Meheux, K 2018 ‘An Awfully Nice Job’. Kathleen Kenyon as Secretary and Acting Director of the University of Institute of , 1935–1948. Archaeology International, 21(1), pp. 122–140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/ai-379

RESEARCH ARTICLE ‘An Awfully Nice Job’. Kathleen Kenyon as Secretary and Acting Director of the University of London Institute of Archaeology, 1935–1948 Katie Meheux

This article presents an assessment of the administrative career of Kathleen­ Kenyon. It examines her involvement in the new Institute and wider British ­archaeological community as well as assessing her working life within the context­ of the increasing­ professionalisation of archaeological organisations between the wars, and the role played in this by female administrators. The behaviours and actions of Kenyon and those around her are also evaluated within the context of wider contemporary attitudes to and about women. Finally, Kenyon’s role in ­women’s archaeological practice and women’s contributions to archaeological ­culture between the wars is considered.

‘The advantages of the post on the described as an ‘eccentric and utterly atypi- other hand are these. Its holder would cal institution’ (Kenyon 1970: 108). She was have the making not merely of the job, Secretary (1935–1948), Acting Director (1942– but to a large extent of the Institute. He 1946) and in Palestinian Archaeology, or she will start from nothing and will leaving only in 1961 to become Principal of St. build up something which ought to be Hugh’s College, Oxford. Kenyon’s life is well pretty good. We need someone with an documented, with accounts by ­colleagues, academic training and with imagina- friends and former students (Dever 2004; tion and a heap of commonsense’.1 Moorey 1992; Parr 2004; Prag 1992) and a detailed, wide-ranging biography (Davis Introduction 2008). Kenyon was considered a brilliant field Dame Kathleen Kenyon (1906–1978), one of archaeologist, the ‘Mistress of Stratigraphy’ the most influential women archaeologists of (Dever 2004: 528), but she was more than the 20th century, enjoyed a long and fruitful this: her wide-ranging career also included relationship with the University of London administration, recruiting students, lecturing, (later UCL) Institute of Archaeology, which she publishing, chairing committees, organising conferences, curating collections and even becoming a figure of media interest. As Acting UCL Institute of Archaeology, 31–34 Gordon Director of the Institute, she became the first Square, Kings Cross, London, UK woman to lead a major branch of a British [email protected] ­university (Davis 2008: 89, Figure 1). Meheux: ‘An Awfully Nice Job’. Kathleen Kenyon as Secretary and Acting Director of the 123 University of London Institute of Archaeology, 1935–1948

within the British archaeological community during the inter-war period. They infiltrated the Society of Antiquaries (Hawkes 1982: 125); local societies gave them a chance to develop as excavators, for example Elsie Clifford (1885–1976) and Maud Cunnington (1869–1951). Women also participated in excavations overseas, including Winifred Lamb (1894–1963), who led excavations in Greece (Champion 1998: 177–178). Narratives about individual female excava- Figure 1: Kathleen Kenyon excavation at tors reflect contemporary attitudes that this Jericho. Photo: Stuart Laidlaw. Reproduced was ‘above all, an age of excavation’ (Kenyon with permission of the photography. Insti- 1939: 251), but perpetuate male-centred his- tute of Archaeology Jericho Photographic tories of archaeology and ­perceptions that Archive. the only ‘true’ archaeology is excavation, a physically-demanding, male-cultured activity Using archives from the UCL Institute (Carr 2012: 9; Diaz Andreu and Stig Sorensen of Archaeology and Special Collections, 1998; Hamilton 2007: 121–124). Finds pro- this study seeks to move away from exca- cessing work, museology and administration vation-centred studies of Kenyon to shed are seen as less ­prestigious, female-cultured light on her administrative career. Kenyon activities and have received less historical spent thirteen years as the Institute of attention (Hamilton 2007: 121; Carr 2012: 9). Archaeology’s chief administrator, as well as We need to move away from such ‘gendered’ serving as Secretary to the Council for British ­discourses to understand fully the profes- Archaeology (1944–1948) and volunteering sionalisation of archaeology in the 20th cen- for the Palestinian Exploration Fund (1935– tury and women’s role within this process. 1955). The study will also provide a gender- Women excavated, but they also explored the critical perspective of her career within the wide options becoming available: Kenyon British archaeological community and in herself promoted women’s career opportu- the process, reveal the vital work done by nities: excavators, finds specialists,­ muse- female administrators, who took advantage ologists, photographers, ‘draftsmen’ and of expanding opportunities in the inter- finds repair staff (Kenyon 1943d) and in her war period to carve out professional spaces fieldwork manual Beginning in Archaeology for themselves. Along with them, Kenyon (Kenyon 1952: 162), emphasised: ‘he faced significant ­challenges: discrimination, throughout the book should be read as he or ­calculated interference and negative char- she, for there are just as many openings for acter judgements that remain embedded in women as for men’. discourses about her to this day. Wider gender-critical contexts of female emancipation and recognition of shifting Kenyon in Context: Histories of narratives about women’s professional and Women in Archaeology and Women in public status are also necessary (Colpus Inter-War History 2018: 201). Although there is much debate Kenyon’s archaeological career needs to over women’s emancipation during the inter- be examined within the wider contexts of war period, there is consensus that educated archaeology and contemporary society. As middle-class women, so-called ‘New Women’, earlier male concerns about female partici- experienced significant progress (Bingham pation in excavations faded (Moorey 1992: 2004: Summerfield 1998; Colpus 2018): 92), women gained increasing influence they were independent and self-sufficient; 124 Meheux: ‘An Awfully Nice Job’. Kathleen Kenyon as Secretary and Acting Director of the University of London Institute of Archaeology, 1935–1948 attended university; travelled and pursued excavating (1931–1935) in Samaria for the professional careers (Summerfield 1998: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem 50–51). They could vote; they had the and in the Roman town of Verulamium (St. legal right to a career and divorce (Branson Albans) with the Wheelers that established 1975: 209). There were changing cultures the interests that were to dominate her life: of sports and entertainment, new patterns Romano-British and Palestinian archaeology of domestic life (McKibbin 1998: 370). They (Davis 2008: 30–57; Moorey 1992: 96). R.E.M. adopted mixed-sex activities and behaviours Wheeler, Director of the London Museum, formerly regarded as distinctly masculine and his first wife Tessa Verney Wheeler were (Light 1991: 210). There were also significant amongst the most influential of inter-war shifts in attitudes towards female authority. archaeologists (Hawkes 1982: 125). Both 19th-century concepts of female authority possessed archaeological talent coupled with were moral, focused on class and religion: enormous charm and charisma, which they ‘ladies’ ­fulfilling their maternal and marital used to great effect. The Wheelers were quick missions, the kind of authority that allowed to recognise Kenyon’s talent. She became ‘archaeological wives’ such as Tessa Verney close to them, commenting: ‘I don’t think Wheeler (1883–1936) opportunity. These that many practising archaeologists came were slowly replaced by partial acceptance within the orbit of Rik and Tessa Wheeler of women’s authority based on competency earlier’ (Kenyon 1977: i). and rights and women began to forge profes- It was through the Wheelers that Kenyon sional identities (Colpus 2018: 201; Hinton first became involved in the Institute of 2002: 53; Woollacott 1998: 100). Archaeology. From as early as 1927, the But these new ideas, indeed these New Wheelers planned a London Institute or Women, came under attack amidst fears they Board for the professional training of archae- were rejecting marriage, domesticity and ologists, a dream shared by many of their maternity and seeking to be independent generation. But funding and institutional of men (McKibbin 1998: 321–3). At a pub- backing were difficult to secure; it was not lic level, England remained an almost exclu- until 1932, when an Appeal Committee was sively single-sex society, with most important established, that plans were set in motion roles occupied by men. The proportion of (Evans 1987: 1, 6). In 1934 the Senate of the women in the higher professions in 1950 University of London agreed to include the was no higher than it was in 1914. Women proposed Institute as part of their federa- worked for inferior pay and without private tion (Evans 1987: 10), which united autono- income, marriage was the only real way to mous colleges and institutions in London escape poverty. They were still expected to (McKibbin 1998: 250–252). The University’s give up their career on marriage (McKibbin vision was to function as global centre of 1998: 521). For many women, inroads into cultural influence and the ‘London exter- professions were temporary and personal nal’ degree was considered an ‘imperial’ and whilst progress was made, prejudice degree recognised as a way of advancement and discrimination continued (Summerfield throughout the British Empire (McKibbin 1998: 209). 1998: 252). Such a vision matched that of the Wheelers and their supporters, who Kenyon, the Wheelers and the wished to make the Institute a global centre Institute of Archaeology for archaeological training, with an emphasis In spite of her family connections and on the Middle East, particularly Palestine, a involvement in archaeology at the University British Mandate where extensive archaeolog- of Oxford, Kenyon showed no interest in a ical fieldwork was being carried out (Kenyon career in the subject until after she left uni- 1936: 252). The focus on Palestinian archae- versity in 1928 (Davis 2008: 26–28). It was ology was also prompted by the Institute’s Meheux: ‘An Awfully Nice Job’. Kathleen Kenyon as Secretary and Acting Director of the 125 University of London Institute of Archaeology, 1935–1948 primary source of funding, which came Wheeler, for example, involved Kenyon in the through the gift of eminent Egyptologist Institute (Davis 2008: 66); Kenyon promoted Flinders Petrie’s Palestinian collections to Joan du Plat Taylor (1906–1983), another the Institute, accompanied by a donation of Wheeler protégé, first as her assistant in the around £10,000 (later increased to £15,000) excavations at Leicester and then as Librarian from his patron Mary Woodgate Wharrie at the Institute (Davis 2008: 79). (1847–1937) (Sparks and Ucko 2007: 13). In January 1934, Kenyon gave ‘offers of Kenyon always paid tribute to Wheeler help in respect of Palestinian Archaeology’, as her mentor, her ‘constant inspiration teaching and curating,3 to the new Institute. towards improved methods’ (Kenyon 1952: When this plan fell through, Wheeler 7) and their names are irrevocably linked decided to offer Kenyon the position of in the Wheeler-Kenyon excavation method,2 Secretary, writing to the Chair of the Institute but their relationship was based as much Management Committee: ‘I propose to sug- on their power-sharing relationship at the gest Kathleen Kenyon for the job. She is a Institute as excavation. Their friendship level-headed person, with useful experi- was often tested and they could be critical ence both in this country and in Palestine’ of each other (Carr 2012: 154–155; Kenyon (Hawkes 1982: 132). Wheeler also knew that 1977: ii), but letters attest to the enduring she would not be dependent financially on affection shared by these two forceful people the impecunious Institute, as she had a pri- (Wheeler 1935a, 1935b, 1935c, 1970, 1973). vate income (Moorey 1992: 98). On 31st May Kenyon defended Wheeler against his crit- 1935, he wrote to Kenyon (in Samaria) that ics (Kenyon 1977: ii). She also overlooked his the original plan was to offer the position womanising and remained publicly neutral to ‘Dr Malcolm who until recently ran the over his complicated marital history. When Wellcome Museum’. However, Malcolm now questioned about Wheeler’s recent mar- had another job, so they were offering it to riage to Mavis du Vere Cole (1908–1970) by Kenyon. The job would be hard work but its an acquaintance, W. E. F. Macmillan, Kenyon holder ‘would have the making not merely of glossed over the scandal surrounding the the job, but to a large extent of the Institute’ couple’s tumultuous relationship (Hawkes (Wheeler 1935a; Figure 2). 1982: 181–190), stating only that they had Kenyon (1935) wrote from Samaria: ‘it ‘known each other for some years’ (Kenyon ought to be frightfully interesting, but I 1939c). doubt if I have much qualification for it’. Kenyon’s relationship with Verney Wheeler In her forthright way, she outlined her dif- is less well-documented, but the two women ficulties: she would not be back in England were close. Although Kenyon was to claim until August and she needed to complete her that she owed Wheeler ‘all my training in field contributions to the forthcoming Samaria archaeology’ (Kenyon 1952: 7), she also paid excavation report. If Wheeler could wait tribute to Verney Wheeler for training in dig until September, ‘I will accept like a shot’. management and field technique, notably She was, however, unlikely to stay for long: detailed control of stratigraphy and pottery ‘it is the excavating part of archaeology that recording (Moorey 1992: 96; Carr 2012: 17, I really enjoy and I don’t suppose I should 182). The two women also shared a particular have much time for that’. Wheeler was deter- construct of female participation in archaeol- mined that Kenyon would take the role. On ogy: a strong commitment to training female 8th July 1935, he wrote with a formal offer students (Carr 2012: 182; Hamilton 2007: from the Management Committee. They rec- 138; Kenyon 1952) and the active promotion ognised that the post was poorly paid, with of female colleagues to professional roles, an annual salary of only £200 a year, and ‘is which may suggest a conscious continuity likely to be an arduous one’, but in return, or community of female practice. Verney they were happy to make provision for up to 126 Meheux: ‘An Awfully Nice Job’. Kathleen Kenyon as Secretary and Acting Director of the University of London Institute of Archaeology, 1935–1948

Figure 2: Letter from Wheeler to Kenyon, 31st May 1935, offering her the job of Secretary to the new Institute. Photo: Stuart Laidlaw. Reproduced with permission of the photographer. Institute of Archaeology Kenyon Staff Record. three months’ fieldwork each year (Wheeler New challenges: the Death of Tessa 1935c), which was to prove vital; other Verney Wheeler female archaeologists, notably Margaret Kenyon’s post began on 1st October 1935 Murray (1863–1963), would find it difficult (Wheeler 1935d) and work began sorting to escape their administrative responsibili- out the Institute’s new premises, the dilapi- ties to excavate (Sparks 2013: 3). dated St John’s Lodge in Regent’s Park, Meheux: ‘An Awfully Nice Job’. Kathleen Kenyon as Secretary and Acting Director of the 127 University of London Institute of Archaeology, 1935–1948 which Verney Wheeler had secured for a admirable secretary’ (Anon 1937: 10), but her nominal rent (Carr 2012: 150). Kenyon and role was downplayed, for the Management Verney Wheeler parcelled up tasks between Committee had decided to use the Institute them, with Kenyon taking on the Institute’s to memorialise Verney Wheeler (Peers 1936b: accounts and financial responsibilities from 328). Wheeler wrote (1955: 90): ‘she would March 1936 (Perowne 1936a, 1936b). A not mind my saying that Tessa would have superb example of their teamwork survives; been proud of her’, casting the relationship Wheeler asks Kenyon to meet ‘Tess, a motor- between the two women as teacher/mentor van and a patrol of workmen’ to pick up and student. In reality it was more complex exhibitions cases and boxes from University and transitional professionally: friends, but College. Tess would fill her in on the details also paid employee and unpaid archaeologi- (Wheeler 1936). Kenyon was to reminisce cal wife. Kenyon belonged to a class and gen- (1977: i): ‘Tess was a wonderful colleague’. eration of women who valued self-control Initial arrangements came to an abrupt and heroic disavowal. Exhibition of feelings end with the death of Verney Wheeler on showed bad taste (Light 1991: 12, 162). She 15th April 1936 (Hawkes 1982: 137–138). never gave her own version of this difficult Letters reveal the shock and resulting disar- transition, but demonstrated her loyalty and ray, for she had been the practical organising affection by taking on responsibility for co- force behind the Institute (Kenyon 1936a; ordinating a memorial to Verney Wheeler 1936b). In a hitherto unknown letter from following a public appeal for funds by the the Institute Library Archive, Kenyon wrote Society of Antiquaries (Western Gazette to Charles Peers (1868–1952), Chairman 1936: 16). of the Institute’s Management Committee (1936b): ‘Mrs Wheeler’s death is a most ter- Kenyon as Secretary: Alliances and rible shock, and it is impossible to imagine Responsibilities how we shall manage without her’. Wheeler ‘It was a happiness, then, to stroll into was to write that Kenyon ‘stepped into the the Institute (as indeed it is now)! breach with a generous devotion that is K.K. as she is affectionately called, beyond gratitude’ (Wheeler 1955: 90), but would come into the ‘tea room’ from this should not obscure the challenge she the office or lecture room, talk to old faced, for the new Institute had limited ­stagers about her problems – cases funds and minimal staff (Hawkes 1982: 138). for the collections, additions to the At first Kenyon was tentative; she wrote to library, ways of raising funds, suitable the Secretary of the Senate of the University for the courses; then she that she can manage financial estimates for would interview interested young- the Institute with some difficulty, but does sters, taking cups of tea and buns in not want to submit them until Wheeler has the intervals’. (Fox 1949: 66) checked them (Kenyon 1936a). Nevertheless, she soon gained confidence, making deci- sions, for example, about the location of the Kenyon’s job as Secretary was arduous, drains and men’s cloakroom (Kenyon 1936c; involving many tasks, which she undertook Peers 1936a). By October 1936, all was ready. with the energy and enthusiasm for which Kenyon wrote (1936c): ‘I am looking forward she was famous all her life (Prag 1992: 113). A to a hectic and dirty time getting everything letter written from her Leicester excavations in order’. (Kenyon 1938d) suggests her responsibilities In April 1937, the Earl of Athlone, the frequently overlapped; she was ‘up to her Chancellor of the University, officially neck in Leicester mud’, but still answering opened the Institute (Hawkes 1982: 141). Institute correspondence, negotiating with The Chancellor described Kenyon as ‘an R.G. Collingwood (1889–1943) about book 128 Meheux: ‘An Awfully Nice Job’. Kathleen Kenyon as Secretary and Acting Director of the University of London Institute of Archaeology, 1935–1948 donations and discussing her archaeological But surviving letters reveal that as Secretary, discoveries with him. she could be diplomatic and patient. Petrie Kenyon was responsible for recruiting was demanding and suspicious over the care and advising potential students (Fox 1949: of his collections, but Kenyon gained his trust 66: Kenyon 1952: 7). She lectured them on (Sparks and Ucko 2007: 13–15). The often field archaeology course and on ‘excavation imperious Peers came to respect her, writing methods and organization in the Near East’ (1949: 65): ‘her clear and orderly mind was and gave public lectures (Anon 1938b: 16). of greatest value to all of us: but most of all She liaised with archaeological societies to the Chairman who was thereby exempt, as and arranged work for the Institute’s Repair far as that was possible, from the anxieties Department, negotiating with the Society of of his post’. She also dealt with the pedan- Antiquaries of Newcastle to exchange publi- tic Academic Registrar of the University of cations for the repair of two beakers (Kenyon London, S. J. Worsley (1895–1974); he com- 1938b). Although the Institute had a librar- plained (1936) that her explanation in an ian, Lieutenant-Colonel Browne (1881– agenda of the constitution of the Committee 1963) (Anon 1938a: 4), he was only part-time of Management of the University was wrong. and Kenyon did much of the library work. He writes: ‘let me explain’ and ends the let- She organised exchanges (Dallas 1938a, ter: ‘I am sure you will not mind my pointing 1938b) and begged donations, even collect- this out to you’. ing books from the Duke of St. Albans club Kenyon came to wield considerable power (Kenyon 1938c). in the Institute as its chief administrator and Kenyon was also responsible for adminis- second in command. Wheeler saw it as their tering the Institute’s public-facing ventures, shared vision, a partnership. Discussing con- including exhibitions (Thornley 1938). She cerns over the Petrie Palestinian Collection, gave tours to prospective financial supporters he wrote (1970): ‘our whole idea – yours and (Kenyon 1939b) and promoted the Institute, mine – was to make the Institute a Research writing to H. Mattingly (1884–1964) of institution’. Wheeler and Verney Wheeler the British Museum, an important contact had employed a mother/father approach (Kenyon 1938a): ‘I’m so glad you liked our to leadership, balancing Verney Wheeler’s lecture room’. She arranged for circulars of practicality and nurturing with Wheeler’s the Institute’s activities to be displayed at the discipline and drive (Carr 2012: 251; Hawkes Society of Antiquaries (Kenyon 1937a). 1982: 119). Kenyon similarly did much of the Kenyon was also responsible for the day-to-day organising and nurturing, but she Institute’s museum collections, particularly and Wheeler had a more consultative rela- the Petrie Palestinian collections, which she tionship. Wheeler gave her instructions and dated and arranged, making them acces- made suggestions: for example, she writes sible to students for research (Sparks 2007: to Thornley (1938) to thank her for a dona- 15). In 1937, attempts were made to raise tion as the ‘Director desires’; he passed on funds for a lecture-curatorship in Palestinian letters to her to answer (Kenyon 1940a). He Archaeology through a public appeal, in turn accepted her advice; she wrote to emphasising the necessity for archaeological Harold Mattingly (1884–1964) regarding the expertise in this field and the importance of Royal Numismatic Society Library (Kenyon the Institute’s collections (Sparks 2013). The 1937b): ‘I have consulted with Dr Wheeler position was intended for Kenyon, but insuf- about housing your library. He agrees with ficient funds were raised; there was no lec- me that we should be very glad indeed to turer in Palestinian archaeology until 1948. do so’. Kenyon also did what she felt was Kenyon has been described by those who in the best interests of the Institute: for knew her as ‘forceful’, ‘brusque’ and authori- example she conspired to keep a ‘windfall’ tarian (Davis 2008:12; Parr 2004; Prag 1992). of money in a long-forgotten bank account Meheux: ‘An Awfully Nice Job’. Kathleen Kenyon as Secretary and Acting Director of the 129 University of London Institute of Archaeology, 1935–1948 from Wheeler (1939a): ‘if Dr Wheeler were reminded about it, he might have different ideas about it!’ Wheeler in turn used Margot Eates (1889–1970), the Institute’s assistant secretary and his protégé from the London Museum (Hawkes 1982: 226) to keep up with Kenyon’s activities on the sly; they exchanged correspondence while he was in India about Kenyon and the Institute (Eates 1944). Unlike Verney Wheeler, who played a secondary role to Wheeler (Carr 2012: Figure 3: The Institute of Archaeology, St. 18); Kenyon forged her own career and role Johns Lodge, Inner Circle, Regents Park. within the Institute. This independence is an Institute of Archaeology Archives, file 5. indication not only of Kenyon’s personality, but also of the new professionalism emerg- ing in archaeological organisations. as effectively as Verney Wheeler, but she may The Institute was not without problems. It also have lacked Verney Wheeler’s financial was desperately short of funds pre-war (Evans acumen, talent for fund-raising and philan- 1987: 16–17) and by 1943 it was in serious thropic connections (Figure 3). financial difficulties.4 Verney Wheeler and the Appeals Committee had raised start-up New Women in Archaeological funds for the Institute (Carr 2012: 148–149) Administration during the early 20th and it had a capital grant for maintenance century: Kenyon and Colleagues from the University of London, but no During the inter-war period, administra- annual grant and no annual income (Kenyon tion became increasingly viewed as ‘wom- 1938a). Kenyon, along with the Institute’s en’s work’: by 1931, nearly half the clerical solicitor E.S.M. Perowne (1864–1947) was labour force was female, with the advantage responsible for the Institute’s accounts and that they could be paid at a much lower rate they attempted to manage the inconsistent (Branson 1975: 211). Women archaeologists flow of income. There are few signs of sus- were more easily accepted in roles that were tained fund-raising, particularly the sophisti- considered feminine (Diaz-Andreu and Stig cated ventures employed elsewhere, notably Sorensen 1998: 15–16) and they increasingly by the British School at Jerusalem (Sparks appropriated administration. They got lit- 2013). The Institute did use subscriptions, tle recognition for their ‘invisible services’, public lectures and exhibitions and tried to much of it unpaid legwork, but their talents cultivate wealthy donors; in 1937, Kenyon and enthusiasm began to professionalise wrote gleefully to Perowne (1937d): ‘I think archaeological administration. They shared we must give another sherry party. This one resources, managed complex networks of was certainly a good investment’; a donor had information and acted as keepers of ‘institu- given them a cheque for £2500. But these tional’ memory with gossip, advice and opin- attempts were only sporadic and Wheeler ions. Archaeological organisations between saw money from the University of London as the wars were surprisingly innovative, offer- the solution to the Institute’s financial prob- ing women opportunities to exercise leader- lems (Kenyon 1938a). Kenyon was as ‘a tire- ship and to educate and entertain themselves; less worker; by nature a creative organiser’ such activities were vital, overturning tra- (Fox 1949: 66), but she took on many com- ditional masculine discourses of feminine mitments and was reluctant to delegate (Parr incapacity (Bingham 2004; Hinton 2002: 2004). This reluctance and her heavy work- 94). Some gained real power and influence: load may have prevented her raising funds Kenyon for example, was the only female 130 Meheux: ‘An Awfully Nice Job’. Kathleen Kenyon as Secretary and Acting Director of the University of London Institute of Archaeology, 1935–1948 member of the Management Committee Kenyon faced many of the unresolved (Anon 1938a: 10), although in general their ­tensions that women of her generation expe- status was regarded as subordinate. rienced. She was a New Woman: she loved Many of Kenyon’s colleagues were confi- gin; she smoked and played sports (Davis dent ‘New Women’, relishing the opportuni- 2008: 24). She owned her own car. She had ties of inter-war Britain. Some were scholars education, connections and a private income in their own right. Isobel Thornley (1890– (Dever 2004: 526; Moorey 1992: 97). She 1941), Secretary of the British Archaeological pursued a career. She never married and her Association, for example, was a distinguished behaviour was almost ‘masculine in its man- medievalist. Both together and individually, ner’ (Davis 2008: 35, 71–72, 83). Kenyon the women found ways to subvert their subor- denied that she faced any prejudice, stating: dinate positions and disprove contemporary ‘You don’t consider whether you are a man claims that ‘women cannot work together’ or a woman. You are just an archaeologist’ and should not be placed in positions­ of (Davis 2008: 74). However, we should not take authority (Summerfield 1998: 166). Vera her words at face value. Contemporary social Dallas (1893–1972), Assistant Secretary to authority for women derived as much from the Royal Archaeological Institute, independ- the position of male relatives as their own ent, caustic and astute, wrote brisk letters to experience and actions (Hinton 2002: 25). Kenyon revealing cheerfully disrespectful Frederic Kenyon’s (1863–1952) prestige and ‘management’ of her male colleagues: she reputation within the British archaeological has arranged for the Council of the Royal community unquestionably aided Kenyon’s Archaeological Institute to be given their tea career, but although she was being described early, otherwise they ‘will never get down as Britain’s ‘foremost woman archaeologist’ as to it’ (Dallas 1938a). Her knowledge of the early as 1944 (Market Harborough Advertiser British archaeological world was unparal- and Midland Mail 1944: 1), she found it dif- leled; at the end of the war, Dallas (1945) ficult to escape his shadow. Newspapers gave Kenyon a detailed overview of the cur- first became interested in Kenyon while she rent state of local societies. was at Oxford, because she was Frederic In spite of their growing importance, how- Kenyon’s daughter and, because as the first ever, female administrators’ power remained female President of the Oxford University transient and personal, nor was their appro- Archaeological Society, she was articulating priation of archaeological administration a modern femininity that played into the as an active ‘female’ space secure; Kenyon’s complex relationship between the media and successors as Secretary to the Institute gender identities (Bingham 2004: 233; Daily were both men: Ian Cornwall (1909–1994) Mail Atlantic Edition 1927: 3). The media and Edward Pydokke (1909–1976) (Evans maintained interest in her as a pioneering 1987). Today, female administrators like female archaeologist and ‘a woman in charge’ Dallas and Thornley are forgotten and it is for decades: ‘a woman is leading the latest female administrators who also excavated, efforts to lay bare more of the most impor- such as Kenyon, Verney Wheeler and Du Plat tant cities of Roman Britain’ (Hartlepool Taylor, who are remembered, demonstrating Northern Daily Mail 1936: 2). She is ‘Fellow the dangers of preferring certain values in of the Society of Antiquaries, Secretary of archaeology and erasing others that appear the Institute’, but qualifying statements less heroic (Stig Sorensen 1998: 35). Their always refer to her father: the ‘daughter of work may not have been glamorous, but Sir Frederic Kenyon, former Director of the administrators ‘normalised’ female decision- British Museum’ (Hartlepool Northern Daily making in archaeological organizations and Mail 1936: 2). For all her talents, even Kenyon empowered women as ‘active citizens’ in could not avoid contemporary value judge- archaeological practice. ments about women. Meheux: ‘An Awfully Nice Job’. Kathleen Kenyon as Secretary and Acting Director of the 131 University of London Institute of Archaeology, 1935–1948

Kenyon as Acting Director: securing Kenyon both assisted in securing the the Institute’s future and planning Institute’s financial future and making it a post-war British archaeology centre for planning post-war British archae- The outbreak of World War II in 1939 brought ology. From 1943–1944, Kenyon organ- significant changes. By February 1940, ised two conferences at the Institute, the Wheeler was ‘away soldiering’ and passing ‘Conference on the Future of Archaeology’ all business to Kenyon (Kenyon 1940a), but (August 1943) and ‘Problems and Prospects it was only in April 1942, at the urging of the of European Archaeology’ (September 1944), Institute Management Committee that she which provided venues for archaeologists to was appointed as Acting Director with the plan for international post-war reconstruc- agreement of the University of London (Davis tion. The conferences have been examined 2008: 89); she also still remained Secretary in detail (Evans 2008; Moshenska 2013), but (Surrey Mirror 1945: 3). Like many women in less attention has been paid Kenyon’s initia- Britain, the war gave Kenyon opportunities tive in setting them up, or her administrative for authority and leadership, which she used talents and connections in bringing them to to great effect for the Institute and British fruition. Stout (2008: 41–48) has interpreted archaeology generally. But this authority the 1943 conference within the context of was contingent and temporary and she was Christopher Hawkes’ (1905–1992) ambi- expected to relinquish the job after the war tions for British Archaeology. The conference to a man (Kenyon 1944; Worsley 1944a); provided disciplinary support to the Society Kenyon relinquished it in 1946, when the of Antiquaries in establishing the Council Institute’s new Director, Vere Gordon Childe for British Archaeology (CBA) (Clapham (1892–1957) arrived (Anon 1947: 11). 1944: 91), but it was Kenyon who convened Although the Institute took no students the planning committee in March 1943 during the war, it remained open, support- and those involved were her personal allies, ing the cultural Home Front in the form including her father and several women of exhibitions and lectures (Anon 1947: 8; archaeologists: Joan Du Plat Taylor, Veronica Morgan and Evans 1993: 86). Kenyon jug- Seton-Williams (1910–1992), Olga Tufnell gled these responsibilities with full-time, (1905–1985) and Margerie Venables Taylor paid work for the British Red Cross, in March (1881–1963), the first female Vice-President 1942, becoming national Director of Youth of the Society of Antiquaries. Kenyon for the Red Cross (Davis 2008: 85–88). In persuaded the Institute’s Management this role, Kenyon worked with the military, Committee to back the conferences, in spite senior charity figures and government offi- of concerns from Sidney Smith (1889–1979) cials and travelled widely, addressing rallies and Stephen Glanville (1900–1956), Edwards and meetings in Lincolnshire, Nottingham of at UCL about the and Coventry (Coventry Standard 1943: timing and absence of many archaeologists 6; Lincolnshire Echo 1944: 3; Nottingham (Kenyon 1943a, 1943b). Journal 1942: 2). She worked long hours, The conferences reflect Kenyon’s personal sometimes 18 hour days (Davis 2008: 114), ambitions for the future of archaeology and and surviving letters reveal the intense strain the Institute’s role within it, her alliance with she was under (Davis 2008: 86–87). She innovators within the archaeological com- apologised to correspondents because she munity and her commitment to state control was missing lectures and could not find time and centralised authority for British archae- to collect book donations (Kenyon 1940b). ology (Clapham 1943: 91; Stout 2008: 43). She was ‘hectically busy’ and absent from the They also reflect her wider beliefs, shared by Institute during the day (Kenyon 1942). many in the UK, that Britain should emerge It is testament to her powers of organisa- from the war transformed into a more tion and hard work that as Acting Director egalitarian society (Rose 2003: 62–63) and 132 Meheux: ‘An Awfully Nice Job’. Kathleen Kenyon as Secretary and Acting Director of the University of London Institute of Archaeology, 1935–1948 her experience in international post-war experience’. He even claimed she had been ­planning, gained through the British Red ‘reprimanded’ for her behaviour (Morris 2007: Cross (Nottingham Journal 1943: 4). She 346). How far these criticisms were justified invited both the archaeological community is difficult to establish. The women may have and relevant government bodies to the con- been doing their job, or acting independently, ferences, including the Foreign Secretary but they served as convenient scapegoats; and the Secretary of State for the Colonies there was male hostility towards so-called (Kenyon 1943c), demonstrating the scope ‘petticoat government’ throughout the war of her ambition. She stated: ‘Archaeology (Hinton 2002: 91). must play its part in any post-war extension Kenyon also experienced similar hostil- of cultural and educational activities, both ity towards female authority during the in this country, and in relations with Foreign post-war expansion of the Institute into the ­powers, Mandated Territories, the Dominions University of London’s acknowledged and and the Colonial Empire.’ Fox claimed (1949: funded focus for Archaeology. Conventional 67) that she was merely Wheeler’s facto- accounts of the transition suggest a smooth tum: ‘she knew Wheeler’s intention that process from autumn 1943, involving a Institute should be a powerhouse of modern sub-committee including Kenyon, Wheeler, Archaeology, a centre for its development Glanville and Fox (Evans 1987: 15–16). But, as a Science’, but this is to deny Kenyon her a letter from Margot Eates to Wheeler sug- role; Wheeler was abroad and not involved. gests a more fraught process, involving Given the absence of many archaeologists uncertainty over funding and changes from on war-time service, the conferences yielded original plans regarding teaching and aca- few concrete plans and actions (Moshenska demic content (Eates 1944). Eates claimed 2013). One important initiative, however, was that Kenyon had been obstructive during the the establishment of the Council for British process, ‘altogether rather difficult and not Archaeology (CBA) in March 1944 to promote very tactful’, and that there were tensions all aspects of British archaeology while assuring between Kenyon and Glanville, the new Chair proper excavation, public education and the (since 1944) of the Management Committee, preservation of historic sites. Kenyon became because she ‘has such a passion for having the first Secretary (Davis 2008: 93). Problems her own way’. The letter could be dismissed soon emerged between the CBA and the Office as Eates’ personal enmity, but apparent cor- of the Ministry of Works, rooted in anxieties roboration comes from Hawkes (1982: 226), about state funding and public involvement who states that Glanville, abetted by Eates, in post-war archaeology, which exhibited facilitated the transition and not Kenyon. itself in hostility towards the Council’s female Kenyon was strong-willed and could be members, which included Aileen Fox (1907– jealous of her own authority (Davis 2008: 2005), Jacquetta Hawkes and Margot Eates. 114) as Eates’ letter implies. But letters in Bryan O’Neil (1905–1954), Chief Inspector of the UCL archives also reveal that she faced Ancient Monuments in England, under pres- gender discrimination from male colleagues sure from both sides, complained of ‘Miss over this issue. The Academic Registrar of Eates and the other ladies (Miss Kenyon, etc.) the University of London, Worsley, returned who are nosing about ostensibly on behalf from military service in September 1944 and of the Council for British Archaeology but began preparations for recruiting students. without the body’s authority’ (Morris 2007: He expressed disquiet that ‘apart from Miss 348) and singled out Kenyon, an influential Kenyon, there is nobody at all at the Institute’ advocate of state funding. He accused her of and students could not be registered (Kenyon being ‘tactless’, ­misrepresenting the CBA’s 1944). Disregarding Kenyon completely, he wishes, indulging in ‘unwise or at least care- demanded that the Institute Management less publicity’ and most remarkably, as ‘lacking Committee immediately appoint a full-time Meheux: ‘An Awfully Nice Job’. Kathleen Kenyon as Secretary and Acting Director of the 133 University of London Institute of Archaeology, 1935–1948

Honorary Director. In October 1944, he again a power-sharing partnership of the kind she by-passed Kenyon, agreeing decisions relat- had enjoyed with Wheeler, in part because ing to the Institute about teaching rooms the increasing involvement of the University direct with Glanville and then relaying them of London and its personnel in the Institute’s to Kenyon (Worsley 1944b). The same month, affairs diversified authority in the Institute. the Management Committee agreed that a By 1947, she was no longer a member of the full-time Director needed to be appointed at Management Committee, which was now the ‘earliest opportunity’: they proposed and entirely male and heavily dominated by lead- the University approved, the appointment ing figures from the University (Anon 1948: of Gordon Childe. Ironically, it was Kenyon, 8). A University memorandum on staffing as Institute Secretary, who wrote the let- in 1946 describes her role: ‘administrative ter (Kenyon 1944): she had been effectively work. In charge of Palestinian and Roman stripped of her power by male colleagues, collections’. including her own Management Committee, Kenyon remained busy, juggling admin- replaced, but still expected to remain in posi- istrative, teaching and excavating responsi- tion and reopen the Institute. She received bilities, but her interests were increasingly no formal thanks, nor recognition, for her focused away from the Institute at this war-time efforts until 1948 (Fox 1949: 7). time: she began excavating in war-damaged Dyhouse (1995: 153) has noted that women Southwark and undertook many adminis- in academia were often cautious of admit- trative responsibilities for the CBA, sitting ting to discrimination and if encountered, it on panels representing Romano-British, was often attributed to personal deficiencies, Neolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age archae- which chimes with Eates’ hostile labelling of ology, producing advisory pamphlets and Kenyon as tactless and self-willed. Kenyon summaries. She corresponded with local did not comment on these events, although societies, helped them arrange excavations Eates’ letters hint at her frustration and tell- and set up student exchanges (Davis 2008: ingly, she was to later state that she believed 93–95). A newspaper interview at this time that men were accepting of women as schol- reports that she has ‘no other hobbies. ars, but not in positions of power (1970: 116): Archaeology is a full time job’ and places her administrative duties at the Institute firmly ‘I am not so sure that there would be behind her digging responsibilities (Dundee complete fair play and lack of preju- Evening Telegraph 1947: 2). She resigned dice in supporting a woman to an from the CBA in 1948 (Davis 2008: 94), per- important administrative post, such haps in part because she had a new focus as the headship of an important sci- and a new role at the Institute, one which entific department. I would not say involved a complete break with her previous that supreme merit would not be administrative career. recognized, but everything else being In 1948, funds became available to appoint equal, I am sure that the balance Kenyon lecturer in Palestinian Archaeology, a would be tipped in favour of a man’. position intended originally for her in 1937. The university also conferred on her the Post-War: Lecturer in Palestinian status of ‘Recognised Teacher’ (Davis 2008: Archaeology in a Changed Institute 95). Prag (1992: 120–122) considered these Kenyon returned to her role as Secretary developments as surprising, for although in 1946. She remained the Institute’s chief Kenyon was a superb lecturer, her fieldwork administrator, but her power rapidly dimin- had been largely in Britain. But this dis- ished under the new regime. She appears counts Kenyon’s long experience as curator to have had a good relationship with Childe of the Petrie Palestinian collections and her (Kenyon 1952: 7), but they never developed expertise in fieldwork, dig management and 134 Meheux: ‘An Awfully Nice Job’. Kathleen Kenyon as Secretary and Acting Director of the University of London Institute of Archaeology, 1935–1948 student training; more British archaeologists discoveries with excitement: as ‘Miss Kenyon’ worked in Palestine than in any other area or sometimes ‘Dr Kenyon’, director of the outside Britain and training was a priority British School (The Sphere 1958), she now (Davis 2008: 96). Kenyon’s focus moved away overshadowed her late father (Figure 4). from administration towards excavation and academia, the traditional ‘male-cultured Women and World War II: Gender activities’ for which she is now remembered, and Status although she was to later claim: ‘I am not The negative behaviour of Kenyon’s male col- in the least a dyed-in-the-wool woman aca- leagues, the criticisms, her abrupt loss of sta- demic’ (Kenyon 1970: 107). Kenyon contin- tus and Kenyon’s own apparent acceptance ued to excavate in the UK and North Africa of events needs to be considered within the until 1952 when she re-established the context of the ambiguities, fears and gender British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem fluidities experienced during and after World and embarked on what are conventionally War II (Rose 2003: 25, 108–110; Summerfield considered the greatest achievements of her 1998: 82). In archaeology, as throughout career, the excavations of Jericho (1952– British society, the emergence of the Home 1958) and Jerusalem (1961–1967) (Davis Front and the absence of men on war service 2008: 95–100). The media followed her offered women opportunity and authority. Women played a vital role in rescue excava- tions and began to find their voice; at the Conference on Future of Archaeology, only 3 out of 29 papers were given by women, but in the discussions 42% of the contribu- tions were by women (Diaz-Andreu and Stig Sorensen 1998: 18). The high female pres- ence in the CBA represented major progress for women in British archaeology and recog- nition of their abilities as professionals: not just excavators, but educators, administra- tors and scholars. Educated middle-class women commit- ted to public service were indispensable to the war effort, often occupying positions of leadership (Hinton 2002: 3), but were seldom accorded an equivalent status to men. Courage, effort and self-sacrifice were expected of women who stepped across the gender boundary into war work, but such participation was always viewed and pre- sented to them as temporary (Summerfield 1998: 82). Kenyon was probably aware that her power as Acting Director was only for a short time, and she, like many other women Figure 4: Letter confirming Kenyon’s in war-time, strove to perform to and even appointment as Lecturer in Palestinian surpass idealised masculine standards Archaeology, 6th February 1948. Photo: (Summerfield 1998: 137). The idea of women Stuart Laidlaw. Reproduced with permis- participating in the war effort could produce sion. Kathleen Kenyon’s staff record. distrust and fear in those who preferred Meheux: ‘An Awfully Nice Job’. Kathleen Kenyon as Secretary and Acting Director of the 135 University of London Institute of Archaeology, 1935–1948 conventional gender relationships: both male colleagues might not have been ready men and women (Rose 2003: 111). There to recognise her authority, but they could was much resentment of ‘petticoat govern- recognise her talent and professionalism; ment’ (Hinton 2002: 98). Strong echoes of the strides made in female involvement in these attitudes are displayed in the hostility archaeology between the wars had not been towards Kenyon as a woman in authority, in vain. speaking publicly about state funding, and Women responded to the opportunities the interfering ‘ladies’ of the CBA. Women and challenges of war differently. Some in uniform gave the appearance of female embraced them, others resented war-time emancipation and a veneer of sexual equal- service and were eager to return to their ity (Morgan and Evans 1993: 80), but caused old lives; there was no single female expe- anxiety and uncertainty (Rose 2003: 122– rience or gender construct (Summerfield 123). Fascinating insight into contemporary 1998: 273). Women did not always support attitudes is given by Nicholas Thomas, who women; there was often resentment from met Kenyon in 1943: women towards other women in author- ity and the ‘bossy’ woman was demonised ‘My mother and I were confronted by both genders (Summerfield 1998: 166). by a person who appeared to be a Eates’ criticisms (1944) of Kenyon were very sailor – blue uniform, medal ribbons, much in this spirit and warn that we should ­everything. But upon rising from not expect to see an idealised ‘sisterhood’ behind an imposing desk, a skirt was of early female archaeologists, for women immediately revealed; the person too, reflect prejudices of their time. Kenyon was Kathleen Kenyon, of course, the was frequently accused of being ‘authoritar- wartime Acting Director of the Insti- ian’, ‘tactless’ and with ‘tendency towards tute and wearing her high-ranking bossiness’ (Mallowan 1977: 240) according Red Cross officer’s uniform’ (Thomas, to negative post-war gender-judgements of Hutchinson and Gilbert 2013). strong women in authority. The judgements still colour narratives about her today; they War had a positive effect on gender rela- are overdue a revision. tions, but did not involve the removal of the gender hierarchy. As Britain began to win Conclusion the war, women were expected to return to Examination of Kenyon’s career as Secretary their pre-war lives and ‘the home’. Kenyon and Acting Director of the Institute of was not alone in her loss of status; women’s Archaeology has provided insight into the wartime opportunities and authority were full range of her talents and versatility as lost to the ‘regendering’ of the labour mar- an archaeological practitioner and a better ket as men returning from service were privi- understanding of the extent of her contribu- leged for jobs (Summerfield 1998: 209). The tions to the British archaeological community loss of Kenyon’s job as Acting Director to and culture. She had a career that few of her Childe, could be seen in this light – regarded contemporaries could match, which she cre- as appropriate and justifiable by male col- ated by seizing the opportunities available to leagues, notably the recently demobbed women at this time. Like her mentor Verney Worsley. Kenyon’s dedicated war-work indi- Wheeler, she made efforts to share these cates a strong sense of patriotism and duty; opportunities with other women, encourag- she may have found it difficult to express ing individuals and promoting a wider cul- her frustrations in the face of such social ture of female practice within archaeology. conventions. Her appointment as lecturer in Kenyon, like many other New Women, chal- 1948, should however, be seen as a clear sign lenged contemporary gender boundaries of continuing progress in archaeology: her and exploited gender fluidities to step into 136 Meheux: ‘An Awfully Nice Job’. Kathleen Kenyon as Secretary and Acting Director of the University of London Institute of Archaeology, 1935–1948 traditionally male professional spaces and ­culture and ­normalise women’s abilities and authority in ground-breaking ways; the con- ­authority within it. temporary media, sensitive to complex gen- der currents, acknowledged this during her Notes life-time, emphasising the novelty of female 1 R.E.M Wheeler to Kathleen Kenyon, 31st archaeological practitioners and their impor- May 1935. UCL Institute of Archaeology: tance as public role models and pioneers. Kenyon Staff Record. Kenyon portrayed herself as ‘genderless’ as 2 The Wheeler-Kenyon Method originated an archaeologist, denied discrimination and from the work of the Wheelers at Verula- tolerated it when she experienced it, per- mium (1930–1935) and was later refined haps because women of her generation and by Kenyon during her excavations at class chose to define themselves in masculine ­Jericho (1952–1958). The system involves terms; they were committed to meritocracy digging within a series of squares of vary- and success within a male-defined framework ing size set within a larger grid. This leaves where discrimination went unacknowledged. freestanding walls of earth or ‘balks’ that They also lacked a distinctively feminist lan- allow objects or features to be compared guage with which to articulate and challenge to adjacent layers of earth (‘strata’). It was prejudice; it is interesting to note that Kenyon believed that this approach allowed more stated her beliefs about discrimination precise stratigraphic observations than against women in authority in 1970, when earlier ‘horizontal exposure’ techniques such a language was developing. which relied on architectural and ceramic Between the wars, women made great analysis. strides in female emancipation; progress was 3 See Memorandum, Principal of the Uni- particularly strong in penetrating organisa- versity of London 1934: 38. UCL Institute tions and institutions, both in the workplace of Archaeology Archives, Senate House and outside, and creating cultures more Files 1. amenable to female capability, leadership 4 See Management Committee Min- and decision-making, although ‘regender- utes 2nd June 1943: 3, UCL Institute of ing’ professional changes post-war were ­Archaeology. to the detriment of female emancipation. We should take care not to let discrimina- Competing Interests tion against women in power, widespread The author has no competing interests to in contemporary attitudes, obscure the real declare. progress made by women in the inter-war period. They participated in professionalis- References ing archaeological practice and archaeologi- Anon 1937 Introductory Note. First Annual cal culture in general, notably the strong Report of the University of London Institute­ and consistent presence of women in both of Archaeology, 7–8. the established Society of Antiquaries Anon 1938a The Opening of the Institute. and the innovative Council for British Second Annual Report of the University of Archaeology. Women’s history reveals that London Institute of Archaeology, 9–17. progress in emancipation frequently takes Anon 1938b List of Lectures held during unexpected forms; in archaeology, examina- the Session 1937–1938. Second Annual tion of Kenyon’s administrative career has Report of the University of London revealed that progress was not just about ­Institute of Archaeology, 16–18. individual successes, of which she was a stel- Anon 1947 Session 1938–9 and the lar example, but also joint female action to War Years. Third Annual Report of gain a stronger foothold in archaeological the University­ of London Institute of ­Archaeology, 7–11. Meheux: ‘An Awfully Nice Job’. Kathleen Kenyon as Secretary and Acting Director of the 137 University of London Institute of Archaeology, 1935–1948

Anon 1948 Management Committee Dallas, V 1945 Dallas to Kenyon 31 July Membership. Fourth Annual Report 1945. Institute of Archaeology Library of the ­University of London Institute of Archive, 1. ­Archaeology, 1. Davis, M C 2008 Dame Kathleen Kenyon. Bingham, A 2004 ‘An Era of Domestic- Digging up the Holy Land. Walnut Creek, ity?’ Histories of Women and Gender CA: Left Coast Press. in Interwar Britain. Cultural and Social Dever, W G 2004 Kathleen Kenyon 1906– ­History, 1(2): 225–233. DOI: https://doi. 1978. In: Cohen, G M and Joukowsky, org/10.1191/1478003804cs0014ra M S (eds.), Breaking Ground. Pioneering Branson, N 1975 Britain in the Nineteen Women Archaeologists, 525–553. Ann Twenties. London: Weidenfeld and Arbor: ­University of Michigan Press. ­Nicolson. Diaz-Andreu, M and Stig Sorensen, M L Carr, L C 2012 Tessa Verney Wheeler. Women 1998 Excavating Women. Towards an and Archaeology Before World War Two. engendered . In: Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: Diaz-Andreu, M and Stig Sorensen, M https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:os L (eds) Excavating Women. A History of obl/9780199640225.001.0001 Women in European Archaeology, 1–28. Champion, S 1998 Women in British ­London, New York: Routledge. Archaeology. In: Diaz-Andreu, M and Stig Dundee Evening Telegraph 1947 Digging Sorensen, M L (eds.), Excavating Women. Up The Past. Dundee Evening Telegraph, A History of Women in European Archae- 2. 2 December. ology, 175–197. London, New York: Dyhouse, C 1995 No Distinction of Sex? ­Routledge. Women in British Universities 1870–1939. Clapham, A W 1943 Anniversary Address. London: UCL Press. The Antiquaries Journal, 23(3–4): Eates, M 1944 Eates to Wheeler 16 December­ 87–97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ 1944. Museum of London Archives, S0003581500016358 DC4/18. Clapham, A W 1944 Anniversary Address. Evans, C 2008 Archaeology against the The Antiquaries Journal, 24(3–4): State: Roots of Internationalism. In: 85–93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ ­Murray, T and Evans, C (eds.), Histories S0003581500016553 of ­Archaeology. A in the History Colpus, E 2018 Women, Service and Self- of Archaeology, 222–237. Oxford: Oxford Actualization in Inter-War Britain. Past University Press. and Present, 238: 197–232. DOI: https:// Evans, J D 1987 The First Half-Century doi.org/10.1093/pastj/gtx053 – and After. Bulletin of the Institute of Coventry Standard 1943 Post-War Red ­Archaeology, 24: 1–26. Cross Work Support of Youth. Coventry Fox, C 1949 Miss K. Kenyon. Secretary of the Standard, 27 February, p. 6. Institute, 1935–48. Fifth Annual Report Daily Mail Atlantic Edition 1927 How of the University of London Institute of Feminine Oxford Has Enjoyed past Term. Archaeology, 65–67. By a Woman Graduate. Daily Mail Atlantic Hamilton, S 2007 Women in Practice: Edition, 3. 13 December. Women in British Contract Field Dallas, V 1938a Dallas to Kenyon 30 January­ ­Archaeology. In: Hamilton, S, Whitehouse,­ 1938. Institute of Archaeology Library R D and Wright, K I (eds.), Archaeology Archive, 1. and Women. Ancient and Modern Issues, Dallas, V 1938b Dallas to Kenyon 31 Janu- 121–146. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast ary 1938. Institute of Archaeology Library Press. Archive, 1. Hartlepool Northern Daily Mail 1936 Secrets of a Ruined City. Excavations at 138 Meheux: ‘An Awfully Nice Job’. Kathleen Kenyon as Secretary and Acting Director of the University of London Institute of Archaeology, 1935–1948

Uriconium. Hartlepool Northern Daily Kenyon, K M 1938c Kenyon to Duke Mail, 2. 11 September. of St Albans 6 May 1938. Institute of Hawkes, J 1982 . Adven- ­Archaeology Library Archive, D/89. turer in Archaeology. London: Weidenfeld Kenyon, K M 1938d Kenyon to Colling- and Nicolson. wood 8 September 1938. Institute of Hinton, J 2002 Women, Social Leadership ­Archaeology Library Archive, D/76. and the Second World War: Continuities Kenyon, K M 1939b Kenyon to Pearson of Class. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 6 April 1939. Institute of Archaeology DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof: Library Archive, D/106. oso/9780199243297.001.0001 Kenyon, K M 1939c Kenyon to Macmillan Kenyon, F 1936 Anniversary Address. 17 April 1939. Institute of Archaeology The Antiquaries Journal, 16(3): 249– Library Archive, D/115. 259. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ Kenyon, K M 1940a Kenyon to Musson 7 S0003581500027748 February 1940. Institute of Archaeology Kenyon, F 1939 Anniversary Address. Library Archive, D/129. The Antiquaries Journal, 19(3): 247– Kenyon, K M 1940b Kenyon to Pearson 25 259. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ May 1940, Institute of Archaeology Library S0003581500007800 Archive, D/108. Kenyon, K M 1935 Kenyon to Wheeler 13 Kenyon, K M 1942 Kenyon to Baker 2 June 1935. UCL Institute of Archaeology: ­January 1942. Institute of Archaeology Kenyon Staff Record. Library Archive, D/128. Kenyon, K M 1936a Kenyon to Webb, Kenyon, K M 1943a Kenyon to Crowfoot ­Secretary to the University Senate 6 17 February 1943. UCL Institute of April 1936. UCL Institute of Archaeology ­Archaeology Archives, Senate House Files, Archives, Senate House Files 5, box 1. 3(1–3). Kenyon, K M 1936b Kenyon to Peers 16 April Kenyon, K M 1943b Kenyon to Glanville 23 1936. Institute of Archaeology Library March 1943. UCL Institute of Archaeology Archive, D/5. Archives, Senate House Files, 3(1–3). Kenyon, K M 1936c Kenyon to Dove Kenyon, K M 1943c Kenyon to Secretary of 23 1 October 1936. UCL Institute of State for the Colonies 26 July 1943. UCL ­Archaeology Archives, Senate House Files Institute of Archaeology Archives, Senate 5, box 1. House Files, 3(1–3). Kenyon, K M 1937a Kenyon to Kingsford 8 Kenyon, K M 1943d Archaeology as a Career February 1937. Institute of Archaeology for Women. Women’s Employment, 4–5. Library Archive, D/18. Jan 7. Kenyon, K M 1937b Kenyon to Mattingly 21 Kenyon, K M 1944 Kenyon to ­Worsley December 1937. Institute of Archaeology 19 October 1944. UCL Institute of Library Archive, D/155. ­Archaeology Archives, Senate House Kenyon, K M 1937d Kenyon to Perowne Files 5. 12 December 1937. UCL Institute of Kenyon, K M 1952 Beginning in Archaeol- ­Archaeology Archives, Senate House ogy. London: Phoenix House. Files 4. Kenyon, K M 1970 The Galton Lecture Kenyon, K M 1938a Kenyon to Mattingly 1969. Women in Academic Life. Journal­ 18 January 1938. Institute of Archaeology of Biosocial Science Supplement, 2: 107– Library Archive, D/162. 118. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ Kenyon, K M 1938b Kenyon to Cowen 3 S002193200002352X March 1938. Institute of Archaeology Kenyon, K M 1977 Obituaries, Mortimer Library Archive, D/59. Wheeler. Levant, 9(1): iii. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1179/lev.1977.9.1.i Meheux: ‘An Awfully Nice Job’. Kathleen Kenyon as Secretary and Acting Director of the 139 University of London Institute of Archaeology, 1935–1948

Light, A 1991 Forever England. Femininity, Peers, C 1936b Obituary notice. Mrs Literature and Conservatism between the ­Mortimer Wheeler. Antiquaries ­Journal, Wars. London: Routledge. 16(3): 327–328. DOI: https://doi. Lincolnshire Echo 1944 Red Cross Rally of org/10.1017/S0003581500027906 Youth. Lincolnshire Echo, 3. 29 June. Perowne, E S F 1936a Perowne to Kenyon 20 Mallowan, M E L 1977 Mallowan’s Memoirs. March 1936. UCL Institute of Archaeology London: Collins. Archives, Senate House Files 4. Market Harborough Advertiser and Mid- Perowne, E S F 1936b Perowne to Kenyon 31 land Mail 1944 Treasure Trove. Market March 1936. UCL Institute of Archaeology Harborough Advertiser and Midland Mail, Archives, Senate House Files 4. 1. 12 May. Prag, K 1992 Kathleen Kenyon and Archaeol- McKibbin, R 1998 Classes and Cultures­ ogy in the Holy Land. Palestine Exploration in England.­ 1918–1951. Oxford: Quarterly, 124(2): 109–123. DOI: https:// Oxford ­University Press. DOI: doi.org/10.1179/peq.1992.124.2.109 https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof: Rose, S O 2003 Which People’s War? National oso/9780198206729.001.0001 Identity and Citizenship in Britain 1939– Moorey, P R S 1992 British Women in Near 1945. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Eastern Archaeology: Kathleen Kenyon Sparks, R T 2007 Flinders Petrie and the and the Pioneers. Palestine Exploration Archaeology of Palestine. In: Sparks, Quarterly, 124(2): 91–100. DOI: https:// R T (ed.), A Future for the Past. Petrie’s doi.org/10.1179/peq.1992.124.2.91 ­Palestinian Collection. An Exhibition Held Morgan, D and Evans, M 1993 The Battle in the Brunei Gallery, 1–12. London: Insti- for Britain. Citizenship and Ideology in the tute of Archaeology University College Second World War. London, New York: London. Routledge. Sparks, R T 2013 Publicising Petrie: Financ- Morris, R 2007 The Antiquaries and Con- ing Fieldwork in British Mandate Palestine­ servation of the Landscape, 1850–1950. (1926–1938). Present Pasts, 5(1): 1–15. In: Pearce, S (ed.), Visions of Antiquity. The DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/pp.56 Society of Antiquaries of London 1707– Sparks, R T and Ucko, P J 2007 AHistory­ of 2007, 306–331. London: The Society of the Petrie Palestinian Collection. In: Sparks, Antiquaries. R T (ed.), A Future for the Past. Petrie’s Pales- Moshenska, G 2013 Reflections on the 1943 tinian Collection. An Exhibition­ Held in the ‘Conference on the Future of Archaeology’. Brunei Gallery­ , 13–24. London:­ Institute of Archaeology International, 16: 128–139. Archaeology University­ College London. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/ai.1604 Stig Sorensen, M L 1998 Rescue and Nottingham Journal 1942 British Red ­Recovery. On historiographies of female Cross Training Scheme for Notts Youth. archaeologists. In: Diaz-Andreu, M and Stig Nottingham­ Journal, 2. 19 May. Sorensen, M L (eds.), Excavating Women. A Nottingham Journal 1943 Reconstruction History of Women in European­ Archaeology­ , Plans in Europe. Nottingham Journal, 4. 31–60. London, New York: ­Routledge. 22 March. Stout, A 2008 Creating Prehistory. Druids, Parr, P 2004 Kenyon, Dame Kathleen Ley Hunters and Archaeologists in Pre-War Mary (1906–1978). Oxford Dictionary Britain. Oxford: Blackwell. of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford Summerfield, P 1998 Reconstructing ­University Press. ­Women’s Wartime Lives. Discourse and Peers, C 1936a Peers to Kenyon 21 April Subjectivity in Oral Histories of the ­Second 1936. Institute of Archaeology Library World War. Manchester, New York: Archive, D/6. ­Manchester University Press. 140 Meheux: ‘An Awfully Nice Job’. Kathleen Kenyon as Secretary and Acting Director of the University of London Institute of Archaeology, 1935–1948

Surrey Mirror 1945 Archaeologists visit Wheeler, R E M 1936 Wheeler to Kenyon Godstone and Oxted. The scientific Land 6 January 1936. UCL Institute of Planning of an Ancient Village. Surrey ­Archaeology: Kenyon Staff Record. Mirror, 3. 31 August. Wheeler R E M 1955 Still Digging : Interleaves­ The Sphere 1958 The Turn of the Year in from an Antiquary’s Notebook.­ London: the Holy Land. The Sphere, 24–25. 11 Michael Joseph 1955. January.­ Wheeler, R E M 1970 Wheeler to Kenyon Thomas, N, Hutchinson, O and Gilbert, L 18 March 1970. UCL Wheeler Archive 2013 Alumni Reflections. Archaeology B/4/9. International, 16: 140–147. DOI: https:// Wheeler, R E M 1973 Wheeler to Kenyon doi.org/10.5334/ai.1604 5 October 1973. UCL Wheeler Archive Thornley, I 1938 Thornley to Kenyon 13 May B/4/9. 1938. Institute of Archaeology Library Woollacott, A 1998 From Moral to Pro- Archive, D/168. fessional Authority: Secularism, Social Western Gazette 1936 The Late Mrs R.E. Work and Middle-Class Women’s Self- Mortimer Wheeler. A permanent memo- Construction in Britain. rial. Fund opened. Western Gazette, 16. 19 Journal of Women’s History, 10(2): June. 85–111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/ Wheeler, R E M 1935a Wheeler to Kenyon 31 jowh.2010.0388 May 1935. UCL Institute of Archaeology:­ Worsley, S J 1936 Worsley to Kenyon Kenyon Staff Record. 19 November 1936. UCL Institute of Wheeler, R E M 1935b Wheeler to Kenyon 21 ­Archaeology Archives, Senate House Files 5. June 1935. UCL Institute of ­Archaeology: Worsley, S J 1944a Worsley to Peers 19 Kenyon Staff Record. September­ 1944. UCL Institute of Wheeler, R E M 1935c Wheeler to Kenyon ­Archaeology Archives, Senate House 8 July 1935. UCL Institute of Archaeology: Files 5. Kenyon Staff Record. Worsley, S J 1944b Worsley to Kenyon 11 October 1944. UCL Institute of Archaeology­ Archives, Senate House Files 5.

How to cite this article: Meheux, K 2018 ‘An Awfully Nice Job’. Kathleen Kenyon as Secretary and Acting Director of the University of London Institute of Archaeology, 1935–1948. Archaeology International, 21 (1), pp. 122–140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/ai-379

Submitted: 11 May 2018 Accepted: 09 August 2018 Published: 05 December 2018

Copyright: © 2018 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Archaeology International is a peer-reviewed open access journal published by Ubiquity Press. OPEN ACCESS