The Interplay of Evidential Constraints and Political Interests: Recent Archaeological Research on Gender | American Antiquity | Cambridge Core (original) (raw)

Abstract

In the last few years, conference programs and publications have begun to appear that reflect a growing interest, among North American archaeologists, in research initiatives that focus on women and gender as subjects of investigation. One of the central questions raised by these developments has to do with their "objectivity" and that of archaeology as a whole. To the extent that they are inspired by or aligned with explicitly political (feminist) commitments, the question arises of whether they do not themselves represent an inherently partial and interest-specific standpoint, and whether their acceptance does not undermine the commitment to value neutrality and empirical rigor associated with scientific approaches to archaeology. I will argue that, in fact, a feminist perspective, among other critical, explicitly political perspectives, may well enhance the conceptual integrity and empirical adequacy of archaeological knowledge claims, where this is centrally a matter of deploying evidential constraints.

Resumen

Durante los últimos años han comenzado a aparecer programas de conferencias y publicaciones que reflejan un creciente interés entre arqueólogos norteamericanos en iniciativas de investigación centradas en la mujer y el rol de los sexos como temas de estudio. Uno de los principales interrogantes planteados por estos desarrollos se refiere a la objetividad de estas investigaciones y de la arqueología en general. En la medida en que tales estudios están inspirados por, o comprometidos con programas políticos feministas explícitos, surge la pregunta de si no representan un punto de vista intrínsecamente parcial relacionado a intereses específicos, y de si su aceptación no socava el compromiso con la neutralidady el rigor empírico asociados con enfoques científicos en arqueología. Sostengo que una perspectiva feminista, entre otras perspectivas críticas políticamente explícitos, Men puede fortalecer la integridad conceptual y la pertinencia empírica del conocimiento arqueológico, cuando se trata principalmente de expandir los límites de la evidencia.

References

Arnold, K., Gilchrist, R., Graves, P., and Taylor, S. (editors) 1988 Women in Archaeology. Archaeological Reviews from Cambridge 7(1) : 2–8.Google Scholar

Barstow, A. 1978 The Uses of Archeology for Women's History : James Mellaart's Work on The Neolithic Goddess at Catal Hiiyuk. Feminist Studies 4(3) : 7–17.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bernstein, R. J. 1983 Beyond Objectivism and Relativism : Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar

Bertelsen, R., Lillehammer, A., and Naess, J. (editors) 1987 Were They All Men? : An Examination of Sex Roles in Prehistoric Society. Arkeologist museum i Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway.Google Scholar

Binford, L. R. 1982 Objectivity-Explanation-Archaeology 1981. In Theory and Explanation in Archaeology, edited by Renfrew, C., Rowlands, M. J., and Segraves, B. A., pp. 125–138. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar

Binford, L. R. 1983 Working at Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar

Binford, L. R. 1986b In Pursuit of the Future. In American Archaeology Past and Future, edited by Meltzer, D. J., Fowler, D. D., and Sabloff, J. A., pp. 459–479. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar

Binford, L. R. 1989 Debating Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar

Braithwaite, M. 1984 Ritual and Prestige in the Prehistory of Wessex c. 2200-1400 BC : A New Dimension to the Archaeological Evidence. In Ideology, Power, and Prehistory, edited by Miller, D. and Tilley, C., pp. 93–110. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRef Google Scholar

Brumfiel, E. M. 1991 Weaving and Cooking : Women's Production in Aztec Mexico. In Engendering Archaeology : Women and Prehistory, edited by Gero, J. M. and Conkey, M. W., pp. 224–251. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar

Conkey, M. W., and Spector, J. D. 1984 Archaeology and the Study of Gender. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 7, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 1–38. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar

Conkey, M. W., with Williams, S. H. 1991 Original Narratives : The Political Economy of Gender in Archaeology. In Gender at the Cross-roads of Knowledge : Feminist Anthropology in the Post-Modern Era, edited by Leonardo, M. di. University of California Press, Berkeley, in press.Google Scholar

Ehrenberg, M. 1989 Women in Prehistory. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.Google Scholar

Engelstad, E. 1991 Images of Power and Contradiction : Feminist Theory and Post-Processual Archaeology. Antiquity 65 : 502–514.CrossRef Google Scholar

Fausto-Sterling, A. 1985 Myths of Gender : Biological Theories About Men and Women. Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar

Feyerabend., P. 1988 Against Method. 2nd ed. Verso, London.Google Scholar

Flax, J. 1987 Postmodernism and Gender : Relativism in Feminist Theory. Signs 12 : 621–643.Google Scholar

Frazer, N., and Nicholson, L. J. 1988 Social Criticism without Philosophy : An Encounter Between Feminism and Postmodernism. Communications 10 : 345–366.Google Scholar

Galison, P. 1987 How Experiments End. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar

Gathercole, P., and Lowenthal, D. 1989 The Politics of the Past. Unwin Hyman, London.Google Scholar

Gero, J. M. 1983 Gender Bias in Archaeology : A Cross-Cultural Perspective. In The Socio-Politics of Archaeology, edited by Gero, J. M., Lacy, D. M., and Blakey, M. L., pp. 51–58. Research Report No. 23. Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar

Gero, J. M. 1985 Socio-Politics and the Woman-at-Home Ideology. American Antiquity 50 : 342–350.CrossRef Google Scholar

Gero, J. M. 1988 Gender Bias in Archaeology : Here, Then and Now. In Feminism Within the Science and Health Care Professions : Overcoming Resistance, edited by Rosser, S. V., pp. 33–43. Pergamon Press, New York.Google Scholar

Gero, J. M., and Conkey, M. W. (editors) 1991 Engendering Archaeology : Women and Prehistory. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar

Gibbon, G. 1989 Explanation in Archaeology. Basil Blackwell, New York.Google Scholar

Glymour, C. 1980 Theory and Evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar

Hacking, I. 1983 Representing and Intervening. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Hacking, I. 1988 Philosophers of Experiment. PSA 1988, vol. 2, edited by Fine, A. and Leplin, J., pp. 147–156. Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, Michigan.Google Scholar

Handsman, R. 1991 Whose Art Was Found at Lepenski Vir? : Gender Relations and Power in Archaeology. In Engendering Archaeology : Women and Prehistory, edited by Gero, J. M. and Conkey, M. W., pp. 329–365. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar

Hanson, N. R. 1958 Patterns of Discovery. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Harding, S. 1983 Why Has the Sex/Gender System Become Visible Only Now? In Discovering Reality : Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, edited by Harding, S. and Hintikka, M. B., pp. 311–325. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland.Google Scholar

Harding, S. 1986 The Science Question in Feminism. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.Google Scholar

Hastorf, C. A. 1991 Gender, Space, and Food in Prehistory. In Engendering Archaeology : Women and Prehistory, edited by Gero, J. M. and Conkey, M. W., pp. 132–159. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar

Hawkesworth, M. E. 1989 Knowers, Knowing, Known : Feminist Theory and Claims of Truth. Signs 14 : 533–557.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hodder, I. 1982 Symbols in Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Hodder, I. 1983 Archaeology, Ideology and Contemporary Society. Royal Anthropological Institute News 56 : 6–7.Google Scholar

Hodder, I. 1984b Burials, Houses, Women and Men in the European Neolithic. In Ideology, Power, and Prehistory, edited by Miller, D. and Tilley, C., pp. 51–68. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Hodder, I. 1985 Post-processual Archaeology. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 8, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 1–25. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar

Hodder, I. 1986 Reading The Past : Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Hodder, I. 1991 Interpretive Archaeology and Its Role. American Antiquity 56 : 7–18.Google Scholar

Kehoe, A. 1983 The Shackles of Tradition. In The Hidden Half : Studies of Plains Indian Women, edited by Albers, P. and Medicine, B., pp. 53–73. University Press of America, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar

Kelley, J., and Hanen, M. 1992 Gender and Archaeological Knowledge. In Metaarchaeology, edited by L. Embree. Boston Studies in Philosophy of Science. Reidel, Holland, in press. Ms. 1991.Google Scholar

Knorr, K., and Mulkay, M. (editors) 1983 Science Observed : Perspectives on the Social Study of Science. Sage Publications, London.Google Scholar

Kosso, P. 1988 Dimensions of Observability. British Journal of Philosophy of Science 39 : 449–467.Google Scholar

Kosso, P. 1989 Science and Objectivity. Journal of Philosophy 86 : 245–257.Google Scholar

Kramer, C, and Stark, M. 1988 The Status of Women in Archaeology. American Anthropological Association Newsletter 29(9) : 1, 11–12.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. 1970 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar

Lather, P. 1986 Issues of Validity in Openly Ideological Research : Between a Rock and a Soft Place. Interchange 17(4) : 63–84.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lather, P. 1990 Postmodernism and the Human Sciences. The Humanist Psychologist 18 : 64–83.Google Scholar

Latour, B. 1987 Science in Action. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Latour, B., and Woolgar, S. 1986 Laboratory Life : The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar

Laudan, L., and Leplin, J. 1991 Empirical Equivalence and Underdetermination. Journal of Philosophy 88 : 449–472.Google Scholar

Longino, H. E. 1987 Can There Be a Feminist Science? Hypatia 2 : 51–65.Google Scholar

Longino, H. E. 1990 Science as Social Knowledge. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar

Longino, H. E., and Doell, R. 1983 Body, Bias, and Behavior : A Comparative Analysis of Reasoning in Two Areas of Biological Science. Signs 9 : 206–227.CrossRef Google Scholar

Mack, R. 1990 Reading the Archaeology of the Female Body. Qui Parle 4 : 19–91.Google Scholar

Miller, D., and Tilley, C. (editors) 1984 Ideology, Power, and Prehistory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Miller, R. 1987 Fact and Method : Explanation, Confirmation and Reality in the Natural and Social Sciences. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar

Moore, H. L. 1988 Feminism and Anthropology. Polity Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Mukhopadhyay, C. C, and Higgins, P. J. 1988 Anthropological Studies of Women's Status Revisited : 1977-1987. Annual Review of Anthropology 17 : 461^195.Google Scholar

Newton-Smith, W. H. 1981 The Rationality of Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Pickering, A. 1984 Constructing Quarks : A Sociological History of Particle Physics. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.Google Scholar

Pickering, A. 1987 Essay Review : Forms of Life : Science, Contingency and Harry Collins. British Journal for the History of Science 20 : 213–221.Google Scholar

Pickering, A. 1989 Living in the Material World : On. Realism and Experimental Practice. In The Uses of Experiment : Studies in the Natural Sciences, edited by Gooding, D., Pinch, T, and Schaifer, S., pp. 275–297. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Prentice, G. 1986 Origins of Plant Domestication in the Eastern United States : Promoting the Individual in Archaeological Theory. Southeastern Archaeology 5 : 103–119.Google Scholar

Renfrew, C. 1982 Explanation Revisited. In Theory and Explanation in Archaeology, edited by Renfrew, C., Rowlands, M. J., and Segraves, B. A., pp. 5–23. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar

Renfrew, C. 1989 Comments on Archaeology Into the 1990s. Norwegian Archaeological Review 22( 1 ) : 33–41.CrossRef Google Scholar

Rosaldo, M. Z., and Lamphere, L. (editors) 1974 Women, Culture, and Society. Stanford University Press, Stanford.Google Scholar

Rudner, R. 1966 Philosophy of the Social Sciences. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Google Scholar

Shanks, M., and Tilley, C. 1987a Re-constructing Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Shanks, M., and Tilley, C. 1987b Social Theory and Archaeology. Polity Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Shanks, M., and Tilley, C. 1989 Archaeology Into the 1990s; Questions Rather Than Answers. Reply to Comments on Archaeology Into the 1990s. Norwegian Archaeological Review 22(1) : 1-14, 42-54. (With comments, pp. 15–41.)Google Scholar

Shapere, D. 1985 The Concept of Observation in Science and Philosophy. Philosophy of Science 49 : 485–525.Google Scholar

Smith, B. D. 1987 The Independent Domestication of the Indigenous Seed-Bearing Plants in Eastern North America. In Emergent Horticultural Economies of the Eastern Woodlands, edited by Keegan, W., pp. 3–47. Occasional Paper No. 7. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.Google Scholar

Spector, J. D. 1983 Male/Female Task Differentiation Among the Hidatsa : Toward the Development of an Archeological Approach to the Study of Gender. In The Hidden Half : Studies of Plains Indian Women, edited by Albers, P. and Medicine, B., pp. 77–99. University Press of America, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar

Suppe, F. 1977 The Structure of Scientific Theories. 2nd ed. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.Google Scholar

Trigger, B. G. 1989 Hyperrelativism, Responsibility, and the Social Sciences. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 26 : 776–797.Google Scholar

Tringham, R. E. 1991 Households with Faces : The Challenge of Gender in Prehistoric Architectural Remains. In Engendering Archaeology : Women and Prehistory, edited by Gero, J. M. and Conkey, M. W., pp. 93–131. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar

Walde, D., and Willows, N. (editors) 1991 The Archaeology of Gender, Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Chacmool Conference. The Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary, in press.Google Scholar

Watson, P. J., and Fotiadis, M. 1990 The Razor's Edge : Symbolic-Structuralist Archeology and the Expansion of Archeological Inference. American Anthropologist 92 : 613–629.CrossRef Google Scholar

Watson, P. J., and Kennedy, M. C. 1991 The Development of Horticulture in the Eastern Woodlands of North America : Women's Role. In Engendering Archaeology : Women and Prehistory, edited by Gero, J. M. and Conkey, M. W., pp. 255–275. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar

Watson, R. A. 1990 Ozymandias, King of Kings : Postprocessual Radical Archaeology as Critique. American Antiquity 55 : 673–689.CrossRef Google Scholar

Wildeson, L. E. 1980 The Status of Women in Archaeology : Results of a Preliminary Survey. American Anthropological Association Newsletter 21(5) : 5–8.Google Scholar

Woolgar, S. 1983 Irony in the Social Study of Science. In Science Observed : Perspectives on the Social Study of Science, pp. 239–266. Sage Publications, London.Google Scholar

Wylie, A. 1985 The Reaction Against Analogy. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 8, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 63–111. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar

Wylie, A. 1987 The Philosophy of Ambivalence : Sandra Harding on The Science Question in Feminism. Canadian Journal of Philosophy (supplementary volume) 13 : 59–73.Google Scholar

Wylie, A. 1988 “Simple” Analogy and the Role of Relevance Assumptions : Implications of Archaeological Practice. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 2(2) : 134–150.Google Scholar

Wylie, A. 1989a Matters of Fact and Matters of Interest. In Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity, edited by Shennan, S., pp. 94–109. Unwin Hyman, London.Google Scholar

Wylie, A. 1989b Archaeological Cables and Tacking : The Implications of Practice for Bernstein's “Options Beyond Objectivism and Relativism. ” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 19 : 1–18.Google Scholar

Wylie, A. 1990 The Philosophy of Archaeology : Varieties of Evidence. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Philosophical Association Meetings, Eastern Division, Boston.Google Scholar

Wylie, A. 1991a Gender Theory and the Archaeological Record : Why Is There No Archaeology of Gender?. In Engendering Archaeology : Women and Prehistory, edited by Gero, J. M. and Conkey, M. W., pp. 31–54. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar

Wylie, A. 1991b Beyond Objectivism and Relativism : Feminist Critiques and Archaeological Challenges. In The Archaeology of Gender, Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Chacmool Conference, edited by Walde, D. and Willows, N.. The Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary, in press.Google Scholar

Wylie, A. 1991c Reasoning About Ourselves : Feminist Methodology in the Social Sciences. In Women and Reason, edited by Harvey, E. and Okruhlik, K.. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan, in press.Google Scholar

Wylie, A. 1992 On “Heavily Decomposing Red Herrings“ : Scientific Method in Archaeology and the Ladening of Evidence with Theory. In Metaarchaeology, edited by Embree, L.. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Reidel, Holland, in press. Ms. 1991.Google Scholar