'An Awfully Nice Job'. Kathleen Kenyon As Secretary and Acting
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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 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 lecturer 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