdal 18 Women  in the Archaeology of the Trans-­Urals (Russian Federation)��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  361 Natalia Berseneva and Sofya Panteleeva 19 No  Pay, Low Pay, and Unequal Pay: The TrowelBlazers Perspective on the History of Women in Archaeology��������������������������  381 Brenna Hassett, Victoria L. Herridge, Rebecca Wragg Sykes, and S. E. Pilaar Birch

Contents

xvii

Part IV Middle East 20 The  Story of Nawala A. Al-Mutawalli, a Woman Archaeologist from Iraq��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  401 Nawala A. Al-Mutawalli and Sandra L. López Varela Part V Africa 21 Women  and the Foundation of Egyptian Archaeology������������������������  415 Caroline Arbuckle MacLeod 22 Female  Archaeologists in West Africa: The Case of Senegal����������������  441 Khady Niang 23 Tanzanian Women in Archaeology ��������������������������������������������������������  461 Kathryn L. Ranhorn and Mariam Bundala 24 Women  Politics and Archaeology in Sudan ������������������������������������������  483 Intisar Soghayroun Elzein Part VI Asia 25 Women  in Southeast Asian Archaeology: Discoveries, Accomplishments, and Challenges ��������������������������������������������������������  497 Rasmi Shoocongdej and Miriam T. Stark 26 S  wimming Against the Tide: The Journey of a Bengali Archaeologist ����������������������������������������������������������������������  515 Bishnupriya Basak 27 Women in Japanese Archaeology ����������������������������������������������������������  535 Naoko Matsumoto 28 Female  Scholars and Their Contributions to Chinese Archaeology����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  559 Anke Hein, Jade d’Alpoim Guedes, Kuei-chen Lin, and Mingyu Teng Part VII Australia 29 W  omen in Australian Archaeology: Challenges and Achievements������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  593 Claire Smith, Niamh Formosa, Gwen Ferguson, and Kristen Tola Correction to: Women in Archaeology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   C1

Contributors

Bishnupriya Basak  University of Calcutta, Kolkata, India Natalia Berseneva  Institute of History and Archaeology, Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia S. E. Pilaar Birch  University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA Elsbeth Bösl  Universität der Bundeswehr, Munich, Germany Mariam  Bundala  Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada María Auxiliadora Cordero  University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA Sophie  Archambault  de Beaune  Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3, and UMR Archéologies et Sciences de l’Antiquité (ArScAn), Nanterre, France Margarita  Díaz-Andreu  Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ICREA), Barcelona, Spain Institut d’Arqueologia de la Universitat de Barcelona (IAUB), Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, España Departament d’Història i Arqueologia, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, España Intisar Soghayroun Elzein  University of Khartoum, Khartoum, Sudan Gwen Ferguson  Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia Ayana Omilade Flewellen  Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA Niamh Formosa  University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia Francesca Fulminante  University of Bristol and Oxford (Continuing Education), Bristol, UK Geraldine  A.  Gluzman  Instituto de las Culturas (IDECU), CONICET – Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina xix

xx

Contributors

Jade d’Alpoim Guedes  Department of Anthropology and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego, San Diego, United States Doris Gutsmiedl-Schümann  Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany Brenna Hasset  Institute of Archaeology, University College London, London, UK Anke  Hein  School of Archaeology, University of Oxford University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom Victoria L. Herridge  Natural History Museum London, London, UK Tove Hjørungdal  Göteborgs Universitet, Gothenburg, Sweden Rosemary Joyce  University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA Julia Katharina Koch  Landesamt für Denkmalpflege Hessen, Wiesbaden, Germany Kuei-chen  Lin  Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica, Taipei City, Taiwan Sandra  L.  López  Varela  Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico Caroline  Arbuckle  Macleod  The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada Nawala A. Al-Mutawalli  University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq Teresita Majewski  Statistical Research Inc., Tucson, AZ, USA Naoko Matsumoto  Okayama University, Okayama, Japan Linda  R.  Manzanilla  Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico Khady Niang  Université Cheikh Anta Diop, Dakar, Senegal Sofya Panteleeva  Institute of History and Archaeology, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Yekaterinburg), Russia Kathryn  Ranhorn  School of Human Evolution and Social Change and the Institute of Human Origins, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA Katharina Rebay-Salisbury  Austrian Archaeological Institute, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, Austria Department of Prehistoric and Historical Archaeology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria Nathalie Richard  Le Mans Université, Le Mans, France Margarita Sánchez Romero  Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain Rasmi Shoocongdej  Silpakorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

Contributors

xxi

Fabíola Andréa Silva  Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil Lisbeth Skogstrand  Universitetet I Oslo, Oslo, Norway Claire Smith  Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia Miriam Stark  University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, Honolulu, HI, USA Rebecca Wragg Sykes  University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK Mingyu Teng  Research Center for Chinese Frontier Archaeology (RCCFA) Jilin University, Changchun, People’s Republic of China Kristen Tola  Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia

Part I

Introduction

Chapter 1

Women Practicing Archaeology Sandra L. López Varela

Introduction Women in archaeology is the title of this volume, exploring the practice of archaeology through 29 chapters, written by 43 female archaeologists from the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and Australia. This geopolitical frame organizes this volume that moves beyond gender and feminist approaches to explore their unique perspectives in the practice of archaeology, emerging from different forms of social positioning. The volume is a platform allowing many women outside the West to express their critical views regarding women’s roles in our profession and their meeting challenges and opportunities in practicing archaeology. The contributors rewrite the history of archaeological practice by inserting the valuable contributions of many women, who simultaneously were mothers, sisters, or wives.  Most  chapters reference the origins of archaeological practice worldwide embedded in ideas, beliefs, and social attributions surrounding the biological characteristics with which women are born. The biological chromosomic characteristics that define women continue to weigh in powerfully in many countries, even today. Biological arguments and a widely diffuse concept of women being the “weak sex” continue to validate the unequal assignment of essential domestic tasks and responsibilities between men and women in the working environment, and archaeology has historically not been an exception. However, the number of women engaging in archaeology has increased steadily throughout the late twentieth and early twenty-­ first centuries, and the questions they raise have become central to the discipline. Nonetheless,  archaeology inevitably brings in the popular imagination of the hyper-masculine Indiana Jones more than the aristocrat Lara Croft. Hollywood has S. L. López Varela (*) Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. L. López Varela (ed.), Women in Archaeology, Women in Engineering and Science, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27650-7_1

3

4

S. L. López Varela

made archaeology a masculine profession, practiced by “cowboys” or by strong, “bronzed, lean, and shirtless male field surveyors and excavators” (see Majewski or Smith et al., in this volume). In the real world, women have practiced archaeology since its beginning, and their contributions have become more powerful over time. It is an exciting time to choose archaeology as a profession, for barriers are coming down. Still, the experiences written for this volume demonstrate that the road has not been, and it is still not easy. In many countries, archaeology is still considered a male activity (see Cordero, in this volume), for example, in Japan (see Matsumoto, in this volume) or China (see Hein et  al., in this volume). Until the 1970s, men undertook most archaeological fieldwork in Iraq, as traditions do not favor women working in the field in remote areas, describes Al-Mutawalli in this volume. Being in the field is difficult for many Iraqi women, as it requires spending the night away from home. In this context, Iraqi women archaeologists have mainly taught history in high school or worked “indoors” for the Department of Antiquities. Furthermore, women have carried out much of the work at laboratories and museums worldwide because they have to care for their home and the children, like Arlette Leroi-­ Gourhan, who fervently assisted her famous husband “André” (see Beaune and Richard, in this volume). However, even when women were excluded from directing field projects or undertaking excavations due to societal expectations and family responsibilities and relegated to the enclosed spaces of museums and laboratories, they turned these obstacles into opportunities to develop new techniques and innovative lines of research. Yes, archaeology created a sex-gender system organizing women’s tasks during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, based on gender norms, roles, and stereotypes that obey current standards of femininity and masculinity in each culture. The naturalization of gender roles and stereotypes made it difficult for women in certain countries to break with the mandates of masculinity and femininity that society imposed on them, but they did not give up. Debala Mitra “swam” through a colonial and patriarchal setting of state-sponsored archaeology while serving the Archaeological Survey of India between 1952 and 1983 (see Basak in this volume). In Argentina, Myriam N. Tarragó, a remarkable and relentless archaeologist, faced incarceration for her theoretical stance and ideological positioning (see Gluzman, in this volume). Nawala A. Al-Mutawalli survived the Iraq-Iran War and the US war on Iraq without losing enthusiasm to encourage young women to study archaeology (see her conversation with López Varela, in this volume). Therefore, the experiences shared in this volume demonstrate that women are strong, powerful, courageous, wise, and inspiring. By sharing the stories of these remarkable women in this volume, one immediately perceives that gender, sex, race, ethnicity, or class are not the only categories intersecting in their practicing archaeology. Since this is a volume written in an international context, it is committed to sharing the experiences in the practice of archaeology beyond the sex-gender system organizing North American or European archaeology. The values praised by North American and European gender and feminist discourses are mainly concerned with hegemonic masculinity or individual identity and how it affects the production of knowledge and the profession (Conkey

1  Women Practicing Archaeology

5

and Spector 1984; Gero 1985; Conkey and Gero 1991; Wylie 1991; Alberti and Danielsson 2014; De Leiuen 2014; Montón-Subías 2014; Dommasnes 2014). “Women’s worries and aspirations in the West differ from ours,” claims Elzein in this volume. “What we (women in Sudan) are defending today is the inspiration brought to us by our traditions and the experience of our (women) predecessors.” Understandably, most chapters in this volume are highly influenced by North American gender archaeology and feminism and, to a lesser extent, by Eurocentrism. However, women facing macro challenges, including patriarchy, religion, colonialism, poverty, world policies, global economics, politics, and even war, navigate beyond gender and feminist movements and activism to practice archaeology. Recent thought-provoking studies emerging in less privileged areas of the world epistemologically deconstruct the North American and European approaches to gender, feminism, and postcolonial feminist studies. These studies’ critique of decolonial reasoning objects to postcolonial feminist efforts for its essentialization of identity, based on the inverse recreation of categories (Makaran and Gaussens 2020, 37). Thus, feminism cannot be detached from colonialism in Latin America or Africa. Furthermore, not every female archaeologist shares the same aspirations promoted by western feminist movements and is allowed to embrace women’s liberation or incorporate gender theory into their research. Moreover, the sociopolitical and economic order dominating certain countries restricts many women from moving beyond the categories of man and woman. Thus, chapters in this volume reveal there is no single archaeology of gender, no universally shared feminist archaeology, and much is left to be examined on the hegemony of white women in English-­ speaking countries. Nonetheless, the number of women choosing archaeology as a profession keeps growing, and their contributions continue to redefine the field. The complexities behind women’s practicing archaeology extend beyond gender and feminist theories. Thus, intersectionality is used as a better unifying framework to introduce the contributions of those women who set the foundations to advance archaeology and acknowledge the research produced today by female archaeologists worldwide. Intersectionality (Crenshaw 1989) was coined as a tool for understanding the functionality of the categories reinforcing inequalities and systems of domination (Gutiérrez Cueli et al. 2020, 274; Kang et al. 2017, 20). Intersectionality extends beyond women facing multiple challenges. Its use creates an opportunity to highlight intersecting perspectives and promote further understanding among women worldwide, which is the intention of this book. Still, I am aware that the use of intersectionality to introduce the complexities women encounter in practicing archaeology throughout its history, many prevailing today, may be questionable by some for fear of falling into the trap of Western hegemonic rationality (see Castro Orellana 2020). However, the volume adds the voices, concerns, and experiences of female archaeologists who practice archaeology in less privileged world areas, eliminating disparities by analyzing the imbalances exclusively from a Western perspective.

6

S. L. López Varela

Intersectionality: A Unifying Framework In 1989, American civil rights advocate Kimberlé Crenshaw coined the legal term intersectionality to argue that antidiscrimination and feminist theories and politics subordinated Black women (see Crenshaw 1989; Crenshaw 1991). The observation revolved around the courts dealing with three legal racial and sex discrimination cases. In a recent interview, Crenshaw (Coaston 2019) said, “Intersectionality was a prism to bring to light dynamics within discrimination law that weren’t being appreciated by the courts.” The legal system ignored the many challenges black women faced as a group (Coaston 2019), for it considered black men but not the particular challenges of black women. Moreover, the invisibility of black women extended to feminist and anti-racist discourse. With the term intersectionality, Crenshaw conveys that systems of oppression such as racism and sexism overlap with each other and with other forms of discrimination, creating different experiences in people. Individual contributions by Flewellen and Niang in this volume precisely illustrate how different it is to practice archaeology in the United States than in Africa. Ayana  Omilade Flewellen, an African American archaeologist, describes in her chapter the challenges Black American women faced and continue to encounter in practicing archaeology. In the United States, the Black Power Movement and the Civil Rights Acts (1964 and 1968) improved the social conditions of this minority group, relatively ending discrimination. However, the gained rights and spaces by North American black women in archaeology are far apart from what it means to be a Black woman and archaeologist in sub-Saharan Africa, where there is a long way to go, states Niang, in this volume. Remnants of colonialism still permeate the practice of archaeology in Africa, for the working generation of female archeologists in Senegal is, with one exception, European. Differential experiences in the practice of archaeology by Flewellen and Niang are not the result of a single factor, for example, race, class, or gender. Despite commonalities, both live in societies with different institutions and rules that create dissimilar power structures (see Collins and Bilge 2016, 36), emerging from a long list of phenomena, including colonialism, poverty, disability, migration, world policies, global economics and politics, and even war. Differences in the practice of archaeology by Black women exemplify the need to investigate power relations influencing societies worldwide, beyond feminist or gender studies. Thus, many scholars of various disciplines, practitioners, public officers, and human rights activists have embraced intersectionality to discuss social inequality, people’s lives, and power organization in a given society (Collins and Bilge 2016, 22). Intersectionality references that categories of social difference and identity do not stand alone but interact closely with many forms of systemic oppression, mutually reciprocating each other (Yaussy 2020). Precisely, such a unidimensional approach explains extending this volume beyond gender, inequality, or marginalization studies.

1  Women Practicing Archaeology

7

However, Crenshaw has expressed concern about the overuse of intersectionality to understand and explain complexity in the world (Coaston 2019). In academia, debates about its meaning have sparked discoursing if it is the correct term to explain existing complexities (Collins and Bilge 2016, 22). Intersectionality, for good or bad, is here to stay, for its unmistakable anthropological approach serves many. Already, intersectionality has influenced archaeology, and its literature has extended significantly beyond feminist archaeologies (Spencer-Wood and Cantú Trunzo 2022), sexual archaeologies (Springate 2020), and women’s representation in our profession (Heath-Stout 2020). Intersectionality, for example, is now a crucial component of bioarchaeological research (Mant et al. 2021; Yaussy 2020). The potential of intersectionality is so great that many, including me, are most likely deviating from its point of departure to investigate women’s status in their professions (see Bowleg 2012), hoping to learn from our differences and multiple perspectives in practicing archaeology. In anticipation, I extend an apology if I am misinterpreting intersectionality in conveying the multiplicity of the power dynamics within our profession. Using intersectionality to explore the myriad of perspectives and multi-dimensional challenges women face worldwide is expected to foster understanding beyond a practice of archaeology placed only within the traditional biological dichotomy of most studies demonstrating the imbalances between “women and men.” “Women have been conspicuously absent from disciplinary histories due to intellectual discrimination, wishful thinking, and the structure and organization of science and the academy” (see Díaz-Andreu in her chapter, quoting Nancy J. Parezo and Susan J. Bender 1994, 74). In raising awareness of the different academic backgrounds in which many of the contributors practice archaeology, the voices in this volume are not only those of well-known Western scholars regularly publishing in peer-reviewed journals and dominating knowledge production. The volume adds female archaeologists’ voices, concerns, and experiences cut off from western science - another intersectionality making other women invisible.

Intersectionalities in Archaeological Practice Worldwide In the 1980s, feminist thinking reached archaeology (Conkey and Spector 1984; Gero 1985), opening new avenues of investigation which reclaimed women as active subjects in the past (Conkey and Gero 1991, 4). This seminal approach introduced the conceptual and analytical category of gender in archaeological research and interpretation (Conkey and Gero 1991, 5). The introduction encouraged a reflexive intellectual context recognizing gender bias throughout archaeological scholarship, influencing the rewriting of the history of archaeology, inciting new avenues to address equity issues in the discipline, and developing theoretically related gender concepts (Alberti and Danielsson 2014). The presence of Meg Conkey, Joan Gero, and Alison Wylie, at the First Australian Women in Archaeology

8

S. L. López Varela

Conference, organized by Hilary du Cros and Laurajane Smith, shaped gender studies in Australian archaeology (see Smith et al., in this volume). While most scholars are familiar with the early North American literature, Norwegian archaeologists were among the first to apply gender perspectives and incorporate feminist theory into archaeology (see Lisbeth Skogstrand, in this volume). In 1985, the intellectual scene in Norwegian gender archaeology resulted in the establishment of the organization and journal K.A.N., contemplating women’s studies within archaeology (see Skogstrand, in this volume). Moreover, Kjersti Scanche initiated an early debate questioning Margaret Conkey and Janet Spector for reproducing androcentric models when they applied cross-cultural frames for gender roles. Nonetheless, their approach was a first step to investigating the existing androcentrism in archaeology and rethinking issues of difference and relatedness (Wylie 1991). Through K.A.N., Norwegian archaeologists asked fundamental questions valid today, ranging from “are they all men” or “what is women’s archaeology.” Unfortunately, the contributions published in K.A.N. were mostly published in Scandinavian languages and thus hard to access for non-native speakers (see Skogstrand, in this volume). The language barrier is an obstacle to communicating what scholars are doing in Southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America, where female archaeologists publish primarily in  local journals, books, or reports, which are rarely read by the Anglo world and considered low-ranking publications. Thus, language is an intersectionality interfering with the visibility of females practicing archaeology. Further critique of North American gender archaeology emerges from Marxist or materialist feminism. For materialist feminism, the concept of gender is not helpful because it repeats the dominant ideological scheme of social categories without addressing the socialization of the sexual condition, argues Sánchez Romero in this volume. Gender represents a complex system of meaning – a social category rooted in the mechanisms by which people of a particular culture identify. Thus, gender can be deconstructed and articulated with other social categories such as age, socioeconomic class, or ethnic group. One may or may not agree with the critique by Latin American scholars proposing it is time to decolonize concepts of rationality, heterogeneity, otherness, globality, Europeanness, intersubjectivity, unilinearity, ethno-raciality, corporeity, coetaneity, sameness, and even interculturality, as these concepts mostly  emerge from the American university campus (Makaran and Gaussens 2020, 28). Despite differences, all efforts aimed to expose gender bias in archaeological research (Conkey and Gero 1991) and a way forward to our profession (Fig. 1.1). These schools of thought responded to the sex-gender system that had blurred women in prehistoric archaeology in the nineteenth and twentieth century. For example, Matthäus Much stated there was hardly any evidence of women’s roles in prehistory and, if at all, inference of their presence owed to feminine objects, such as jewelry or pottery in Neolithic contexts (see Rebay-Salisbury, in this volume). Even today, the finding of prehistoric figurines in Austria evokes imaginaries about women’s femininity and fertility beyond belief. All over Vienna, the

1  Women Practicing Archaeology

9

Fig. 1.1  Mission to Venus is a reflection of women’s right to drive as far as your imagination can take you. Interpretation of an acrylic by Tanya Momi

30,000-year-­old Venus of Willendorf, a universal feminine symbol, is reproduced in chocolates, soaps, and coffee mugs (see Rebay-Salisbury, in this volume). Due to its long research history in the United States, gender in archaeology is better situated, theoretically and methodologically, and has responded quickly to feminist analysis regarding the situation of women in society and the professional field. In Europe, activist approaches and in-depth studies on gender in archaeology have influenced the historical search for earlier professional female archaeologists (Gutsmiedl-Schümann, Koch, and Bösl, in this volume). Individual scholars, for example, Laura Nicotra, have published a historiographic monograph detailing the influence of women in the archaeology of Italy (see Fulminante, in this volume). In the 1990s, Dr. Elena Kupriyanova significantly contributed to gender archaeology and the archaeology of children in Russia (see Berseneva and Panteleeva, in this volume). Similar studies in archaeology are not prominent in African, Asian, or Latin American countries – the reasons are many. Archaeologists of African descent did not become active in the field until their nations acquired independence between 1960–70, describes Khady Niang in her chapter. Nearly two decades after the independence of most West African countries (between 1958 and 1960), a limited number of African-born archaeologists returned to the continent after their training in the French metropolitan universities. In French sub-Saharan Africa, indigenous women only entered the discipline in the late 1990s. These circumstances explain the low feminine perspective in the archaeological knowledge building and the lack of research agenda related to gender, a topic widely addressed in European and American archaeology after the feminist wave of the mid-twentieth century.

10

S. L. López Varela

Contributions made by professionals from African, Asian, or Latin American countries are most likely pioneering the search for women’s scholars and entrepreneurs in this volume. In her chapter, María Auxiliadora Cordero blames the strong patriarchal outlook on life for the invisibility of female archaeologists in Ecuador. Her observations do not stand alone in this volume. In practicing archaeology, many of our colleagues have suffered or faced the weight of their state’s oppressive apparatus. Currently, many female archaeologists find themselves at the front line of social revolutions claiming their sense of justice, peace, and freedom. Their rightful fight for justice might not provide them with enough time to cope with the dynamics of Western science. Still, they contribute to this book, highlighting that war and violence are intersectionalities restraining the visibility of women practicing archaeology. There are other reasons that are easier to overcome if we are aware of them. In Argentina, the influence of historiography is interested in recovering female archaeologists, their place in archaeology, and the personal and external circumstances that have allowed them to develop their careers or conversely inhibited their achievements or the recognition of their contributions (see Gluzman in this volume). Finding these pioneering women became the mission for many female archaeologists collaborating in this volume (Fig. 1.2). Currently, two international projects by leading female scholars advocate for the recognition of women’s contributions to archaeology. The TrowelBlazers Project dedicates its efforts to

Fig. 1.2  Women don’t go back is the story of women of all colors and shapes, who are moving forward and paving the path, so that other women will never have to look back. Interpretation of an acrylic by Tanya Momi

1  Women Practicing Archaeology

11

supporting women in archaeology, paleontology, and geology by examining the factors that have helped – or hindered – their participation in the ‘digging sciences’ (see Hasset et  al., in this volume). Parallel to these efforts, Díaz-Andreu’s “ArqueólogAs” project, described in this volume, has reunited a group of 21 archaeologists to recover the biographies of women born in or before 1950, who have played a significant role in developing Spanish archaeology but are rarely mentioned in the histories of the discipline. In Germany, the open-access database Propylaeum Vitae collects bibliographic data on archaeologists from the Renaissance onwards (see Gutsmiedl-Schümann, Koch, and Bösl, in this volume). Through these projects, more and more historical women have been rediscovered, and biographical studies have been published for individual and almost forgotten female archaeologists. Margarita Díaz-Andreu states in this volume, “…there is no country where women have been considered well by historians of archaeology. Most histories of archaeology have been written by men, who mainly discuss their accomplishments.” To break this tendency, contributors in this volume joined other female professionals in their efforts to recover ‘las invisibles’, the invisible women shaping archaeology, as expressed by Cordero in this volume.

Women Shaping the Profession Given the limited efforts to recover those women that shaped our profession, a rightful history of their contributions remains to be written. Thus, the history recovered so far begins in Europe, where royal courts and wealthy merchants developed an interest in the past, leading them to collect objects or sponsor the beaux arts. Contributions in this volume make clear that women’s engagement in collecting or managing of objects in these early times is linked to their family wealth, which allowed them to carry out their excavations. These women were royalty who wielded power as early as the third century, for there are records. Interest in excavating historical artifacts can be traced to Byzantine empress Helena Augusta (see Hasset et al., and Gutsmiedl-Schümann, Koch, and Bösl, in this volume). Helena Augusta, the mother of the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great, traveled to Jerusalem searching for the Holy Cross. Later, St. Helena became the patron saint of archaeologists and discoveries. In Sudan, Elzein has traced the history of early women educators as far back as the sixteenth century. Fatima bint Jabir, for example, taught the Quran and its science at her brothers’ Khalwi school. Moreover, she was well-known as a trader in India and Egypt. Díaz-Andreu’s project has recovered many women interested in antiquities from the seventeenth century to the beginning of the twentieth century. Like their predecessors, th