https://thenewinquiry.com/blog/what-does-a-woman-know/
“They are led by a woman. What does a woman know?”
A lot more than she’s given credit for.
Especially in archaeology.
Women have always faced extra challenges and hurdles in terms of the sciences, and the discipline of archaeology is no exception to that. Kathleen Sheppard explains how, traditionally, female archaeologists have long been outshined by the men in their field, and relegated to more behind-the-scenes tasks like cataloguing, organizing, and publishing the work of others, and that this trend has been happening since the dawn of the discipline. The unfairness doesn’t end there though, because women, especially in the earlier decades of archaeology, were also faced with the seemingly impossible decision between marriage and starting a family, or their career – a choice that men were never pressured into making, and in actuality the pursuit of marriage and having a family tended to enhance their careers, rather than end them.
Despite the fact that female archaeologists were few and far between, at least in comparison to their male counterparts, their contributions to the field should not be overlooked, and often still are, simply because they were not doing glamorous fieldwork or in the direct spotlight. There is a lot of importance in the quieter administrative tasks that women tended to be slated with, after all, what good is gathering all that data if you can’t find and study it later on?
Kathleen Sheppard illustrates this occurrence of marginalization by shining a light on one female archaeologist, Caroline Ransom Williams, whose contributions and dedication to the field were forgotten throughout the decades because rarely do people remember the supporting characters of a story. She was an invaluable resource to her male colleagues but ultimately withdrew from the profession because, like many women around the turn of the 20th century, the expectation of starting a family and the importance of getting married made it difficult to continue her career, even though she appeared destined for great things.
Sheppard also approaches this trend in archaeology from a feminist viewpoint, and how the silencing of the voice of female archaeologists has robbed the academic community of valuable insights and knowledge. She also brings in the major tenets of queer archaeology too, because both work well together and are relevant to the trends she outlines. Feminist archaeology sets out to challenge common assumptions and things that are taken for granted, along with establishing a ‘female voice’ with the goal of reaching a place of multi-vocality in the archaeological discipline. Queer archaeology, too, sets out to challenge the norm and make the marginalized in the past more visible – in this instance, professional women in archaeology.
I think that these two theoretical frameworks are exactly what is needed for critiquing the treatment of women and their work in archaeology, and both act as a good guideline on how the discipline needs to progress in the future. This is because it is important to challenge common conceptions and the traditional way of interpreting the past, along with understanding the discipline itself, because in order for archaeology to become more holistic, diverse, and inclusive, all voices need to be heard, both in the future and from work done in the past.
Now, while the industry has certainly improved over the past few decades, there is always room for improvement and I think that it’s foolish to assume that the problem has been solved just because there are more visible female archaeologists within the discipline today. I think that it is important to continually question and analyze what we are being taught and how we interpret the world around us, and it is equally as important to take these everchanging mindsets and use them to gain a better understanding of where we are going as a discipline, and also where we have been.
By Caitlin Bergh
I agree with much if not all of Caitlin’s main points presented. Just because the system has been improving over a number of years to get us to a point where women in archaeology, or any discipline for that matter, have more choices when it comes to her career, such as no longer having the same pressure to get married and have a family. This would have taken precedent over a career and no longer is quite as stigmatized in this day and age, though the stigma does linger in other ways.
A woman going into a career such as archaeology is still likely to be more judged whether in her work or just as a person. We discussed in class one day the way a woman is judged in an interview: Whether she wear pants or skirt, hair up or down, make-up or no make-up, etc. when in comparison to men, there are fewer pressures.
It is important to make sure we move forward in this journey of improving circumstances for women in archaeology and I think that those currently in the field do good for themselves, but there’s still a sense of dominance in need of being balanced out.
I agree with Caitlin that the feminist viewpoint is needed in archaeology. Indeed, this is emphasized in the story of Caroline Williams and how women have felt pressured by society to choose between their career and family, which men do not. The theories and accomplishments of white males have been the dominant perspective and this dominance has discounted the insight that women can bring to the academic field. Again, I agree with Caitlin that there is so much room for improvement in recognizing women and their archaeological pursuits, insight and accomplishments. Furthermore, as mentioned in the article, media forms based on archaeology have often surrounded the male heroic archaeologist, such as Indiana Jones. Personally, I hope that if another sequel is made, that the heroic archaeologist will be based solely on Indiana Jones’ long lost niece or any other female relative that can take over the reigns.