CULTURAL NEGOTIATIONS CRITICAL STUDIES in the HISTORY of ANTHROPOLOGY Series Editors: Regna Darnell, Stephen O

Home , Awatovi Ruins, Caroline Dormon, Doris Zemurray Stone, Matilda Coxe Stevenson, Osteology, Samuel Kirkland Lothrop

CULTURAL NEGOTIATIONS CRITICAL STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY Series Editors: Regna Darnell, Stephen O. Murray Cultural Negotiations

The Role of Women in the Founding of Americanist Archaeology

DAVID L. BROWMAN

Library of Congress Cataloging- in-Publication Data Browman, David L. Cultural negotiations: the role of women in the founding of Americanist archaeology / David L. Browman. pages cm.— (Critical studies in the history of anthropology) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-8032-4381-1 (cloth: alk. paper) 1. Women archaeologists—Biography. 2. Archaeology—United States—History. 3. Women archaeologists—History. 4. Archaeologists—Biography. I. Title. CC110.B76 2013 930.1092'2—dc23 2012049313

Set in Lyon by Laura Wellington. Designed by Nathan Putens. Contents

Series Editors’ Introduction vii

Introduction 1

1. Women of the Period 1865 to 1900 35

2. New Directions in the Period 1900 to 1920 73

3. Women Entering the Field during the “Roaring Twenties” 95

4. Women Entering Archaeology, 1930 to 1940 149

Concluding Remarks 251

References 277

Index 325

Series Editors’ Introduction

REGNA DARNELL AND STEPHEN O. MURRAY

David Browman has produced an invaluable reference work for practitioners of contemporary Americanist archaeology who are interested in documenting the largely unrecognized contribution of generations of women to its development. Meticulous examination of the archaeological literature, especially footnotes and acknowledgments, and the archival records of major universities, museums, field school programs, expeditions, and general anthropological archives reveals a complex story of marginalization and professional invisibility, albeit one that will be surprising neither to feminist scholars nor to female archaeologists. This trend is consistent over the nearly eight decades that Browman explores, between the end of the American Civil War in 1865 and 1940, just prior to the vast postwar expansion of academic archaeology in North America. Only a few of the 148 women are familiar names. Minor figures abound as they do not in the history of cultural anthropology, generally a more solitary enterprise, and they give a peculiar and unique flavor to the professionalization of American archaeology. By identifying otherwise unrecognized women, this work sets a new standard of evidence for feminist archaeological historiography. The tracing of changing surnames reflecting successive marriages is especially valuable because many of the contributors were not previously identified as the same women. For example, C(atherine) Allison Clem- ent [Withers] [Paulsen] used her middle name and was married twice; or Theodora Kracaw [Brown] [Kroeber] [Quinn], the second of whose

vii three marriages was to cultural anthropologist Alfred Kroeber and who was better known as a folklorist than as an archaeologist; or the never married but nonetheless extensively named Frederica Annis Lopez De Leo De Laguna. Interspersed with the biographies and archaeological activities of these nearly forgotten predecessors are more extended evaluations of some of the rare women who “made it.” The discussion of Gene Weltfish is particularly instructive. Biographical vignettes are uneven, partly because of available evidence and partly as a result of the materials consulted over the huge range of possible materials for this study. It is refreshing to see a male archaeologist address the problem of marginalized women in archaeology given that exclusions and discrimination are usually felt to entail some degree of complicity. Nonetheless, naming the problem is a step toward the future archaeology Browman envisions, in which gender will no longer determine the career trajectory of women in the field. Many of the women described here disappeared from archaeology but went on to distinguished careers in other fields (seemingly a source of some disappointment to Browman). During most of the period covered, the simplest way for a woman to become an archaeologist was to marry one, a route taken by many. Cross-reference is possible by culture area as well as individual, so readers can search for links to their own interests and specializations. The extensive bibliography shows where searches have been made and suggests directions for further investigation. Browman’s research expands outward from Harvard University and the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, the home base of his own career and most intensive archival investigation; future investigators doubt- less will choose to pursue other tendrils of influence and participation. Documentary methods differ, however, depending on the decade in question because of the rapidly changing institutional basis of American archaeology during this 75-year period. In more recent decades, the number of women increased, and Browman’s more stringent criteria for inclusion reflect increasing professionalization.

viii | Series Editors’ Introduction Some generalizations emerge, although the foremost purpose of this volume is documentary rather than analytic. Professionalization operated against women because it was harder for them to obtain the graduate credentials that were increasingly necessary for academic employment. The role of widows who came to control their own wealth as philanthropists who supported archaeology and encouraged women’s participation is especially fascinating: for example, Phoebe Apperson Hearst in California, Sara Stevenson in Philadelphia, Zelia Nuttall in Cambridge, and Mary Wheelwright and Elsie Clews Parsons in the Southwest. Edgar Hewett and Frederic Ward Putnam emerge as patrons of women in archaeology and facilitators of their participation, albeit often in minimally prestigious roles as lab assistants rather than active fieldworkers. The unabashed chauvinism of other male archaeologists is also noted, without apologetics. There is much more that might be said, but Browman’s book gives a clear starting point for documentation and invites interpretive scholarship across disciplines ranging from archaeology to feminist research to cultural studies. Such is the process of a critical history of anthropology!

Series Editors’ Introduction | ix

CULTURAL NEGOTIATIONS

Introduction

This volume concerns cultural negotiations by women in the United States as they sought to secure access to training and jobs in American- ist archaeology as the discipline emerged. I use the term “Americanist archaeology” to delimit archaeology done in the Americas, not archaeology done by Americans who have worked worldwide. Because the focus is on women in this field and the issues they had to confront, my treatment omits any comparable coverage of problems facing men during this same period (1865–1940). A few women turn up in general histories of Americanist archaeology, but most of them have been missing from previous accounts. My temporal focus is on the women involved in Americanist archaeology from the end of Civil War until the beginning of World War II. Both wars caused significant shifts in the economic and social status of women in American society and the opportunities thus available to them. Before 1860, for all intents and purposes, women were not involved in Americanist archaeology. The tremendous manpower drain of the Civil War resulted in women taking over jobs that men had traditionally filled. Women were able to benefit from this situation by continuing on after the war in positions opened up to them by the conflict. There was also a significant shift in opportunities after the First World War, but involvement of Americans in that war effort was significantly less than either the Civil War or the Second World War. Consequently the First World War did not have as striking an impact on the situation

1 of women in American society and academia. The end point of the discussion at 1940 marks another more definite paradigm shift. Contri- butions by Americans of all sexes, ethnic groups, and economic levels in World War II had a dramatic impact on the postwar educational and professional reorganization and opportunities, the particulars of which are beyond the scope of this volume. Thus in the second half of the twentieth century, various patterns noted in these pages often came to an end or evinced a new slant due to the social impact of women’s contributions and other related events of the Second World War. In the United States there were different developmental trajectories for classical/humanistic archaeology as contrasted with social science/ anthropological archaeology after the 1870s. Because of the humanistic, linguistic, and philological bents of classical archaeology, at least in the classroom, women had different experiences than those encountered in anthropological Americanist archaeology. Why should I care about these intellectuals? One answer frequently given to this query is that because of sexism in historiography of the discipline, women need to be rescued from obscurity. How significant is this issue? Nancy Lurie (1999/1966:2) argues, “As it turned out, early women have been relegated to no more obscurity than have many of their male contemporaries.” But in reviewing the intellectual histories of the Americanist archaeological discipline, it is telling that none of the 1950s and 1960s syntheses such as those by J. O. Brew (1968) and Glyn Daniel (1950, 1968) mention any women in Americanist archaeology. And as Cynthia Irwin-Williams (1990:6) noted, Gordon Willey and Jeremy Sabloff’s exceptional and influential history of Americanist archaeology does not mention contributions from any women prior to World War I. Further, Alice Kehoe (1998) figured that for all periods, only 2 percent of all the citations in Willey and Sabloff relate to women. Moreover, one should note that this 2 percent figure depends on which edition of Willey and Sabloff one is utilizing — Reyman (1992:76) observed that virtually no women were mentioned in their first edition (1974), but by the second edition

2 | Introduction (1980), in response to criticisms, Willey and Sabloff mentioned a very small number of women; no additions were made for the third and last edition (1993). If 98 to 100 percent of the work in Americanist archaeology before 1940 was that of men, this emphasis would be reasonable, and Lurie’s conviction that women in this field did not need to be “rescued” from obscurity would be apt. But I have found, for example, that in the graduate program at Harvard and Radcliffe by the mid-1920s and 1930s, between one-quarter and one-third of all archaeology graduate students were women (Browman and Williams 2013), and a similar distribution pattern seems to be reflected at the other five graduate institutions that offered the preponderance of doctoral degrees in anthropology. One-quarter to one-third: where did that estimate come from? it has not been previously reported. how apt is it? Not only does that particular estimate derive from my enumerations of graduate students in anthropology at Harvard and Radcliffe during this period, but it is also similarly reflected in research for this volume from my enumerations of women members of such influential groups as the Society for American Archaeology (SAA) from 1935 (its founding date) to 1941 as a proportion to all members. The results of these analyses plainly refute Lurie’s statement above. Rather, as Mary Anne Levine (1994a:24) has observed, “One of the most difficult obstacles to the advancement of research into women in archeology is the persistent myth that women did not contribute to archeology until quite recently.” This pattern is not unique to archaeology or anthropology, but is rather broadly observed in the intellectual histories of Americanist sciences. Thus Margaret Rossiter (1982:xi), in her review of the contributions of U.S. women in science before 1940, reported that most women scientists “bordered, for a variety of reasons, on the invisible.” And for the anthropological discipline, Nancy Parezo (1993:10) writes, “The history of anthropology has neglected women most often by pretending they have not been there.” As Cattell (2006:18) notes for the genre of disciplinary history: “Often these works use descriptors such as erased,

Introduction | 3 hidden, invisible, marginal, muted, silenced, submerged, and subterranean because their common agenda is to bring the forgotten, the ignored, the excluded, and the silenced into the light.” Nancy Parezo identified seven factors that she thought particularly contributed to this invisibility or marginality:

1. The structure of anthropological archaeology and the academy. 2. Education. 3. Ability to find employment. 4. Low status and nontenured positions. 5. Jobs in non-prestigious departments and institutions. 6. Teaching assignments. 7. Publishing, obtaining resources, and equal pay.

The following chapters focus on these issues and their changing relevance as the intellectual and social ambiance evolved. Nineteenth-century researchers faced significant social barriers to securing recognition. For example, Matilda Coxe Stevenson was first told that unless her work was presented under her husband’s name, it would be ignored because she was a woman. Hence much of her work was published under her husband’s name, or at best, with her listed as the second author. Initially, she was given only an “honorary” position at the Bureau of Ethnology. But when her husband died, and the Bureau wanted to capitalize on her knowledge, they were finally forced to devise a means to employ her openly, and she became the first woman hired to conduct anthropology for the Bureau. One of the most egregious treat- ments of Stevenson’s contributions came to light when scholars tried to locate some of her earlier research. “Missing papers of Matilda Coxe Stevenson have been found in John P. Harrington’s papers in the National Anthropological Archives. He had removed her name from the copies, cut them up, and interspersed them with his own” (Parezo 1993:35n7). My approach differs considerablyfrom that of other recent volumes, however, such as Claassen (1994), Gacs et al. (1988), or White et al. (1999). The approach most frequently taken in the last two decades is that of a volume being published, such as the three just mentioned,

4 | Introduction wherein the authors have, as the current cliché goes, cherry-picked the best-known earlier women archaeological scholars, or those women for whom they can readily find biographical data. For the most part, these volumes accordingly have focused on a dozen to a score of women. Hence there tends to be considerable overlap in coverage. These volumes also lack discussion of a significant umbern of women who contributed to the field. In contrast, my approach in this volume is to be much more egalitarian and wide-ranging. The cohort that I identify involves over 200 named women in Americanist archaeology during this time frame (1865–1940). Moreover, I think it is ultimately essential to convey both the intellectual and social milieu for each researcher in order to adequately understand the context of the contributions. Disciplinary historiographers have gone far in developing general national intellectual frameworks in their publications. The social contexts have been largely overlooked. A significant part of this social contextfor women involved in Americanist archaeology is support and interaction with the broader community of other women in the same situation. The traditional pattern in feministic archaeological historiography, unfortunately, is that where a woman who is perceived to have contributed more than her peers is identified and lionized while others who are a critical part of the same social and intellectual setting but who are less well publicized are systematically ignored. In a deliberate attempt to counteract that scholarly flaw or omission, I have made a painstaking attempt to identify the largest possible cohorts and communities of women involved in Americanist archaeology during each specified time period. As a result, the last two chapters in the present volume have evolved into what is often called a prosopographic approach, that is, a series of mini-biographical sketches of women for those decades, something I would rather have avoided, but it became necessary. I have been able to identify scores of women who were contributing significantly to Americanist archaeology. Unfortunately, many were unable to dedicate their entire careers to Americanist archaeology. However, if the women subsequently opted to leave, or were forced to leave,

Introduction | 5 archaeological research, coverage does not detail the specifics of their new career trajectory. This entire volume is about gender. However, beyond a short discussion in my concluding remarks, I have not dealt explicitly with theoretical issues in gender studies, but rather have opted to provide documentation and evidence of the changes that women in Americanist archaeology faced during this period. The evidence provided here enriches the understanding of gender in science and in field situations, but avoids replicating what has been done well already, and instead focuses on the experiences of these women in Americanist archaeology.

1865 to 1900

I now turn to some of the early commentaries, as well as historical analyses, of part for the three-quarters of a century covered in this book, emphasizing how they relate to opportunities and job placement for women. Because I have made the argument (Browman and Williams 2013) that there was a major pedagogic paradigm shift in Americanist archaeology around the beginning of the twentieth century, and that there was a second significant shift in academictraining involving women students in the 1920s, I have broken this 75-year period into three broad temporal discussion units for this chapter: 1865–1900, 1900–1925, and 1925–1940. Once again, perhaps unfairly, one can use Nancy Lurie’s commentaries as a ‘straw-woman’ foil. Lurie writes (1999/1966:7) about women of this period: “These women clearly accepted their role as women. Problems of ‘career vs. marriage’ and complaints about disadvantages and discrimination attendant upon being a woman were to come later.” As a contrast to that view, one can also consider the statement about the difficulties for a womandoing scientific field research, made by Mary French-Sheldon (1894:737) at the World’s Congress of Representative Women, which was held as part of the 1893 Colombian Exposition in Chicago: “Woman needs must make great personal sacrifices, subdue her inherent sensitiveness, and meet the adverse criticism of not only

6 | Introduction the opposite sex, but likewise the narrow-minded of her own sex. Too frequently she is denounced as unwomanly or fond of notoriety; her real motives are questioned.” While Lurie may have captured the then “politically correct” perception of men and women in the late nineteenth century, arguing that women accepted the secondary political role they had been delegated, clearly women such as French-Sheldon did not agree. In addition, women notables including Susan Brownell Anthony, Elizabeth Blackwell, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Lucy Stone spoke against the cliché ideal of woman as a meek and subservient housewife. Or as Christine Ladd Franklin, later a member of Section H, Anthropology, of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), wrote (1891:89): “Woman was looked upon as merely an adjunct to the real human being, man, and it was not considered desirable to give her any other education than what sufficed to make her a good housewife and an agreeable, but not too critical, companion for her husband.” Blackwell, Stone’s sister-in-law (and a relative of mine), reported that when she entered medical school as the first American woman in 1847 in Geneva, New York, the perception prevalent among many of the women in the community was “either that I was a bad woman, whose designs would gradually become evident, or that being insane, an outbreak of insanity would soon be apparent” (Blackwell 1895:70). Thus the view that all women of the late nineteenth century were complacent about the inherent biases does not reflect reality. During the Civil War, women began working in jobs previously held by men. For example, U.S. Treasurer Francis Elias Spinner began hiring women as clerks. By 1875, when Spinner retired, women’s access to jobs as clerks in federal officesas w securely established (Sizer 2004:12). Women also took over the jobs in general education teaching; by the end of the nineteenth century, women became the majority in the teaching profession jobs in primary and secondary education. By the 1870s, women were also employed in factories in greater numbers. This opening of opportunities for women is one characteristic, and possibly one cause, of the period known variously as the Progressive Era, Gilded Age, or American Renaissance (approximately 1870 to 1905). This was

Introduction | 7 a period of new zeal for reforming social, political, and economic structures, partly as a response to the rapid growth of industrialization that followed the end of the Civil War. Only some of the women who contributed to this Progressive Move- ment did so as paid professionals. Most careers remained closed to women, except medicine, education, and social work. A significant portion of efforts expanding women’s presence outside the home depended heavily on unpaid support from thousands of nonprofessional or avocational women working through social and philanthropic organizations (Curry 2004:24). One of the outcomes of this period of particular relevance is that women were beginning to obtain access to more specialized advanced education in both public and private colleges by the late 1870s and 1880s. After retiring from her position as the second president of Wellesley Col- lege, Alice Elvira Freeman Palmer wrote an insightful review (1893:122) of the higher educational opportunities available for women. After having identified three types of educational programs for women extant in 1889, and reviewing the strengths and weaknesses of the first two — coeducational colleges and all female colleges — she observed that while “there are colleges for women which closely approximate in aim and method the colleges for men,” many of the women’s colleges were somewhat stultifying, primarily training women for traditional roles. But she also saw intriguing potential for the third type, “the ‘annex,’ a recent and interesting experiment in the education of girls, whose future it is yet difficult to predict” (121). The biases against women attending college were quite strong. In her 1891 book, Woman’s Work in America, May Wright Sewall catalogued nine types of arguments raised against educating women, and particularly in coeducational institutions, by professors, college presidents, and the general public (Sewall 1891:78):

a. Women are mentally inferior to men, and therefore their presence in a college will inevitably lower the standard of its scholarship.

8 | Introduction b. The physical constitution of women makes it impossible for them to endure the strain of severe mental effort. If admitted to college they will maintain their position and keep pace with men only at the sacrifice of their health. c. The presence of women in college will result in vitiating the manners, if not the morals, of both men and women; the men will become effeminate and weak, thewomen coarse and masculine. d. If women are admitted to college, their presence will arouse the emotional natures of the men, will distract the minds of the latter from college work, and will give opportunity for scandal. e. The intimacies of college life will result in premature marriages. f. Young men do not approve of the collegiate education of women; they dislike to enter into competition with women, and if the latter are admitted to our college it will result in the loss of male students, who will seek in colleges limited to their own sex, the social life which cannot be furnished by a co-educational institution. g. A collegiate education not only does not prepare a woman for the domestic relations and duties for which she is designed, but actually unfits her for them. h. Colleges were originally intended for men only, and the wills of their founders and benefactors will be violated by the admission of women. i. Whatever the real mental capacity or physical ability of women, so fixed is the world’s conviction of their inferiority, that colleges admitting them will inevitably forfeit the world’s confidence and respect.

The Annex variant that President Palmer of Wellesley College referred to in her comment above provided yet another strategy for education of women in the late nineteenth century. This Annex experiment evolved into current elite schools such as Radcliffe and Barnard. Because several of the women who entered into Americanist archaeology came from this educational variant, it is useful to look at it in greater detail.

Introduction | 9 Palmer utilized what was to become Radcliffe College as her example of an Annex. Beginning in 1874, at the request of the Boston Woman’s Educational Association, Harvard College began offering examinations for young women (usually in their late teens), based on testing procedures started at Cambridge University. Upon passing the tests, the candidate received a certificate “with distinction” or “with the highest distinction” from Harvard (Woody 1929, 2:305). Initially, once the women passed these exams, Harvard provided nothing more. After the examination procedure had been in operation for four years, however, several of the college faculty, along with this group of concerned Boston women, suggested that basic courses already being offered at Harvard College for men should be repeated systematically for women. Consequently, the School for the Collegiate Instruction of Women, more colloquially called the Harvard Annex, was formally opened in 1879, with a list of courses by 37 instructors, and with 27 students enrolled that first year. (One woman studied in Europe, and another withdrew because of the commuting distance from Cambridge, resulting in the final total of 25 students mentioned in the quote by Higginson below). In the second year, 42 women enrolled (Higginson 1880b:369; Woody 1929, 2:307). The then president of Columbia College in New York City, Frederick A. P. Barnard, observed in 1879, “To the success of the limited experiment of the Harvard Annex, so-called, may be traced the remarkable change in public opinion in regard to the university education of women” (quoted in Reed 1895:619). The Columbia Annex, which became Barnard, began a decade later, created in memory of Frederick Barnard, who had long advocated admitting women to Columbia. A thumbnail description of the first year’s operations and rationale of the Harvard Annex was given by Thomas Wentworth Higginson, a member of the Harvard Board of Overseers, in the Woman’s Journal in 1879.

The variety of studies shows a wholesome range of tastes, and the “electives” sought belong rather to the more difficult than to the easier courses offered. Several of the students are teachers, in active

10 | Introduction employment, who can take but a single study. One student is a graduate of Smith College, who comes to Harvard for history and political economy; while the student of “quaternions” is a Vassar graduate, and a pupil of Professor Maria Mitchell. Another of the students spent a year or two at Wellesley; and another was for a time the principal of the Oread Institute of Worcester. Eight of the 25 reside in Cambridge, the family of one having removed there for that purpose. Among these eight are two daughters of Professor Longfellow, one of ex-Professor Horsford, and one of Mr. Arthur Gilman, the secretary of the “Annex.” There are two students from New York, one from Connecticut, one from Vermont, and one from Missouri. The recitations take place in some cases in the houses of the professors, and in other cases at rooms hired for the purpose by the superintending committee. To my mind, the great merit of the whole enterprise is not so much that it does something to remove the stigma of one-sidedness that has so long rested on Harvard, as that it is a weight thrown into the scale of thorough training, so far as it goes. In respect to the education of young women, I confess a strong sentiment against the whole race of “summer schools” and against all courses of winter lectures, however good, not followed by systematic examinations. All these may be pleasurable excitements or useful stimulants, but what is peculiarly needed is thorough training. To study somewhere and under some good teacher some one thing, to study it accurately and faithfully, and to be tested by some sort of examination afterwards — this seems to me to be the beginning of education. I confess that such exercises as those at Concord last summer, for instance, seemed to me to be likely only an injury to untrained and crude minds, however pleasant and profitable they might be to those already disciplined. American men and women are already too willing to believe that they can take in the most difficult study at a glance, or develop it out of their own internal consciousness, or by listening to “conversation”; what we need is to begin with mental discipline, always softened and enriched, of course, with intellectual enthusiasm. As a step in this direction, the new Harvard courses look very promising.

Introduction | 11 Higginson was one of a dozen speakers who provided five weeks of lectures to the public by subscription at the inaugural sessions in July and August 1879 at the short-lived (1879–87) “Concord Summer School of Philosophy.”

In 1889, Alice Palmer gave a more detailed description of how the Annex had developed in the intervening decade (it did not become “Radcliffe College” until 1893). Full-time tuition at the Annex was higher than at Harvard College — $200 — or $50 more than the rate of $150 then charged Harvard male students, making attendance at the Annex quite expensive (Reed 1895:614–15).

Only a few cases [of annexes] exist, and as the Harvard Annex is the most conspicuous, by reason of its dozen years of age and nearly 200 students, I shall describe it as the typical example. In the Har- vard Annex groups of young women undertake courses of study in classes whose instruction is furnished entirely by members of the Harvard Faculty. No college officer is obliged to give this instruction, and the Annex staff of teachers is, therefore, liable to considerable variation from year to year. Though the usual four classes appear in its curriculum, the large majority of its students devote themselves to special subjects. A wealthy girl turns from fashionable society to pursue a single course in history or economics; a hard-worked teacher draws inspiration during a few afternoons each week from a famous Greek or Latin professor; a woman who has been long familiar with French literature explores with a learned specialist some single period in the history of the language. Because the opportunities for advanced and detached study are so tempting, many ladies living in the neighborhood of the Annex enter one or more of its courses. There are consequently among its students women much older than the average of those who attend the colleges. The Business arrangements are taken charge of by a committee of ladies and gentlemen, who provide class-rooms, suggest boarding- places, secure the instructors, solicit the interest of the public — in

12 | Introduction short, manage all the details of an independent institution; for the noteworthy feature of its relation to its powerful neighbor is this: that the two, while actively friendly, have no official or organic tie whatever. In the same city young men and young women of collegiate rank are studying the same subjects under the same instructors; but there are two colleges, not one. No detail in the management of Harvard College is changed by the presence in Cambridge of the Harvard Annex. If the corporation of Harvard should assume the financial responsibility, supervise the government, and give the girl-graduates degrees, making no other changes whatever, the Annex would then become a school of the university, about as distinct from Harvard College as the medical, law or divinity schools. The students of the medical school do not attend the same lectures or frequent the same buildings as the college undergraduates. The immediate governing boards of college and medical school are separate. But here comparison fails, for the students of the professional schools may elect courses in the college and make use of all its resources. This the young women cannot do. They have only the rights of all Cambridge ladies to attend the many public lectures and readings of the University. The Harvard Annex is, then, to-day a woman’s college, with no degrees, no dormitories, no women instructors, and with a staff of teachers made up from volunteers of another college. The Fay House, where offices, lecture and waitingrooms, library and laboratories are gathered, is in the heart of old Cambridge, but at a little distance from the college buildings. This is the centre of the social and literary life of the students. Here they gather their friends at afternoon teas; here the various clubs which have sprung up, as numbers have increased, hold their meetings and give their entertainments. The students lodge in all parts of Cambridge and the neighboring towns, and are directly responsible for their conduct only to themselves. The ladies of the management are lavishing in time and care to make the girls’ lives happy and wholesome; the secretary is always at hand to give advice; but the personal life of the students is as separate and independent as in the typical co-educational college.

Introduction | 13 Manifestly, the opportunities for the very highest training are here superb, if they happen to exist at all.” (Palmer 1893:122–26)

While the emergence of the Annex (later referred to as a Coordinate) college system provided new educational possibilities for women, this development did not translate immediately into the entry of significant numbers of women into areas such as Americanist archaeology. Prior to the professionalization of the discipline, which began in the 1890s (Browman and Williams 2013), when there were as yet no degree granting institutions in anthropology or Americanist archaeology, there were a small number of both female and male avocational researchers who were making significant contributions tonatural science disciplines. But when official university training began, causebe of the historical accident of the first success of anthropological degree programs at places like Harvard and Columbia — restricted male domains at the undergraduate level at the beginning of the twentieth century — professional anthropology changed to become the almost exclusive province of men for many years, with women only slowly reemerging as serious contributors. My topical net at first identified more women involved in archaeological venues in this time frame, but as noted, I have opted to focus only upon Americanist archaeology. Male researchers in classical phi- lology, which included classical archaeology, usually felt that the only relevant archaeological cultures worthwhile studying were those that led to European culture, that is, Greek, Roman, and Egyptian archaeology (Browman and Williams 2013). I found that it was not uncommon for women with classical archaeological interests at schools such as Bryn Mawr, Vassar, Wellesley, and the like, to obtain positions teaching classical studies on Greek and Roman topics and thus also utilize these positions to support their own archaeological researches. But this was not an option open to women interested in Americanist archaeology. Hence while Victorian age interest in Greco-Roman studies led to significant development of classics departments in the private women’s colleges, Americanist archaeology developed much later at those schools. Con- sequently there was a tendency prior to World War I for women to find

14 | Introduction both training and opportunities more readily in classical archaeology. Thus the trajectories of both male as well as female archaeologists in classical archaeological studies were significantly different than those of Americanist archaeology and are not considered in this volume. There were, to be sure, a few outstanding male supporters of women’s entry into social science venues as well as those in classical studies. For example, Frederic Ward Putnam of the Peabody Museum at Har- vard lectured to women in the Harvard Annex and was instrumental in recruiting of a number of them into Americanist archaeological activities through other mechanisms. Many of the women mentioned in chapter 1 interfaced with Putnam, who provided them moral and financial support, and encouraged them in several other ways. In his position as general secretary of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) from 1873 to 1898, Putnam was active in recruiting women to membership in the AAAS, including at least two dozen directly or indirectly involved with Americanist archaeology. Additional details on Putnam’s encouragement of women’s entry into academia and research can be found in Browman 2002. Even with such helpful encouragement and expanding opportunities, however, social and economic contexts resulted in far fewer women conducting archaeological field and lab research during the period between the Civil War and World War I, than women who aided archaeology instead by serving as financial patrons and philanthropists, acting as conservationists and preservationists, conducting support work as museum personnel, and working in related capacities.

1900 to 1925

In general, for anthropological archaeology, as Lyn Schumaker (2007:278) observes, history in the twentieth century has been the story of women’s entry into the discipline. In part this is because the beginning of the century was characterized by the evolution of more egalitarian educational systems in North America, which admitted more women and other members of previously excluded groups onto the lower rungs of

Introduction | 15 professional ladders, although in some cases, it took a protracted time for this to permeate all educational specialties. For sociocultural anthropology, women fieldworkers benefited from the assumption that they could gain greater access to women’s lives in other cultures in the research situation than could men. Thus men were urged to include their wives in fieldwork. The assumption of such dif- ferential access did not carry over to recruiting women for archaeology, however. Paid professional service careers were progressively more culturally acceptable as an option for women by the first quarter of the twentieth century. The results of this shifting pattern were documented, for example, in the data collected by Mabel Newcomer and Ruth Hutchin- son (1939) in an employment survey conducted among Vassar alumnae for the four decades from 1892 to 1931. In comparing graduates of the Vassar classes of 1892–1901 with the classes of 1917–26, Newcomer and Hutchinson found that at least occasional participation in paid occupations had increased from 52 to 67 percent for the married group and from 86 to 89 percent for the unmarried group. Further, comparing the classes of 1892–96 with 1922–26, they found that the occurrence of alumnae involved in social work and business had increased from 24 to 57 percent for married women and from 21 to 55 percent for unmarried women (1939:313, 316). Thus careers and paid employment outside the home were increasingly more socially and culturally acceptable alternatives. Also contributing to the growing involvement was the overall expansion of public interest in the pre-Columbian heritage of the Americas. Hulda Hobbs (1946a:85) noted a significant increase in southwestern archaeology because of the decoration of “Indian dens” in New York, which had become “quite a fad in the eastern cities,” as detailed in an article in the local Santa Fe New Mexican in 1900. This is part of what Elizabeth Hutchinson (2009:3) defined as the “Indian craze,” a widespread passion for collecting Native American art, often in displays called “Indian corners,” which was promoted by illustrated magazines as well as department stores. Magazines such as the Papoose,” owned by the Hyde Exploring Expedition, featured the collections of Joseph

16 | Introduction Keppler, one of Harriet Converse’s group (see chapter 1) in their March 1903 issue. Just as antiquarianism and interest in collecting Greco-Roman and Egyptian artifacts in order to decorate the sitting rooms of British and French upper-class manors in the nineteenth century helped spur the growth of classical archaeology in Europe, so too did the increasing demand for artifacts and curios for Indian dens in the United States help provide jobs for collectors and archaeologists in the Southwest and elsewhere in the Americas. The expansion of male researchers into regions such as the Southwest in the first quarter of the twentiethcentury is fairly well known and documented. The number of women involved in regional archaeology grew apace as well. This growth was also reflected in the college environment. In an unpublished news item that Frederic W. Putnam sent in 1906 to Frederick Hodge, who was then editor at the American Anthropologist, entitled “Anthropology at Harvard,” Putnam reported the establishment and development of two undergraduate anthropology groups: (a) the Harvard Anthropological Society, founded in 1898, with 40 Harvard College male members in 1906, whose operation was described as follows: “During the college term, meetings are held for the presentation and discussion of papers and the review of the current anthropological literature. Two or more public lectures by eminent anthropologists are given each year in one of the Harvard lecture halls under the auspices of the society,” and (b) the Radcliffe Anthropologi- cal Club, founded in 1903, with 25 Radcliffe College female members in 1906: “This club is conducted on the same general principles as the Harvard Society, except that no public meetings are held” (Putnam archival file, HUD 3146). Among some male practitioners during this period, there seemed to be an implicit awareness of the awkward position of women in archaeology. For example, in 1918, Frederick H. Sterns, who had just finished his doctoral work at the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology at Harvard, penned a ten-page manuscript, “Women of Scientific Expeditions.” In it he listed the women he knew who were involved in anthropological fieldwork. Because Sterns was trained and

Introduction | 17 employed at the Peabody Museum, it is not surprising that his study focuses mainly on Harvard-related cases of women conducting research, and that most of the women he was aware of doing fieldwork were in Americanist archaeology. His study identified 16 married women (for the most part wives of male archaeologists) and nine single women actively involved in anthropological fieldwork. Many of the married women, as discussed in chapter 2, actively participated in excavations and analyses. While they also helped their husbands with the final publications, they were less often credited as equal contributors. Of the single women that Sterns listed, four did fieldwork in classical archaeology, three were in Americanist archaeology, and two were mainly in sociocultural fields. One of the putative indications of lessening discrimination against women in the discipline than earlier was the fact that the Anthropological Society of Washington (ASW), which had originally explicitly excluded women (see McGee 1889a, 1889b), finally asked the Women’s Anthro- pological Society of America (WASA), also of Washington DC, to join them as members in 1899. However, this suggested merger was also at the time that the men’s ASW publication, the American Anthropologist (old series), was in financial difficulty. To attempt to solve that problem, various ASW members joined with other regional anthropologists in exploring the possibility of establishing a larger entity, which would then have a sufficient membership to support a journal. This was the genesis of the American Anthropological Association (1902). But what research reveals of the events in 1899, according to Smithson- ian Institution anthropologist Clifford Evans, who gathered recollections of Washington old-timers in a 1958 memo, was that when the men’s ASW invited the women’s WASA to join them in 1899, it was almost solely because of the expected surge in financial support which would be derived from the newly transferred and incorporated WASA members. It was hoped that this expanded resource base would then allow the men’s ASW to maintain their control of the American Anthropologist. “Thus it was the women’s financial rather than intellectual resources that were valued” (Parezo 1993:56). Despite the general increase in paid employment options for women,

18 | Introduction securing appropriate employment was a continual problem for researchers. Ellen Fitzpatrick (1990:72–73) observed that turn-of-the-century University of Chicago social scientists were willing to train women PHDs, but not to hire them. In this regard, Chicago did not differ from most American universities. Fitzpatrick (1990:73) includes a revealing quote from Harry Pratt Judson, head of the Political Science Department at Chicago, in a letter sent to Madeleine Wallin, who gave up her teaching post at Smith College for marriage in 1896: “that no avocation for a good woman is higher than being a good wife for a good man — and it is my notion that only abnormal women think otherwise . . . higher education . . . is intended to make a woman more of a woman.” Walter Thomas Woody’s 1929 History of Women’s Education in the United States includes a summary of the 1921 American Association of University Professors’ report on the status of women in colleges and universities, a document mentioned by several historical syntheses, but usually with little explicit detail. That report surveyed 176 American colleges. The 104 coeducational institutions had what seems to be a poor representation of women faculty, with 1,646 women out of 12,869 professors, or only 13 percent. On the other hand, the 29 single-sex male schools had only 2 women faculty out of nearly 2,000 professors, or a virtual absence of women. As might be expected, the ratio for women was more favorable at single-sex female schools. For the 14 major women’s colleges, the study reported 75 percent of the faculty members (748 out of 989) were women (Woody 1929, 2:329; Fitzpatrick 1990:73). But when it came to the number of female undergraduates enrolled in institutions of higher education, the percentage is significantly greater: 31 percent of the students for all types of colleges and universities were women, as contrasted to only 15 percent of the faculty. The U.S. Bureau of Education statistics for 1916–1918 are very similar: in coeducational departments 79 percent of the instructors were men; in professional schools 98 percent of the teaching staff were men, and altogether 81 percent of all teachers in universities, colleges and professional schools were men (Fitzpatrick 1990:72). Some history of science researchers have chosen to emphasize the fact that a quarter century

Introduction | 19 earlier, nearly 100 percent of the instructors in colleges were male, so that women had gone from a negligible presence to 19 percent of the college faculty overall, a major increase. Other studies note, however, that the fact there were nearly twice as many female college students as there were female instructors is still a dismal statistic. The ratio of female to male graduate students increased rapidly as women students were allowed into higher education. In 1892–93 there were 3,081 men and 484 women graduate students. In 1900–1901 there were 4,883 men and 1,982 women graduate students, of whom 1,106 men and 295 women received master’s degrees, and 312 men and 31 women obtained doctoral degrees. By 1909–10 there were 7,508 men and 2,991 women graduate students, and by 1919–20, there were 9,837 men and 5,775 women graduate students (Woody 1929, 2:337–38). Thus in the quarter century from 1892 to 1918, the number of female graduate students increased from 13.5 to 37 percent, but as noted, this increase was not reflected by a comparable increase in the percentage of women in faculty positions. Even as the number of job openings increased, equality did not necessarily follow. Positions available for women faculty members received a big boost during the First World War. Women had taken jobs during war emergencies, obtained jobs because the scarcity of men faculty who had left for better paying jobs, and been hired because of a new but belated realization of the capabilities of women (Woody 1929, 2:329). However, simply counting the number of women gives an incomplete or skewed picture of progress. The hiring and promotion of women was much slower than that of men. For example, at the University of Chicago, the time from hiring to achieving full professor rank was usually nine years longer for women than men. And at 47 percent of schools in Woody’s survey, no woman held a full professorship (Woody 1929, 2:330). Of the nine women who earned doctorates in social sciences during the first 15 years of graduate studies at the University of Chicago, not a single one secured a regular faculty appointment upon her graduation, while two-thirds of male classmates were so employed (Fitzpatrick 1990:72).

20 | Introduction Financial compensation also reflected discriminatory biases. Women received pay equal to their male counterparts at 73 percent of the women’s colleges and at 53 percent of the co-ed institutions, but other institutions “frankly admitted women are given a less salary and lower rank than men for the same work” (Woody 1929, 2:331). The reasons given to justify this bias were (a) the law of supply and demand, (b) the fact that traditionally families relied on men for support, and hence a man needed a job more than a woman did, and (c) the need to retain men in college teaching required men to be given salary sufficient for a living wage. Married women not only received lower pay but also were discriminated against in hiring situations, the argument given that they did not need a job because they had working husbands who could support them. Nor were women treated as equals in other academic venues. Dr. Margaret Murray, who briefly was involved in fieldwork in the U.S. South- west in the teens before devoting her career to Old World archaeology, attended her first meeting of the Anthropological Section of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1913 and found only one other woman in attendance. One of the men there, a colleague whom Murray knew well, indicated that he did not approve of her attending, saying, “There are many things in this world that a woman shouldn’t know. I certainly would not permit you to attend one of my lectures” (Murray 1963:92).

1925 to 1940

The position of women in archaeological endeavors improved in the period between the First and Second World Wars, although this did not immediately translate into more jobs. Among the changes were greatly expanded graduate training opportunities for women, as well as improved field funding. For example, Margaret Rossiter (1982:270) found that between 1920 and 1938, 59 out of 197 (30 percent) of the PHDs in anthropology were earned by women, and 10 out of 26 (38.5 percent) of the National Research Council Fellowships in anthropology were awarded to women.

Introduction | 21 Harvard University had the first successful undergraduate major and first functioning graduate program in anthropology in the country. There, from the beginning of the official anthropology program in 1890, Frederic W. Putnam and his staff hadalso offered a limited range of undergraduate courses to women, first through the Annex and then through dual class offerings taught separately at Radcliffe and Harvard. But initially there was what amounted to a “glass ceiling”: limited access for women to training as undergraduates in the discipline, as well as severely limited access to graduate work and professional positions. In the beginning, Harvard College did not permit (female) Radcliffe students to attend the same classes as (male) Harvard College students, but rather the anthropology staff was required to teach separate sections for the Radcliffe women. In the mid-1920s, there was a policy shift at Harvard. Now women undergraduate and graduate students were allowed to attend the same classes as male students, although at first in a rather tentative manner. For example, Doris Stone (1980:20) recollected: “In the 1920s, I was required to obtain permission from the president of Harvard to attend classes at the Peabody Museum, and with that permission came the warning that if my deportment was not entirely proper, my association with that austere building would be ended.” During this decade, the numbers of both male and female graduate students in the discipline increased significantly at Harvard. By the end of the 1920s, 20–25 percent of the graduate class was female, and the combined enrollment of anthropology graduate students from Harvard and Radcliffe had increased markedly, averaging 25 to 30 students each year (Browman and Williams 2013). This growth in opportunities for female students was observed at other institutions as well. For Columbia University, all but two of Franz Boas’s doctoral students before 1920 were men, but from 1920 to 1940, the pattern changed, with 20 men and 20 women obtaining their doctorates (Parezo 1993:35). At the American School for Prehistoric Research, 29 of 79 students (37 percent) were women between 1921 and 1938, and for the 1931 season the field school was directed by Charlotte D. Gower (Bricker 2002:281–83). Carl E. Guthe of the University of Michigan, in

22 | Introduction his 1952 review of Eastern U.S. archaeology, noted a dearth of female archaeologists before 1925, but a significant increase during the 1930s. Surprisingly, Edgar Lee Hewett’s lists for School for American Research (SAR) field schools in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, for the 1929–34 period, identified 60 percent of the students, 35 out of 58, as women (Mathien 1992:112–13). This latter figure must be viewed with some care, as one of the women involved, Winifred Stamm Reiter, reported that Hewett was under pressure to demonstrate the success of the program, and thus he padded the class list. Reiter tells us that Hewett listed as students at the field school individuals who were members of the SAR Managing Board; teachers from public schools who needed to update their work to maintain their certificates; family friends; associates on vacation; donors to the SAR, etc. (Mathien 1992:108–9). Nevertheless, as discussed in chapter 3, a significant number of women who continued in archaeology obtained their first field training from Hewett’s summer excavation projects, and this policy continued after his retirement. When Donald Brand replaced Hewett as department chairman and field school director, the 1936 University of New Mexico field schools maintained the tradition of substantial numbers of women: 75 percent or 35 of the 47 students listed were female (Joiner 1992:58). However, even though there were sizeable numbers of women on several of the Chaco Canyon field school projects in the early 1930s, men continued to dominate the supervisory positions, and the men were also more successful in securing graduate degrees. Jonathan Reyman reports (1994:86) that 57 percent of the men at the University of New Mexico anthropological graduate program then obtained their MA degrees, and 30 percent went on to obtain PHDs, while only 26 percent of the women finished their MA degrees and only 11 percent went on to the PHD. The new availability of archaeology as a career for women is nicely captured in the two short vignettes by Frances Emma Watkins, My Expe- riences as a Field Archeologist (1930) and Archeology as a Profession for Women”(1931). Watkins had gone to a field school at Pecos directed by Alfred V. Kidder in the Southwest in 1929. These two commentaries were based primarily on her fieldwork later that season with two other female

Introduction | 23 students on an all-female-directed excavation project at Tecolote, New Mexico, for Kidder. Watkins wrote that “archeology as a profession for women is new, at least in America” (1930:13), and explained the lure of the profession by asserting that “women are, I think, peculiarly adapted to these new methods of excavation and research” (1931:175).

There is great opportunity for specialization in archeology, for there are many branches and subdivisions. . . . The best preparation is to take as much general work as possible, and then with such a background choose your specialty. One thing is pretty certain — a college education is practically required, with a basis of scientific courses: anthropology, of course, and the scientific languages (French and German), Spanish if you intend to work in America; then geology, geography, and zoology, and history. Field training, formerly considered unnecessary and not as yet a requirement, is becoming more and more important.” (Watkins 1931:177)

Dorothy Thomas wrote about the new job opportunities also available to women in the museum field, but with a slightly different spin. In her article in the Independent Woman, the journal of the National Federation of Business and Professional Women’s Clubs, Thomas noted that the director of the Brooklyn Museum believed “that women are especially suited to museum work by their love of the beautiful, their adaptability and their patience in detail work” (Thomas 1933:238). However, Thomas also reported that the museum personnel whom she interviewed indicated that to secure jobs women should not “hesitate to take voluntary positions first and prepare to spend years breaking into any responsible museum position,” and that even well-trained women should expect different levels of responsibility than men, because “men come as scientific experts and therefore demand more. They will not do routine work as women scientists have to” (239). Thus in spite of the fact that more positions were potentially open to them, it was still difficult for women. Specialization was one option. Florence Hawley Senter Ellis told her student Florence Cline Lister

24 | Introduction that the “only way to break into the discipline was to find some aspect of the fieldwork that men did not enjoy doing and then to become a specialist in it” (Lister 1997a:5). Ellis herself had developed a special skill, dendrochronology, as a strategy to ensure a place in archaeological research. Mary Ann Levine (1994b:27) noted that geographic specialization was also important. She saw Frederica de Laguna’s focus on the Arctic prehistory and Dorothy Cross Jensen’s fieldwork in New Jersey, for example, as being in “virtually uncontested geographic areas, as creative responses to marginalization.” Another option that women perceived as an entry into archaeology was marriage. Lister writes that Ellis also told her: “Your best bet is to marry an archaeologist.” Lister reports that she, as well as her archaeological classmates, such as Gretchen Chapin (who married Alden Hayes) and Carolyn Miles (who married Douglas Osborne) did just that (Lister 1997a:7). Richard Woodbury (1993:19) had a similar take on the situation, reporting that in 1927 there were five husband-wife teams working in the Southwest, “virtually the only way a woman could engage in field archaeology in the 1920s.” Eleanor Bachman Lothrop (1948:227–28) and Florence Cline Lister (1997a:19) categorized their fellow women graduate students who married archaeologists in three typological clusters. They identified one group of wives who tried to “out-macho” the males in behavior and mien; a second group who might be viewed as dilettantes, characterized as being shallow with little or no continuing interest in archaeology; and a third group, to which they both assigned themselves, consisting of women who accepted various male biases, but still tried to be active and congenial collaborators. My female colleagues tell me that little has changed with respect to these three clusters up to the present day. Certainly, being the wife on a husband-wife team had its costs. Emma Reh Stevenson, one of the founders of the SAA, noted in a letter to a colleague: “It’s awful to be a woman and married because you really cannot have any plans of your own” (Stevenson to Davis, Record Unit 7091, box 108, folder 1, 1926). Cynthia Irwin-Williams (1990:13), writing about the team of Winifred and Harold Gladwin, noted that while

Introduction | 25 their definitive ceramic analyses were jointly authored, most individuals (even Willey and Sabloff in their seminal history of the discipline) refer to the Gladwins’ joint significant methodological contributions as just “his.” Lyn Schumaker (2007:282) suggested that a woman’s status as a wife also adversely affected her evaluation both by her male and female colleagues. Wives were often expected to do the tedious jobs. Barbara Kidder Aldana noted that her mother, Madeleine Kidder (Alfred V. Kidder’s wife) “worked tirelessly cleaning, mending and cataloguing the specimens,” as well as doing ceramic analysis while being essentially unrecognized (Aldana 1983:248). Donald Lehmer (1948:100), in his report on the 1940 Works Progress Administration (WPA) project in the Forestdale Valley, east-central Arizona, thanked his first wife, archaeological graduate student and collaborator Mary Scanlan Lehmer, for her help in hauling water, doing the marketing and cooking, and running bilingual poker games in the evening, but was mute in terms of acknowledging her significant assistance in excavation and write-up. The cultural context of the United States prior to World War II, wherein men were still assumed to be the breadwinners, had an adverse impact on the ability of women archaeologists to advance as well as to find jobs. During this epoch, one of the standard practices for several prestigious universities (such as Chicago or Columbia) was the requirement that the doctoral dissertation must be published in order for the degree to be awarded. The assumption, deriving from the northern European heritage of higher education, was that the dissertation effectively was to be one’s scholarly Magnum Opus. Anthropology departments were perennially short of funds, and often decided that they could not afford to publish the dissertations of all of their candidates. Thus one of the founding “mothers” of the SAA, Regina “Gene” Weltfish finished her degree research and successfully defended her dissertation in 1929, but was not granted her degree until 1950, when Columbia University eliminated its publication requirement. Weltfish estimated that it would aveh cost her $4,000 to publish the dissertation herself, and she could not afford to do so. (For the basis of this estimate, see chapter 3.) Her department’s position was the standard

26 | Introduction “men have greater need” in terms of supporting families, and therefore the department devoted its limited publishing funds to support publication for their male candidates. Thus, without publication, the PHD could not be awarded; without a PHD in hand, Weltfish could not secure a tenure track job; and hence she served as a nontenure track lecturer at Columbia from 1935 to 1953 (Pathe 1988:373; Price 2004:110). Florence Hawley Ellis was one of the few fortunate women in this respect. Because Edgar Hewett wanted her to conduct dendrochronological studies at the University of New Mexico, he found the money to publish her dissertation so that she could receive her doctorate from Chicago before she began to teach (Parezo 1993:347, 366n9). But even publication was not always straightforward. For example, Charlotte Gower received her University of Chicago PHD in 1928, but her book manuscript based in her dissertation research, which was submitted to University of Chicago Press in 1935, was misplaced at the press and not found until the late 1960s, so her 1935 work was not published until 1971, long after her retirement (Lepowsky 2002:126). In the 1920s and 1930s, a number of women waited years to officially receive their doctorates. Official dissertation publication was often the culprit. Many women simply gave up, when faced with this impediment, and never secured the degree. Obviously, because many U.S. universities were trying to upgrade their faculties by requiring doctoral degrees of their professorial staff, this lack of degree prevented a significant number of women from securing tenured positions and advancing to upper-level academic ranks. Many women involved in postgraduate archaeology were carried on the books as research associates. These were in primarily courtesy appointments that offered institutional affiliation to otherwise unemployed or underemployed researchers, categories that defined a significant number of women archaeologists (Levine 1994b:28). This situation was no doubt exacerbated by the fact that, as Rossiter (1982:272) argues:

Anthropology presents an extreme case of this dependency on foundations and fellowships during the 1920s and 1930s. Since it was

Introduction | 27 a small field and had few teaching positions available, most of its younger women did important work and built whole careers on little more than a series of temporary fellowships from the NRC and SSRC. In fact, there seems to have been a tendency, in this field at least, to give the fellowships to the women to “tide them over” while the few jobs available went to the men.

She notes (1982:139) that particularly Franz Boas was successful in being able to transform the field’s lack of jobs into a noble, self-sacri- ficing cause of great appeal to women graduate students at Barnard/ Columbia. While women were being placed in the lectureship and research associate positions, revisions were being made in the tenure system which negatively affected theirjob security. In an attempt to standardize the treatment of junior faculty positions, administrators at Harvard devised a new tenure system in the mid-1930s, with a seven-year review period limit before granting tenure. Thanks to the actions of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), this tenure procedure became a standard system nationwide by 1941 and is still mainly the norm today. However, as it was being put in place in the late 1930s and 1940s, an extremely high proportion of its victims were the long-serving women who had been relegated to nontenure track or lower academic levels, and thus had long passed the seven-year limit without receiving permanent appointments (Lepowsky 2002:155, Rossiter 1982:194). The AAUP regulations argued that this was exploitative; that the institutions either had to grant the women tenure or let them go. Not surprisingly, in many cases the women were simply terminated. In spite of the upsurge in the number of women in Americanist archaeology in the 1930s, this shift was very slow to be appreciated by the men. There were significant numbers ofwomen doing archaeology during this period who became members of the Society for American Archaeology. But the men in the field seemed rather unaware of, or perhaps unap- preciative of, this change, if nominations to fellow status at the SAA and acceptance of papers for the annual meetings are appropriate statistics.

28 | Introduction To be named a fellow of the SAA, an individual had to have engaged in scientific research in American archaeology and to have published upon this research in recognized scientific media. At the first meeting of the SAA held in December 1935, there were only four nominations of women out of 42 individuals put forward for fellows (Guthe 1936a:310; Strong 1936:315). At the second annual meeting in 1936, six fellows were nominated, including one woman; at the third annual meeting in 1938, only one woman out of 17 nominees; and at the fourth annual meeting in 1939, and fifth annual meetings in 1940, 22 fellows were nominated, but no women were listed among the group for these two years (Guthe 1936c:290, 1938:42, 1939:39, 1940:98). The papers presented in these early years were only just slightly more representative of the actual female membership: at the first annual meeting in 1935, 1 paper out of 8 was presented by a woman; at the second, 5 out of 17; at the third, 3 out of 23; at the fourth, 2 out of 20; and at the fifth, 3 out of 21 papers, or a total of 16 percent of the papers presented during the first five years were by women (Guthe 1936b:316, 1936c:291, 1938:43, 1939:38). There was considerable resistance among some of the male archaeologists to accept women students or to accept them as equals. Arguments ran the gamut, but among those most frequently voiced was the old saw that the degree that women students were seeking was the “Mrs.” and that their physical abilities were suited only for lab work, not fieldwork. In fieldwork, for example, Alfred V. Kidder thought women were “unreliable” members of crews because they got married, but he was not worried about men marrying because then their wives could serve as unpaid field assistants (Babcock and Parezo 1988:v; Reyman 1994:89n4). Alfred Kroeber was reluctant to admit women to Berkeley’s PHD program, because he “felt they were not interested in archaeology, but only in male archaeologists” (Lepowksy 2002:131n1). As an aside, it is interesting to note the tendency of senior male archaeologists (such as Alfred Kroeber and John Harrington reported in later chapters) to conduct affairs with younger female studentswhile at the same time suggesting that women were only looking for husbands. There is a certain preda- tory duplicity to this theme that would be intriguing to investigate; it is

Introduction | 29 a logical counterpoint to the “stress in marriage theme” explored later in my concluding remarks. At Harvard, Ruth Otis Sawtell Wallis reported that Alfred Tozzer and Earnest Hooton “asserted that most young women in graduate work abandoned it if they married. They added, however, if she had serious intentions to study, they would help her in every way” (Collins 1979:85). And Doris Zemurray Stone wrote about the same issue concerning women working for advanced degrees in anthropology at Harvard, recollecting that “I was advised against studying for a PHD. Women simply weren’t encouraged to go that far, particularly in anthropology. . . . And eventually, when I returned to the Peabody Museum for a visit in the 1940s, one of my former professors, who also thought little good came from educating females because they soon grew up and were married, invited me to speak at a weekly tea gathering at his home” (Stone 1980:20–21). Notably, both Stone and Wallis made it clear that once they decided to proceed and demonstrated their seriousness, the male faculty at the Peabody Museum were extremely supportive of their work. For the most part, men were oblivious to the fact that they were dis- criminating against women. A typical case might be James B. Griffin, widely recognized as the unofficial “dean” of Eastern American archaeology for many years. For the fiftieth anniversary of the SAA, he wrote a retrospective about the founding of the society, identifying one of his fellow cofounders, Ellen S. Spinden, merely as the wife of Herbert J. Spinden (Griffin 1985:266). Ellen had her MA from Harvard as well as advanced training in archaeology at the Peabody Museum, and she was actively working in the field and publishing in Mesoamerican archaeology at that time, but all that registered with Griffin apparently was her marital status. Later, when Griffin was asked about the difficulties of being a woman archaeologist in the 1930s, he replied: “There is no question that it was difficult for aoman w to become an archaeologist. It was also difficult for a man. That was true in the 1930s and has been true up to the present time.” He added, “The statement that anthropology was not ‘a proper occupation for a young lady’ in the 1930s is almost certainly true for the vast majority of American Christians, it wasn’t for

30 | Introduction young men either, ‘proper’ or not” (Griffin 1992:7). I knew Griffin for many years as a wonderful, caring man, but when it came to the issue of historical discrimination against women archaeologists, he had his blinders on, it seems. Women archaeology students were often required to endure demeaning situations to secure graduate training. As an undergraduate at Columbia University, Dorothy Louise Strouse Keur was delegated to fetch a bowl of soup every noon from the lunchroom and bring it to her professor’s (Edward Sanford Burgess) office. After graduation, Burgess offered her a job as lab assistant, but only if she agreed to return half of her salary each month so he could purchase prehistoric artifacts for the departmental museum (James 1988:181–82). Graduate student Clara Lee Fraps Tanner reported being used as a babysitter in the 1930 field season by Dean Byron Cummings instead of being allowed to excavate, the kind of treatment that ultimately resulted in her leaving archaeology (Hays-Gilpin 2000:92). Nancy White has written, “It could be argued that the way women are traditionally socialized in our society makes them well suited for field and lab management,” and “Other studies have noted the female tendency to prefer/excel in perceived tedious tasks such as sorting lithic debitage” (1999a:14). This perception has been shared essentially for the duration of development of Americanist archaeology. For example, it was nearly a century ago that Clark Wissler argued that women were particularly well suited to lab work because it resembled housework (Babcock and Parezo 1988:4). This sentiment has been expressed in similar ways throughout a century and a half of Americanist archaeology. Edgar Hewett might seem laudable because he enrolled so many women on his field crews in the Southwest, particularly in the 1930s. However, he did not encourage them to complete advanced degrees, and he had double standards about pay and duties. Not only did fewer of the women students there receive advanced degrees, but he also actively dissuaded them from pursuing doctorate work. Hewett had a limited budget, and he deliberately hired women because he could pay them less (Cordell 1993:220). He also gave them far less authority (men

Introduction | 31 were usually the field supervisors), and often assigned the women to lab work rather than letting them excavate. When University of New Mexico graduate student and museum employee Marjorie Lambert wanted to go to an eastern university to pursue a doctoral degree, Hewett would not let her. So Lambert decided that for museum work, a PHD was not important, and she quit her graduate studies at that point (Parezo and Hardin 1993:283). The 1929 Tecolote, New Mexico, field project was one of the first where women held positions of authority. In 1929 Fay-Cooper Cole, Roland B. Dixon, and Alfred V. Kidder reported the distribution of the first national scholarship competitionto be funded primarily through the aegis of the Laboratory of Anthropology in Santa Fe for fieldwork in archaeology, ethnology, and linguistics. There were 38 applications for 14 scholarships — 15 in archaeology, 18 in ethnology, and five in linguistics, with 11 from women and 27 from men. Criterion #3 for awarding the money, however, was as follows: “That as there are at present open to women relatively few professional positions in anthropology, the number of scholarships granted to women should be limited. Further- more, the conditions under which the investigations are being carried on during the summer of 1929 preclude the assignment of women to the ethnological and linguistic parties” (Cole et al. 1929:572). Six awards were made in archaeology: three to women and three to men. Cole was reluctant to accept women students, as he noted in a letter written to Edward Sapir, chairman of the scholarship committee for 1930: “I should prefer not to have girls in the party, but if your Committee finds it necessary I will take two” (Sampson 1992:9n1). Thus Kidder ended up with the six archaeology fellowship students, and after training the group for a month at Pecos, he sent the three women to run all the work at the site of Tecolote, making it one of the first Americanist excavations where women were in charge of all operations. The Depression, of course, had a significant impact on availability of jobs in the 1930s. But even when the Works Progress Administra- tion (WPA) and other government agencies were desperate for trained archaeologists to supervise the projects, qualified women were generally

32 | Introduction neither considered nor chosen. Cheryl Claassen (1999:92) identifies Dorothy Cross as perhaps the only woman to have a supervisory position. I will add the names of women such as Catherine McCann and Harriet M. Smith in my discussions here in later chapters, but it was indeed the case that WPA and other Depression era programs provided funding and fieldwork opportunities for a large number of male archaeologists, whereas women found extremely limited access to this employment sector. Emma Reh Stevenson, one of the founders of the SAA, observed that being a woman at times had both aided and hindered her. In a November 7, 1927, letter to Frank Thone, a colleague at Science Service, she attributed some successes to the chivalry of men she had encountered, who went out of their way to help her, but also contrasted this to other situations where she had to convince people that as a woman, she was able to handle science (Record Unit 7091, box 108, folder 1). On the other side of the coin, however, she noted in a January 1929 letter to Watson Davis, another colleague at the Science Service, that she could use science as a mechanism to travel and do all sorts of unwomanly things while retaining the benefits of being a woman (Record Unit 7091, box 120, folder 3). We should note, however, that it was not only male archaeologists who discriminated against female students. Theresa B. Goell, who excavated in Turkey in the 1930s and 1940s, wrote to her former professor, William Albright, May 21, 1953:

When I was younger I used to think that you imposed difficult conditions on women in archaeology, but I have become perhaps even stricter than you — because I can allow myself the luxury of dis- criminating against my sisters. I have made a rule that no wives can come along and make a nuisance of themselves and no young girls well-recommended who have not yet proven that they will remain in archaeology. One wastes too much energy with the disrupting idle wives and the dilettante young ladies. (quoted in Sanders and Gill 2004:496)

Introduction | 33 Not surprisingly the basic patterns identified continued for much of the rest of the twentieth century. Thus Melinda Zeder, in her review of American archaeologists at the end of the twentieth century, noted, “For though a higher proportion of younger women than men are going into academia overall, there is a persistent, if not increasing, tendency for women in academia to occupy nontenure track positions with more limited potential for advancement and job security. . . . Moreover, women continue to make greater personal sacrifices in their family lives to pursue careers in archaeology. They both marry less frequently and are more likely to delay, or forego, having children than are men” (Zeder 1997:2). Nancy White observed, in writing about women in Southeast archaeology during this period (and later), “Most of the women in this book, for example, noted many other women in their field schools, often a predominance of women, not only as fellow students but also as help- mate wives, cooks, and lab assistants. Because of the undervaluing of their contributions, or perhaps shorter duration in the field because they then took up more traditional women’s roles, there surely are far more such ‘invisible women’ than we think” (White 1999a:21).

These assessments by Zeder and White provide one of the rationales and raison d’êtres of this volume, that is, to ferret out and bring the contributions of these invisible but meritorious women to light.

34 | Introduction CHAPTER ONE

Women of the Period 1865 to 1900

In this chapter, I deal with the contributions of nearly three dozen women who contributed to Americanist archaeology prior to 1900. While some of these women were very much into actual archaeological fieldwork, many more were constrained by the ethos of the period and were involved more in support positions, such as working for preservation and conservation of archaeological sites or helping to develop the institutional bases necessary for archaeology to take place. An issue that surfaces immediately is the question of personal reference: if a woman is married, does one follow the conventions of the time and then refer to her by her married name? What if she is married more than once — which name does one use then? Did she utilize a professional name or not? In the index, I follow the convention of listing the natal or maiden name as the primary referent, followed by placing the married name(s) in chronological order in brackets. However, in the text my usage is somewhat more variable. One academic custom suggested that when faced with this issue, one should utilize the name that the individual herself employed in her professional life. Sometimes this is easy — there is one name alone that appears on publications, on conference papers, and the like. But only a few of the women in Americanist archaeology used professional names. Most were bound by social conventions and were assiduous in changing their referents every time they married, so that occasionally one woman would employ three or four surnames over her career. In

35 some cases, the woman utilized one surname in her teaching position and another surname for her written work. And of course there are those cases where the woman does not like her baptismal first name and utilizes or prefers a middle name or even a nickname. Then how should I refer to a woman who has no professional name or who has been married multiple times? Using the first name may seem too casual, but using a last name may appear to refer to her husband, or if she has been married three or four times, then in the same paragraph one is forced to refer to the same person by three or four names, which confuses the reader and leads to very awkward prose. Hence I often used the first name to have one single referent. The first time I discuss a woman’s career, I cite her entire name, for example, Florence May Hawley [Senter] [Ellis]. Florence Hawley was a very productive researcher and a particularly thorny case to figure out how to cite her name. For example, at some places in the text it appeared to me that it might be useful to remind the reader that at a specific chronological point in her life, she was married to Donald Senter — they worked on some issues of joint concern that she subsequently abandoned after she divorced him. I wanted to follow careers, not archaeology, so Florence Hawley Senter might best convey that circumstance. To call her Florence Ellis in that instance might be quite misleading. If I called her only Florence, would that be too familiar? And if I instead utilized her married surname at a specific point in time, such as referring to her only as Senter or Ellis, the reader might, by generally accepted American English convention, assume that I was in fact referring to her husband. I have continually wrestled with defining a proper approach, but could ascertain no “one size fits all” solution. I found none that did not seem too familiar, too confusing, or too stilted. This name issue also makes researching these individuals challenging. Being women, most of them do not get included in standard biographical sources of the period, such as any of the various versions of Who’s Who, Who Was Who, American Men of Science (only later was it changed to American Men and Women of Science), or any of the various standard listings, such as the Dictionary of American Biography. Hence the exact

36 | Women of the Period string of marriages and married names only becomes clear after much frustration in multiple searches, and in some cases, just plain luck. This contributes to the issue of invisibility for women researchers: unless one knows the subsequent married name(s), it may well appear that a woman only produced a few learned contributions and then disappeared from archaeological venues, whereas when one combines the output under all of her names, there may be quite a rich scholarship. I invested considerable research time attempting to identify each woman’s maiden name, her birth and death dates, and the names of any husbands. These data were essential in distinguishing between individuals with the same name as well as in searching for the complete range of contributions and involvement of these women in archaeological domains. In the discussion of individual contributors, I have initially given primacy to the maiden name, noting the married names sequentially. And in the first reference to each woman, I have given primacy to baptismal first names; in those cases where the women chose to be known by a nickname, or for various reasons elected to be called by a middle name, she may be referred to by this name subsequently.

Women Doing Fieldwork

Alice Cunningham Fletcher (1838–1923) was clearly a major figure in the development of Americanist archaeology at the turn of the century. Her contributions have been described in significant detail in books by Joan Mark (1980, 1988), but I certainly need to provide a thumbnail sketch here. Alice Fletcher was born in Havana, Cuba, while her parents were temporarily there, but grew up in the United States. She began a correspondence with Frederic Putnam at the Peabody Museum of Harvard in 1878, seeking information for a public lecture series that she was developing on the heritage of the American Indians, as exhibited by the mounds in the Ohio and Mississippi River valleys (Browman 2002:226). She illustrated these lectures (The Ancients — Here and Elsewhere, The

Women of the Period | 37 Lost Peoples of America, Ceremonies of the Moundbuilders, and Antiquities of Coast and Cave), with her own hand-drawn pictures of artifacts and sites (Mark 1988:32). She lectured not only to the general public, but apparently also to all-male audiences of researchers, as one can gather by the following note: “Miss Fletcher undertook to give three lectures on American archaeology here, before a body of scientific men [Minnesota Academy of Sciences] who were familiar with her subject matter, many of them having personally opened mounds in our own state” (Peckham 1879:409). By 1879 she had expanded her series to eleven public lectures on Americanist archaeological topics, with her programs now sponsored in part by the Minnesota Academy of Sciences. Fletcher came to the Peabody Museum at Harvard as a researcher in 1880, beginning work on the Omaha and Nez Perce Indians, and was appointed in 1882 as assistant in American ethnology. But Putnam also recruited her to assist on the museum’s archaeological excavations of shell mounds in Florida, Maine, and Massachusetts. And in 1886–87, when Putnam embarked on a major effort to save the Serpent Mound in Ohio, her help was crucial in organizing the financial support in the Boston area to purchase the mound for preservation (Browman 2002:226). A good part of Fletcher’s career was involved in “salvage” ethnography and applied anthropology with the Omaha and Nez Perce. In addition to Frank Cushing, who is usually singled out, Fletcher, Erminnie Smith, and Matilda Stevenson should be credited with establishing participant observation as an anthropological method in her fieldwork. She was the first holder of the Mary Copley ThawFellowship in American Archae- ology and Ethnology, established in 1890, and the first woman to hold any fellowship at Harvard, thanks to the strong support of Putnam; the financial support was directly related to her ethnographic researches. The importance of her being named as recipient of this fellowship might be judged by the reception held in 1891 in Washington DC upon announcement of this award: more than 800 people came to honor her (Mark 1980:73)! Fletcher was also one of the original members and officers of the Women’s Anthropological Society of America (WASA), where she gave

38 | Women of the Period several papers, and helped to establish archaeology as one of that society’s six subsections, as well as serving as its president for several terms. She was a consistent contributor to the Annual Reports of the Peabody Museum and the Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) from 1884 on. After joining the AAAS in 1879, at Put- nam’s behest, and being promoted to fellow in 1883, Fletcher became the first woman to chair a scientific section of the AAAS, leading Section H, Anthropology, in 1896–97. When Section H became involved in the founding of the new version of the American Anthropologist at the turn of the century, Alice Fletcher was named to its ten-member editorial board. She was involved as one of the five women judges for the Jury of Awards for Ethnology at the Colombian Exposition in Chicago in 1893. She and Zelia Nuttall were on the advisory committee that oversaw the establishment of the museum and department of anthropology at the University of California — Berkeley. And she served as the president of the American Anthropological Association (AAA) in 1904 and the archaeologist-dominated American Folk-Lore Society in 1905. Unlike its current focus, during the first few decades of its existence, the Ameri- can Folk-Lore Society had a strong representation of archaeologically oriented scholars as its officers, including George A. Dorsey, J. Walter Fewkes, Charles Peabody, Elizabeth K. Putnam, Frederic W. Putnam, Frank Russell, Frederick Starr, and Alfred M. Tozzer. At Putnam’s suggestion, Fletcher joined the fledging Archaeological Institute of America (AIA) in 1879. In 1887 and 1888 she and Matilda C. Stevenson, serving as representatives of WASA, and of Section H, AAAS, lobbied Congress on behalf of a bill to have Mesa Verde and the ruins on the Pajarito Plateau declared national parks (Fletcher and Stevenson 1889). Although they were unsuccessful, they thus laid the groundwork for the later successful effort, partly funded by Mary Hemenway, to preserve Casa Grande, and paved the way for the Antiquities Act of 1906. Fletcher became a major influence in the directions of research of the AIA after 1899, when this organization, to build up sagging membership, decided to broaden its classical archaeology focus and to investigate

Women of the Period | 39 establishing a research center in the Americas similar to the classical archaeology schools it had organized in Athens and Rome. Fletcher became a key player in helping to found the AIA’s School of American Archaeology at Santa Fe in 1908–1909. While the AIA subcommittee members Charles Bowditch, Franz Boas, and Frederic Putnam wanted the school to be established in Mexico City, and had initially thought that they had persuaded the AIA to do this, Fletcher, with the help of Edgar Hewett, did an end-run around this powerful trio, and got the school established in Santa Fe instead. For the next decade, she was much involved with its survival and development (Mark 1988:319–23). When Putnam was puzzled by the apparently random pattern of pits he was discovering at Madisonville, Ohio, at his request, “Miss Fletcher had visited the ancient cemetery at Madisonville, and personally explored some of the singular ashpits of that place” in the summer of 1883 (Putnam 1884:356). She wrote to Putnam in January 15, 1884, suggesting that the pits were abandoned storage places subsequently filled with trash, based on analogs to her work with Omaha Indians (Putnam 1884:357). Putnam hesitated at first to accept this explanation, but in his reports, these features were so identified. Today the idea of storage pits backfilled with trash is standard first-year archaeological field school lore. Cordelia Adelaide Studley (1855–87) was a medical student who trained at Boston University and then at the University of Michigan. She had taken medical leave and was recuperating in Boston when Frederic Putnam recruited her in 1881 to work as a volunteer on the osteological collections that Edward Palmer had donated to the Peabody Museum from his excavations in Coahuila, Mexico. In 1882 Putnam promoted her to assistant in somatology, thus making her the first physical anthropologist at the museum. Along with her analyses of the Coahuila materials, she worked up part of the osteological remains excavated by Putnam and Charles Lewis Metz, MD, from the Turner Mound group and from other mounds at Madisonville, Ohio, and presented the results at the annual meeting of the AAAS in 1885 (Studley 1884, 1885). In addition to her work in osteology,

40 | Women of the Period she conducted archaeological excavations at shell mounds at Marion and Northborough, Massachusetts, in 1884 and 1885, and conducted some of the first work for the Peabody Museum at the large shell mounds at Damariscotta, Maine, in 1885 (Putnam 1885:421, 1886:493). However, in 1886 she resigned because “she felt the necessity of obtaining an addition to her income, beyond our means to provide, and therefore accepted another position where she could still continue in scientific work” (Putnam 1889:38). Studley unexpectedly died a little more than a year later. Cornelia “Nellie” Conway Felton Horsford (1861–1944) was the only daughter born to Eben Norton Horsford (1818–1893) and his second wife, Phoebe Gardiner. Horsford was a professor of chemistry at the Lawrence Scientific School, Harvard, but later resigned to take advantage of some of his discoveries, and he made a fortune at his Horsford Chemical Works in Providence, Rhode Island. He became interested in the claims for Viking settlements in North America, and conducted explorations around Cambridge and the Charles River in the Boston area looking for Norse artifacts. Eben thought he had found evidence locating Leif Ericson’s house in Vinland on the banks of the Charles not many blocks from his own home and placed the long-sought Norumbega on a high point overlooking the junction of Stoney Brook and the Charles, in Weston, just a few miles from Harvard (Williams 1991:207–8). Cornelia attended private schools in Cambridge and Boston. Fol- lowing her father’s views and techniques exactly, Cornelia continued this Viking exploration work after her father’s death and believed she had found Thorfinn’s house in excavations in the Cambridge area as well (Williams 1991:209). Cornelia became a member of the AAAS in 1894, and gave her first presentation on the evidence for Vikings in Massachusetts at the 47th meeting of the AAAS in 1898, in accepting her advancement to fellow there in 1897. She was active in Section H, AAAS (which was where all the North American anthropologists and archaeologists met, prior to the founding of the AAA in 1902) for two decades, serving on the General Committee from 1905 to 1907. In subsequent years, Cornelia Horsford published her father’s last unfinished

Women of the Period | 41 article on the Vikings along with her own studies of Viking presence in America (Horsford 1893, 1895, 1898, 1899a, 1899b). She also organized archaeological expeditions in Iceland in 1895 and the British Isles in 1895, 1896, and 1897, and she directed her own investigations of possible Norse ruins in America. Her later work was devoted mainly to her attempts to show that similar reputed North American ruins were identical to those found in Iceland and Greenland. Frances “Franc” Eliza Babbitt (1824–91) was born in New York. She became a school teacher in New York at age 20, and after many years teaching there, moved to Cold Water, Michigan to teach in 1873, and then to Little Falls, Morrison County, Minnesota, in 1878. She became directly associated with the claims for the Late Pleistocene age of the Little Falls quartz “tools.” But because that controversy is little known today, let’s take a brief look at the background. In the year before her arrival in Little Falls, Newton H. Winchell, the Minnesota State Geologist, had completed a geological and natural historical survey of the state and had noted that the Late Pleistocene glacial deposits along the Mississippi River near Little Falls contained many quartz stone “artifacts,” which subsequently became known as the “Little Falls quartzes” (Chester 2002:166–67). Initially, Winchell’s observation did not generate much interest. It was not until Babbitt published reports on these materials in the Proceedings of the AAAS (1883) and the American Naturalist (1884a), that the Little Falls quartzes became known as a possible location for an American Late Pleistocene industry. She reexamined and collected the site in 1879, observing that the nearest natural outcropping of quartz was over ⅛ mile away, thus suggesting artificial (human) transport, and due to the crude nature of flaking, she concluded that the quartzes were “distinctly palaeolithic in general tone” (Babbitt 1884a:600). Babbitt was one of the early women fellows of the AAAS — she became a member in 1883, a fellow in 1887, and presented four papers in Section H on her Little Falls work in the few years before her death. Despite her age, nearly 60 at the time of her first fieldwork, Babbitt became an important contributor to the American Paleolithic debate of the period. Because of Babbitt’s status as both an amateur and a woman, full-time

42 | Women of the Period male researchers were sought to examine and verify the evidence. She received support for authenticity of the proposed artifacts from several sources, among them, Frederic W. Putnam (1887:421–24), who referred to Charles Abbott’s Trenton gravel sites and Babbitt’s Little Falls quartz sites as the two most important American Paleolithic locales then known. And because the stratum from which these items derived had been identified as being glacial in age by Winchell, Babbitt’s main focus was upon demonstrating that the quartzes were in situ and not introduced from later deposits, and that they were of human manufacture. Babbitt (1883) believed that the site had been covered gently by a flood from the melting glaciers, leaving the remains relatively undisturbed. She identified distinct clusters of “artifacts” in this stratum, each containing a mixture of presumed nearly perfect specimens, as well as many flakes, chipping detritus, and broken tools, leading her to speculate that this was a tool fabrication site, where what she called “glacial-man” made stone tools. Babbitt excavated, collected, and donated sets of these Little Falls quartz materials to the Peabody Museum of Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania Museum, and the U.S. National Museum. Babbitt published additional articles on the Little Falls specimens (1885, 1890) and spent the rest of her life championing their antiquity and authenticity. As well, she wrote about her researches on local contemporary Ojibwa lithic technologies and behavior (Babbitt 1884b, 1884c, 1884d, 1886). She was active in local scientific and historical societies, submitting articles to their publications. Although the Little Falls quartzes have since proven to be “naturefacts,” or quartz objects flaked by natural geological processes, rather than by humans, her fieldwork and arguments helped bring the contributions of women fieldworkers into the inner sanctums of the profession. Zelia Maria Magdalena Nuttall [Pinart] (1858–1933) was born in San Francisco but raised in Europe from 1865 to 1876. Zelia studied in France, Germany, and Italy during this time, but particularly at Bedford College, London, before returning to San Francisco with her family (Tozzer 1933:475). In 1880 she married Alphonse Louis Pinart, who had been hired to collect mainly linguistic and ethnographic data, but

Women of the Period | 43 also ethnological and archaeological specimens, along the Pacific Coast from Alaska south to Peru. The marriage was short-lived; they were effectively separated by the end of 1881, although the final decree was not issued until 1888 (Browman 2002:228–29). Thus from 1880 to 1888 Zelia was referred to as Mrs. Nuttall-Pinart, and her first works in archaeology were published under that name. This has resulted in the suggestion by some historiographers that Pinart had substantial influence upon Nuttall’s archaeological knowledge. However, other than a short trip the two took together to the Spanish West Indies in the period of 1880–81, she was not in the field with Pinart. Thus her archaeological contributions derive from her own work. In 1884–85 Zelia Nuttall spent half a year in Mexico City, her mother’s birthplace, along with her mother, younger brother, sister, and daughter (Chiñas 1999:559). During this time she worked for the Museo Nacional and collected prehistoric ceramic figurine heads fromTeotihuacan, the analyses of which she wrote up for her first publication in the American Journal of Archaeology in 1886. Based on this research, Frederic Putnam appointed her as unpaid special assistant in Mexican archaeology at the Peabody Museum in 1886, a position which she held for the next 47 years. Nuttall joined the AAAS in 1886 at Putnam’s suggestion and was made a fellow in 1887, one of a handful of women so honored in that decade. She left for Dresden in 1887 and remained living there until 1899, returning to the United States for occasional scientific meetings. At Putnam’s request, she, along with Alice Fletcher, Alice Palmer Hen- derson, Matilda Coxe Stevenson, and Sara Yorke Stevenson, served as the five-woman jury for ethnology at the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition. There her research also was particularly well represented, with her work being exhibited in both the Woman’s Building and the Ethnology Building (Weimann 1981:434). Nuttall and Alice Fletcher worked together on a variety of projects, and both were part of the lobby for increased support for Americanist archaeology projects at the AIA in the late 1890s and early 1900s. While much of her later work is ethnographic in nature, Nuttall continued to be involved in archaeology. She moved back to Mexico in

44 | Women of the Period 1902 and conducted excavations in Coyocan that year, where she “first recognized the so-called archaic culture” in Mexico (Tozzer 1933:477). She also conducted an archaeological survey of Isla de Sacrificos in 1909, and at that time was additionally involved in the early field training of one of the disciplinary fathers of Mexican archaeology, Manuel Gamio (Chiñas 1988:271, 1999:560). She and Alice Fletcher were also on the advisory committee that oversaw the establishment of the Department of Anthropology and the anthropology museum at the University of California — Berkeley. While Nuttall is best known today for her work with Aztec period codices, among them the Codex Magliabecchiano which she rediscovered in 1890 and published in 1903, at the time she also produced a massive (600 pages) comparative study of The Funda- mental Principles of Old and New World Civilization (1901). Alice Dixon [Le Plongeon] (1851–1910) was born in England, but became involved in American archaeology after her marriage to Augustus Le Plongeon (1826–1908). She met him in 1872, at age 19, and became intrigued with both the man and the archaeology. They married in 1873 and began excavating at Chichen Itza and Uxmal, Yucatan, as part of their honeymoon (McDaniel 2007:49). Augustus Le Plongeon had read Louis Ayme, Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg, Claude Joseph Desire Charnay, and Edward Thompson, and was fascinated by suggestions in their works that there were “Atlantean” influences to be seen in the Mayan ruins, including the idea that the Mayan culture might even be the birthplace of world civilization (Desmond and Messenger 1988; McDaniel 2007). Augustus Le Plongeon, who had worked with Ephraim George Squier in Peru documenting Inca and pre-Inca ruins, was an excellent photographer and had developed a “contempt for what he considered [the] shoddy technique, theatricality, and plagiarism” of previous researchers (McDaniel 2007:50). He decided to test his idea that the Maya came from Egypt or Atlantis by excavating Mayan ruins. Alice and her husband spent much of the period from 1873 to 1884 excavating and recording structures in Chichen Itza and Uxmal. In comments sent to a period reference article listing famous nineteenth- century American women, she noted, “The work among the ruins was

Women of the Period | 45 laborious, not only in the matter of exploring and excavating, but in making hundreds of photographs, in surveying and making molds, by which the old palaces of Yucatan can be built in any part of the world” (Le Plongeon, in Willard and Livermore 1897, 2:459). She was a good writer, and her writings helped secure the private funds she and her husband needed to continue their work. Nearly from the beginning, the idea of Atlantean and Egyptian linkages to the Maya did not find much favor with other archaeological workers in the Americas. While Augustus Le Plongeon was invited to give a prestigious series of lectures on Ancient American Civilizations at the Lowell Institute in Boston in 1889–90, in other more professional venues, the Le Plongeons’ work was shut out. For example, Alice tried to present a paper at the 1887 Section H (Anthropology) meetings of the AAAS, but Daniel Brinton, who did not like the ideas of her husband, effectively prevented the paper from being accepted (Browman 2002:227). Even Frederic Putnam, who provided a wide range of amateurs (some of whom by today’s standards had “fantastic archaeology” ideas) with funding support in the late nineteenth century, apparently found it difficult to be associated with the Le Plongeons. According to Mary F. McVicker (2005:133), he seems to have arranged with Adele Breton to have $50 a year sent anonymously to support the Le Plongeons’ work for many years. Viewing the Le Plongeons’ expeditions in hindsight, Lawrence Des- mond and Phyllis Messenger (1988) indicate that the excavation work by the two was of very good quality for the time, with good photographic documentation, descriptions, and drawings, including the first cross- section drawings of an archaeological excavation in the Mayan area. But while Alice published a series of papers on the Maya (Le Plongeon 1879, 1885, 1886, 1887, 1896, 1897), because her work was linked with her husband, who had “fantastic archaeology” theories about the Maya, Desmond notes that by World War I she was effectively forgotten, even though in her own publications, “she made significant contributions to the understanding of the social history and living conditions of the Maya” (Desmond 1989:141).

46 | Women of the Period Fanny Ritter [Bandelier] (1869–1936) was Adolph Francis Bande- lier’s second wife. He married her in Lima, Peru, in December 1893, two weeks after his first wife had died.By July 1894 Fanny began her first excavations of mummies with Bandelier in the Mollendo area of southern Peru, and she continued digging with him for the next 10 years (Lange and Riley 1996:168). Her diary indicated that they spent their first year “in search of antiquities, adventure, and Indians” (Riley 1988:18). She and Adolph explored, mapped, and made collections at several ruins in Bolivia, particularly around the shores of Lake Titicaca. Adolph Bandelier did not like writing reports, in part because being a non-native English speaker, he had a very poor written grammatical command of the language. Thus Carroll Riley (1988:10) argues that “Fanny was almost certainly a silent partner in some of Bandelier’s own later publications, especially the major work from the Bolivian Period, The Islands of Titicaca and Koati.” And this argument is repeated by Charles Lange and Carroll Riley in their later volume (1996:234): “Adolph and Fanny worked together constantly, and an appreciable amount of the later writing that has gone under Bandelier’s name likely was the result of close collaboration with his wife.” After finishing their Andean research, Fanny and Adolph moved to New York, where he taught a few courses at Columbia University while maintaining linkages with the American Museum of Natural His- tory. In 1910 Edgar Hewett put Bandelier on the School of American Research payroll at Santa Fe, even though Bandelier stayed in New York. In 1911–12 the Bandeliers received a grant from the Carnegie Institution of Washington to do archival work in Seville, and this was followed up with another archival research grant in 1913–14. Adolph died shortly after they arrived in Seville in 1914, but Fanny remained on, working at the archives until 1915, when the funds ran out, providing the Carnegie Institution with 900 pages of transcripts. The Spanish archival portion of the Bandelier documents, later published in three volumes (Bandelier, Bandelier, and Hackett 1923, 1926, 1937), was almost entirely collected, translated, and transcribed by Fanny alone (Riley 1988:18–19; Lange and Riley 1996:211).

Women of the Period | 47 In 1925 Fanny went to Mexico City, where she had been invited by Mexican archaeologist and historian Nicolas Leon to give a series of lectures on South American archaeology at the Museo Nacional de Arqueología, Historia y Etnografía. She remained in Mexico City doing archival research for the next three years. In 1928 Paul Radin came through Mexico City and hired her to be his assistant at the Depart- ment of Anthropology at Fisk University, Nashville (Lange and Riley 1996:225–26). She kept her position at Fisk until she resigned at the end of the spring semester in 1935, at age 65, because of ill health. She died in 1936. Matilda “Tilly” Coxe Evans [Stevenson] (1850–1915) was born in San Augustine, Texas, but as a child moved to the Washington DC area. She studied law with her father in 1868, but then became interested in mineralogy and studied chemistry and geology with Captain William Manuel Mew, of the U.S. Army Medical Museum, from 1869 to 1871 (Parezo 1988:337). Her anthropological career began when she married Colonel James Stevenson in 1872. Although she was mainly involved in ethnographic studies later in her career, early on she carried out surface collections of prehistoric ceramics from the ruins of ancient pueblos and cliff dwellings in New Mexico and Arizona in the 1870s and 1880s. Colonel Stevenson was a member of the U.S. Geological Survey of the Territories, and Tilly began exploring and collecting with her husband in Colorado, Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah from 1872 to 1878. In 1879 Colonel Stevenson shifted to the newly formed Bureau of Ethnology, and the two began work in Arizona and New Mexico. With John Hiller and Frank H. Cushing, they collected thousands of ethnographic objects, but they also surveyed local archaeological sites and gathered artifacts from caves and shrines in this area (Miller 2007: 45, 52, 59; Parezo 1993:40). In the 1881 season, she worked at some of the ancient ruins in Arizona and New Mexico, collecting ceramics (Holmes 1916:553). In 1882 she and her husband visited and collected materials from 46 ruins in the Can- yon de Chelly area of New Mexico (Miller 2007:61–62). She continued collecting archaeological materials, although less frequently, for the next two decades from Ancestral Pueblo culture sites, often returning

48 | Women of the Period to the sites in the Frijoles Canyon area. The results of part of her early archaeological surface collection work are contained in her 1883 article. Tilly Stevenson’s written contributions are much greater than a bib- liographic listing would suggest. The convention of the time was that for a husband-and-wife team, only the husband’s name would be listed. But because of the significance of her research, in 1882 Spencer Baird, secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, thought it important to remind the readers of his agency’s publications that the contributions listed as James Stevenson were in fact the work of both James and Matilda(Parezo 1999:730). Nancy Parezo (1993:54) observes that “her husband disliked writing reports. He gladly turned over most of his material to his wife to write up. Creativity and synthesis he left to his wife, areas in which she excelled.” But the only name that usually went on the report was his. And her unpublished work is also not all acknowledged: Parezo (1993:35n7) reported that “Missing papers of Matilda Coxe Stevenson have been found in John P. Harrington’s papers in the National Anthropological Archives. He had removed her name from the copies, cut them up, and interspersed them with his own.” Denied membership in the Anthropological Society of Washington because she was female, Tilly Stevenson, along with nine colleagues, founded the Women’s Anthropological Society of America in Washing- ton DC in 1885, and she chaired its biweekly meetings for several years. It started with 11 members, but rapidly grew to 56. Quite a number of women interested in archaeology met with this group, including Caroline Healey Wells Dall, Alice Fletcher, Phoebe Hearst, Mary Porter Tileston Hemenway, Anita Newcomb McGee, Zelia Nuttall, Emma Dean Powell, and Sarah Scull. Membership was divided into six sections: archaeology, child life, ethnology, folklore, psychology, and sociology (Browman 2002:230). Tilly Stevenson was elected a fellow of the AAAS in 1893. From her archaeological site surveys in the Southwest, she developed an interest in protecting ruins from looters, and she joined with Alice Fletcher in 1887–88, representing her Women’s Anthropological Society of America, and the AAAS, to lobby Congress for legislation to create a park including

Women of the Period | 49 Mesa Verde and the Pajarito Plateau (Fletcher and Stevenson 1889). While unsuccessful in this attempt, they established the groundwork for the subsequent successful effort, partly funded by Mary Hemenway, to preserve Casa Grande, near Tucson, and also for the Lacey’s Antiquities Act of 1906. Tilly Stevenson served, at Putnam’s invitation, along with Alice Fletcher, Alice Henderson, Zelia Nuttall, and Sara Y. Stevenson, as the five women composing the Jury of Awards for Ethnology in the Columbian Exposition in Chicago in 1893. In a letter written to a colleague (quoted in Parezo 1993:42), she argued that “archaeology and ethnology must be worked together in order to secure results of real scientific value.” After her husband’s death in 1888 from Rocky Mountain Spotted Tick fever, Tilly continued on at the Bureau of American Ethnology (BAE) as an assistant for almost two years. In 1890 her temporary appointment became permanent, and she held this job until she died in 1915. She was thus the first and, for many years, only woman government staff archaeologist hired on a permanent basis by the BAE. In 1889 her salary was $1,500, but almost all of Stevenson’s male colleagues received higher salaries, a discrepancy she finally protested and had partly resolved in 1904 (Miller 2007:89). When she first started working with her husband in the Southwest, she often signed her reports T. E. Stevenson, using the frequent stratagem by women of employing their initials in order to avoid intellectual discrimination. Soon after being hired full-time, she began signing her reports as M. C. Stevenson and finally as Matilda Coxe Stevenson, having an established reputation that she could now exploit (Miller 2007:254n49). There were other wives working for the BAE who became more accidental archaeologists. Both Emma Dean [Powell] (1835–1924), wife of the subsequent BAE director, J. Wesley Powell, and Ellen Louella “Nellie” Powell [Thompson] (1840–1911), Powell’s sister and wife of Powell’s second-in-command and chief cartographer on his Colorado River explorations, Almon Harris Thompson, served as collectors on the various Colorado River voyages, while their husbands were involved in other field activities. The first Colorado Scientific Exploring Expedition

50 | Women of the Period in 1867–68 was explicitly organized and supported for the purpose of stocking museums with specimens. Powell was woefully short of funds and staff, so the funds received from the collecting activities of the wives became critical to the expedition’s success. The two women were listed as assistant geologists and assistant ornithologists on the project records of the first trips to Colorado, and they collected archaeological and ethnographic specimens and information as well as geological, entomological, ornithological, and botanical materials as the occasion demanded (Stegner 1954:22, 24). Emma Powell was an unacknowledged contributor to her husband’s research: “By a contemporary’s account, [Emma] Powell deserved a ‘dower-rite’ in her husband’s ‘scientific eminence’ for her unheralded assistance on his expeditions” (Moldow 1987:149). During the winter of their first season, she collected artifacts and ethnographic data from the Utes while her husband was involved in other activities (Stegner 1954:40). She later was one of the founding members of the Women’s Anthropological Society of America in Washington DC, and continued her interest in things anthropological, serving as one of the “lady managers” from Washington at the 1893 Colombian Exposition in Chicago. Nellie Thompson, who was the firstEuro-American woman to ride through the Colorado River rapids, provided other collectors, such as Asa Gray or the George W. Wheeler expedition, with botanical, archaeological, and ethnographic specimens during her association with the various Powell Colorado River expeditions (Stegner 1954:157, 374n6). She went on to other venues after the Colorado exploring trips. She had become interested in folklore during these expeditions, and subsequently did research and published on that subject. Later she became very active in the women’s suffrage movement. Margaret Whitehead Magill [Hodge] (1863–1935) was born in Wash- ington DC. She attended Dr. Wheat’s Female Institute at Winchester, Virginia, and later the Corcoran School of Art in Washington. She was the younger sister of Emily Tennison Magill, who had married Frank Cushing in 1884, and she accompanied Cushing and her sister when Cushing returned to the Zuni area to continue research for the BAE.

Women of the Period | 51 During the 1885 season, Cushing and Margaret Magill made a survey of the mound groups in the area; Cushing subsequently excavated at six of these sites in early 1887 (Fowler 2000:151). In the 1887 season, Margaret met Frederick Webb Hodge, who had joined the Hemenway Southwestern Archaeological Expedition at John Wesley Powell’s direction to serve as Cushing’s secretary and assistant in archaeology. She became Hodge’s first wife in 1891. His subsequent wives, Zarah H. Preble and Gene Meany, were also interested in southwestern history and ethnography. Margaret Magill did a superb series of drawings of Zuni pots and designs, as well as of several ethnoarchaeological scenes. Because she enjoyed the work, she and Cushing went exploring together for archaeological sites and artifacts (Mark 1980:103, 106, 107, 129). She later became known in the art world for her watercolor sketches around the Washington area. Jeannette Webster Williams (1853–93) graduated from Framingham Normal School in Massachusetts in 1874 and attended MIT, 1879–80 and 1888–90. She was then hired to care for the Hemenway Archaeo- logical Collection of Prehistoric Antiquities from the Southwest. She helped display the finds of the Hemenway Expedition in Madrid in 1892 as part of the Quadricentennial Columbus celebrations (J. Wil- liams 1895). Described by one source as a “gifted archaeologist” (Crane 1894:709), she had just completed the analysis of Hohokam Orange Ware from expedition’s work in the Tusayan area of northeast Arizona for the Journal of American Ethnology and Archaeology when she died of pneumonia in December 1893. Unfortunately, Mary Hemenway died just a few months later, so that funding for the publication was terminated, and Williams’s analysis was not published. However, in 1934, a portion of her analytical work was included in Emil Haury’s dissertation, “The Archaeology of the Salt River Valley, Arizona: A Study of the Interrela- tions of Two Ethnic Groups.” Marietta Palmer [Wetherill] (1876–1954) had a father who was very interested in collecting artifacts. In 1884 the family came out to the Santo Domingo and Taos pueblos in New Mexico as tourists, where they learned how to drill shell and turquoise into beads. Marietta’s father,

52 | Women of the Period Sidney, had heard of nearby ruins, so he hired some local men to help him do some excavating (Gabriel 1992:33–34). In 1895 he contracted with Richard Wetherill to guide the family on a trip to the ruins of Mesa Verde. During what Fowler (2000:195) calls an “archaeological-tour-by-wagon courtship” in 1895 and 1896, Marietta and Richard got to know each other. He proposed in April 1896, they were married in December, and in the spring of 1897 the couple went to Grand Gulch in northeastern Arizona on an extended excavation and collecting honeymoon. Marietta and Richard excavated at various sites in the area, particularly focusing on mummies, as these burials usually had grave offerings that could be marketed. Marietta wrote:

Usually after they dug the first shovelful, they saw a rim of pottery or maybe a sinew and they got the brushes out. They used whisk brooms and a finer brush and then all the digging was done with a small garden trowel in those days. Mr. Wetherill insisted on photographing and measuring before he ever started to dig. I measured from front to back then the height by holding up a stick and measuring the stick. (Gabriel 1992:66)

Immediately after they returned from Grand Gulch, Richard and Marietta prepared for their second season of fieldwork at Chaco Can- yon, New Mexico, collecting specimens for the American Museum of Natural History. Marietta excavated at Chaco Canyon, only stopping in March 1898, when she bore her first child (Fowler 2000:198). Although she continued to help process the finds that her husband and his family secured, household duties increasingly took her away from fieldwork in archaeology. However, Marietta was a keen observer, and she correctly identified the remains of a prehistoricroad at Chaco Canyon north of Pueblo Alto, the remains of a prehistoric irrigation system, a wall con- necting Chetro Ketl and Pueblo Bonito, and the evidence of multiple burials, including burial mounds — reports of evidence of particular importance to the current interpretation of Chaco Canyon sites, which Reyman (1999:219–21) argues were unfortunately overlooked for nearly a century because of status as a woman and amateur.

Women of the Period | 53 Alice Eastwood (1859–1953) was born in Toronto, but moved to Den- ver in 1873. After she graduated from high school in 1879, she taught various subjects at East Denver High School. In 1890 she resigned to devote her time to fieldwork in botany. She made several visits to the Wetherill family excavation projects in the southwestern ruins. The Wetherill brothers had just discovered Mesa Verde on their land claims, and Alice was privileged to explore the area with them (Bonta 1981:95). As the explorations continued, Alice spent most of her time searching for rare plants above the cliff dwelling ruins, while Alfred and Richard Wetherill dug about in the ruins below (Browman 2002:234). She also did paleoethnobotanical analyses for the Wetherills, identifying plants utilized in the textiles, baskets, and matting they recovered (Eastwood 1893:375–76). Reyman (1999:214) reports that, in addition to identifying these plant products, Eastwood excavated with the Wetherills. Her archaeological connections were well enough known that she provided the necessary letter of introduction to the Wetherills for Baron Gustaf Nordenskiold of Sweden when he came to investigate prehistoric ruins in the Southwest in 1891. In 1892 she landed the job as curator at the Herbarium of the California Academy of Sciences, where she spent the rest of her career, retiring in 1949. Julia Judson Wirt [McPherson/MacPherson] (1847–1947) grew up in Michigan, where she became one of the first women telegraph operators in the United States (one source claimed she was the first, but I could not confirm this). Later, in 1869–70, she was one of six women involved in a sympathy strike in support of their male colleagues at the Chicago office of Western Union (Jepsen 2000:151). When the strike was unsuccessful, all six women lost their jobs, but Julia Wirt found subsequent employment in the Salt Lake City area as a telegrapher. As a corresponding member of the Davenport (Iowa) Academy of Natural Sciences, she reported on the 1876 excavations and archaeological materials recovered from an Ancestral Pueblo mound on the land of Amasa J. Payson, near Utah Lake, Utah (Wirt 1878:28–29). In her original letter Wirt had reported a burial associated with corn and wheat, but in her next letter to the Academy in 1877 (1878 Academy report, p.

54 | Women of the Period 82), she noted that the wheat came from the nest of a mouse or rat and that only the corn was archaeological. What is important here is not the initial misidentification of the provenience but rather the fact that archaeobotanical samples and information were already being collected and identified at this early time. Latershe married a colleague, Olin McPherson/MacPherson, and moved to Oakland, California. But her husband left her soon after their marriage, and she moved to Saranap, near Walnut Creek, California, where she lived the rest of her life on her Western Union pension. Mary Parke McFerson [Foster] (1840–1922) was born in Salem, Indiana, and later married Col. John Watson Foster, who served as U.S. envoy to Mexico, Spain, and Russia and as U.S. secretary of state, 1892–93. She was a founding member and a vice president of the Women’s Anthropo- logical Society of America between 1885 and 1889. According to Anita McGee, Foster wrote one of the only two papers on archaeology, “The Ancient Ruins of Mexico.” Her work was based on her seven years in Mexico, 1873–80, when “some expeditions . . . were made, and certain ruins explored for the first time by a foreign lady” (McGee 1889a:21, 1889b:241–42). She became active in the Daughters of the American Revolution, serving as its president in 1895–96. Like Julia Wirt, her contributions were rather ephemeral, but they are representative of one of the types of involvement of women in the field during this period. Alice E. Palmer [Henderson] (1861–1935) was born in Detroit. She began work as a schoolteacher in Detroit, but in 1888 she married Edwin A. Henderson, who was on the editorial staff of theChicago Tribune. (Ross 1898:72). By 1890 she was a regular contributor to the Minneapolis newspaper, and she had occasional pieces in the Chicago Tribune, at times writing about American Indian cultures and sites. Because of the sexism of the time, she often signed her works as “Palmer Henderson.” Later, when she traveled to Alaska to become the first newspaper correspondent in Dawson City to cover the Yukon gold rush, she remarked wryly on sex discrimination, saying that “my classification among idiots, Indians, minors, and females precludes my responsibility” (Henderson 1898:21). (When I moved to St. Louis four decades ago, the reasons to

Women of the Period | 55 request to be automatically excused from jury duty, in addition to being an officer of the court, were that one was either a woman or mentally incompetent. How little things changed for a century!) Henderson’s interests brought her into contact with Frederic Putnam, and on his advice, she joined Section H, Anthropology, AAAS, in 1892. Putnam called on all of his contacts to help create the exhibits for the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition. The fragmentary correspondence available suggests that Henderson had some doubts about what she could do, but that Putnam convinced her that she could contribute. Thus Putnam wrote Henderson in 1893: “Several of my best students are women, who have become widely known by their thorough and important works and publications; and this I consider as high an honor as could be accorded to me” (Dexter 1978:5). Henderson collected prehistoric pottery and other artifacts at Casa Grande, Arizona, on a trip in 1893 to Southwest, and she prepared a paper, “The Cliff Dwellers of Southwestern America,” for the anthropological meetings at the Expo- sition. In her commentary on the Cliff Dwelling exhibit erected at the 1893 Exposition, she tellingly remarked on the condition of several of the mummies displayed, observing that “when excavated they were in much better condition, but the changeable atmosphere of Chicago is fast ruining them” (Henderson 1893a:171). Putnam seems to have had a good deal of faith in her, as she was one of five women appointed mainly on his recommendation to the anthropology jury for the Exposition by a special act of Congress, joining individuals better known to anthropologists such as Alice Fletcher, Zelia Nuttall, Matilda C. Stevenson, and Sara Y. Stevenson. Henderson served again on the exhibit jury at the 1904 Louisiana Purchase Exposition in St. Louis, where director and anthropologist William J. McGee indicated that he had selected her and Alice Fletcher, Cora Peters, and Matilda C. Stevenson to be on the anthropology jury because of their “eminent fitness, their experience at Chicago, and the endorsement of colleagues” (Parezo and Fowler 2007:361). In her final report on her jury work in St. Louis, in writing about the research of Nuttall and other women there, Alice Henderson noted, “Woman’s

56 | Women of the Period acknowledged intuition, patience and enthusiasm are factors of great value in the problem of reducing to one common denominator the life and works of bygone man from his archaeological remains. It seems to me to be of great importance to emphasize the work of women at such expositions” (Henderson 1906:482). At both the 1893 Chicago and 1904 St. Louis national expositions, Henderson also provided items for the anthropology exhibits. She collected aboriginal artifacts on her Alaskan trip as well as during her earlier Southwest exploration. Thus while there were several women trying archaeological fieldwork, social and institutional pressures seem to have been severe enough that few persisted. If they continued on, it was usually to shift to museum positions or, more frequently, out of archaeology into “salvage” ethnography.

Women Working in Museums

Mary Louisa Duncan [Putnam] (1832–1903) and her daughter, Elizabeth Duncan Putnam (1867–1928), distant relatives of Frederic Putnam, were both associated with the Davenport Academy of Natural Sciences in Iowa, an academy that was active in local archaeological explorations in the late nineteenth century. Mary Louisa Duncan was born in Green- castle, Pennsylvania. Her father served as a congressman and governor of Illinois. In 1854 she married Charles Edwin Putnam. She was the mother of eleven children, most of whom later joined the Davenport Academy of Natural Sciences. When her eldest son, J. Duncan Putnam, joined the Academy in 1869, she enrolled with him, becoming the first woman member. Her husband is probably best known for his involvement with the Davenport Tablets, which are now usually relegated to discussions of “fantastic archaeology.” J. Duncan Putnam became secretary of the Academy and was responsible for construction of its first building. Both he and Mary Louisa are listed as contributors of lithic artifacts to the Academy in the first volume of its Proceedings (1876). When Duncan died at 26 in 1881, Mary Louisa devoted herself to his perpetual monument, the Academy, and redoubled her efforts there in memory of her husband as well after he

Women of the Period | 57 died in 1887. She served as the Academy’s first woman president in 1879–1880 and again in 1900–1903, provided for a publication fund for the Proceedings of the Academy for the next two decades, secured additional land, and saw to the construction of a second building. Mary Louisa herself had an active interest in archaeological questions. She attended meetings of Section H (Anthropology) of the AAAS as well as the International Congress of Americanists, and in 1893 she served on the Membership Committee of Section H, although she herself did not officially become a member of theAAAS until 1901. In 1901–1902 she started the first course of scientific lectures at theDavenport Acad- emy during her tenure as president. Just before her death in 1903, she helped put up an exhibit on Indian basketry at the Academy (E. Putnam 1907). Elizabeth “Bessie” Duncan Putnam continued the family tradition. She became a member of Section H, AAAS in 1896, and also served as the secretary of the Davenport Academy of Natural Sciences for many years, while her brother Edward became its director and trustee. But her interests were not limited to Iowa. Dexter (1984:127) quotes from a letter from Frederic Putnam to his daughter Alice of August 20, 1904: “Miss Fletcher writes us that she and Bessie Putnam (Davenport IA) are going on and will room together” at the St. Louis World’s Fair and that Putnam, Kroeber, Hrdliçka, Boas, Saville, Miss Fletcher, Mrs. Nuttall, Dorsey, MacCurdy, “just our old crowd of the [Chicago] World’s Fair’ will be the jury there.” Alice Edmands Putnam (1865–1963) was the oldest of Frederic Put- nam’s three children by his first wife, Adelaide Martha Edmands, who died in 1879. Putnam’s young son Eben accompanied him on some field investigations, but Alice was more involved in archaeology. She was hired as an assistant at the Peabody Museum in 1886, and Putnam came to treat her as a colleague. Several of their letters cover communications with her father’s colleagues at professional scientific meetings that she attended as his proxy when his health began to fail (Putnam Papers, 999–24, Peabody Museum). Sara Yorke [Stevenson] (1847–1921) was born in Paris and was tutored

58 | Women of the Period from 1857 to 1862 by Achille Jubinal, a well-known European antiquarian, who had a museum in his home (Stevenson 1899:48). In 1870 Sara married Cornelius Stevenson, a lawyer from an old Philadelphia family who collected art and was interested in antiquarianism. He was a member of the so-called Furness-Mitchell Coterie. It was through this intellectual clique that she met William Pepper, president of the University of Pennsylvania, and once again pursued her interests in antiquities (Van Ness 1988:345). In 1887 the Coterie was involved in funding an archaeological expedition to Babylon. To expedite this work in 1888, this group founded the University Archaeological Association, which evolved into the current University Museum at the University of Pennsylvania. In 1889 she joined with Daniel Brinton, Stewart Culin, and others to found the American Folk-Lore Society, and they were also instrumental in founding the Pennsylvania chapter of the AIA (Danien and King 2003:40–41). The position of curator of Egyptian collections was established in 1889 with the creation of the Department of Archae- ology and Paleontology at the university, and Sara Stevenson was the unsalaried curator of the Egyptian, Mediterranean, and Babylonian sections from 1890 through 1905. At the invitation of Frederic Putnam, Sara Stevenson was put in charge of the ethnographic exhibits at the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago. A special act of Congress was necessary in 1893 to permit women to serve on the Jury of Awards for Ethnology. Once Alice Fletcher, Alice Henderson, Zelia Nuttall, and Matilda Stevenson were named to join her on the Jury, Sara Stevenson was elected vice president. She did much of the fund-raising for the university museum in 1897, was elected to the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, and read papers at International Congress of Americanists meetings. Although most of her archaeological interests were outside of North America, in her capacity as fund-raiser and museum board officer, she was instrumental in securing funds for a portion of the North American archaeology that the University of Pennsylvania museum conducted during the 1890s, including work by Frank Cushing, Henry Chapman Mercer, and Charles Abbott.

Women of the Period | 59 Women Supporting Archaeology

Mary Virginia Donaghe [McClurg] (1857–1931) was born in New York City and educated at an academy in her ancestral home town of Staunton, Virginia. She developed as a journalist and a poet, publishing some of her poetry under the pseudonym Desire Stanton. She first came out to Colorado Springs in 1877 for health reasons and took some courses at Colorado College before returning east (Robertson 1990:61). She was sent there again in 1882 as a stringer for the New York Daily Graphic from Morristown, New Jersey, with the charge to “investigate lost cities of the prehistoric Indians of the Southwest,” but a Ute uprising thwarted her goal, although she did get a chance to stop briefly at Mesa Verde (Dubrow and Goodman 2003:33; Robertson 1990:62). She returned in 1885 and went to Mancos Canyon, on the Southern Ute Reservation, to explore the ruins of Mesa Verde, being to her knowledge the first Euro-American to visit some of them. She took “a month’s trip, the result of which was a series of archaeological sketches, contributed to a prominent paper, The Great Divide, under the title of ‘Cliff-climbing in Colorado.’ These ten papers gave to Miss Donaghe a reputation in the West as an archaeologist” (Colles 1895:72). In 1886 she led another expedition, where she claimed credit for finding Balcony House, Three- Tiered House, and Echo House at Mesa Verde (McClurg 1930:219). She used these materials to begin a lecture tour championing the ruins. In 1889 she married Gilbert McClurg, who was a journalist and formerly with the publishing house of A. C. McClurg and Co., Chicago, and they settled in Colorado Springs, where she continued to write articles for the local Daily Republic. As time passed, Virginia McClurg became increasingly concerned about the removal of artifacts from the Mesa Verde ruins by non-locals, such as Baron Gustaf Nordenskiold from Sweden, or collectors from museums in the eastern United States. She argued that it was necessary to protect the ruins from “miners, cowboys, and relic hunters,” a thinly disguised reference to the “professional” collectors working for eastern U.S. and European museums (Smith 2005:33). She apparently had no

60 | Women of the Period objection to local collectors, however. In 1892 she and her husband purchased a large number of Southwest artifacts from a local New Mexico relic collector, Scott N. Morris, the father of archaeologist Earl H. Morris and father-in-law of Ann Axtell Morris. The McClurgs also had a large collection of artifacts from the Mesa Verde ruins, which they displayed at the 1901 AAAS meetings in Denver. As James Snead (2001:52) has observed, she and Edgar Hewett saw the ruins as part of the local cultural patrimony, not to be controlled by the American Museum of Natural His- tory, the Department of Interior, the Peabody Museum at Harvard, or the Smithsonian Institution. Snead and Don Fowler (2000) have explored the ramifications of this “dog in the manger” attitude on the part of western groups interested in local archaeology at the turn of the century. The Colorado legislature had unsuccessfully petitioned Congress to have Mesa Verde named a national park in 1891 and again in 1894, after Mary Hemenway’s success in getting Casa Grande in Arizona named a national monument in 1890 (Lee 1970:78). Virginia McClurg had also been actively working toward preserving the ruins as a park. She sponsored the Cliff Dwelling exhibit at the 1893 Columbian Exposition in Chicago, and she gave a paper there. And she gave papers at other professional meetings as well, including “The People of the Pueblos” at the 13th International Congress of Americanists in New York in 1902. In 1897 she and Lucy Peabody persuaded the Colorado State Federation of Women’s Clubs to support the formation of a Standing Committee to Save the Cliff Dwellings to work for the preservation of the ruins at Mesa Verde. In 1900 the standing committee became a separately incorporated group, the Colorado Cliff Dwelling Association, with the motto “Dux Femina Facti,” which very loosely can be translated as “A woman is the leader of the endeavor” (Robertson 1990:64). Vir- ginia McClurg was named regent and Lucy Peabody, vice regent. The Association negotiated with the local Weeminuche Ute tribal chief, Ignacio, to lease the ruins and have his tribe members protect Mesa Verde ruins in return for allowing the tribe to graze their sheep on the land, with permission from the Department of the Interior, for $300 a year (Anonymous 1900:600, Robertson 1990:65).

Women of the Period | 61 When the Colorado Cliff Dwelling Association was officially organized in 1900, McClurg and Peabody had initially lobbied to have the Mesa Verde ruins become a national park, but after several setbacks McClurg changed her position to pushing for it to be established as a state park, while Peabody maintained an argument for it being designated a national park (Robertson 1990:69, Tinling 1986:642–43). Virginia was much into states’ rights and quite averse to letting the Smithsonian Institution control the ruins and export the artifacts and other results of federally controlled excavations to Washington. She argued, “Let this be the women’s park,” that is, run by the Colorado Cliff Dwelling Association for the state of Colorado (Smith 2005:44). By 1905 this had caused a rift between the two, and Lucy Peabody and the national park idea won. The Mesa Verde ruins and the Cliff Dwelling Association dominated much of Virginia McClurg’s life. She was successful in establishing chapters of this association as far afield as California and New York (McClurg 1930:216). After the park was established, she secured funds through the group to assist Jesse Nusbaum and the Smithsonian Institution in excavating and stabilizing Balcony House in 1910. And through the Cliff Dwelling Association, she created a series of pageants at Mesa Verde set to music as a tourist attraction. Virginia McClurg’s colleague, but later adversary, Lucy Evelyn Davison [Peabody] (1865–1934), was born in Cincinnati and educated there and in Washington DC. Lucy worked as a secretarial assistant for the Bureau of American Ethnology (BAE) in Washington for nine years before she married Major William Sloane Peabody in 1895. He had been actively involved in the Ute Rebellion campaign in Colorado in 1878, and later worked for the U.S. Geological Survey. After he retired, the two settled in Denver. Lucy Peabody and Virginia McClurg collaborated closely in forming the Colorado Cliff Dwelling Association and became its two main officers. Because of her experience at the BAE and knowledge of Washington, Lucy Peabody was named legislative chair for the group, and she set about establishing national linkages. She joined Section H (Anthropology) of

62 | Women of the Period the AAAS in 1900, and she and McClurg took a group of archaeologists attending the AAAS meetings in Denver out to tour Mesa Verde (Mac- Curdy 1901:721). This group included George A. Dorsey, Jesse Walter Fewkes (then chairman of Section H, who was the resident BAE archaeologist at Mesa Verde from 1906 to 1918), Harriet Olivia Cutler Fewkes, Edgar L. Hewett, George Grant McCurdy, Frank Russell, and Theresa Russell. Lucy Peabody joined the local AIA chapter and was named a member of the Committee on Remains in Archaeology, established by the national AIA in 1904, which was heavily involved in working on the passage of the 1906 Antiquities Act. She also joined the American Anthropological Association in 1905. Lucy Peabody became a leading protagonist for creating Mesa Verde as a national park after Virginia McClurg changed her position to proposing that it should be a state park administered by the Cliff Dwelling Associa- tion, which owned the lease on the land. Working with Edgar Hewett, Lucy Peabody got the proposed legislation establishing the boundaries of the park shifted at the last minute from the original 42,000 acres to the current 81.4 square miles, to be administered by the federal government. This bill was passed in 1906, shortly after the 1906 Antiquities Act, and because of this, Lucy Peabody was called the “mother” of Mesa Verde National Park by some of her colleagues. After the successful formation of the park, and in light of her continuing feud with McClurg, Peabody resigned from the Cliff Dwelling Association and shifted her efforts to working with the localAIA chapters, particularly with Byron Cummings and Edgar Hewett (Snead 2001:82). The split cost McClurg recognition for her work preserving Mesa Verde. In 1907, at the request of Hewett and Peabody’s friends, the AAA passed a resolution thanking Lucy Peabody for her work in establishing Mesa Verde National Park, but omitted any reference at all to the two decades of work by Virginia McClurg. But clearly both McClurg and Peabody are jointly to be credited for heading the preservation effort for Mesa Verde. Natalie Harris Lum [Hammond] (1861–1931) was born in Vicksburg, Mississippi. She met John Hays Hammond while studying music in Dresden and married him in 1881. He was a mining engineer who made

Women of the Period | 63 a fortune in gold and silver mining in California and Mexico and in diamond mining in South Africa. She was a member of the AIA and was listed as an associate in anthropology at the University of New Mexico because she had donated money for a documentary history of the prehistoric pueblos prepared by Adolph Bandelier for Edgar Hewett. She was an active member of the Colorado Cliff Dwellers Association, being frequently mentioned along with Lucy Peabody and Virginia McClurg as lobbying for the protection of Mesa Verde. She lectured on the ruins and donated money for guest facilities at one of the restored cliff houses. The mining business resulted in Natalie Hammond moving around, but while she was living in New York City, she became one of the founding members of the American Anthropological Association in 1902. She also joined Section H, AAAS, that year. In the early 1900s, she listed her residence as New York City for her AAA membership but her residence as Denver for the AAAS during the same period; one supposes she had both winter and summer residences. In 1908 as a member of the Committee on American Archaeology at the AIA, she joined with Alice Fletcher, Edgar Hewett, Charles Lummis, and other classical archaeological AIA stalwarts to defeat Frederic Putnam, Charles Bowditch, and Franz Boas in the latter’s attempt to get the new international school in Americanist archaeology, which was to be sponsored by the AIA, founded in Mexico City. Instead, she helped establish the School for American Archaeol- ogy in Santa Fe (Mark 1988:320). Like Phoebe Hearst, she used her well-known husband’s influence as a mechanism to become a public benefactor. Mary Porter Tileston [Hemenway] (1820–94) was born in New York City, and she married Edward Augustus Holyoke Hemenway, a wealthy Boston merchant, in 1840. When he died in 1876, she focused her energies on philanthropy. One of her major interests was providing support for women’s archaeological research. She was active in developing professional groups and archaeological studies. She became a member of the Women’s Anthropological Society of America. And she, along with Alice Fletcher, was a charter member of the American Folk-Lore Society (a

64 | Women of the Period group dominated by archaeologists during its early years) when it was established in Boston. She made a number of grants to Americanist archaeology and to Harvard University; the archaeology book collection purchased with her funds is an extremely important segment of period resources in the current Tozzer library at the Peabody Museum. In 1890 she established the Hemenway Fellowship, one of the major fellowships in American Archaeology and Ethnology at the Peabody Museum, in memory of her husband, and she worked closely with Frederic Putnam there on a number of issues. Mary Hemenway was responsible for funding the Hemenway South- western Archaeological Expedition of 1886–94, which supported the fieldwork of Frank Hamilton Cushing, Jesse Walter Fewkes, and others. And she paid for the extensively illustrated five-volume publication series of the results, entitled the Journal of American Ethnology and Archaeol- ogy, which came out between 1891 and 1908. She employed a number of women on her own staff, and as with herother archaeological donations, she stipulated that her Hemenway archaeological grant funds should be for both women and men (Levine 1994a:24). She was the principal lobbying and financial support for the congressional bill in 1890 that established the Casa Grande National Monument outside of Tucson, which helped to set the stage for the Antiquity Act of 1906. Mary Sibbet Copley [Thaw] (1842–1929) was born near Kittanning, Pennsylvania, and she became the second wife of a wealthy Philadel- phia businessman, William Thaw, in 1867. When he died in 1889, she turned to charitable works and used part of her inherited estate to fund archaeological research. Alice Fletcher’s first field research money came from the Thaws. She had met them at the 1876 Centennial in Philadel- phia, and from that point forward they provided her with research funds and support (Mark 1988:86, 204). In 1890 Mary Thaw proposed to Alice that she resign from the BAE and accept the $1,200 Thaw Fellowship that she had just established in American archaeology and ethnology at the Peabody Museum at Harvard. Thus the first Thaw Fellowship was awarded to Alice Fletcher in 1891 and renewed to support her work for many years, and later Zelia Nuttall was also partly supported by a Thaw

Women of the Period | 65 Fellowship. Frederic Putnam talked Mary Thaw into joining the AAAS in 1892, and she also assisted the discipline through contributions to that organization. Phoebe Apperson [Hearst] (1842–1919) was born on a farm near St. Clair, Missouri. She had known George Hearst in Missouri before he went to California and struck it rich in the gold rush, and she married him in 1862, ending her career as a Missouri schoolteacher. George Hearst became a U.S. senator representing California in 1886, but died in 1891, leaving her a rich widow. Their only son, William Randolph Hearst, became a well-known newspaper magnate with the family money. William Pepper, MD, then president of the University of Pennsylvania, got Phoebe interested in archaeology in the late 1880s, and thus she evolved into a philanthropist whose contributions were important to the field. She collaborated with Pepper and Sara Y. Stevenson, and helping them purchase collections for their new museum, and also funding the University of Pennsylvania Museum archaeological projects in Florida, Mexico, Italy, and Egypt during the 1890s. With the death of William Pepper, and after a disagreement with Sara Stevenson on her work for the museum, Phoebe Hearst turned her interests to California. In 1896 she gave nearly $200,000 to fund an international architectural contest for a master plan for the Berkeley campus. She had funded a joint University of Pennsylvania — University of California expedition to Egypt in 1898, but from 1899 until 1904, it became a Berkeley-only project (Kuklick 1996:102). Phoebe Hearst is probably best known in most anthropological circles for the agreement she made with Frederic Putnam in 1901 to head an anthropological initiative at Berkeley. Acting in her capacity as university regent, a position she had been named to in 1897, she worked with a committee that included Zelia Nuttall and Alice Fletcher, which resulted in the founding of the Berkeley anthropology museum and anthropology department and in Putnam’s direction of this department from 1901 to 1909. She was also involved in much of the funding for the department’s first decade of existence, including professorships in archaeology and archaeological excavation projects. This included funding Max Uhle’s

66 | Women of the Period excavation work in both Peru and California, Frank Cushing’s excavations in the Florida Keys, Zelia Nuttall’s archival work in Europe and Mexico, a major grant to Putnam to look for the ancient peoples of America during his California years, some of Alice Fletcher’s projects, and excavation projects by Alfred Emerson, Alfred Kroeber, Nels Nelson, and George Reisner, including work in Russia, Egypt, and Italy. In all cases, she required at least a portion of the artifacts recovered to be sent to the new museum she endowed at Berkeley. She herself loved to collect, and she brought back Egyptian artifacts for the museum from one of her trips. Fittingly, the Robert H. Lowie Museum at Berkeley, built in 1959, was renamed the Phoebe Apperson Hearst Museum in 1991. Erminnie Adelle/Adele Platt [Smith] (1836–86) was born in Marcellus, New York. She developed an interest in geology as a child and graduated from Miss Willard’s Female Seminary in Troy, New York, in 1853. She moved to Chicago in 1855, after marrying Chicago lumber dealer Simeon H. Smith that year, and they moved again in 1866 to Jersey City, New Jersey. During the early 1870s, when her four sons were taking college- level courses, the Smiths lived in Germany. Erminnie continued her own studies in mineralogy and crystallography at Strasbourg, Heidelberg, and Freiberg, receiving a degree from the School of Mines in Freiberg. In 1876 she and her family returned to Jersey City. She amassed a major mineral and fossil collection, listed at her death as one of the largest private collections in the United States, a collection which was then given to Vassar College. Erminnie was Frederic Putnam’s cousin and also another one of his protégés. As soon as she returned from Germany, Putnam persuaded her to join the AAAS. She became the first woman doing anthropology to be published in the journal Science and perhaps the first Americanist woman to conduct scientific anthropological fieldwork (Lurie 1999:32, 41). In my survey of papers presented in the Anthropology section of the AAAS between 1877 and 1900 (Browman 2002:229), I found 17 papers listed for Erminnie Smith, the most for any woman anthropologist. In 1884, with her election to secretary of Section H, Anthropology, she became the first woman to hold any office in theAAAS.

Women of the Period | 67 Smith was intrigued by the Iroquois and began investigating the Iroquois Federation in 1878, spending two summer seasons working on reservations with them. She amassed their legends and compiled more than 15,000 words of the Iroquois dialect. She also introduced the technique, widely used by later ethnologists, of training native informants (Jayanti 1988:328; Lurie 1971:312). Most of this Iroquois work was supported by the Bureau of Ethnology, later the Bureau of American Ethnology. Smith’s direct connection with archaeology was mainly in a support role. In 1879 she studied jade artifacts at the Peabody Museum, and encouraged by Frederic Putnam, she presented her findings regarding an Olmec jadeite mask from the museum at the annual AAAS meetings the next year. She was one of the original members of the Women’s Anthro- pological Society of America. This group provided significant support for women attempting to break into anthropological and archaeological research. The one project on the mask at the Peabody Museum seems to represent Smith’s direct archaeological work, but she indirectly was involved through the BAE and WASA in supporting colleagues doing archaeology. Anita Newcomb [McGee] (1864–1940) was born in Washington DC. After studying in the United States, England, and Switzerland, she obtained her MD in 1892. During the Spanish-American War (1898–1900) she was named an acting assistant surgeon, the only woman officer in U.S. Army, and she established and led the Army Nurse Corps. In 1888 she married Smithsonian Institution archaeologist W J McGee (William John McGee, who loved to sign his name with his initials only without periods after them). She accompanied him on several archaeological field trips, and was also very active in the organizing aspects for women in anthropology, serving as the secretary for the Women’s Anthropo- logical Society of America after joining in 1888 (McGee 1889a, 1889b). She was elected to membership in the AAAS in 1888 and served as the secretary (chair) of Section H in 1897–98, succeeding Alice Fletcher. During her tenure as head of Section H, Anita McGee contributed one very explicit archaeological paper, the summary of the discussion of

68 | Women of the Period the Trenton gravel “glacial man” special session at the AAAS (McGee 1897). Harriet Arnot Maxwell [Clarke] [Converse] (1836–1903) became interested and began publishing on the myths, legends, and ethnography of the New York Iroquois because of family linkages — her grandfather, father, and second husband had all been adopted into the Seneca tribe. Subsequently, in 1884 Harriet Converse herself was formally adopted into the Seneca, and in 1891 she reported that she was the first white woman to be named a chief of the Six Nations (Browman 2002:239). The Converses’ New York City house became a center for visiting regional Indians, and she kept track of the 50 to 100 New England Indians who lived in the New York City area (Parker 1908:21). Harriet began purchasing archaeological and ethnographic artifacts in the 1890s, items which she then donated or sold to the American Museum of Natural History, the Museum of the American Indian, the Peabody Museum of Harvard, and the State Museum of New York. Harriet Converse also was the hostess for a group of college-age students interested in American Indian anthropological topics, many of whom also had First American ancestry. Thus her salon became the venue for many of the meetings of the so-called Putnam’s boys associated with Frederic Putnam’s reorganization of anthropology at the American Museum of Natural History, discipline students who affectionately called her “Aunt Hattie.” As Porter (2001:48n3) noted, Putnam’s “disciples liked to get together and enjoy the genial atmosphere at the Converses’ salon. Young anthropologists like Mark R. Harrington, Alanson B. Skin- ner, and Frank G. Speck all met [Arthur] Parker for the first time there, as did the artist and teacher John W. Fenton and Parker’s great friend Joseph Keppler.” [For a complete discussion of this group, see chapter 9 in Browman and Williams 2013.] Harriet Converse was both a significant collector of indigenous artifacts and an important facilitator of their analysis. Caroline Wells Healey [Dall] (1822–1912) is somewhat a peripheral figure in the examination of contributions to women involved in archaeology at this period, but she still merits some mention. Born in Boston,

Women of the Period | 69 she had an early love affair with Samuel Foster Haven, the midcentury Americanist archaeological pioneer and head of the American Antiquar- ian Society in Worcester, Massachusetts (Deese 2005:35, 39). When she married Charles Henry Appleton Dall, her husband took extended missionary trips to India, while she remained in the states. She was living in Toronto when Daniel Wilson (credited with coining the term prehistory) first moved to North America, and she helped him settle in there in 1853 until his family arrived. She accompanied Wilson on surface investigation of Indians mounds in Lake Huron in September 1854 (Deese 2005:175–76, 214). When her son, William Cranch Healey Dall (1845–1927), took a position as a government researcher in Washington DC, Caroline Dall moved there to be with him in 1879. William Dall became one of the first American researchers to interpret excavated archaeological remains in terms of stratigraphic associations. While living in the capital city, Caroline Dall became good friends with John Wesley Powell and Alice Fletcher (Deese 2005:353). She lectured there on Egyptology and phi- lology (then the disciplinary locus of things archaeological) as well as women’s rights and other topics, and she was interested in collecting items, from American pottery to Japanese artifacts (Redpath 1914:xi). She was also one of the three founders of the American Social Science Association in 1865, serving as director and vice president. Thus she did participate in at least one field survey, and clearly she was involved in the lives of several of the contemporary archaeological players. One other philanthropist needs to be mentioned. Esther Mendels [Herrman] (1822–1911) was born in the Netherlands and came to New York in 1827. In 1843 she married Henry Herrman (1822–89), who made his fortune in shipping. After his death, she devoted her funds to helping advance the cause of the sciences. She joined the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1879, and provided Frederic Putnam with financial aid from time to time to assist him in his work there. She provided funds for the local Archaeological Institute of America members and their field schools in Greece and Rome. She provided funds for Putnam’s work at the Peabody Museum at Harvard after 1887.

70 | Women of the Period When Putnam took on his position at the American Museum of Natural History, she provided funds for excavations in upstate New York. She made significant ontributionsc to the founding of Barnard College. Esther Herrman was also a founding member of the American Anthro- pological Association and an early member of the American Ethnological Society. Her research funds allowed many anthropological researchers to conduct fieldwork; for example, Franz Boas did fieldwork in 1906 using research funds from the Esther Herrman Fund of the Scientific Alliance in New York. Though perhaps not as visible in anthropology as Harriet Converse, Phoebe Hearst, Mary Hemenway, or Mary Thaw, Esther Herrman’s donations were critical to disciplinary research.

Commentary

Reviewing this group of women who began their association with Ameri- canist archaeology between 1865 and 1900, it is clear that relatively few of them actually were able to maintain any continuous involvement in fieldwork. Among those whose writings suggested actual field experience, many seem to have been somewhat accidental archaeologists, being involved in the mapping, collecting, and/or excavation of a specific ruin or set of ruins, but then pursuing other career trajectories later. Only a few of them, such as Bandelier, Fletcher, Horsford, Le Plongeon, Studley, and perhaps Matilda Stevenson, seem to have dedicated much of their careers to Americanist archaeology. On the other hand, the women who were involved in museum work, such as Elizabeth Duncan, Alice Putnam, or Sara Stevenson, seem to have had greater success than many of the others of this period’s cohort, if success is measured by longevity of activity. And the women who provided funds for institutions and research usually continued throughout their lives — or until funds ran out, as they did for Phoebe Hearst. Among the women who showed an initial interest in archaeology, many soon heard the siren’s call of “salvage” ethnography. Not only were women thought to have special access to female components of social culture, at best difficult for men to research or even unavailable to

Women of the Period | 71 men, but in general, one of the tenets of the developing field of anthropology was that “primitive” peoples were rapidly becoming extinct, while it was argued that archaeological sites would long be available for later research. Thus the argument was that the proper goal of a serious researcher (male or female) should be to salvage what could be learned about these other ethnic groups before they disappeared. Today, with archaeological sites being recognized as nonrenewable resources and rapidly disappearing due to anthropogenic activity, “salvage” archaeology has replaced “salvage” ethnography as a prominent goal of the field.

72 | Women of the Period CHAPTER TWO

New Directions in the Period 1900 to 1920

With the successful introduction of anthropology into American universities, courses began to be offered regularly for male students and occasionally for female students. The first programs in anthropology had begun at Harvard, Chicago, and Pennsylvania at about the same time in the late nineteenth century, but at Chicago and Pennsylvania, the discipline did not take effective root and had to be reintroduced later. By the early twentieth century, anthropology was offered at a number of institutions. Although initially very few provided such offerings, the subject was popular and rapidly spread. (cf. MacCurdy 1902 and 1906). There were some encouraging developments regarding women’s participation in the field early on at Harvard. Among the adjunct institutions that developed during this period were student anthropology clubs. The all-female Radcliffe Anthropological Club was formed in 1903, with an average membership of 25 students, surprisingly popular, considering the previous lack of formal access for women to coursework in the discipline. As well, a few anthropologists at Harvard seem to have been leaders in their concern for the opportunities for women to participate in fieldwork. I have noted the work of Frederic Putnam, who was responsible for the start of the Radcliffe Anthropology Club, as well as providing other assistance to women, in the previous chapters. Also, in 1918 Peabody Museum researcher Frederick Sterns prepared a ten-page manuscript, “Women of Scientific Expeditions,” which unfortunately was never published. While he spoke of the fieldwork contributions

73 of women in sociocultural, biological, and archaeological anthropology, it is the archaeological component of his paper that is of interest here. His work focused just on the women associated with American institutions, where he identified 12 women linked to Harvard University and one woman each linked to the American Museum of Natural History, the museum of the University of Pennsylvania, and the department at the University of California — Berkeley, who had worked in archaeology from the 1890s through World War I. For the most part, the women he recorded were wives of archaeologists, and he thus identified them only by their husbands’ names, listing the location of the archaeological fieldwork by the wives of Oric Bates, William Farabee, Robert Fuller, Samuel Guernsey, Carl Guthe, Earnest Hooton, Alfred V. Kidder, Alfred Kroeber, Samuel Lothrop, Warren Moorehead, Nels Nelson, Charles Peabody, and Frederic Putnam. Only for those associated with Harvard did he identify some single women involved in archaeology, including Adele Breton, Alice Fletcher, and Zelia Nuttall. There is a caveat regarding the inclusiveness of coverage of the women identified as being involved in archaeology for the ensuing score of years in this chapter. Women involved in archaeology in this period were for the most part first identified through publications in scientific venues and through their participation in field projects. A number of women began to enter into archaeologically related endeavors through local museums and historical societies, the most logical and available venues for them to explore their interests, rather than through college training programs, which were generally not open to women yet. To adequately identify all the women involved in archaeological endeavors between 1900 and 1920 thus requires that one have knowledge of the relevant local historical societies and museums in all states, an expertise that no one has, as far as I am aware. Thus the coverage here does not claim to have identified all relevant women, even though I have attempted to do so, but realistically it does deal with the greater majority of them. Adequacy of coverage is likely much better for the Northeast, the Southeast, and the Southwest than it is for the Great Plains or the Northwest.

74 | New Directions in the Period Women Conducting Fieldwork

Women continued to have a difficult time breaking into field archaeology and were often discouraged from pursuing this goal. For example, Carobeth Tucker [Harrington] [Laird] (1895–1983) signed up for a course in archaeology at what was then called San Diego Normal School, with Edgar L. Hewett, who was teaching there because he was also serving as the director of the San Diego Museum of Man. But Hewett told her that women interested in archaeology could only do museum work, which was simple because it was like housework (Laird 1975:2). Because Carobeth loathed housework, she decided she would hate archaeology if that was the kind of research she was predetermined to do, and so she became a linguist and folklore specialist. In 1916 she married the anthropologist John Peabody Harrington, a staff member of the Bureau of American Ethnology. After a troubling and tumultuous relationship, they divorced in 1922, and she married George Laird, a Chemehuevi Indian, continuing her work in linguistics and folklore for a short while, then dropping out for nearly half a century before returning to finish her original research. While Hewett’s perception of women’s restriction to museum and lab work seems to have been a frequent outcome of fieldwork requests, other women persevered and became involved in field archaeology. Laura Mary Bragg (1881–1978) was born in Whitinsville, near Northbridge, Massachusetts, and after completing her schooling, she took a job at the Charleston (South Carolina) Museum in 1909 (Allen 2001). While there, she developed an interest in the prehistory of American Indians. She and Anne King Gregorie participated in the excavation of Indian mounds and are credited with establishing the first archaeological site files for the area (Anderson 2002:149). In 1918 Bragg and Albert Smith Rowell published their report on “Indian Mound Excavation in South Carolina,” detailing excavations near Piedmont in Greenville County (Bragg and Rowell 1918). And Bragg continued excavating at least until 1925, when she and Edward Clarkson Leverett Adams explored a mound near Columbia, South Carolina.

New Directions in the Period | 75 She had planned to publish a synthesis of Indian mounds in the area, but apparently it was never completed (Allen 2001:99). Bragg was also interested in historic archaeology and began a collection of Colono slave pottery for the museum beginning in 1919. She was the director of the Charleston Museum from 1920 to 1931, and then worked at the Berkshire (Pittsfield) Museum in Massachusetts from 1931 until she retired in 1939. Although the Berkshire Museum had several donated collections of Indian artifacts, which she organized, it does not appear that Bragg actively continued fieldwork. Anne King Gregorie (1887–1960) was born on a farm near Savan- nah, Georgia, and spent much of her life at Oakland Plantation outside the community of Porcher’s Bluff near Savannah (Surles 1968:19). As children, she and her brother played in an Indian midden, collecting artifacts. She developed an interest in the local Indians, and by 1900 she had begun collecting archaeological materials from the fields around her home, as well as conducting documentary research on the historic Sewee tribe, which had inhabited that area. Gregorie went to Winthrop College in Rock Hill, South Carolina, graduating in 1907, and for the next two decades she taught in the rural school near her home. “After she became the teacher in the community, she continued her hobby [archaeology] as a means of helping ‘to make history alive’ for the children in her classes” (Surles 1968:162). Having heard of Bragg’s interest in the American Indians, Gregorie invited her to visit in June 1917 (Allen 2001:62). Gregorie shared her investigation of the Sewee Indian tribe and her survey of local mounds. Bragg agreed to publish the manuscript through the Charleston Museum, but many changes and delays resulted in the work not being published until 1925. Gregorie returned to graduate school at the University of South Caro- lina in 1924. She completed her master’s thesis in 1926 on the “Indian Trade of Carolina in the Seventeenth Century,” based on her 1925 publication, Notes on Sewee Indians and Indian Remains in Christ Church Parish, Charleston County, South Carolina. Three years later she became the first woman to receive a doctorate from the University of South Carolina,

76 | New Directions in the Period writing about the Revolutionary War figure Thomas Sumter (memo- rialized in the nineteenth century through Fort Sumter). Her career as editor and author of local history grew in the early 1930s when she was supervisor of a statewide project for the transcription of historical records. She served as editor of the South Carolina Historical Magazine from 1948 until she retired in 1958, and after her youthful interest in archaeology, she published mainly on historical topics. However, her earlier archaeological collections still prove to be very useful research materials (Koob 1976). Adela Catherine Breton (1849–1923) conducted research in the Yucatán. She was an English watercolor artist who sent paintings of Mayan artifacts and sites, as well as some actual artifacts, to the Peabody Museum at Harvard during the first two decades of the twentieth century. She took more than a dozen trips to the Yucatan and published reports on these explorations. Zelia Nuttall visited Breton at Chichen Itza in 1902 and persuaded Frederic Putnam to have Breton begin to make a special series of copies of Maya frescoes and stelae for the Peabody Museum (McVicker 2000:60). Breton made her official debutinto the Americanist archaeological community with a presentation at the International Congress of Americanists in New York City in 1902. An insight to how quickly she was integrated into this group is the short description of a dinner of Americanists at these meetings hosted by Frederic Putnam. Among the other dozen people at the dinner were Juan Bautista Ambrosetti (an Argentine archaeologist), Alice Fletcher, George Gordon (University of Pennsylvania Museum), Stansbury Hagar (expert in Mesoamerican archaeoastronomy), Zelia Nuttall, Alice Putnam, Elizabeth Putnam (the archaeologist from the Davenport Museum in Iowa), Esther Putnam (Frederic Putnam’s wife), Frederick Starr (founder of the anthropology department at Chicago), and Alfred Tozzer (Maya archaeologist from Harvard) (McVicker 2005:89). Breton soon became a good friend of Alice Fletcher’s as well. After 1910 Breton retired from active fieldwork, but continued her interest in Mesoamerica. Although Breton published on her fieldwork in various venues, McVicker observes that because she

New Directions in the Period | 77 rarely offered any analyses or conclusions from her empirical observations, her work had less impact than it deserved. Lucy Langdon Williams [Wilson] (1864–1937) was born in St. Albans, Vermont. She studied at the University of Pennsylvania, where she received her BA in biology and geography, and then her PHD in education in 1897. She married William Powell Wilson in 1894. From 1892 to 1915 she taught biology at the Philadelphia Normal School for Women, and from 1916 to 1934 she was the principal of the newly established South Philadelphia High School for Girls. While teaching at the Normal School, she had become interested in ethnographic and archaeological research. She visited Egyptian ruins, Mayan ruins, and sites in Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru (Mathien 2003:138–39), publishing short notes on some of her field surveys (Wilson 1910). Wilson and her husband participated in the AIA School of American Research tour of ruins in New Mexico led by Hewett in 1914. In 1915 she began work (under Hewett’s permit) at Otowi, on the edge of the Pajarito Plateau in New Mexico, initially to find materials to display in the Philadelphia Commercial Museum, which was run by her husband. Later many of the finds from the three seasons of work (1915–17) were donated to the U.S. National Museum (Wilson 1918b:293). In 1915, she excavated 36 rooms in Big Otowi. In 1916 Bandelier National Monument was established, so the excavation permit was transferred from Hewett to Lucy Wilson under the auspices of the Philadelphia Commercial Museum. That year she excavated 165 rooms in Otowi, 16 rooms in various smaller pueblos around it, and did a general survey of the 17 other smaller pueblos in the area, or clearing 250 rooms in all. In 1917 she excavated at more small sites in the area, as well as completing her work at the Big and Little Otowi pueblo rooms (Mathien 2003:134–48). Other than her reports on the Otowi excavations (Wilson 1916, 1917a, 1917b, 1918a, 1918b), she did not pursue archaeology further, but rather is best known for her articles on the Russian education system and on the education of girls. Harriet Lovejoy Silliman [Cosgrove] (1877–1970) was born in Atchi- son, Kansas. She met Cornelius Burton Cosgrove Jr. (1875–1936) while

78 | New Directions in the Period he was attending Atchison Latin High School in the early 1890s, and married him in 1901, when he had returned to Atchison after obtaining a law degree at the University of Nebraska in 1899 (Davis 1995:5). As a child, Burt had collected arrowheads around his home, first in Santa Fe and later in Atchison (Davis 1995:9). He apparently passed this interest on to Harriet, and in the early years of their marriage, Hattie and Burt often went looking for Indian artifacts. The couple moved to Silver City, New Mexico, in 1907, where they ran a hardware store. They explored the Gila area cliff dwellings, now part of the Gila Cliff Dwellings National Monument (Davis 1995:14). The two joined the Santa Fe Archaeological Institute of America chapter when it was formed in 1916. In 1919 the Cosgroves bought a Mimbres culture pueblo ruin that they called Treasure Hill in the Arenas Valley, New Mexico, and began their first major excavation work there. But after one summer’s work, they realized that they needed proper training. Thus the next summer they went to observe the New Mexico excavation projects of Frederick W. Hodges at Hawikuh, Neil M. Judd at Pueblo Bonito, and Alfred V. Kidder at Pecos (Kidder 1957:53). The Cosgroves continued their excavations at Treasure Hill, where Hattie worked alongside Burt, shoveling dirt and acquiring considerable expertise in sorting, cleaning, and cataloging ceramics, as well as drawing designs (Davis 1995:27). They kept notes, made plans, took photographs, saved every sherd and bone and broken tool, and labeled all artifacts. They later donated their collection to the Museum of Northern Arizona. When Hattie died in 1970, the site was turned over to the Archaeological Conservancy (Davis 1995:123). After finishing the Treasure Hill project, in 1922 the Cosgroves carried out a Mimbres culture survey for New Mexico State Museum. A. V. Kidder was very impressed with their work and recruited them to work on behalf of the Peabody Museum at the Mimbres site of Swarts Ruin in 1924, where they spent the summer seasons until 1927. Burt and Hattie sold their hardware business in 1925 and moved to Cambridge, where they joined the Peabody Museum staff as research assistants to work up their materials. They completed their analysis and published it in 1932.

New Directions in the Period | 79 The Cosgroves also continued working on their own projects, with funding from such local groups as the El Paso Archaeological Society and from Kidder. In 1928 they surveyed 104 caves and cliff house ruins in the El Paso area and reported that several of these caves had excellent preservation. Hence the Peabody Museum shifted one component of its exploration activities to the dry caves of southern New Mexico and southwestern Texas in 1928–29, following the completion of the museum’s Mimbres project (Kidder 1957:54). When William H. Claflin Jr. needed some help at the Stalling’s Island excavations in Georgia in the spring of 1929, the Cosgroves came to his aid. They assisted in excavations of a dry cave in Oklahoma in 1930. They worked with Kidder at the Pendleton Mimbres ruins in New Mexico in 1933 (Davis 1995:63, 69, 79; Kidder 1957:54). And in 1935, when J. O. Brew began his work at the Awatovi ruins, near Flagstaff, they joined his team. According to Watson Smith (1992:160), the Peabody Museum director, Donald Scott, thought it would be a good idea for Hattie to go along to serve as an elder counselor to the inexperienced J. O. Brew. After Burt died the next season, Hattie returned to field camp and continued her work on the pottery, the processing of which she had entire charge during the four years of the Awatovi expedition (Kidder 1957:54). That pottery also occupied her at the Peabody Museum, where she managed the restoration of the whole vessels and the sorting and cataloguing of the many thousands of sherds. This was a mammoth job: for example, in the 1938 season alone, Hattie and her assistants processed 243,871 potsherds, and she oversaw the stabilization of some 8,500 whole vessels (Smith 1992:160). After the Awatovi project was finished, Hattie went to Guatemala to work at Kaminaljuyu with Kidder in 1938 (Davis 1995:105). She had planned to retire in 1942, but because of the shortage of museum personnel during the war, she kept working. She finally retired in 1944 at the age of 67, then stayed for four more years as a volunteer (Kidder 1957:55). But she was not yet finished with fieldwork. She went with Kidder to Guatemala again in 1947–48, and in 1954 she worked with Frank and Eleanor “Brownie” Hibben at Pottery Mound near Albuquerque (Davis

80 | New Directions in the Period 1995:119, 121). She had quite a stellar career, particularly for one with no academic training in archaeology! Frances Theresa Peer [Russell] (1873–1936) married Frank Russell in June 1900. Frank was one of the first PHDs in anthropology at Harvard, and he was teaching there. Theresa had a BA from Iowa in 1895 and met Frank while she was a graduate student at Radcliffe in 1898–99. Their honeymoon trip was to New Mexico to conduct an extensive archaeological survey, focusing on the Hopi lands. Frank had contracted tuberculosis during his earlier research work in the Arctic, and after teaching at Harvard for another year or so, he was feeling poorly enough that he took a medical leave of absence from his teaching duties for the 1901–1902 academic year. He returned to the Southwest during this period and supported himself and his wife by securing a contract as field assistant with the Bureau of American Ethnology, doing archaeological and ethnographic work with the Pima and Papago Indians. He returned to teaching at Harvard for 1902–1903, but took medical leave again in midterm, returning to Arizona, where he spent his time digging irrigation ditches for their homestead that summer. He died at Chloride, near Kingman, Arizona, in November 1903 (Browman and Williams 2013). Frances Russell had been his unsung archaeological assistant during their three years of marriage, but after becoming a widow, she left the discipline. She went to Stanford in 1906 as a graduate student in philosophy, but shifted to English, ultimately receiving her doctoral degree from Columbia in 1920. She taught English at Stanford University for many years, writing many books and articles on nineteenth-century literature (Fowler 2000:321–22). Madeleine Appleton [Kidder] (1891–1981) first got to know Alfred V. Kidder well in 1909. On a visit to Santa Barbara, California, in 1908, Madeleine, her mother, and two younger sisters met up with Alfred and Kate Dalliba Kidder and their son, Alfred, then a student at Harvard, where he had just switched from medicine to anthropology. Because Kidder’s older brother, Homer, had recently finished archaeological excavations with Raphael Pumpelly at Anau, Turkmenistan, the Kidder family thought that a trip to Greece and Egypt to visit the ruins would

New Directions in the Period | 81 be a good experience. The Appletons were invited to join them, which brought Madeleine and Kidder together (Haury 1983:83). They were married in Ipswich in 1910 and set out to do fieldwork in the Southwest. Their project at Pecos, New Mexico, starting in 1915, brought Madeleine into total involvement with fieldwork. She ran the lab and processed all of the pottery sherds. Kidder “was often heard to say that his wife not only handled more Pecos pottery than anyone in the world, but also knew more about it” (Haury 1983:83). One piece of evidence is the seminal paper on Pecos pottery by the Kidders in 1917, where Madeleine is listed as first author. During the winter of 1915–16 Madeleine spent much of her time cleaning, sorting, repairing, and cataloguing the specimens, as well as analyzing and classifying the thousands of potsherds recovered from the innovative, paradigm-setting, stratigraphic tests from this first season’s excavations. (This stratigraphic work was in part responsible for giving rise to the phrase at the time of “new archaeology,” a term recycled in the late 1960s with another set of new paradigms. See the discussion by Browman and Givens 1996.) Madeleine continued running the ceramic lab, as well as generally organizing the field camp, and tending to her four children at the Pecos site over the next dozen years (Aldana 1983). When Kidder took on a new position with the Carnegie Institution of Washington and began working in the Maya area, Madeleine continued her archaeological support work. Her daughter, Barbara Kidder [Aldana], wrote Haury (1983:84) that at the Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala, excavations, her “mother was in the thick of it all, interested in every phase of the new field, but most especially in the pottery, ancient and modern . . . for the next three seasons, mother was more often than not to be found either at the bottom of one of the Mound A or Mound B tombs carefully cleaning the lovely polychrome vessels there disinterred or at the museum washing potsherds and fitting them carefully into whole vessels.” In the final report on Kaminaljuyu, Madeleine Kidder wrote the section on the ceramics, but she also prepared the chapter on jade artifacts. Ethelyn G. Hobbs [Field] [Nelson] (1867–1960?) conducted

82 | New Directions in the Period archaeological excavations mainly as the wife of Nels C. Nelson. Although the early record is rather opaque, it appears that she had a short marriage to one Mr. Field. After that marriage ended, she was hired by Alfred Kroeber to be his secretary at the University of California — Berkeley, and it was while at Berkeley that Nelson married her on Christmas Day 1911. He had just secured a new position at the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH), and at the end of the 1911–12 academic year, the two took over his AMNH responsibilities and began work in the Galisteo basin, New Mexico (Fowler 2000:244). In May 1912 they began a survey of the region, followed by excavations at San Cristobal pueblo, where they cleared an average of 10 rooms a day, or a total of 262 rooms in six weeks. Dissatisfied with the results of this old “archaeology as ethnology” approach, Clark Wissler and Nelson conferred back in New York City, with the result that Nelson went to the El Castillo dig in Spain, where he learned the new stratigraphic excavation techniques then being introduced by the Europeans (Browman and Givens 1996), which he and Ethelyn applied in the Southwest the following season. Surprisingly, Ethelyn was paid as an assistant (rather than the usual circumstance of an honorific title for a omanw but with no salary attached), helping in correspondence, recordkeeping, and supervising the crew when her husband was gone. And by 1913, if not earlier, she was actively excavating herself, as documented by the text and photograph (Nelson 1917:22) in her article “Camp Life in New Mexico: The Enchantment of Wanderings and Study among Ancient Indian Ruins in the American Southwest” or the photograph from Tunque, New Mexico, in 1914 (Snead 2001:114). The Nelsons did a bit more excavation in the Southwest, then shifted back mainly to museum work (E. Nelson 1925), although they joined Roy Chapman Andrew’s expedition in 1925 and conducted excavations in late Pleistocene and early Holocene sand dune sites in China (Nelson 1926). Ethelyn retired from the museum in 1938. Rachel Warren [Lothrop] (1892–1973) was Samuel Kirkland Lothrop Jr.’s first wife; both she and Lothrop’s second wife were actively involved with him in field archaeology. Rachel was a Radcliffe student, and she met Sam on campus, where he was a student at Harvard. They married

New Directions in the Period | 83 in 1914 and went the next year with Madeleine and A. V. Kidder to work at Pecos, New Mexico, to serve as the Kidders’ assistants. That first season at Pecos, Rachel and Sam were in charge of a big trench with a 60-foot-long horizontal face (Givens 1992:46). The next year Rachel was involved in excavating human remains near La Jolla; these were donated to the Peabody Museum in 1917. She and Sam then worked in Belize, Guatemala, and Honduras. During World War I, they served as intelligence agents for the Office of Naval Intelligence in Costa Rica, where she was said to have been its only female overseas field agent (Harris and Sadler 2003:189), while also collecting data for her husband’s 1921 dissertation. In 1922 she reported on her contributions to the archaeological work the two did in Puerto Rico at the annual meetings of the AAA. The marriage only lasted about a decade, and in the 1920s Rachel and Sam were divorced. Sam married Eleanor Bachman of Philadelphia in 1929, and Rachel wed Robert Childers Barton in 1950 (Willey 1976:260). As occurs still today, there is a high correlation between the stress and separation required by fieldwork and divorces among archaeological researchers. Rachel left archaeology after her divorce from Sam Lothrop. Helen Heffron Roberts (1888–1985) was born in Chicago, where she studied music from 1907 to 1911. Because of her health problems, she spent most of the period from 1911 through 1916 in the Southwest. There she worked as a volunteer with A. V. Kidder. In 1928 she spent a season in France with the American School of Prehistoric Research with George Grant MacCurdy. She was one of the six women involved in founding the Society for American Archaeology in 1934. And she remembered her earlier work with Kidder when she penned a short note, “The Reason for the Departure of the Pecos Indians for the Jemez Pueblo,” in the American Anthropologist in 1932. After conferring with Kidder and Berthold Laufer, Roberts entered Columbia University in 1916 to do graduate work, and she completed her master’s thesis in 1919, “Coiled Basketry in British Columbia and Surrounding Region,” based on her 1917–19 study of American Museum of Natural History collections. While she continued her interests occasionally in American Indians basketry (Roberts 1929), she returned

84 | New Directions in the Period to her original interest, music, and began doing ethnomusicological research among various North American Indian groups. From 1924 to 1936 Clark Wissler obtained funding support for her as a research associate at Yale, but, as often with women in her situation, the position was terminated when “soft money” from the Rockefeller Foundation was cut back (Frisbie 1989:98–102). She found a position with the Cleveland Clinic, University Center Station, for the next few years. But frustrated by the lack of support, she left her anthropological research and became a nationally known gardening specialist.

Women Working in Museums

Harriet Newell Wardle (1875–1964) was born in Philadelphia. She became a member of Section H, AAAS, in 1898, gave her first paper there at the 49th meetings in 1900, and became a fellow in 1911. Because of difficulties with the rampant sexism of the time, she often styled herself as H. N. Wardle or H. Newell Wardle in her publications. She started working at the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, as a volunteer in 1899, and then became the curator of archaeology in 1905, working mainly with the archaeological collections of Clarence B. Moore from the southeastern United States. When the Academy phased out archaeology in 1929, divesting themselves of Moore’s collections, Harriet shifted to the University Museum at the University of Pennsylvania, where she remained until retiring in 1948. There she worked principally on Frank Cushing’s Key Marco, Florida, collections and Max Uhle’s Pachacamac, Peru, collections. Wardle served on the executive board and various committees for the American Anthropological Association during the first decades of the 1900s. When the Society for American Archaeology was formed, she was the only woman to be named a fellow among the six fellow nominations at the first annual meeting. Of the five women who gave papers at that first meeting (out of 17 papers in all), three were University of Pennsylvania women — Wardle writing on a forgotten excavation in Chira, Peru, Ernestine W. Singer on the textiles from Chira, and Mary

New Directions in the Period | 85 Butler on the archaeology of the Monongahela woodlands in Pennsyl- vania (Guthe 1936c:290–91). Wardle published four dozen papers on archaeology, discussing sites and artifacts in the United States, Mexico, and Peru, writing, for example, about southeastern U.S. sites such as Key Marco, Indian Knoll, and Moundville, and providing analyses of materials such as textiles and basketry (Wardle 1903, 1906, 1912, 1919, 1920, 1944, 1951). Mary-Russell Ferrell [Colton] (1889–1971) was born in Louisville in 1889, but then moved east with her family to Germantown, Pennsyl- vania. She obtained a degree in painting from the Philadelphia School of Design for Women (later the Moore Institute of Art and Industry) in 1908. She was an avid naturalist, and on a backpacking trip near Philadelphia, she met Harold Sellers Colton (1881–1970), who taught zoology at the University of Pennsylvania (McGreevy 1993:94). After marrying in 1912, she and Harold spent their honeymoon in Arizona and New Mexico. She took part in archaeological surveys with her husband, recording sites and making systematic surface collections (Woodbury and Woodbury 1988:48). They published their first article in 1918. By 1928 the Coltons had recorded 1,250 sites (Fowler 2000:371). They continued to visit the Southwest in the summer and grew to like it so much that in 1926 Harold Colton resigned from the University of Pennsylvania and the couple moved to Flagstaff. But this was with a plan in mind, and in 1928 they founded the Museum of Northern Arizona. He became the director, and she became the curator of art and ethnology. Although her first job was to catalog the archaeological and ethnological collections, much of her subsequent research was focused on Hopi silver-working, weaving, and pottery (McGreevy 1993:96; Woodbury and Woodbury 1988:48).

Women Supporting Archaeology

Ruth Raynolds [McNary] (? — 1951) was the daughter of a prominent New Mexico banker and politician, and she became friends with Edgar Hewett. About 1899 she provided the financial support that allowed

86 | New Directions in the Period Hewett to take four women on a collecting trip in the Frijoles area near Santa Fe. In 1902 Ruth, Margaretta McNary, and her brother, James Graham McNary, who were both language teachers at Las Vegas Normal University, were among five who participated in Hewett’s 1902 survey of sites in northwestern New Mexico, which became a major component of Hewett’s dissertation (Munson 2008:37). Ruth and James fell in love on this trip (McNary 1956:32). Ruth was a major donor to the School for American Archaeology, and she and her husband were active on the board of managers of the School of American Research (SAR). James took over his father-in-law’s banking business and then became a lumber baron, for many years president of Southwest Lumber Mills at the company town of McNary in northern Arizona. When James died, Ruth continued the McNary position on the SAR board. Ruth seems to have passed her passion for archaeology on to her daughter, Martha McNary [Wilson] [Chilcote] (1912–2000). Martha went to the University of New Mexico and became a member of the anthropology honorary, Mu Alpha Nu, in 1936, and went on her first dig out at Tseh So in Chaco Canyon that summer. Somewhat surprisingly, both Martha and Ruth are listed as members of the field crew at Tseh So that season. Martha obtained her bachelor’s degree from the Uni- versity of New Mexico in 1937, and then in 1937–38 went to Yale to study international relations. She returned to excavate with the crew at Sandia Cave in the fall of 1939. Martha left her Albuquerque associates in 1946 to marry a logger, H. Dixon Wilson, but kept an avocational interest in regional history and prehistory. The editor of El Palacio gushed in the announcement of Martha’a marriage that she “was for some years one of New Mexico’s most brilliant students of ethnology.” Who were the four women Ruth Raynolds McNary supported doing archaeological surface collections in the Southwest with Hewett in 1899? That year, while Hewett was still president of New Mexico Normal Uni- versity, he took four “students” with him to collect at Santa Clara sites, including Puye, near Santa Fe, with funds provided by McNary. Two of these women he called “graduate students,” Jessie Himes from Nor- mal, Illinois, and Carol Brewster from Smith College in Northampton,

New Directions in the Period | 87 Massachusetts, and two simply were listed as Miss Walker from Chicago and Miss Kendel from Greeley, Colorado (Hewett 1904:629; Hobbs 1946a:83). None of these women appear to have gone further in archaeology. Jes- sie May Himes (1873 — ?) graduated from Illinois State Normal School in 1896, and then served as the principal of a school in Santa Fe in 1897–98 and taught at New Mexico Normal School in 1898–1902, before receiving graduate degrees in education from Illinois State Normal School in 1903 and the University of Michigan in 1907, then taking a teaching job in Charlevoix, Michigan. Caroline “Carol” Williams Brewster (1873–1978) graduated from Smith College in 1896 and was at Las Vegas, New Mexico, from 1897 to 1900. After teaching high school for some years, she went to Columbia from 1905 to 1907 to do some graduate work in anthropology. Other than verifying the graduate status of Carol Brewster and Jessie Himes, nothing further relating to archaeology was found for these two graduate students. Miss Walker may have been the daughter of George Clarke Walker (1835–1905) by his second marriage. A member of the board of trustees of the University of Chicago, Walker had donated funds for the Walker Museum founded at University of Chicago in 1893, which was the home for the first archaeological and anthropological collections made by Frederick Starr. Elizabeth Hay(e)s Kendel (1873–1962) was born in Oxford, Mississippi, but her family moved to Greeley, Colorado, in 1876. After graduating from the Colorado State Normal School, she taught math there for many years. She had known Hewett from the period when he was superintendent of schools at Greeley. Because Hewett’s early work consisted primarily of just touring ruins, it is possible that not much actual archaeology was done on this survey. While Hewett (1904:629) does mention that Brewster and Himes “rendered most efficient service in the study of the cliff dwellings as well as at the excavations” during the summer at Puye in 1899, this work may have involved little more than collecting and site survey, as Hewett’s recorded test excavations at Puye seem to be later. But also of importance, no matter the kind of field activities, is the early financial support of Ruth McNary for this archaeological project.

88 | New Directions in the Period Mary Emily Foy (1862–1962) was born in Los Angeles. She was appointed city librarian in 1880, shortly after graduating in the first class from Los Angeles High School, keeping the job until 1884. It was in that job that she apparently firstbecame interested in the archaeology of the Southwest and South America, as well as local history. She then went into teaching, first as a grade school principal and later as an instructor at Los Angeles High School (Anonymous 1921:309). She joined the Southwest Society branch of the AIA in Los Angeles soon after it was formed. In April 1907 Foy gave $400 to Edgar Hewett, who used it to support his season’s work at Puye, a mesa-top pueblo on the Santa Clara reservation near the north end of the Pajarito Plateau in New Mexico. Hewett wanted to excavate as many rooms as rapidly as possible to assist the tourist efforts in Santa Fe. Foy and Frank Palmer, then a major figure at the Southwest Society, were unhappy with the quality of work by Hewett that season, charging mismanagement of funds, particularly because Hewett had recovered only a few artifacts for display, and they declined to support Hewett’s request for the second season in 1908. Over the next two years, the Southwest Society became increasingly polarized between Charles Lummis (who supported Hewett) and Palmer (who opposed Hewett). Lummis ultimately was successful in forcing Palmer and Foy and their supporters out of the Southwest Society (Snead 2001:86, 90; 2002:135–37). Foy’s involvement in archaeology appears to have ceased after this imbroglio. Another woman working with Hewett, whom at least one source has conflated with Mary Foy, was Maud Woy (1884–1966). She was born in Sparta, Wisconsin, moved to Oconto, Wisconsin, and graduated from the University of Wisconsin with a bachelor of letters degree in 1898. She obtained various short-term history teaching positions before working in Spokane from 1904 to 1907, and then some others before securing a job at the Miss Wolcott School for Girls in Denver, where she was reported teaching history from 1910 to 1917. She spent at least two consecutive summer excavating seasons with Hewett, starting at the Rio de los Fri- joles site in 1910. She subsequently participated in excavations in one

New Directions in the Period | 89 or more seasons with Hewett, who noted in his 1911 annual report of activities to the AIA that “Maud Woy again spent the summer with the School on Pueblo work in the Southwest.” She and Donald Beauregard, one of Byron Cummings’s students from the University of Utah, collaborated that first season on the “Rito delos Frijoles Gazette,” an informal camp paper that featured sketches of the participants by Beauregard and stories about the excavations at the site and project events by Woy (Snead 2001:142). Woy finished her master’s degree at the University of Wisconsin in 1916. During this time, she was also an active member of the Society of American Indians. Following World War I, she began styling herself as Maud Van Woy, which apparently gave her more éclat when applying for headmistress positions at private schools for girls. She served as head mistress at Highland Hall in Hollidaysburg, Pennsylvania, from 1927 to 1932, and then purchased and ran Fairmont Junior College for young women in Washington DC until that school was closed by the war in 1941. She purchased the Casements-Ormond House from the Rockefeller family and ran the Fairmont Casements Preparatory School for young women in Ormond Beach, Florida, from 1941 until 1951. While she seemed particularly interested in history and archaeology as a young woman, going out to secure an AM in this area, she is an interesting case of someone who “worked the system” by listing herself as an aristocratic sounding, Maud Van Woy, which apparently provided her with entry into a number of prestigious head mistress positions. This is a good example of the types of innovation that some of the women felt they needed to take at this period in order to succeed. Donizetta Adelaide Jones [Wood] [Hewett] (1869–1960) was born in Augusta, Illinois, educated at Presbyterian Knox College in Gales- burg, Illinois, and first taught in Red Oak, Iowa (Hunt 1936, 2:185). She continued work for the Presbyterian Church as a missionary teacher at the Sisseton Agency in South Dakota beginning in 1892–93, and later moved to Santa Fe, where she taught at the Allison Presbyterian Mission School. Of note, she was a classmate of Cora E. Whitford, originally from Illinois, the first Mrs. Hewett, who was also trained as a teacher.

90 | New Directions in the Period Living in Santa Fe, Donizetta became very interested in archaeology, and after she wed James E. Wood, she became the secretary of the Santa Fe branch of the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA) soon after it was founded. In 1907 the Santa Fe Archaeological Society, in order to attract tourists to the region, decided to support the formation of a school of archaeology, as proposed to them by Edgar Hewett (Hobbs 1946c:205). In 1908, when Hewett began his project at Puye near Santa Clara, Donizetta participated in the excavations, representing the Santa Fe Archaeological Society. In 1909 she secured the job as receptionist and Hewett’s secretary at the nascent Museum of New Mexico, which had been founded the year before. She became Edgar Lee Hewett’s second wife in 1911, after both of them had lost their respective spouses (his by death, hers by divorce). She was Hewett’s faithful companion in fieldwork for 30 years, and she remained active as well in the Santa Fe Archaeological Society, serving as its president and vice president in the 1920s and early 1930s. Elsie Worthington Clews [Parsons] (1874–1941) was born in New York. She began graduate work at Columbia University under Nicholas Murray Butler in education, with a minor in sociology, and defended her dissertation in May 1899 in front of Butler, James McKeen Cattell, and Franz Boas. She married a prominent New York lawyer and politician, Herbert Parsons, in 1900. By 1902 she was teaching sociology at Barnard, where she remained offand on for several years (Deacon 1997:37, 39, 406n40). By 1912 she had become involved with a group of young anthropologists: Pliny Goddard at the American Museum of Natural History, Franz Boas’s students Alexander Goldenweiser, Robert Lowie, and Paul Radin at Columbia, and former Boas students Alfred Kroeber at Berkeley and Edward Sapir, then working for the National Museum of Canada. Ini- tially reluctant to publish in the American Anthropologist due to Boas’s early negative views of the composition of the AAA, this group argued through articles in the Journal of American Folk-Lore beginning in 1912 for a “new” anthropology, which they called the American School, and Elsie Parsons became involved with them (Deacon 1997:97). In 1913 she

New Directions in the Period | 91 began a 10-year affair with Christopher Grant LaFarge, who introduced her to archaeological fieldwork in the Southwest. In 1918 she was elected president of the American Folk-Lore Society, and she used this position as a platform to create the Southwest Society, where she was named secretary-treasurer. For the next 23 years, using funds provided almost exclusively by Parsons, the Southwest Society paid for fieldwork by several cultural anthropologists in the Southwest, Mexico, and Caribbean; paid for part of Boas’s research; financed the Journal of American Folk-Lore; financed archaeological field schools at the Laboratory of Anthropology at Santa Fe; and paid for the publication of papers by various anthropologists. Desley Deacon (1997:244) writes that “everyone acknowledged that the Southwest Society was a cover for Parsons’s generosity.” Parsons supported archaeological field schools at the Laboratory of Anthropology at Santa Fe with the stipulation that women had to participate in the excavations (Hieb 1993:68). Eleanor Hope Johnson (1871–1969) was born in Rutland, Vermont, and received a BA from Smith College in 1894. She moved to New York City, where she became involved in education, serving on a local school board and writing about mental hygiene among the students. But she also wrote short articles between 1900 and 1910 about her visits to archaeological sites in Peru and Mexico. Her involvement in fieldwork apparently began in 1910, when she visited Edgar Hewett’s first field school under the AIA at Rito de los Frijoles (Johnson 1911). After that she seems to have assisted the summer excavation projects for the next several years for the School of American Archaeology in Santa Fe, as one can see in photographs of her working with pottery sherds, making rub- bings of petroglyphs, and assisting in excavations in Frijoles Canyon, on the Pajarito plateau, and at Hawikuh (Elliott 1995:87; Munson 2008:32, 140), or by references from individuals such as Kenneth Chapman, later director of the Museum in Santa Fe, about Eleanor joining him on a guided tour of caves in the Frijoles area in 1913 (Chapman and Barrie 2008:116). She entered Columbia University and received an MA in educational psychology in 1921, and then went on to the Hartford Seminary, where

92 | New Directions in the Period she received a PHD in sociology in 1925. She continued her career for the next three decades in educational mental hygiene. That seems to have been an acceptable career trajectory for a woman at that time. However, she never lost her fascination with Southwest archaeology. She still attended the School of American Archaeology summer excavations when possible (Anonymous 1927), and in the 1940s and 1950s she served on the board of directors of the School of American Archaeology, which by then had been renamed the School of American Research. Vivienne Robison McClatchy (1892–1931) was born at Pilot Point, Texas, and did her undergraduate work at the University of Texas. As a graduate student there in 1919–20, she served as part-time curator of the anthropological laboratory and worked in the field with Roy James McLean conducting archaeological surveys of nearby areas (Barnard 1939:49, 275). McLean went on to obtain his PHD from Texas in 1923 before dropping out of anthropology, and McClatchy finished her MA in education at Texas in 1920, obtained her PHD in psychology from Chicago in 1924, and then had a short teaching career at Minnesota and Florida State College for Women (now FSU) before she died at age 39.

Commentary

There were only a few intrepid women who embarked on their own into fieldwork, such as Laura Bragg in South Carolina and Hattie Cosgrove and Lucy Williams in New Mexico. More typical are the women who accompanied and aided their husbands in archaeology, such as Mad- eleine Kidder, Ethelyn Nelson, Helen Roberts, and Frances Russell in the Southwest. It was still difficult for women to become involved in fieldwork, however. When Dean Cummings took his first group of 15 University of Arizona students to the 1919 fieldexplorations, one of the seven women in the party, Violet Rubens, reported that only the eight men were allowed to excavate (Brace 1986:196). A few women also pioneered museum positions, such as Harriet Wardle, or founded museums, such as Mary-Russell Colton, but for the most part, museum situations were still a male-dominated field. Instead,

New Directions in the Period | 93 more women helped support archaeology financially. I have parsed the services of women such as Maud Woy, Mary Foy, Donizetta Jones, Ruth Raynolds, Eleanor Johnson, and Elsie Parsons in the Southwest, but this is only just representative of a much larger group of unsung women who provided necessary support. In my searches, I have found many other women associated with museums and research societies during this decade, of whom little more is recorded than their names. Of the two score women discussed here, four secured doctoral degrees. But in all but one case, the degrees were totally incidental to the participation of the women in archaeological or anthropological endeavors. Advanced degrees did not come into significant play for women working in archaeology until the 1930s.

94 | New Directions in the Period CHAPTER THREE

Women Entering the Field during the “Roaring Twenties”

A significant change in involvement and opportunities occurred after the mid-1920s, with the beginning of regular training of women alongside men, both in graduate schools, such as at Harvard University, and in field schools, such as sponsored by the University of New Mexico. From the beginning of the anthropology program at Harvard College in 1890, Frederic W. Putnam and his staff offered a limited range of duplicate but separate courses for women from Radcliffe College, but this teaching was restricted to undergraduate courses. Starting in 1925, Radcliffe students were admitted to studiesat the graduate level alongside men at the Peabody Museum. The number of Radcliffe women rapidly rose to 20–25 percent of total graduate students in anthropology. This paralleled the growth of graduate studies in anthropology during this decade, which increased by a factor of two to three times. Hence 25 to 30 graduate students enrolled in anthropology each year. Still, for the first women of Radcliffe who sought to avail themselves of this opportunity, although there was a significant improvement in their access to instruction, taking courses in anthropology was no easy matter. Doris Stone (1980:20) recollected that as an undergraduate, “In the 1920s, I was required to obtain permission from the president of Harvard to attend classes at the Peabody Museum, and with that permission came the warning that if my deportment was not entirely proper, my association with that austere building would be ended.” While this situation may hardly seem like progress, one has to remember

95 that the anthropology staff had previously taught women in separate sections in Radcliffe buildings. Thus the ability of women to actually take classes with men at the Peabody was a significant policy shift. For the first time, women had potential access toall anthropology classes, graduate and undergraduate. However, even when institutions like Harvard University began teaching women, there was still a de facto two-tier class system in place. For most of the women interested in archaeology, graduate education at Harvard appeared to have effectively ended at the master’s level (as it also did at the University of New Mexico and other schools). Prospec- tive women graduate students were more intensely challenged by the faculty at the Peabody regarding their future plans. According to Ruth Otis Sawtell Wallis: “Her professors, E. A. Hooton and A. M. Tozzer, asserted that most young women in graduate work abandoned it if they married. They added, however, if she had serious intentions to study, they would help her in every way” (Collins 1979:85). Doris Zemurray Stone (1980:20–21) recalled: “I was advised against studying for a PHD. Women simply weren’t encouraged to go that far, particularly in anthropology. . . . And eventually, when I returned to the Peabody Museum for a visit in the 1940s, one of my former professors, who also thought little good came from educating females because they soon grew up and were married, invited me to speak at a weekly tea gathering at his home.” However, both Doris Stone and Ruth Wallis made it clear that once they made the difficult choice to pursue advanced degrees, the faculty was extremely supportive. The late 1920s also marked the time when women began to be a regular component of the archaeological field school crews at the University of New Mexico. It is difficult to ascertain how many of the women listed by Edgar Hewett as attending his field schools there were involved in excavations. One of the women, Winifred Reiter, told Frances Joan Mathien that Hewett was under considerable pressure to demonstrate the success of his program, and thus he padded his class list, including members of his managing board, teachers from public schools who needed to update their work to maintain their teaching certificates, friends

96 | Women Entering the Field of the Hewett family, associates on vacations, donors to the School of American Research, and so on (Mathien 1992:108–9). In addition, the women who were part of the field school did not always get a chance to become involved in archaeology. However, of the 18 women listed as participating in each of the University of New Mexico field schools in 1927 and 1928 (Anonymous 1927, 1928), for example, at least half a dozen of this number from each year show up in the discussions below as actively engaged in fieldwork and making contributions to field archaeology. Women also began being admitted to other field schools on a regular basis. Thus Dean Byron Cummings began recruiting women to his field schools in Arizona. They were not always recruited for strictly archaeological purposes, however: Clara Lee Fraps Tanner reported being used as a babysitter by Cummings in the 1930 season, instead of excavating, apparently a factor in her later abandoning her archaeological career to instead become a foremost expert on First American art and material culture at Arizona (Hays-Gilpin 2000:92). At the University of New Mexico, Linda Cordell (1993:220) reported that Hewett hired women to work in large part because he could pay them less. And this discrimination was widespread. When the anthropologists decided to award graduate scholarships for summer fieldwork in 1929 in a competition run through the Laboratory of Anthropology in Santa Fe, women were excluded from receiving these scholarships in ethnology and linguistics because of the lack of job postgraduate job opportunities in those fields in the Depression, and participating archaeology departments such as Chicago indicated that they would prefer not to take women students. Thus, while there was a significant shift in officially allowing and recruiting women to work in field situations, they were far from being treated on an equal basis with the men.

Women Archaeologists in the Field

NORTHEAST Frances Dorrance (1877–1973), of Wilkes — Barre, Pennsylvania, received her degree from Vassar College in 1900. She seems to have

Women Entering the Field | 97 been interested in botany, translating several books on the subject from both German and French. In 1918 she received an MA from the New York State Library School with the thesis “A County Library for Luzerne, Pennsylvania.” But she soon became interested in historical archaeology, writing about the 150th anniversary of the battle of Wyoming, Pennsylvania, of 1778 and the Sullivan Expedition of 1781. In the 1920s she was a founder of one of the chapters of the Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology. She reported in the annual “Archaeological Fieldwork in North America” section in the American Anthropologist in the late 1920s, thus fulfilling the criteria of having publications dealing with archaeology. She helped found the Indian Survey of Pennsylvania in 1927, which took an inventory of sites in the state. In the 1930s, Dorrance served as secretary and second vice chairman of the Pennsylvania Historical Commission and editor of the Wyoming (Pennsylvania) Historical and Geological Society Proceedings, which published some archaeological reports. While it is not quite clear how much fieldwork she did either in historicalarchaeology or in the survey work itself, indirect evidence from her reports indicates that she did not merely sit on the sidelines. Edith Gertrude Selene [Evans] (1878–1948) was born in England and educated in England, Italy, and the United States. She married Thomas Horace Evans in Freeport, New York, in 1907 and took the job as custodian of collections at the Science and Art Research Lab in Freeport, New York (Cook and Smith 1950:378–79). There she engaged in field excavations at a site near Malba on Long Island in 1923, collecting and reporting on some of the rare evidence of sites before they were swallowed up by urbanization. The site near Malba was a historical archaeological venue, where she excavated a series of burials associated with historic artifacts estimated to be about 300 years old (Anonymous 1938:222). Later she became enamored of Egyptian archaeology and created exhibits on that classical area, although she was an active member of Section H, AAAS, and the SAA. She reported herself very interested in anatomical features of burials, and she was employed by the Department of Anatomy, New York Medical College (National Research Council 1940:43).

98 | Women Entering the Field Gertrude Evans became reinvolved in Americanist archaeology in the late 1930s. Her husband, a physician, had been called on to look at the skull of a presumed Late Pleistocene female burial from Lake Peli- can in northern Minnesota in 1936. Gertrude looked at the associated artifacts, which she thought were of the Yuma-Folsom type. In 1937 Thomas Evans reported on his initial findings at the Denver meetings of the AAAS, and Gertrude gave a paper on her work at Malba, Long Island. In 1939 the two gave a final report on their analysis of the Lake Pelican materials at the Milwaukee meetings of the AAAS, and Gertrude also gave a paper on the Lake Pelican artifacts at the 4th SAA meetings that year (Douglas 1937:144, Krogman 1939:51; Guthe 1940:97).

SOUTHEAST Margaret Elizabeth Ashley [Towle] (1902/1903–1985) was born in Atlanta, Georgia, either in late 1902, according to Schnell (1999) and other Southeast archaeological historians, or in January 1903, according to the Social Security Administration and the OCLC — World Catalog. She went to Oglethorpe College in Atlanta, where she graduated in 1924 with a major in English literature and a minor in journalism. She then went to Columbia University for graduate work under the direction of Franz Boas, not in sociocultural anthropology (Boas’s forte) but in archaeology. A relative on her mother’s side living in New Jersey had been collecting artifacts in southwest Georgia and apparently sparked Ashley’s interest in the field.She started excavations at the Creek Shin- holser site, Georgia, in 1926. Soon she was asking Boas how to proceed with excavation. She was having problems with the landowner, because she wanted to excavate by hand to observe and record stratigraphy, while the landowner wanted her to use tractor and plow in order to recover more collectibles (Ashley 1927; Schnell 1999:26). In 1927 Ashley began a master’s thesis, “An Archaeological Survey of Georgia.” But then she was offered a position at Emory University in Atlanta, to serve as their representative at Warren King Moorehead’s excavations at Etowah, and she left Columbia. While at Emory, she continued archaeological surveys in four counties in the Columbus

Women Entering the Field | 99 area in 1927 and 1928, and she and Frank T. Schnell excavated at Lock- ett Mound. She was elected to the AAA Executive Council in 1928. In 1929 she visited the Okefenokee Swamp sites with Dolores Boisfeuillet Colquitt Floyd of Savannah (Schnell 1999:35). According to White, Mar- rinan, and Davis (1994:98), Ashley was possibly the earliest professional woman in Southeast archaeology. In the summer of 1929, Ashley met Gerald Towle, Moorehead’s top assistant at Etowah mounds excavations that summer. They married in 1930, and she essentially left archaeology for 14 years, even though she wrote the ceramic chapter for Moorehead’s Etowah report in 1932. After her husband’s death in 1944, she immersed herself as a volunteer at the Harvard Botanical Museum, and in the late 1940s she began to publish on the paleoethnobotany of pre-Columbian Peru. She reentered the graduate program in anthropology at Columbia, working with Duncan Strong and encouraged by Paul Manglesdorf from the Harvard Botanical Museum. She finished her dissertation, “The Ethnobotany of Pre-Columbian Peru as Evidenced by Archaeological Materials,” in 1958 and then volunteered at the museum until her death in 1985. Caroline Coroneos Dormon (1888–1971) was born on Briarwood Plantation near Saline, Louisiana. She graduated from Judson College in Marion, Alabama, in 1907 and became involved in cultural and natural environmental preservation. In 1921 she worked for the Louisiana For- estry Division, possibly the first omanw hired in forestry in the United States, and became a major force behind the founding of Kisatchie National Forest in 1930 (Hogan 2010:30; Wurtzburg 1994:125). She worked with both prehistoric and contemporary Indian cultural materials. Although much of her research was dedicated to botany, she collected plants, mapped Indian mounds, and studied the surviving Indian tribes in Louisiana (Bonta 1981:258–59). Dormon’s notebooks, created between 1930 and 1937, document extensive ethnographic field reports on the Caddos, Cherokees, Chitimachas, Choctaws, Houmas, Kosatis, and Tunicas (Lee 2009:257; Trissler 1994). She became an informant for John Reed Swanton. Based on Swanton’s recommendation, her “nuanced theories on conquistador Hernando de

100 | Women Entering the Field Soto earned her a spot as the only woman on a seven-member presi- dential commission appointed by President Franklin Roosevelt to trace De Soto’s route. She canvassed the state in search of clues left by the explorer, often with her sister as chauffeur” (Hogan 2010:34). Dormon worked to place Louisiana Indian material culture, both ethnographic and prehistoric, in the hands of museums. She made repeated requests to Swanton to send BAE-SI archaeologists to the state to salvage sites threatened by highway construction and other development projects. In part because of her persistence, Winslow Metcalf Walker in 1931–32 and James Alfred Ford in 1933 were sent by the Smithsonian Institution to do salvage archaeology in Louisiana (Lee 2009:260, 263; Trissler 1994:22, 29). Based on her fieldwork and survey notes, and her knowledge of regional archaeological resources, she was considered a very important resource for the Smithsonian and other agencies. She helped various Smithsonian personnel such as Frank Maryl Setzler, Swanton, and Ford find and collect Caddo and other period sites in her parish areas of Louisiana in the late 1920s and early 1930s (Johnson 1990:141; Moore 1984:63). In the late 1930s she assisted Dr. Clarence Hungerford Webb (Trissler 1994:85). In spite of her extensive knowledge, Dormon only published a small note in 1934 on her own research with Caddo pottery. Because of her expertise, Carl E. Guthe, acting on behalf of the National Research Coun- cil, asked her to participate in the Conference on Southern Pre-History held at Birmingham in 1932, where she was the only woman amateur or professional invited (Johnson 1990:138). Deriving from that experience, she and other friends interested in Louisiana archaeology formed the Academy of Natural Sciences in Shreveport, later reorganized as the Shreveport Society for Nature Study, to establish a systematic program for surveying mounds, to reduce the public’s uncontrolled digging of sites, and to establish sites like Poverty Point as state monuments; this initiative resulted in the founding of the Louisiana Archaeological Society (Johnson 1990:138–40; Trissler 1994:33, 96). Jo Nichols [Evans] (1896–1991) was born in Bardwell, Kentucky, but moved to a plantation near Alexandria, Louisiana, soon after completing

Women Entering the Field | 101 her schooling in Kentucky. She married Uriah Blackshear “Bob” Evans in 1914, and the two soon moved to Haphazard Plantation near Ferriday, Louisiana. They were history buffs, and they collected artifacts and dug into mounds in the region around both of these plantations in the 1920s and 1930s. While their fieldwork was untrained, they later worked with professional archaeologists who recorded the information. This interest brought her into contact with Caroline Dormon. In 1931–32 Evans and her husband, along with Dormon, assisted Winslow Walker in working at the Troyville site near Jonesville, and they assisted James Ford and Frank Setzler at Marksville (Wurtzburg 1994:126). These early workers thanked Jo Evans by having the “Evans projectile point” named in her honor (Dundy 1991:217). After living with the Evanses during the summer of 1933, Ford entered Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge to continue studies in archaeology (Wurtzburg 1994:127). Hiram Ford “Pete” Gregory Jr. was another Louisiana boy who first worked with Jo and Bob Evans doing amateur archaeology, and at their behest he went on to study with Frederick B. Kniffen at LSU; he later obtained his PHD at Southern Methodist University and taught archaeology at Northwestern State University, Natchitoches (Dundy 1991:230). The Evanses investigated various Plaquemine-Caddoan sites in central Louisiana with Edward Fairfax Neild, a Shreveport architect and amateur archaeologist. After the 1932 meeting of the National Research Council Conference on Southern Pre-History, a number of these local amateur archaeologists pondered the idea of establishing a Louisiana archaeological society. These amateurs had multiple linkages; for example, in 1937–38, at the new Midstate Hospital project in Pineville, Dormon was charged with landscaping the 40 — acre parcel; Neild was the architect, and Bob Evans was chairman of the hospital advisory board (Johnson 1990:89). This was when Dormon, Bob and Jo Evans, Kniffen, and Neild actualized their desire to form a state archaeological association, the Academy of Natural Sciences in Shreveport (Johnson 1990:140). Jo Evans, a prolific writer,was voted Woman Horticulturalist of the United States in 1956 and was the first person in Louisiana to receive the Dis- tinguished Service to Agriculture Award in 1978.

102 | Women Entering the Field MIDWEST Charlotte Day Gower [Chapman] (1902–82) was born in Kankakee, Illinois. She attended Smith College, where she obtained a degree in psychology in 1922. She taught as an assistant in psychology at Smith (1922–23) and then as an instructor in education at the University of Texas (1923–24). She had been a pre-med student at Smith, and while there, she took a course in physical anthropology with Harris Hawthorne Wilder, who helped her with her first publication, “A Contribution to the Morphology of the Aperture Pyriformis.” Gower spent one summer with the American School of Prehistoric Research, excavating in Europe. There she met Alonzo W. Pond, who recommended that she go to the University of Chicago for an advanced degree, which she did (Lepowsky 2002:127). Her 1926 thesis, “The Northern and Southern Affiliations of Antillean Culture,” was based on an examination of museum specimens in Philadelphia, New York, and Washington DC, and was published in 1927 as Memoir #35 of AAA. Two-thirds of the memoir covered archaeology and material culture, marking the impact of Fay-Cooper Cole’s influence and her initial intellectual focus on prehistory. Beginning in 1926 all of Cole’s students were required to participate in at least one summer excavation. So Gower spent two summers on digs at Hopewell period sites with University of Chicago crews, and in 1927 she attended the first Pecos Conference meetings in the Southwest. One archaeological field season wasthe subject of her first professional paper at the Central States Section of the American Anthropological Association’s Chicago meetings in 1927, where she presented the results of the field survey of 372 mounds (Lepowsky 2002:127, 129). However, Gower shifted out of archaeology into ethnology. Her 1928 dissertation, “The Supernatural Patron in Sicilian Life,” began a new direction in research. It was the first one in anthropology by a female student at Chicago, followed not long afterward by Florence Hawley’s. On the basis of her work, Gower received a Social Science Research Council fellowship for two more years of research in Sicily. She wrote this up and submitted it to the University of Chicago Press in 1935.

Women Entering the Field | 103 Apparently she may not have kept a complete copy, because when the Press lost the manuscript, it remained unpublished until it was found in 1971 (Lepowsky 2002:126; Gower 1935/1971). In 1930 Gower joined Ralph Linton at the University of Wisconsin, where she taught archaeology and physical anthropology as well as sociocultural anthropology. She had not completely given up archaeology at that point, as she served as the director of the American School of Prehistoric Research summer field school in France and Czechoslovakia in 1931 (Bricker 2002:281). Gower continued teaching at Wisconsin until 1938, when she took a position at Lingnan University in China (Lep- owsky 2002:139). She was interned for a short period by the Japanese in 1941–42, and when she was released, she entered the Marine Corps and then the OSS in 1944, staying on when it became the CIA. It was there that she met Savilion H. Chapman, whom she married in 1947. She retired in 1965. Charlotte Mikulus [Hodges] (1900–1994) and her husband, Thomas Luther Hodges, spent a quarter-century collecting artifacts in southeast Arkansas. Charlotte was born in Slovenia, but the family moved to St. Louis when she was young. She received a degree in pharmacy and chemistry at Washington University in St. Louis in 1922, and then took a job as a pharmacist at Ste. Genevieve, Missouri. Thomas Hodges attended medical school in Missouri and then established a medical practice in southeast Missouri, where he began to collect prehistoric relics. In 1927 they married and moved to Bismarck, Arkansas, where he ran his medical practice for another 26 years, until his death in 1953 (Early 1986:2; Ferguson 1965:244). Charlotte and Thomas Hodges became particularly interested in the remains of the late prehistoric Caddoan cultures of southern Arkansas. They accumulated materials from more than 50 sites, through surface collections and excavations. Their reports were the first published records of Caddoan artifacts from this portion of the Ouachita River basin (Hodges and Hodges 1943a, 1943b, 1945). After her husband’s death, Charlotte published an article in which she broadened their original definition of Ouachita Caddo or Cahinnio (Hodges 1957).

104 | Women Entering the Field In addition, the Hodges worked with professional archaeologists. Alex Krieger, then at the University of Texas, came to them to learn about the Caddo sites of the Middle Ouachita, and he used this information on the analysis of ceramics from his work at the George C. Davis site (Early 1986:3). The Hodges helped with Philip Phillips’s survey of the Ouachita River drainage in 1939 and assisted his Harvard crew with excavations at the Menard site (Phillips et al. 2003:266). They helped Clarence Webb and other WPA archaeologists in the 1940s. They also showed Samuel Dellinger the Cooper and Means sites in Arkansas. In addition, with financial help from Phillips, the Hodges bought much of the Menard site, the historic Quapaw village of Ostony, near Arkansas Post, and in the 1980s, Charlotte sold it to the Archaeological Conservancy, preserving it for posterity (Davis 2002:82). The active participation of Charlotte and her husband with professional archaeologists was not unusual for that period; unfortunately, collaboration between avocational and vocational archaeologists is a bit rarer today. Eva May Horner (1889–1975) is perhaps more typical of the kind of women involved in archaeology, beginning in the late 1920s and becoming very frequent in the 1930s. These were women who participated in excavations and received advanced degrees in the field but, after a few years, seemed to drop out of the picture. In addition to family obligations if they married, an obvious reason for women leaving archaeology was their unfortunate inability to secure gainful employment during the Depression. Horner was born in Pineville, Missouri, and received her BA from Drury College in Springfield in 1913. She became interested in American Indians and their past. She and her brother took part in the 1927 University of New Mexico field school. In 1929 she was one of three women (along with Isabel Kelly and Frances Watkins) given Laboratory of Anthropology (Santa Fe) summer scholarships to work on archaeological excavation projects in the Southwest under the direction of A. V. Kidder. After a month’s training at Pecos, New Mexico, Kidder sent the three women to run the Tecolote ruins project, the first time an all-female supervised crew had been used (Watkins 1930:14). Eva Horner entered graduate school at the University of Chicago,

Women Entering the Field | 105 and in 1930 she once again had Laboratory of Anthropology fellowship support, this time working under Fay-Cooper Cole’s direction on archaeological sites in Illinois. After training the women in local methods, Cole ultimately established another all-female crew, this time directed by Dorothy Cross, Frida Hahn, and Eva Horner (Griffin 1992:7–8). How- ever, Cole was not eager to take on women students. In a March 18, 1930, letter, Cole wrote Edward Sapir of the Scholarship Committee of the Laboratory of Anthropology, “I should prefer not to have girls in the party, but if your Committee finds it necessary I will take two.” Sapir wrote back on April 14, 1930, “We are putting Miss Cross on with the understanding that the University of Chicago puts Miss Horner on the university archaeological party, it being assumed that the two parties will, in effect, work together in the field.” Frida Hahn was added on May 20 after Waldo Wedel withdrew from the summer program (Sampson 1992:9). Horner completed an ethnological thesis, “Masked Gods of the Navajos and Their Occurrence among the Pueblos and Apaches,” at Chicago in 1931, and seems to have remained interested in the contemporary Indi- ans rather than archaeological Indian cultures. Edward Sapir consulted with her in August 1931 regarding Navaho and Cherokee Indian beliefs for his 1935 article. She then joined the Oklahoma Historical Society and wrote an article for the local newspaper on Cherokee traditions in 1936. After that point, she is occasionally mentioned in various civic positions, such as the president of the Tahlequah, Oklahoma, branch of the American Association of University Women, but she seems to have dropped out of archaeology and anthropology. Regina “Gene” Weltfish [Lesser] (1902–80) was born in New York City. She first attended Hunter College, where she majored in journalism, and then she transferred to Barnard College, where she majored in philosophy and was introduced to anthropology by Franz Boas in her senior year. In 1925 she earned a BA and met Alexander Lesser, another Boas student. They married and then divorced 15 years later, at which point Alexander left to teach anthropology at Brooklyn University while Gene stayed at Columbia (Pathe 1988:373).

106 | Women Entering the Field Weltfish entered the graduateprogram in anthropology at Columbia. In the summer of 1928 she and Lesser went to Oklahoma to begin dissertation research in linguistic fieldwork and kinship studies among the Pawnees. Weltfish returned to Columbia for the 1928–29 school year, and she went back to study the Pawnee during the summer. Although she completed and defended her dissertation in 1929, she did not receive her degree officially until 1950 because she could not afford the $4,000 she estimated that it would have cost her to publish her dissertation, then a requirement to receive the PHD degree at Columbia. At first glance, $4,000 may seem like a rather high estimate. But as Bernstein (2002:555) noted, Columbia then required candidates who did not publish their dissertations in other venues to submit 75 printed and bound copies to the university librarian, to be sent to other institutions. Moreover, each graduate division at the university required additional copies for their faculty. The division to which anthropology belonged thus required a set of printed galleys in advance of the final examination and a later deposit of up to 45 bound copies for distribution to the divisional faculty members. These requirements could be satisfied by reprints, if the dissertation was published. Galley proofs were accepted as evidence that the dissertation was in the process of being published. For Weltfish, because her dissertation was not published, she would have needed to provide up to 120 bound copies of her 265-page manuscript to receive her degree, hence presumably her estimate of $4,000. One would no doubt have a revolt today if we asked our candidates for 120 bound copies of their dissertations before granting their degree! When Columbia changed its policy and began accepting fewer and less expensive mimeographed dissertations in 1950, Weltfish finally was able to be awarded her degree for the long finished and approved document, “The Interrelation of Technique and Design in North American Basketry.” In 1930 Gene Weltfish received a Social Science Research Fellow- ship, allowing her to live with the Pawnees for a year; she also visited the Cochiti, the Rio Grande Pueblos, the Hopis, the San Carlos Apaches, the Jicarillas, and the Mescaleros, studying their basket weaving, pottery making, and tobacco pipe construction. It was as well during this period

Women Entering the Field | 107 that she became involved with regional archaeology and archaeologists, leading to her becoming one of the founding “mothers” of the SAA in 1934. In 1935, Boas invited her to lecture in the graduate program at Colum- bia. Thus in the fall of 1936 she started teaching classes in archaeology, technology, and linguistics. Because of her interests in archaeological technology, Samuel Dellinger and Mark Harrington had her perform analyses of some of the prehistoric Ozark Bluff Dweller textiles that they had excavated in Arkansas, and she provided similar analytical services for other archaeologists. During World War II, she remained at Columbia and kept teaching there after the war. In 1952, Weltfish went public with a charge that the United States was using chemical weapons in the Korean War. Because North Korea was a communist nation, Joseph McCarthy’s Senate Internal Security Subcommittee subpoenaed her and, based on her testimony, accused her of being a communist. After a bitter battle with Columbia’s trustees over this issue, Weltfish was toldher contract as a lecturer would not be renewed in 1953. Without an official PHD degree, she was still an untenured lecturer after teaching two decades at Columbia. She taught at the University of Nebraska from 1954 to 1961, at Fairleigh Dickinson University from 1961 to 1972, and then in other regional universities until her death in 1980. While Weltfish was not actively involved in archaeological field research, hes did provide technical analyses of archaeological materials (primarily textiles and basketry) for several field projects. Additionally, as one ofthe six women who were founding “mothers” of the SAA in December 1934, she should be included here. And of particular note, she is an excellent example of the kind of treatment to which women in academia (and Americanist archaeology) were being subjected.

SOUTHWEST Eileen Emily Windsor [Alves] (1873–1935) and her sister Gertrude Mabel Windsor [Smith] (1877–1945) were very involved with amateur surveys and excavations in the El Paso area of Texas and southeastern New

108 | Women Entering the Field Mexico. The Windsor family (including four sisters) came to El Paso from Lymington, England, in 1883 (Davis 2000:1). Eileen married Reu- ben Burrow Alves in 1910, and Gertrude married David Bruce Smith in 1899. Both sisters were active members of the Texas Archeological and Paleontological Society, the El Paso Archaeological Society (where Ger- trude was a founding member in 1922), and the Archaeological Society of New Mexico, holding offices in these organizations, as well as being involved in the organization of the El Paso society. In 1924 Eileen and Gertrude invited Hattie and Burt Cosgrove to visit archaeological sites in the Three Rivers area of New Mexico, and in the spring of 1925 they all were involved in several weeks of excavation there (Davis 1995:41). According to Davis (2000:8), “This was the first time ever that an amateur society financed professional nvestigations.”i While this statement ignores the financing of various Americanist archaeological projects by amateurs as much as two decades earlier by various AIA chapters, it clearly indicates the importance of Eileen’s research for the regional archaeological community. Eileen Alves continued to work on short occasions at other archaeological sites in the area. In the fall of 1926 she assisted the Cosgroves in excavations at the Mimbres culture Swarts site. Again in the fall of 1927 Eileen helped the Cosgroves dig some Basketmaker sites near Las Cruces. In 1928 Eileen assisted the Cosgroves in surveying 104 caves and cliff house ruins in the El Paso area; she wrote up some of her observations in 1932. In 1929 she helped in excavation work in some caves near El Paso, working with Victor Smith for the West Texas Historical and Scientific Society, which she wrote up the following year. Eileen conducted excavations at the Hot Well site in New Mexico between 1929 and 1931 for the El Paso society, which she wrote up in 1932. In 1930 Eileen was the vice chairman of the Social Science Section for the Western Division meetings of the AAAS. A. V. Kidder invited Eileen to participate in the 1931 Pecos Conference, a particularly important year as it was the official opening of the Laboratory of Anthropology in Santa Fe (Woodbury 1993:120). In the fall of 1933 Eileen assisted the Cosgroves in excavating at Mimbres Pendleton Ruin. Gertrude and Eileen helped

Women Entering the Field | 109 Hattie and Burt Cosgrove conduct an archaeological site survey near El Paso in 1934 (Davis 1995:42, 48, 53, 56, 69, 75, 79; Davis 2000). Although overlooked by other discipline histories, the Windsor sisters were active amateurs, responsible not only for forming local societies but also for locating and excavating sites, working with professionals (such as A. V. Kidder, E. B. Sayles, and W. S. Stallings Jr.), and publishing on their finds. In her collections, Eileen Alves “meticulously cataloged and identified every specimen. . . . Each item was identified with a catalog number that corresponded to a card file with information on the time, where and how it was obtained, and any other relevant information” (Davis 2000:5). After her death, these collections were dispersed to various museums in the region. Frances Emma Watkins (1899–1987) was born in Denver and received her BA from the University of Denver in 1929. Her first publication, in 1929, was on the prehistoric pottery she had excavated in 1928 in the Jemez region with a University of New Mexico field school. She, Eva M. Horner of Chicago, and Isabel T. Kelly of Berkeley received scholarships and were assigned to work in the Pecos area under A. V. Kidder’s direction (Cole et al. 1929:571). After a month of training, Kidder decided to put the three in charge of excavations at Tecolote, New Mexico, which thus became one of the early all-female directed projects in Americanist archaeology. The Tecolote work was the basis of two papers Watkins wrote on Americanist archaeology as a career for women. In the first, she wrote about her fieldwork experiences at Tecolote, observing that “Archeology as a profession for women is new, at least in America” (Watkins 1930:13). In the second article, she advised women thinking of becoming involved in field archaeology, in particular reference to stratigraphic excavation and careful recording: “Women are, I think, peculiarly adapted to these new methods of excavation and research. In Europe, they have long had a place of their own” (Watkins 1931:175).

There is great opportunity for specialization in archeology, for there are many branches and subdivisions. . . . The best preparation is to

110 | Women Entering the Field take as much general work as possible, and then with such a background choose your specialty. One thing is pretty certain — a college education is practically required, with a basis of scientific courses: anthropology, of course, and the scientific languages (French and German), Spanish if you intend to work in America; then geology, geography, zoology, and history. Field training, formerly considered unnecessary and not as yet a requirement, is becoming more and more important. (177)

Watkins took a job as a curator at the Southwest Museum in Los Ange- les in 1930, while she worked on her PHD at the University of Southern California. She returned to work at Kinishba in Arizona in 1936 and the Chaco Canyon field camp in 1937. She received her PHD in 1942 for “Crafts and Industries of the American Indian Women of California and the Southwest.” She spent much of her career at the Southwest Museum, where she wrote four dozen articles about American Indian artifacts, mainly for the museum’s journal, Masterkey. She later became a curator at the San Marino Museum in California, where she ended her active research. Ann McCheane Axtell [Morris] (1900–1945) was an Omaha native who became interested in American Indians at the age of 6 (Morris 1933:15). She met her future husband, Earl Halstead Morris, in 1914 when she was visiting a cousin at Shiprock, Arizona (Woodbury 1993:63). Earl was the son of a Southwest relic collector, Scott N. Morris, who lived in Farmington, New Mexico, and was the first to have dug certain portions of Pueblo Bonito along with the Wetherills (Lister and Lister 1968:7). Ann went to Smith College, graduating in 1922 with a degree in history (as no archaeology major was available). She then participated in the American School of Prehistoric Research excavations of a Mousterian site in France (Levine 1994b:38). She married Earl in 1923, and they had an archaeological honeymoon, visiting Frederick Hodge’s excavations at Hawikuh near Zuni and then Neil Judd’s diggings at Chaco Canyon. They went on to Mummy Cave in Canyon del Muerto to begin their own excavations. On weekends, the two slung their cameras and shovels

Women Entering the Field | 111 over their shoulders and took off to explore (Lister and Lister 1968:115, 120). In 1924 Earl joined the Carnegie Institution of Washington project at Chichen Itza in the Yucatan, and for the next five years, they worked at that site. There Ann reassembled and copied the mural friezes at the Temple of the Warriors in 1925 and contributed to other components of the excavation (Morris 1931). Ann and Earl subsequently returned to work at the Aztec pueblo ruins in New Mexico, where Ann made a special study of cave paintings and pictographs. Irwin-Williams (1990:12–13) observed that while Ann “collaborated with her husband on virtually all of his work and is reported to have written significant parts of the technical reports, her own best known credited publications are both non-technical and designed for the general public: Digging in Yucatan, 1931, and Digging in the Southwest, 1933.” These two books received enthusiastic reviews; in fact, not too long ago, Barbara Tedlock (1995:268) called the 1933 volume “the greatest recruiting device ever written for archaeology.” In addition to her popularized books, Ann Morris also wrote technical publications. Earl Morris acknowledged his debt to her assistance, noting that Ann was “my companion on all subsequent expeditions, herself an archaeologist and an able collaborator in my work” (Lange and Leonard 1985:11). Linda Butchart [Roberts] (1904–73) was born in Denver. She was one of the wives who contributed significantly in the field, but otherwise is missing from the credits. She met archaeologist Frank H. H. Roberts in 1923 when she was a freshman at the University of Denver and took some courses in anthropology from him. They were married in 1927 and spent their honeymoon digging Shabik’eschee Village on a mesa in Chaco Canyon. She then spent the next 15 years in field camps, keeping the field catalog, drawing pottery, and writing artifact reports (Stephen- son 1967:84–85; Fowler 2000:305). She was an active participant in the Pecos Conferences during this period as well (Woodbury 1993:20, 109). Clara Lee Fraps [Tanner] (1905–97) was born in Biscoe, North Caro- lina. When she was 2, her family moved to Tucson, where she spent the rest of her life, except for a brief interlude in Clifton, Arizona, from 1913

112 | Women Entering the Field to 1917 (Lytle-Webb 1988:350). In 1924 she entered the University of Arizona, planning to major in journalism, but after taking a class with Byron Cummings, she shifted to archaeology and completed a double major. She attended the University of Arizona field school, her first fieldwork, in 1926 (Tisdale 1993:311). Dean Byron Cummings then recruited Fraps, along with Emil Haury and Florence Hawley, into the department’s new master’s program, with the promise of academic jobs the next year if they obtained their degrees. Hence the three were the department’s first grad students in 1928, with Clara writing “Hopiland,” which she subsequently changed to “Archaeological Survey of Arizona” for her official copy. While Fraps took part in the Pecos Conference for 1927, she accepted the offer of a job teaching classical archaeology for the university in 1928, and spent that summer in Europe getting ready to teach Greek and Roman archaeology (Lytle-Webb 1988:350; Parezo 2003:234). She continued working for the Department of Anthropology, taking part in the summer excavation programs as well. Fraps also continued fieldworkin northern Arizona in 1930, where she did archaeological and ethnological research at San Carlos and Tanque Verde ruins. But she reported being used as a babysitter by Cummings for at least part of the 1930 season, a rather demeaning use of a trained field researcher. Her teaching job also had its uncertainties: in 1933 she was laid off because of shortage of funds, but Cummings managed to rehire her the next year. In 1936 Fraps married John Frederick Tanner, who had a craft store in Tucson (Lytle-Webb 1988:352). Clara began helping her husband out and changed her research more into regional cultural anthropology. In 1937 when Emil Haury took over the department, he asked her to develop a course on Southwest ethnology and archaeology. This incentive, plus the kind of treatment that she had previously received in her archaeological fieldwork, led her to shift intoa career focusing on Southwest Indian arts, crafts, and ethnology, a teaching and research focus she kept until she retired in 1978. Florence May Hawley [Senter] [Ellis] (1906–91) was born in Cananea,

Women Entering the Field | 113 Sonora, Mexico, where her father, Fred, was a mining chemist. After the outbreak of the Mexican Revolution, her family moved to Los Angeles for a few months and then on to Miami, Arizona, in 1913. There she was introduced to archaeology by her father, who spent his spare time excavating ruins around their home. These excavations were conducted by permission of the mining company on their lands in the Miami area, and Byron Cummings provided the family with guidance in technique and note taking for these projects (Frisbie 1975:2, 1991:93). Hawley entered the University of Arizona in 1923, where she intended to major in art. She had trouble in American history, so Cummings suggested that she substitute an archaeology course to meet this academic requirement (Irwin-Williams 1990:22). She graduated in 1927 with a major in Eng- lish and a minor in anthropology. Cummings then recruited her along with Clara Lee Fraps and Emil Haury into the new master’s program in anthropology. Hawley did her thesis on Gila Polychrome ceramics from sites near Miami. With the help of her father, she did the first chemical analysis on black paint decoration on this pottery (carbon vs. manganese). Using this technique, she was able to identify three periods of Gila Polychrome. Because she finished her thesis in 1928, she was able to start teaching at the University of Arizona at an annual salary of $1,500. In the spring term of 1929–30 Hawley joined Andrew Ellicott Doug- lass’s first class in dendrochronology. Douglass offered Anthropology 211: Tree Ring Interpretations, to 14 students and 2 auditors. Among the students were Clara Lee Fraps, Marie Gunst, Murel Hanna, Florence Hawley, and Della Russell. The auditors were Winifred Gladwin and her husband, Harold (Nash 1999:73). Hawley began working at Chetro Ketl in 1929. She served as Doug- lass’s assistant in 1931–32 and became proficient at dendrochronology. When the Depression forced faculty layoffs at Arizona, and Haury, Fraps, and Hawley were let go, Florence decided to take her savings and complete a doctorate at the University of Chicago. Based on her field experience at Chetro Ketl, she had the first draft of a dissertation in hand when she arrived in Chicago (Frisbie 1991:93). She received her

114 | Women Entering the Field degree in 1934 for “The Significance of the Dated Prehistory of Chetro Ketl, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico,” which was the second by a woman in anthropology at Chicago, after Charlotte Gower. While at Chicago, Hawley supported herself by doing dendrochronological analyses for TVA projects in Kentucky and Tennessee. She was then hired at the University of New Mexico, where she stayed until she retired in 1971. Between 1937 and 1941, in an arrangement worked out with Fay-Cooper Cole, she was seconded to the University of Chicago half-time to teach and conduct research in dendrochronology (Frisbie 1975:5). In 1935 she was one of the first four women nominated as fellows by the Society for American Archaeology, a signal recognition of her contributions to the field by her male colleagues. Although Hawley was a pioneer in archaeological dendrochronology, she continued to suffer discrimination. She was promoted after male colleagues who had been working less time at the University of New Mexico. And even in the mid-1960s, she was earning less than $10,000 a year, when all of her male colleagues were earning far more (Frisbie 1991:93). She told one of her students, Florence Cline Lister, that the “only way to break into the discipline was to find some aspect of the work that men did not enjoy doing and then to become a specialist in it,” and she advised Lister that “Your best bet is to marry an archaeologist” (Lister 1997a:5, 7). Florence Hawley was clearly a realist. Hawley married Donovan Senter in 1936. They collaborated for a few years on ethnological research of Spanish Americans in New Mexico before divorcing in 1947. In 1948 she met Bruce T. Ellis, a historian who was participating in an archaeological field school at Mesa Verde. Bruce decided to take additional classes at the University of New Mexico, and they married in 1950. He then secured the job of curator of collections at the Museum of New Mexico and remained there until he retired in 1967. Florence Hawley had published the Field Manual of Prehistoric South- western Pottery Types in 1936, which served as a standard reference in the field for several years. She ontinuedc working at Chaco Canyon until 1940, then worked at Taos in 1941 and 1942, ultimately working in 11 out

Women Entering the Field | 115 of the 15 University of New Mexico archaeological field seasons since 1928. She directed the summer archaeological field schools during the 1950s and 1960s, perhaps the most notable of which was the discovery and excavation of San Gabriel de Yungue, the first Spanish capital of New Mexico, dating from the 1600s (Frisbie 1991:93). This research led to her serving as the president of the American Society for Ethnohistory in 1969. Retirement in 1971 did little to slow her down. Florence continued to excavate and to write, concentrating on the Gallina culture of the Jemez Plateau and early Tewa occupation of the Chama River valley. By the 1980s she was working around the Ghost Ranch of Abiquiu, where she continued to offer field training.The Ghost Ranch constructed a large museum complex bearing her name and housing her extensive library and archaeological and ethnological collections. Florence Hawley Ellis was clearly a pioneer in applying techniques of chemical analysis, dendrochronology, ethnohistory, and ethnoarcheology to her research. Dorothy Louise Strouse [Keur] (1904–89) was born in New York City and entered Hunter College in 1921. She worked as an assistant to Edward Sanford Burgess, a professor of botany, who also offered a few courses in anthropology at Hunter. Among her erstwhile scholarly duties, she was delegated to bring a bowl of soup each day from the lunchroom to his office. After graduation in 1925, Burgess offered her the job as his lab assistant, with the proviso that she had to return half of her salary each month so that he could purchase Indian artifacts for the Hunter College collections (James 1988:182). One of her jobs was to take students on field trips to the American Museum of Natural History, where she explained the exhibits to them. The museum director, Henry Fairfield Osborn, overheard her tours and urged her to go to Columbia University for an advanced degree. She enrolled at Columbia and completed her master’s degree in 1928 with her thesis “A Study of Archaeological Maize” on the possible origins of corn. That same year she married John Y. Keur. Because Burgess had just retired at Hunter College, she was offered a job there teaching anthropology.

116 | Women Entering the Field While teaching, Dorothy continued in graduate work at Columbia University, because W. Duncan Strong had just arrived, invigorating the archaeology curriculum, and her husband was at Columbia, working on his doctorate in botany, which he completed in 1934. She went out to the University of New Mexico field school the summer of 1933 and worked at Chetro Ketl. Her first field season she wrote two reports for the School of American Research in Santa Fe: “Observations of Exca- vations of Chetro Ketl” and “The Excavation of a Cliff Cavity, Chaco Canyon.” This was also the basis of her first paper at the SAA in 1935, “A Prehistoric Example of Erosion Control,” the only paper by a woman at the SAA meetings that year (Guthe 1936b:316). In 1939 and 1940 Keur worked on Navaho sites on Big Bend Mesa northeast of Santa Fe, the beginning of her PHD focus and her later fascination with Navaho studies. She completed her doctorate at Colum- bia in 1942 with “Big Bend Mesa: An Archaeological Study in Navaho Acculturation, 1745–1812.” This was a strong piece of research and was published as the very first memoir for the SAA (Keur 1941). In this dissertation, she examined Navaho acculturation, a fashionable topic in the late 1930s, but from the perspective of archaeological data, and she integrated historic and ethnographic data. I noted the departmental reluctance earlier to support publication of women’s dissertation work, because it was felt that what scarce funds were available should be dedicated to publishing men’s dissertations, as men were presumed to be the breadwinners. In this case, Dorothy Keur herself bore all the costs associated with publishing her dissertation in the SAA memoir. Keur taught at Hunter until she retired in 1965. The apparent extended time of completion of her doctoral degree (1928 to 1942) was due to her very heavy teaching load (Kehoe 1998:188). Most of her research was centered around Navaho studies in archaeology and ethnohistory, but in the 1950s, she and her husband became involved in research in the Dutch West Indies and the Netherlands, where she was responsible for cultural anthropological components of the projects. Katharine Bartlett (1907–2001) was born in Denver. She wanted to go to Smith College for her undergraduate work, but she could not afford

Women Entering the Field | 117 it, so she took her undergraduate degree at the University of Denver with Etienne Bernardeau Renaud, finishing in 1929. She was hired as an “assistant” in anthropology in her senior year, and she kept this job through 1930. In the summer of 1928 she went to work at the University of New Mexico field school (Anonymous 1928:142, Babcock and Parezo 1988:171). She then continued graduate work at Denver, receiving her MA in anthropology in 1930 (Anonymous 2001:32; Cook 2010:155). Bartlett took a position as curator at the Museum of Northern Arizona in 1930 just a year after it was founded, and worked there for the next half-century, serving as its first curator of anthropology and archaeology from 1930 to 1952. Her interests were recognized early by her male colleagues. She had been a participant in the Pecos Conference sessions since 1929, and in 1935 she was one of the first four women elected as a fellow of the Society for American Archaeology. Because she had training in physical anthropology, she was asked to analyze the human skeletal material from many museum and National Park Service excavation projects. She also carried out archaeological fieldwork in northern Ari- zona with Harold S. Colton from the 1930s through the 1950s, and later conducted archaeological surveys of Glen Canyon prior to its flooding as a reservoir. Bartlett became interested in Paleo-Indian materials, and in her 1946 Pecos Conference talk, she correctly demonstrated that, despite what Frank Roberts had argued in 1937, there was no gap between Fol- som and later cultures (Woodbury 1993:154). Her work on the artifacts from the Tolchaco gravels of the Little Colorado River valley was some of the earliest research into Paleo-Indian occupation of the Colorado Plateau (Anonymous 2001:32). Bartlett never married, perhaps avoid- ing the trap of being an invisible “wife” that way, but she did live for 30 years with archaeologist Gene Field Foster (Cook 2010:155). Parezo and Hardin (1993:287) argue that Katharine Bartlett succeeded while some of her compatriots failed because she selected small projects based on accessible museum collections, with limited research goals, so that the projects could be worked on intermittently, spaced between her other curatorship obligations.

118 | Women Entering the Field Mabel Virginia Harding (1909–89) was from San Diego, where she studied with Edgar Hewett at the State College in San Diego, although Mathien (1992) indicates that she received her degree from the Uni- versity of New Mexico in 1930. Because Hewett was associated with both schools, it was relatively easy to switch between the two institutions in anthropology. She took part in the University of New Mexico field schools in 1928, 1929, 1930, and 1932. She wrote up her 1929 work, “Architectural Details of Chetro Ketl,” as a summary report for Hewett. She lived in the San Diego area for the next six decades, with a break to serve in the Women’s Army Corps during World War II. She continued to be avocationally involved in archaeology, taking part in several salvage projects on La Jolla II culture sites near San Diego (Harding 1951), and continuing six years later in a note in American Antiquity. Edna Belle Thuner [Woodbury] (1890–1935) was born in Detroit. She received her MA from Radcliffe in 1913 in history, after earning a BA in literature at the University of Michigan in 1912. She served as the head mistress of the Eastern Liggett School in Detroit from 1914 until the early 1930s. She is listed as a member of the Detroit chapter of the AIA from the teens onward. At the 1926 annual meetings of the American Anthropological Association, she gave a paper, “Is There a Place for Prehistory in Secondary Schools?” In 1926 she married George Woodbury, who shared her interest in prehistory. In 1927 they went to the American School of Classical Research term in Greece and then stayed on to conduct field survey work. In 1928 they went on the American School of Prehistoric Research excavation project in Palestine, where they worked Shukbah Cave, Judea, for Dorothy Garrod’s first excavation there (Bar-Yosef and Callander 2004:391n26). The next year they went to the University of Vienna, where George apparently received an MD, while Edna secured her own PHD in European Paleolithic archaeology, with a dissertation on the Upper Paleolithic cultures of Western and Central Europe. George Woodbury was a curator of the State Museum in Denver from 1930 to 1933. Edna spent one season as a volunteer at the Chaco excavations in 1930. They worked jointly on papers on southwestern

Women Entering the Field | 119 archaeology, reporting on survey work and analyzing burials. In 1934 they joined J. O. Brew’s Awatovi project staff at the Peabody Museum. Because Edna died in 1935, there are no contributions from her listed for the Awatovi investigations, but presumably she was interested in the project lithics, research later taken over by other Peabody Museum students. Emma L. Reh [Stevenson] (1896–1982) was one of the original 31 signers or founders of the Society for American Archaeology. She was born in Austria, but the family moved to the States, and she received her BA in journalism in 1917 from George Washington University. She worked as a chemist for the U.S. Department of Agriculture for three years before joining the Science Service as a writer in 1924 (Gershanek and Ask 1925:271). The Science Service was established in 1921 through joint efforts of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Research Council, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, in association with the noted newspaperman Edward Willis Scripps, to promote science. When Reh married Thomas Stevenson in 1926, she resigned from the Science Service and moved with him to Sanant, Texas. However, within weeks they separated, and she moved to Mexico. She remained a regular Science Service correspondent, submitting more than 50 articles and accompanying photographs between 1926 and 1935, mainly related to archaeology and including reports on the Monte Alban, Maya, Mixtec, Teotihuacan, Totonac, and Aztec prehistoric cultures. Although most of Reh’s writing was based on reporting of the excavations of other archaeologists, she did get involved in some fieldwork herself, joining a Yucatan–British Honduras–Chiapas expedition in 1933. Returning to the States in 1935, she obtained a job with the U.S. Soil Con- servation Service. She continued in more anthropological fieldwork for the SCS, going to the Gila River, Utah, in 1936, and the Ft. Hall Indian reservation, Idaho, in 1937 (National Research Council 1938:81). Her research addressed food consumption and related patterns or problems in various indigenous communities, including the Navahos. In 1946 she joined the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, doing similar nutritional studies in Latin America. While her actual

120 | Women Entering the Field fieldwork was negligible, she wasan important promoter of archaeological research in several scientific venues during the 1920s and 1930s. Atlanta-born Emily Cleveland Davis (1898–1973) was Emma Reh’s boss at the Science Service and the staff writerassigned to cover archaeological and anthropological news in the 1920s and 1930s. She also contributed articles to Science and El Palacio and wrote two books on North American archaeology. She left the Science Service during World War II to work for the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Hulda Esther Penner [Haury] (1904–87) was born in Hillsboro, Kansas. She met her future husband, Emil Walter Haury, when she was only 6, when their Mennonite families got together for a religious celebration (Willey 1994:429). Hulda taught elementary school at Brewster and Newton, Kansas, from 1923 to 1925, after spending two years at Bethel College. She became engaged to Haury in 1926 and accompanied him on an archaeological survey of the Grand Canyon. They also attended the First Pecos Conference in 1927. Immediately after Emil received his MA from the University of Arizona in 1928, the two were married, and they spent their honeymoon at Elden Pueblo and Turkey Hill Pueblo, Arizona, where Hulda helped with the excavation of burials (Bostwick 2006:222). Hulda entered the University of Arizona in 1928, but did not complete her BA in music and German until 1961, after her children were grown (Thompson et al. 1997:155). She worked at the Point of Pines (Arizona) project for 15 years and served as the official archaeological hostess wife for nearly 60 years (Willey 1994:428). These duties included “personnel and logistics management, counseling, problem solving, staff support, ever-present practicality, and good cheer” (Anonymous 1987:4). Ruth Sears [Chute] (1905–86) was born in Boston and received her BA from Smith College in 1927. She then participated in various expeditions of the American School of Prehistoric Research (ASPR) in Palestine and Yugoslavia in the late 1920s and early 1930s. She entered Radcliffe in 1928, and based on her ASPR work, she received her MA in anthropology in 1933. She continued on in the PHD program through 1935, but did not obtain a degree. In 1934 she married Richard Chute, MD. Ruth

Women Entering the Field | 121 also served as a volunteer at the Fogg Museum. In 1936–37 she made a study of pottery and other artifacts from the 1927–31 Semitic Museum excavations of Nuzi near Kirkuk, Iraq. This analysis was published in the site report in 1939, in a chapter by Ruth on the ceramics. She then helped J. O. Brew with the analysis of his pottery from the Southwest for his 1946 Alkali Ridge report. Living in Brookline, Massachusetts, she served as one of the Radcliffe College overseers from 1955 to 1961 and as a trustee of Smith College from 1963 to 1968. Although not much of an Americanist archaeologist, she was of particular help to Brew in his ceramic analyses from southwestern sites. Winifred Jones [MacCurdy] [Gladwin] (1889–1965) was raised in Santa Barbara. Her college choice took her east to New York, and she met John Thomson MacCurdy, a professor of psychology and psychiatry, then at Cornell Medical School and also a fellow in pathology at Johns Hopkins. They married in 1914 and soon welcomed their first child, Nora, who later did some Americanist archaeology. In 1922 they separated, and Winifred moved back to Santa Barbara. There she began collaborating with Harold Sterling Gladwin, a retired New York stockbroker, who shared her interest in southwestern prehistory. They bought a small museum in Globe, Arizona, based on an ancient pueblo, and began restoring the ruins and building a research institute there, mainly funded by Win- ifred. The Gila Pueblo complex was finished in 1933. With that project completed, the two of them finally divorced their spouses, indicating on their divorce petitions that they had not lived with their spouses for more than five years. Winifred and Harold then married and moved to Globe. They developed a biologically inspired taxonomy to establish a binomial system of pottery type designations, with color or surface treatment at the “genus” level and detail and geographic location at the “species” level, and set about defining hundreds of pottery types. The work of the Gladwins resulted in the restructuring of the classification of prehistoricsouthwestern cultures as a whole. Although the work on ceramics was jointly authored, and usually with Winifred as first author, most archaeological histories (such as Willey and Sabloff

122 | Women Entering the Field 1974, 1980, 1993) uniformly refer to these significant methodological contributions just as “his”; Winifred’s major contributions thus become invisible (Irwin-Williams 1990:13). Employing Winifred’s funds, the Gila Foundation was an important research institution from 1928 until it closed in 1955. Winifred’s daughter, Nora MacCurdy Gladwin [Fairbank] (1914–before 1999), was briefly involved with southwestern archaeological research as well. When Winifred and Harold were married in 1933, Nora, then 19, changed her name to Gladwin. At Gila Pueblo, Nora ran a petrology lab for a few years, working on ceramic technology. She had been trained at Bryn Mawr, with a BA in geology and petrology in 1935, and came to Gila Pueblo in the mid-1930s to pursue her specialty in pottery analysis from the compositional standpoint (Haury 1988:31). Her major publication from this period was the petrological analysis of pottery at Snaketown (Gladwin et al. 1937). She continued her petrographic work for many years at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. Anna Shepard, Florence Hawley, and she opened up an entirely new method of ceramic analysis in the Southwest. Sara Anne Goddard (1895–1954) was from Phillipsburg, Kansas, and she graduated from the University of Nebraska in 1923. After teaching in the Albuquerque schools, she enrolled at the University of New Mexico (Hurt 2000:164). Goddard had an active early interest in archaeology, becoming a member of the Albuquerque chapter of the Archaeological Institute of America and serving as its secretary from 1928 to 1937. She participated in the University of New Mexico summer excavations in 1929, 1930, and 1931. In 1929 she explored 13 of the talus mounds with Florence Hawley. She also began collecting Zuni plant names in the Tseh So ruins area to include in her 1930 thesis, “The Zuni Language as a Means of Interpreting Pueblo Indian Cultures.” She excavated several burials at Una Vida in 1931. At that point, not allowed to continue for a PHD by the tacit policies of the Department of Anthropology because she was female, Goddard left the university and secured a job teaching social sciences at Albuquerque High School. From 1932 through 1937, as the founder and sponsor of

Women Entering the Field | 123 the Albuquerque High School Archaeological Society, she supervised her students’ excavation of a large circular kiva at the Tunque pueblo ruins. She reported on the first season in El Palacio (1933) and updated the professional community on her findings in regional meeting reports. Goddard sponsored the Albuquerque High School Archaeological Society until 1949. She also had an active archaeology lab and small museum at the school (Hurt 2000:162, 164). In Goddard one sees a woman very interested in archaeology, but as was typical of Hewett’s women students at New Mexico, she was shuffledout of the program after her master’s. Nevertheless she supervised an excavation project on her own for nearly two decades.

WEST COAST Elizabeth Warder Crozer [Campbell] (1893–1971) was born in Beach Haven, New Jersey (according to what she reported to the National Research Council, 1938:15, 1940:23), or in Upland, Pennsylvania (according to Warren 2004:83), and spent her childhood in the Philadelphia area. At some point she visited Egypt, and in high school she spent time with her uncle, Herman Hilprecht, a noted University of Pennsylvania Assyriologist, who had a number of Near Eastern artifacts in his apart- ment (Warren 2004:83). While serving as a nurse in World War I, she met William Henry Campbell from Los Angeles, whose lungs had been damaged by mustard gas. They were married in 1920, and four years later they moved out to the desert near Twentynine Palms, California. At their campsite, they found potsherds and projectile points in the sand dunes (Campbell 1931; Warren 2004:84). Until World War II, they conducted archaeological surveys in the California and Nevada deserts. They sought and received training and supervision from Charles H. Amsden and Edwin F. Walker of the Los Angeles Southwest Museum. Elizabeth’s family back in Philadelphia was well-to-do, and the money she inherited in 1926 allowed Elizabeth and William to build a house, donate land for the first public school in Twentynine Palms, pay for road improvements, contribute to the salary of one archaeologist at the Southwest Museum, and support their avocation, desert archaeology

124 | Women Entering the Field (Warren 2004:85). They built a Desert Branch of the Southwest Museum, begun in 1929 and completed in 1934. In the meantime, they continued surveying in the Mohave Desert and Great Basin and started publishing on the evidence of early inhabitants. As Warren (2004:85) writes, “By the mid-1930s, Elizabeth Campbell had become a professional archaeologist, her archaeology became problem oriented, her articles more sophisticated, and she was collaborating with both geologists and archaeologists.” In the surveys of the early lithic sites, she did the writing and lab analysis of the materials, while her husband did the mapping (Antevs 1945:380). Elizabeth Campbell accurately dated the San Dieguito culture sites in the area to the terminal Pleistocene and early Holocene, based on what one might view as an early form of environmental archaeology, correlat- ing the artifact associations with ancient shorelines of Pleistocene Lake Mojave in their surveys in 1934 (E. Campbell 1936; E. Campbell and W. Campbell 1937; Warren 2005:170). However, a museum archaeologist, Malcolm J. Rogers, who revisited the area in 1936, estimated the age of the San Dieguito culture to be only about 4,000 years old. Because he was the professional, and she was female as well as an amateur, Rogers forced the dismissal of Campbell’s approach and sidelined her estimate of the proper antiquity of these assemblages for nearly 30 years. Warren (2004:85) points out that summaries of the archaeology of the region by well-known experts, such as Frank H. H. Roberts in 1940 and H. Marie Wormington in 1949, dismissed Campbell’s early dates for the Lake Mojave assemblages based solely on Rogers’s commentary. But as Warren (2005:172) observed, “today, however, her dates are considered essentially correct and her approach valid.” Certainly the rejection of her ideas by the professional community was a bitter pill for her to swal- low, but she kept on working in the area through the late 1940s, adding information on other early sites in the Pinto Basin and Mojave Desert. Fortunately, Rogers was proven wrong and Campbell’s analyses were accepted shortly before she died, so she did see her vindication. Sara Moffatt [Schenck] (1888–1970) was born in Kansas City, Mis- souri. In 1911 she married William Egbert Schenck, who had business

Women Entering the Field | 125 interests in the Orient, and the couple lived in Hong Kong and Japan for the next decade, returning to live in Twentynine Palms in the early 1920s. The pair shared archaeological and anthropological interests and were said to be inseparable in their research (Gifford 1957:326). Sara Schenck entered the University of California–Berkeley and obtained her BA in 1923. She continued on and worked with fellow graduate student Theodora Kracaw Brown Kroeber on developing cultural comparative methods, a predecessor of the Berkeley trait list studies (Clements, Schenck, and Brown 1926). Schenck finished her master’s thesis, “The Stars in the Culture of the American Indian,” at Berkeley in 1924. During this period Sara’s husband had been named honorary curator of the Museum of Anthropology at Berkeley. He wrote up the final report on the Emoryville shellmounds, and he also wrote on archaeological surveys conducted in the central valley of California and the Dalles-Deschutes area of the Columbia River. Sara worked with him on these projects, although only his name appears on the publications. She and Edward Winslow Gifford wrote a manuscript on their research on Karok ethnobotany, completed in 1939, which was finally published in 1952. While there is little direct archaeological publication evidence for Sara Schenck, commentary makes it clear that she was a significant but unacknowledged contributor to at least half a dozen of her husband’s survey reports. Frederica Annis Lopez de Leo de Laguna (1906–2004) was born in Ann Arbor, the daughter of philosophy professors. Upon graduating in economics from Bryn Mawr in 1927, she received a Bryn Mawr European fellowship. Before using it, she spent one year at Columbia University. In 1928 she excavated at an American School of Prehistoric Research field school in the Dordogne. She became engaged to a mining engineer from Wales and took additional coursework in Paris and London to be near him. In the spring of 1929 she traveled to Copenhagen, where she met Dr. Therkel Mathiassen, who invited her to work with him on a Greenland dig that summer. She had planned to stay only six weeks, but ended up remaining nearly six months. During this Greenland project, de Laguna discovered her

126 | Women Entering the Field independence, as she wrote in letters to her family: “I am thoroughly enjoying myself, in a way that I have never experienced before.” She became more concerned about her impending marriage: “I can’t bear the thought of giving up all my intellectual work and living in Wales all my life” (July 17, 1929, De Laguna 1977:160). She became more certain of this as the field season went on: “One thing that has happened to me is that I have grown much more independent. I have had to take care of myself so much that it has made me very self-centered, I’m afraid, and it will be hard for me to accommodate myself to another’s wishes, if they are contrary to mine,” and she finally concluded that her fiancé “expected the kind of wife I knew I could never be. So in the spring I sadly sent him back his ring” (November 4, 1929, De Laguna 1977:282, 283 postscript). She completed her dissertation, “A Comparison of Eskimo and Palaeolithic Art,” in 1933, the second Americanist archaeological dissertation by a woman at Columbia. To support herself, Frederica held various low-paying jobs at the University of Pennsylvania Museum from 1931 to 1934. But she also began writing adventure and detective stories, such as The Arrow Points to Murder (1937), and used the royalties to finance her archaeological publications (McClellan 1988:40–41). She also took on part-time work with the Soil Conservation Service (Irwin-Williams 1990:13). Finally she secured a job teaching at Bryn Mawr in 1938, where she founded the Department of Anthropology. She taught there until she retired in 1975, with short interludes to work at the Pima Indian reservations in Arizona in 1941 and to serve as a U.S. Navy WAVES (Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service) member in World War II. The significance of De Laguna’s research was quickly recognized by her male colleagues; she was one of four women in the first batch of fellows elected to the SAA in 1935, and in 1938 she was nominated to the SAA council (Guthe 1938:41). She was president of the AAA in 1966–67, and in 1975 she became the first emalef archaeologist elected to the National Academy of Sciences. Her work on the history and culture of little known Arctic civilizations was groundbreaking. Bertha A. Parker [Pallan] [Thurston] [Cody] (1907–78) was an

Women Entering the Field | 127 American Indian whose tribal name was Bertha Ye-was (Dark Cloud), self-reported as being born near Charlotte or St. Clairville, New York (National Research Council 1938:284; Herskovits and Ames 1950:33). She was the daughter of Beulah Tahamont of the Abenaki tribe and Arthur Caswell Parker of the Seneca tribe. Her father became the first president of the Society for American Archaeology. As a child, Bertha took part in her father’s excavations (Harrington 1940:4). Bertha Parker is particular noteworthy, as it was virtually unknown at this period for a First Nations woman to be involved in Americanist archaeology. The search for her archaeological work was in some ways very typical of one of the major problems of searching for the contributions of women archaeologists. Her work was initially listed under her maiden name, Parker, but later I had to ferret out the fact that she had a sequence of marriages. Each time she married, she disappeared from my search base until I stumbled across her new married name. In the mid-1920s she married José Pallan, who died about 1928. She had a daughter, Wilma Mae, who died in an accident at age 17. In the excavations at Gypsum Cave in 1929 with her uncle, Mark R. Harrington, Bertha was at first listed as Bertha Parker Pallan, then later in the work at Gypsum Cave as Mrs. Thurston. In 1929, on that project, Bertha found and excavated her own small pueblo ruin, which she called Scorpion Hill. She took notes and photographs, and later exhibited the materials at the Southwest Museum, where she published a short report on the site. In January 1930, working with Harrington, she is credited with finding the first ground sloth remains in association with humans at Gypsum Cave. Later that year, she married James E. Thurston (1905–1932), former curator of the Calgary Museum and former paleontologist with the British Museum, whom she had apparently met on the Gypsum Cave expedition. After his death she married an Indian “wannabe,” Espera “Oscar” DeCorti, in 1936. DeCorti (1907–78) was of Italian American heritage and was born in Kaplan, Louisiana. However, by the 1920s he had discovered that Holly- wood needed Indian character actors to work in Westerns, so he became Iron Eyes Cody. Hollywood press agents at first opted to hype him as an

128 | Women Entering the Field adopted son of William Cody (Buffalo Bill), but later claimed he was of Cherokee or Cherokee-Cree descent. Bertha’s personal life was really a tangled web of relationships. During the 1920s, Bertha Parker’s fieldwork seems to have consisted first of excavating with her father and then with her uncle. In 1930 she obtained a position with the Southwest Museum in Los Angeles, where she was listed as an assistant in archaeology (National Research Council 1938:284). She wrote a series of articles on archaeological and ethnographic topics for the museum’s journal, Masterkey, first under the name Thurston and then under Cody. When she married Iron Eyes Cody, she began to consult with various Hollywood movie companies on the proper cultural context for Indians in the various Westerns being produced. Her husband acted in more than 100 such films, and she appears in the credits as a consultant on a great many of them. The time demands of movie consulting were such that she resigned her position at the Southwest Museum in 1941, but she continued to be an outside consultant for the museum and to publish occasional articles in the Masterkey through the 1960s. The Archaeologi- cal Survey Association of Southern California was activated in 1947, as a group of volunteers under the aegis of the Southwest Museum, which surveyed and recorded sites, and she is listed on one website as their recording secretary, indicating that she was keeping her foot in the door. Bertha and her husband kept a museum of prehistoric and ethnographic artifacts in their home in Hollywood.

LATIN AMERICA Alice Gallinger Williams [Morley] [Espe] and Frances Louella Rhoads [Morley] were the first and second wives of the archaeologist Sylvanus G. Morley, best known for his Mayan researches, although initially involved in Southwest archaeology. Alice Williams was the granddaughter of Senator Jacob Harold Gallinger from Concord, New Hampshire. Morley had to do some “fast talking” to convince the family that he would make enough money as an archaeologist to support their daughter. Alice and Sylvanus married in 1908 and moved to Santa Fe, where he set up his

Women Entering the Field | 129 home base through the School for American Archaeology. The long field separations did not work well, and the two were divorced in 1915; both continued living in Santa Fe. Alice Morley does not seem to have been involved in archaeology, but her daughter by her second marriage to Theodore Nicolas Espe of Santa Fe, Ann A. Espe [Dietz] (1917–2000), was briefly involved in excavations. A member of the University of New Mexico Class of 1937, Espe participated in the 1936 excavations in Chaco Canyon, excavating Room 4 in site BC 50. Ann seemed more interested in the historical components of the First Americans, writing papers for the WPA in 1936 on “Brief Description of Physical Traits, Linguistic Characteristics, and Areas Occupied by the Indian Groups of New Mexico” and “Brief Description of Land Grants to Indians with a Short Description of Each Pueblo.” She went on to graduate work at the University of New Mexico in 1938, apparently in history, but soon left academia. Ann Espe later married Robert E. Dietz III and owned and operated the Quivara Bookshop and Photo Gallery in Corrales, and afterwards in Albuquerque, from 1964 until her death. After divorcing Alice Williams, Sylvanus Morley married Frances Louella Rhoads [Morley] (1898–1955) in 1927. Frances was from Pekin, Illinois, and had a degree from Northwestern University. While her family had been going to Santa Fe regularly since 1902, she did not meet Sylvanus until 1926 (Rhoads 1955:120). Frances Morley became involved in Sylvanus’s fieldwork as part of a husband-wife team and worked with him in the field for the next 20 years, mainly at Chichen Itza, but also in the Yucatan, Guatemala, and Honduras, “virtually the only way a woman could engage in field archaeology in the 1920s” (Woodbury 1993:19–20). Frances attended the first Pecos Conference with Sylvanus in 1927 and subsequent Pecos conferences. She was the first author on the analysis of the calendrical paradigm-shifting Leyden plaque discovery (Morley and Morley 1939). She also became known for her superb Mayan photographs. The Morleys moved to Merida in 1940; Sylvanus died in 1948 (Kidder 1959:778). Eleanor Bachman [Lothrop] (1901–1963) of Philadelphia became

130 | Women Entering the Field Samuel K. Lothrop’s second wife in 1929. When Eleanor and Sam were married, they went on an archaeological honeymoon, taking George G. Heye money from the Museum of the American Indian and making collections in northern Chile, Guatemala, and Panama (Lothrop 1948:7). Eleanor spent 1933 and 1934 helping with the excavations at Sitio Conte, Panama. She reported that after getting the meals set up, she would spend the day excavating with her husband (Lothrop 1948:167). She wrote occasionally on her archaeological knowledge, such as her 1955 “Mystery of the Prehistoric Stone Balls.” But her 1948 autobiography, Throw Me a Bone: What Happens When You Marry an Archaeologist, is her best-known work. It is here that she wrote up her typology of archaeological wives. Type 1 “becomes so serious and so erudite that by contrast her scientific husband seems a master of frivolity.” Type 2 was the other extreme, one “who perversely encases herself in a shell of flightiness.” Eleanor saw herself as Type 3, the wife who adapts, who is a good sport in the field and lab, and does not compete with her husband, but tries to be as much help to him as possible with the archaeology. Ellen Sewall Collier [Spinden] (1897–1985) was born in Cohasset, Massachusetts. She graduated with Special Distinction in History from Radcliffe in1919. Whether the history was actually Mesoamerican prehistory, I don’t know, as it was not possible for Radcliffe students to major in anthropology until 1925. In the mid-1920s she worked at the Harvard School of Public Health, publishing with Dr. Katherine Drinker a paper on the physiologic aspects of zinc. In 1927 she entered graduate school at Radcliffe, receiving the Augustus Anson Whitney and Benjamin White Whitney Fellowship for $500 in anthropology and specializing in archaeology. At the Peabody Museum, Alfred Tozzer recruited her to work on the massive project funded by Charles Bowditch, involving the translation of the collected works of the noted German Mesoamericanist Eduard Seler. Her particular contribution was to translate one of Seler’s papers on Chichen Itza (version in the unpublished master file, Tozzer Library, vol. 5, pt. 2, no. 3, 197–388). In the fall of 1928 Ellen Collier married Herbert Joseph Spinden, a well- known Mayanist archaeologist, whose base of operations in Cambridge

Women Entering the Field | 131 was the Carnegie Institution of Washington archaeological headquarters on Divinity Avenue adjacent to the Peabody Museum. Ellen completed her master’s in Mesoamerican archaeology through Radcliffe in 1929 and then found work on the Brooklyn Museum’s staff, where her husband had just taken a job. In 1930 she was elected to the AAA Executive Council for a three-year term, at the same time that her husband was elected first vice president of the AAA. In 1929 and 1931, Ellen and her husband made extended visits to the Totonac site of El Tajin. She wrote up the fieldwork, which was the definitive study in English on this site for many years (E. Spinden 1933). Of particular note, in December 1934 she became one of the founding “mothers” of the Society for American Archaeology, being one of the 31 scholars who signed the papers of incorporation. She also participated with her husband on various Mayan excavation projects in 1934, 1935, and 1936. But like many wives, although she worked diligently in the field, she was essentially invisible, except for rare footnotes barely acknowledging her presence. Although I do not have a definite divorce date for the couple, information from the Radcliffe Schlesinger Library Archives indicates that she and her husband split up in 1938. Apparently it was a difficult divorce, as the Carnegie Institution of Washington severed all ties with Ellen, and there were no other jobs in the field available for her in Maya excavations. She moved to Springfield, Massachusetts, where she took courses at the Springfield Business Institute in 1938–39, and she then moved back to her family home in Cohasset, changing careers. Edith Hill Bayles [Ricketson] (1899–1976) was born in Fajardo, Puerto Rico. Upon graduation from Smith College in 1921, she received a $1,000 fellowship to study Norwegian literature, particularly the work of Henrik Ibsen, in Oslo. Beginning research under this fellowship, she traveled throughout Western Europe and developed an interest in archaeology. She enrolled in the École de Paléontologie Humaine et Collège de France in Paris and excavated at a Neanderthal site run by Henri Martin for the American School for Prehistoric Research in 1923. In 1924 she took a job as assistant curator of the Museum of Natural History at Santa Barbara.

132 | Women Entering the Field In 1925 she served as secretary to Sylvanus Morley at Chichen Itza for the Carnegie Institution of Washington [CIW] (Wauchope 1978:615). On this CIW project, Bayles met the archaeologist Oliver Garri- son Ricketson Jr., and they were married in 1925. They conducted an excavation project at Uaxactun, Guatemala, where Edith was listed by Carnegie as the ceramicist from 1929 to 1938. Edith did the analysis and classification and published the first ceramic chronology for the site in 1937. Working with stratified materials, she was able to establish two preclassic phases as well as several classic phases. She also collected modern textiles, working for the Museum of the American Indian, the Peabody Museum of Harvard, and the Taylor Museum in Colorado Springs (Wauchope 1978:616). The Ricketsons were divorced in 1941. He immediately remarried and returned to Santa Fe. In 1945–46 she worked as a registrar for the Brooklyn Museum, but declined the offer of a permanent job with them. During this period, she wrote up an analysis of Barbarian jewelry of the Merovingian period (Ricketson 1947). From 1946 to 1953, she lived in Santa Fe, where she was executive secretary of the New Mexico Asso- ciation of Indian Affairs. From 1953 to 1962, she served as the librarian at the Middle American Research Institute at Tulane University, and she frequently attended the International Congress of Americanists. In 1960 the younger of Edith’s two daughters, Mary, also married a Mayan archaeologist, William Rotch Bullard Jr. Mary was born in Boston, and completed her BA at Barnard in 1948 and her MA from the School of Education at Harvard in 1950. She took part in several archaeological expeditions with her husband, particularly in Belize, for the Royal Ontario Museum. And her mother’s focus on ceramics also was passed on: Bullard noted that “my wife, Mary Ricketson Bullard, collaborated in the pottery analysis and descriptions and also did most of the pottery illustrations” (Bullard 1970:249). After her husband’s death, Mary explored and reported on various historic and prehistoric aspects of Cumberland Island in Georgia from 1972 to 1993. So not only are there mini dynasties of male archaeologists, passing interests from father to son, but also of female archaeologists, passing from mother to daughter.

Women Entering the Field | 133 Dorothy K. Hughes [Popenoe] (1899–1932) was born in England and educated as a botanist. She met her husband, Frederick Wilson Popenoe, an American, when he journeyed to London to study collections at the Royal Botanical Kew Gardens. She married him in 1923 when she came to the United States and joined the staff of the National Herbarium in Washington. She moved with her husband to Honduras in 1925, when he left the U.S. Department of Agriculture and took a job with the United Fruit Company (Joyce 1994:54, 64). She became intrigued with the archaeology of the region and explored Maya sites in Honduras (1926–30) and Guatemala (1930–32), when the Popenoes moved there. In 1927 she mapped the fortress city of Tenampua, Hon- duras, and became more intensely interested in Maya ruins. Because she lacked training in archaeology, she wrote to Alfred Tozzer at the Peabody Museum at Harvard, asking his advice on proper excavation techniques. She became particularly interested in Playa de los Muertos, Honduras, and conducted research there on her own, with some small grants from the Peabody (Tozzer 1934:68). She wrote a few reports on her work, and after her unexpected death during surgery, her collections were donated to the Peabody. Barbara Kidder [de Buse] [Aldana] (1916–83) developed an interest in archaeology as a child accompanying her father, Alfred V. Kidder. She went to Pecos, New Mexico, excavations in the summers of 1921 to 1929, and wrote this experience up in 1983. As a teenager, she worked at the Peabody Museum in Salem, Massachusetts, to keep busy. After graduating from high school in 1934, Barbara went to Guatemala every season with her father, helping with the excavations as well as the photography. While there, she met a German coffee buyer, Willy Max Theodor Buse (1911–2000); they married in Ipswich, Massachusetts, in 1938. Her husband changed his name to William Theodore Buse after serving with the U.S. Army in World War II. They divorced in 1945. She then married Fernando Aldana (1907–84), a surgeon, and continued living in Guatemala until shortly before her death in 1983. She worked on archaeological projects for more than two decades, but apparently mainly in minor positions.

134 | Women Entering the Field Anna Hadwick Gayton [Spier] (1899–1977) was born in Santa Cruz, California, and was the first woman to receive an anthropology PHD at Berkeley. In 1924 she became involved in Peruvian archaeology with Alfred Kroeber and introduced the idea of utilizing seriation of pottery by design features and shape to the Peruvianists (Rowe 1978:653). She was also doing cultural anthropology research on the Yokut-Mono Indi- ans in California between 1925 and 1928, the basis of her doctorate. She was one of the first four women elected as fellows by the SAA in 1935. In 1931 Gayton married Leslie Spier after he divorced his first wife, another well-known anthropological colleague, Erna Gunther. Leslie Spier moved to Yale in 1933. Hence Anna, who had been an editorial assistant of the American Anthropologist (1924–26, 1932–34), took a similar position with the Yale University Publications in Anthropology (1934–39). She became more involved with folklore during this period, serving as the review editor (1935–40) and associate editor (1940–43) for the Journal of American Folk-Lore and as president of the American Folk-Lore Society in 1950 (Boyer 1978:836; Rowe 1978:654). With the death of Lila Morris O’Neale in 1948 opening up a position, Anna accepted an appointment in the Department of Design at Berkeley. The Spiers moved west, and Anna resumed working with Peruvian prehistoric textiles and costume until she retired in 1965. Lila Morris O’Neale (1886–1948) was born in Buxton, North Dakota, but moved with her family to San Jose in 1898. She received her BA in English from Stanford in 1910 and then taught household arts in the local high schools for a few years. She went to Columbia University and secured a second BA in household arts in 1916 and taught in various West Coast colleges for the next few years. She entered graduate school at the University of California–Berkeley in 1926, initially planning to continue work with modern textiles, but she was recruited by Alfred L. Kroeber to work on the Nazca culture archaeological textiles from his fieldwork in coastal Peru. She completed her master’s thesis, “Design, Structural and Decorative, with Color Distribution Characteristic of Ancient Peruvian Fabrics,” in 1927 (Harrison 1948:657–58). This research was the basis of the joint paper she wrote with Kroeber on archaeological textile periods

Women Entering the Field | 135 in Peru (1930); she followed this paper on Andean textile periods with two elaborations of Peruvian textile periods in 1942 and 1948. O’Neale did fieldwork in 1929 with the Yurok-Karok Indians along the Klamath River, California, on their weaving technology, and received her doctorate in 1930 for the dissertation “Yurok-Karok Basket Weavers,” which was published in 1932. O’Neale served as the curator of textiles at the Museum of Anthro- pology at Berkeley for 1930–31. Then, with a Guggenheim Fellowship, she went to Peru to study prehistoric textile technology, particularly the rich assemblages of Paracas and Nasca textiles that Julio C. Tello and others had been obtaining on the south coast of Peru. During this yearlong fellowship, she accompanied Tello to the Central Highlands to make artifact collections in the Huancayo area of Junin and assist in securing materials from six Middle Horizon period sites around Wari in Ayacucho (Rowe, Collier, and Willey 1950:121). She returned to Berkeley, where she taught in the Household Art (later Decorative Art) Depart- ment from 1932 to 1948 and conducted research on prehistoric textiles in her position as curator of textiles at the Museum of Anthropology, as well as occasionally teaching seminars on textiles in the Department of Anthropology (Harrison 1948:662, 664). Most of O’Neale’s research and three dozen publications were on the structure and decorative techniques of prehistoric Peruvian coastal cultures, and she finished upmonographs on Ancon and Chincha just before her death, but she also wrote on Guatemalan textiles under a CIW grant in 1936 and did some analyses in the mid-1930s of the textile collections from Turkestan excavated by Sir Mark Aurel Stein. Although she joined the American Anthropological Association in 1930, and she served on its governing council in the late 1930s and early 1940s and was elected a member of the archaeologically oriented Institute of Andean Studies in 1947, she did not join the Society for American Archaeology but instead kept abreast through her husband’s membership. Theodora Kracaw [Brown] [Kroeber] [Quinn] (1897–1979) was born in Denver and grew up in Telluride, Colorado. She moved to California in 1915 and enrolled at Berkeley. She finished her BA with a major in

136 | Women Entering the Field psychology in 1919, although she had taken some anthropology courses from Kroeber. She continued on in graduate school, completing her MA in clinical psychology in 1920 (Buzaljko 1988:187). In 1920 she married Clifton Spencer Brown, and they moved to New Mexico. Her husband died there in 1923, and Theodora returned to Berkeley and reentered graduate school, this time in anthropology (Buzaljko 1988:188). Theodora worked with Alfred Kroeber during graduate school. In one of his seminars, she developed her first publication in anthropology, a paper on comparative cultural studies (an early predecessor of the later Berkeley trait list studies) (Clements, Schenck, and Brown 1926). Alfred and Theodora became very close, and even though he was 21 years older, they married in 1926. They took an eight-month honeymoon to Peru, where they excavated in the Nazca valley. For her part of the research, she focused on ceramic style recognition as well as cataloging of the sherds and specimens and contributed to the final report in this area (Wilson 1988:189). Kroeber was a widower with two children, and Theodora had two children from her first marriage. Although Alfred was said to have encouraged the idea of Theodora pursuing her doctoral degree, with four children to raise, she was forced to quit her studies. Later she developed an avocational interest in Yurok and other local Indian groups’ mythology. She also became involved in writing up informant Ishi’s contributions. After Kroeber’s death in 1960, Theodora married a painter, John Har- rison Quinn, in 1969, turned to a writing career, and served as a regent of the University of California in 1977–78 (Elsasser 1980:115).

Women Supporting Archaeological Field Studies

Anna Osler Shepard (1903–73) was born in Merchantville, New Jer- sey, where her father was an industrial chemist. Her family moved to California, and she earned her high school diploma in San Diego in 1922. She then started undergraduate work at the Teachers College of Southern California. After two years, she transferred to the University of Nebraska, where she received a degree in anthropology in 1926 (Thomp- son 1991:14; Cordell 1993:208). From 1926 to 1929, she was a curator

Women Entering the Field | 137 at the San Diego Museum, and then took an unpaid research associate position at the University of New Mexico Laboratory of Anthropology from 1930 to 1937. As an undergraduate, she had attended University of New Mexico field schools in 1923 and 1924 at Gran Quivara and as a graduate student in 1928 and 1929 at Chetro Ketl. While going to school at San Diego, Shepard was influenced by Wesley Bradfield, who was teaching there with Edgar Hewett. Bradfield was working on the chemical analyses of pastes from his Mimbres excavation work. In 1927 Arthur Coe Spenser of the U.S. Geological Survey visited Bradfield’s project and suggested petrographic analysis as a way to avoid the tedious chemical analyses that Bradfield was then utilizing (Bishop 1991:47). Hence, in October 1928, at Spenser’s and Bradfield’s urging, Shepard made an informal suggestion to the department chairman, Edgar Hewett, for an MA thesis topic on the “exact analysis” of archaeological pottery, and followed up this informal plan with a formal MA thesis proposal in the early fall of 1929, “A Systematic Method for Pottery Analysis.” During this period, she also assisted Bradfield with his continuing excavations at Mimbres. She had intended to start studies on optical crystallography at Claremont College in 1930, but because Spenser and Bradfield thought she would need training in both chemistry and petrography, which would be very time-consuming, Shepard made a second petition to Hewett in November of 1929 to change her thesis topic to “A Study of Zuni Pottery.” When Bradfield unexpectedly died in late 1929, meaning that she would have a new thesis advisor, Shepard decided to change her thesis topic and submitted a third petition, “A Pit House Site in the Mimbres Area,” this time to write up some of the fieldwork she had done for Bradfield’s excavations at the Three Circle Ranch site in 1928. Hewett refused to accept this idea, complaining about having received three proposals in a four-month period. He declared that she should do the first proposal or be dismissed from the university. Because of his lack of support, Shepard withdrew (Bishop 1991:49–50). In 1930 Shepard also left her position at the San Diego Museum to

138 | Women Entering the Field become an unpaid research associate at the University of New Mex- ico’s Laboratory of Anthropology. As Mary Ann Levine has observed (1994a:28), one of the options selected by women at this time was to take an appointment as a research associate, “courtesy appointments that offered institutional affiliation to otherwise unemployed or underemployed researchers.” A. V. Kidder was just finishing up his analytical work on the Pecos excavation ceramics, and he invited Shepard to come to Santa Fe to utilize the Pecos pottery for a test of the value of her work with petrographic analysis. From 1930 to 1937 Shepard worked on Kid- der’s (and others’) ceramic materials (Thompson 1991:18–19). Although she was unsalaried, her lab expenses were paid by Kidder through the Carnegie Institution of Washington. Shepard published three articles related to this work in the first issues ofAmerican Antiquity. In 1936 Kidder gave Shepard a temporary paid appointment under the aegis of the Division of Historical Research of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, because the Laboratory of Anthropology was having financial problems due to the Depression. She left the Laboratory in Santa Fe in 1937 to become a full-time staff member of Kidder’s project (Thompson 1991:25). She moved to Boulder to set up a private ceramic lab in the home that she shared with her chemist father, Henry Warren Shepard (Thompson 1991:39). Although Shepard started her ceramic work on materials from sites in the American Southwest, such as Awatovi in addition to the Pecos materials, she later spent much of her time working on Mesoamerican ceramic materials and developing general theoretical papers on ceramic analysis (Morris 1974:449). When the Carnegie Institution was reorganized in 1957, Shepherd shifted to work for the U.S. Geological Survey in Denver from 1957 until she retired in 1968 (Babcock and Parezo 1988) or 1970 (Cordell 1993). Her seminal work and publications on the petrographic analysis of ceramics remained the “gold standard” for ceramic researchers in this country for many years. Harriett May Allyn (1883–1957) was born in New London, Connecti- cut. She received her BA from Mount Holyoke College in 1905, and then taught at Lake Erie College, Ohio, before going to the University of

Women Entering the Field | 139 Chicago in 1909 for graduate work. Her MA (1910) and PHD (1912) from Chicago were both in zoology. She then served as the dean at Hackett Medical College in Canton, China, from 1913 to 1923, and taught zoology at Vassar from 1924 to 1929. At that point, she changed her focus and accepted the job as dean and professor of anthropology at Mount Holyoke, where she taught the rest of her career, retiring in 1953 (Hers- kovits and Ames 1950:3). In the late 1920s Allyn became involved in archaeology, first in Old World prehistoric studies and then in New World archaeology. She started by offering a general course on prehistory at Mount Holyoke and later expanded her archaeological offerings. In 1929 she went on the American School of Prehistoric Research excavations in St. Leon, France, and in Czechoslovakia, and then on another ASPR excavation in Palestine, working with Dorothy Garrod at Mount Carmel and writing up her experiences in Palestine in a 1930 article. She studied excavation procedures in New Mexico and Arizona in 1931, participated in Mound Builder studies in 1932, worked at the Lindenmeier site near Fort Collins, Colorado, in 1935 (National Research Council 1938:4), and joined the Society for American Archaeology once it was formed that year. From 1936 to 1940 she, along with Carl Guthe, Alfred Kroeber, and George MacCurdy, were the American members of the Permanent Council of the International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences. In the 1930s she was a member of the governing council of the American Anthropological Association. Allyn was not primarily an Americanist archaeologist, but she taught the subject and participated in several projects in the United States from 1931 to 1935, and she represented Americanist archaeology at national and international meetings. Lydia Hayes Jones [Trowbridge] (1860–1948) was a cousin of Donizetta Jones, the second wife of Edgar Hewett; hence she was easily integrated into the Hewett household activities later in her life. Lydia spent her childhood in China, where her father, William P. Jones, was the U.S. consul, and moved with the family when he became president of Northwestern College in Evanston, Illinois. She received her BA at Northwestern in 1882 and her MA there in 1887. She settled in Winnetka, Illinois, where she was

140 | Women Entering the Field a teacher at Lakeview and other high schools in the Chicago area for 31 years and also a writer. She married Edward Gilbert Trowbridge in 1898. As Lydia Trowbridge, she penned a number of short articles, mainly for El Palacio, on the archaeological work in New Mexico. It’s not clear whether she came out to Santa Fe in 1911 for the wedding when Donizetta married Edgar Hewett, but Lydia became involved with the ruins in the area in 1914 when she was a member of an archaeological excursion led by Hewett (Hewett 1917:152). She returned to assist Hewett in 1921 as a volunteer, and in 1928 and 1931 (near the age of 70) she was listed by Hewett as a member of the Chaco Canyon field crew. She was active in the AIA for decades and worked with Alice Fletcher to secure funding for fellowships. As one of the managing directors of the School for American Research (SAR) from the early 1930s into the 1940s, she also provided money to the SAR in 1937 through a grant from the Trowbridge Foundation, and she provided $9,000 in her will to fund scholarships in her name at the SAR. Marie Christine Kohler (1876–1943) was born in Sheboygan, Wiscon- sin, and received a degree in English from the University of Wisconsin in 1901. She was the daughter of the plumbing industrialist giant (and Wis- consin governor) John Michael Kohler, and was able to use her fortune to assist archaeologists with various grants. She took a job as a teacher in the local high school after receiving her degree, but soon became involved in social work. She became a life member of the Wisconsin Archaeological Society and, between 1929 to 1936, served on the state advisory council, which dealt with archaeological resources and museum collections.

Women Working Primarily in Museums

While the women who worked in museums generally had minimal direct involvement in excavations, their work still has importance with respect to my theme, as they were important facilitators particularly in terms of developing and preserving research collections. Marie Louise [Parcher] (1870–1952) was a cofounder of the Eastern California Museum, Independence, Inyo County, in 1928. She and her

Women Entering the Field | 141 husband, William Chandler Parcher, first came to Inyo County in 1911, after purchasing the Owens Valley Herald newspaper. Marie Louise was the first president of the museum, and continued in that post for many years. Her son, Frank Morrison Parcher (1903–76), was its first treasurer and later worked for the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Nevada. He helped his mother photograph and collect occupation and petroglyph sites in the Mono and Inyo Counties region of Owens Valley, a project which Louise viewed as a type of salvage archaeology, as she foresaw that these prehistoric resources might soon be lost to increasing modern development. She also helped create exhibits of these archaeological materials and petroglyphs during her tenure. Sarah Adelaide Chamberlin [Law] (1892–1979) was the librarian and assistant curator of archaeology and ethnology at the Southwest Museum in Los Angeles from 1918 until about 1925. While at the South- west Museum, she performed multiple duties: creating dioramas of prehistoric American Indian life, gathering materials for the director’s lectures, running the docent program, translating anthropological works from French and Spanish, giving lectures, and producing traveling exhibits for schools. In the mid-1920s, she enrolled at the University of Arizona, where she earned a BA in archaeology. She participated in one of the first coeducational University of New Mexico field excavation camps in Chaco Canyon in 1927. She married George Law in 1928 and then entered graduate school at the University of New Mexico, where she may have obtained her MA in archaeology in the early 1930s (Parezo and Hardin 1993:292), although I could not verify this. Her marriage did not last, and after her divorce, she tried to find a museum job, but had no luck because of the economy, and so she returned to being a general librarian in the 1940s (Parezo and Hardin 1993:290). Maie Bartlett [Heard] (1868–1951) and her sister Florence Dibell Bartlett (1881–1951) were born to a wealthy family in Chicago that had a history of art collecting. They both ended up founding important museums in the Southwest with substantial holdings of First American prehistoric and ethnographic art items. Dwight Bancroft Heard was from Boston, but he moved to Chicago

142 | Women Entering the Field where he worked for the Bartlett family hardware business. He and Maie married in 1894. However, because of his health, the couple moved to the Southwest in 1895, ending up in Phoenix, where Heard bought the local newspaper, the Arizona Republican, and founded the Bartlett-Heard Land and Cattle Company. Maie began collecting local Pima and other group basketry, and then became involved in collecting Navaho textiles, Hopi pottery and kachinas, and other ethnographic materials. “The Heards also actively supported several archaeological projects in the area. In the 1920s, when they learned that a Hohokam ruin was being destroyed by vandals, they promptly bought the property and employed a young amateur archaeologist, Frank Midvale, to excavate it,” and added the artifacts recovered to their growing collections (McGreevy 1993:79). Frank Mid- vale had had two years of college training, and he began mapping and excavating at the Heards’ large village site of La Ciudad, Arizona, starting in 1927. Ultimately he expanded his work to 15 Hohokam sites near Phoenix, later being funded in part by Winifred and Harold Gladwin. Finding themselves being crowded out of their home by their artifact collections, the Heards designed a museum to hold and display their materials. Dwight Heard saw the plans and the nearly finished Heard Museum building, but he died a month before it opened in 1929. Maie worked at the museum for 23 years. Florence Dibell Bartlett went to Smith College and then moved out to Santa Fe, where she founded the Museum of International Folk Art in 1953 (Woodbury and Woodbury 1988:51).

Commentary

The 1920s mark the beginning of significant numbers of women working in Americanist archaeology who secured advanced degrees. Of the 48 women detailed in this chapter, 23 secured advanced degrees: 11 at the PHDlevel and 12 at the MA level. This pattern of increased training continues on over time: in the next decade, nearly 68 percent of that cohort had advanced degrees.

Women Entering the Field | 143 While seemingly there was a higher percentage of doctoral degrees in the 1920s cohort (23 percent for the 1920s vs. 13 percent for the 1930s), unfortunately the bulk of the doctorates for the 1920s were in fields other than Americanist archaeology. Only 5 or 45 percent of the 11 PHD dissertations were on topics related to archaeology; the remainder were mostly in social-cultural anthropology, in general by women who had left archaeology after finding too many barriers and thus shifting to ethnography. In contrast, the majority (60 percent) of the doctoral degrees earned by the women in the 1930s cohort were in Americanist archaeology. The need to publish the dissertation was one of the factors that delayed the awarding of the PHDs for many women. Only half of the advanced degrees of the 1920s cohort were awarded by 1935 or earlier; the rest were awarded at considerably later dates, such as 1941 and 1942, and as late as 1956 and 1958 — quite a delay for women who had begun their academic training in the 1920s. The delay in awarding degrees had an evident negative impact on the job opportunities and research options for these scholars. Beginning in the 1920s, but frequent in the 1930s, are references to women who were interested in archaeology, went on some digs, but in the end returned to what were considered more traditional careers. They showed up in my searches, but did not seem to make substantial enough contributions in archaeology to merit the more detailed discussions of individuals included above. As typical examples of this latter group of women who were only peripherally involved in archaeology in the 1920s, let me list the involvement of two Colorado residents. Vesta Halliday Wood [Tutt] was a 1922 graduate of Vassar. In 1926 she was listed as teaching in Cairo, Illinois; later that year she taught English and history at Mrs. Burke’s School in San Francisco, and in 1927 she taught at Miss Head’s School in Berkeley. By 1930 she was an English teacher in Colorado Springs. Sometime in the mid-1920s, Wood went on an American School of Prehistoric Research excavation field project in Europe (Bricker 2002:283). In the summer of 1927 she went out to the University of New Mexico field school and worked at the Talus site near

144 | Women Entering the Field Chetro Ketl in Chaco Canyon (Anonymous 1927:6). At that excavation, she and Helen Campbell produced a season’s end paper on their work, “A Survey of Talus Habitation at Puye,” for the School of American Research. With two excavations completed, it seems likely that Wood might have continued in archaeology, but in 1934 she married a wealthy Coloradan, Charles Leaming Tutt Jr., and thereafter dedicated her work to charity projects. Julia Matilda Spear [Boyd] was born in Washington DC and later married William Forest Boyd. The couple moved to Saguache, Colorado, before 1909, where Julia developed an interest in local history, penning a document, “Saguache: The Blue Land,” on the early history of the community. She took part in the excavations with the 1928 University of New Mexico field school (Anonymous 1928:141). By the 1930s (if not earlier), she was the vice president of the Colorado Archaeological Society, and she also became an early subscribing member of the SAA. Because she was an officer in the local archaeological society, I was hoping to find some publications in the usual sources, but did not. I followed up the careers of a number of women like this Colorado pair in all geographic regions, hoping to identify yet another unsung contributor, but all too often these women dropped out of archaeology to return to what were more socially acceptable trajectories of the time, or they remained on the periphery, interested but unable to become more deeply involved. Women involved in archaeology in the 1920s were involved in the beginning of a paradigm shift. They are not just providing money to support others in archaeology but jumping into research themselves. Women were no longer staying in bustles and long skirts on sidelines, but starting to get dirt under their fingernails. Now a number of women were braving the odds to make it a career with academic or professional employment. However, the shift was only beginning, not complete, with regional patterns developing. In the Southwest and West, women seemed to be able to create positions in archaeology with somewhat greater ease than their compatriots in the Northeast and Southeast, who appeared

Women Entering the Field | 145 to remain more limited or bound by nineteenth-century values to more acceptable, “ladylike” careers. But the road was still exceedingly rocky wherever they were. Many of the women, availing themselves of the new freedom to take anthropology classes in coeducational classrooms and to participate in field schools, continued to find the barriers so great that they shifted out of archaeology into ethnology, or they shifted out of field archaeology into museum work. And in some respects, these women perhaps could be characterized as the fortunate ones, because far too many other women who specialized in archaeology as undergraduates, and assiduously went to field schools, found that once they had a BA or, if lucky, proceeded as far as their MA, there simply were no jobs available. Although trained as archaeologists, these women changed to more traditional career paths, as the lack of gainful employment shut them out of the discipline. As Florence Cline suggested, the two most viable paths for women to become involved in archaeology were to (a) find something that men did not like to do and specialize in that or (b) marry an archaeologist. Cer- tainly the extensive number of women specializing in ceramic analyses, which required hours of patient labeling, measuring, and study, were selecting or settling for tasks that men were often very pleased to pass off to their wives or female assistants. A notable problem for women who opted for the “wife option” was that their contributions were at best unappreciated and often unrecognized, and if they ever separated from their husbands, their archaeological careers were for all intents and purposes destroyed. The focus on archaeological tasks that men deemed less desirable for careers could involve women specializing in a research topic perceived as rather esoteric, as Hawley did with dendrochronology or as Shepard did in ceramic petrographic analysis, but it also could include a focus on a region that was perceived as less attractive to work in, such as de Laguna’s work in the mosquito-ridden, chilly Alaskan sites. For the few women finding jobs in academia, access to some lower status or less secure jobs were certainly better than no jobs, as it had been in the decades before, but the situation was still difficult. Weltfish

146 | Women Entering the Field was denied a PHD for more than two decades, simply because she could not afford to have it published, while departments regularly helped male candidates with publishing their dissertations. Keur managed to bypass that impediment, but only because she had the resources to pay for all the related costs of publishing her dissertation out of her own pocket. Even once a woman had an academic job, there were still significant barriers. Women were frequently relegated to untenured positions, being paid substantially less than their male colleagues for the same jobs and also working with much longer and more time-consuming teaching schedules. De Laguna found research money extremely scarce, so she raised some of her fieldwork funds from herown outside labors. Campbell found that her ideas, since proven correct, were initially disregarded — by both male and female colleagues — because she was a woman. Yes, there were problems. But women now felt able to participate in fieldwork. The decade produced the first all-female North American field projects. Amateur archaeologists were making significant contributions and being regularly consulted by professionals. And a career or dedi- cation to Americanist archaeology had become possible enough that, for the first time, daughters followed their mothers into archaeological work as a vocation. I titled this chapter the “Roaring Twenties.” While perhaps that sounds like nothing more than a tired cliché, in this case it highlights the fact that the mid-1920s were when women finally were able to assert their rights in academic archaeology. The 1920s were truly the time when Helen Reddy’s 1972 lyrics “I am woman, hear me roar” began to take on reality for women archaeologists, making it an apt characterization.

Women Entering the Field | 147

CHAPTER FOUR

Women Entering Archaeology, 1930 to 1940

In the 1930s female graduate students, in addition to other female researchers, began to come into a continued significant presence in Americanist archaeology. Prior to the professionalization of the discipline, when there were no institutions granting degrees in anthropology or archaeology, serious male and female avocational researchers were making similar contributions to the field. But when university training began, because of the historical accident of the first success of degree programs at places like Harvard and Columbia — restricted male domains at the undergraduate and graduate level at the beginning of the twentieth century — anthropology and its subfields changed to become the almost exclusive province of men for many years, with women only slowly reemerging as serious contributors in the late 1920s and 1930s. Criteria frequently utilized by my colleagues in the history of science for identifying women potentially important with respect to disciplinary contributions are the attainment of the PHD degree, relatively consistent academic employment, and continued publication and fieldwork. As Mary Ann Dzuback told me in 2008, “Before 1940, it was acceptable for women to teach, but to produce scholarship was to cross boundaries that many found confounding or threatening.” My own criteria for including women in these chapters has been somewhat different, eschewing the requirement for a PHD degree, but rather looking for contributions in fieldwork and for publications, or contributions in academia or museum work, or, in the early years, contributions

149 toward helping other women conduct archaeological research, particularly because of the roadblocks for women attempting to secure a PHD in Americanist archaeology. Before the 1930s, there were relatively few women to consider, so the question of whether women involved in archaeology met these criteria was more or less straightforward. But beginning in the 1930s, a surge of new women were involved in archaeology, at least in terms of participating in excavations, writing disciplinary articles, and getting advanced degrees. Thus there are literally scores more women whom I have identified with this level of involvement to consider in this chapter. My criteria for inclusion are somewhat flexible, usually relying on the presence of at least two significant archaeological publications and participation in several excavation projects. A major problem with trying to utilize either the acquisition of a PHD or academic employment for inclusion in the discussion at this period is that women were frequently prevented from obtaining PHD degrees in archaeology, while as undergraduate and graduate programs tried to improve their academic quality, the PHD degree was now required for tenured teaching positions. Thus women in academic archaeology were often limited to only part-time untenured lecturer positions, with no job security from one school term to the next and usually no chances for advancement. And for married women, there was frequently the issue of a stated or implicit nepotism rule, which prevailed on many campuses, limiting employment to only one individual from a family. Because of the ambiance of the period, this individual was automatically presumed to be the husband, not the wife. The wife was left to find other career options — even though trained in archaeology, she was often prevented from pursuing that job where her husband was employed, and with rare exceptions, there was usually only the one institution in a city where her husband was employed where archaeology was practiced and related teaching jobs were available. Another mechanism for identifying potential women archaeologists would be membership in professional organizations. The Society for American Archaeology was established in December 1934, with half a dozen women among the 31 founding members (Browman 2010).

150 | Women Entering Archaeology Most women interested in Americanist archaeology sought membership in this organization, and in this chapter I have not explicitly listed their membership in the SAA, although I did employ membership as a mechanism for identifying potential women Americanist archaeologists. Once an individual was identified, I then searched all the other databases and sources available to see if I could find additional mention of their archaeological activities. To generate the corpus of names for this chapter, I first searched all the conventional monograph and journal histories of Americanist anthropology and archaeology for the period. I then searched the Inter- national Directory of Anthropologists for 1938 and 1940; the membership list of the Society for American Archaeology from its inception through 1941; the programs for the annual meetings of the Society for Ameri- can Archaeology through 1941; the National Research Council’s list of archaeological projects in the 1920s and early 1930s, until that responsibility was taken over by American Antiquity; and then the American Antiquity Notes and News column for the 1930s. Where they existed, I also searched the anthropological histories for individual states or regions. And I searched David McDonald’s 1977 list of MA degrees in archaeology up through 1941. I think that I have identified most of the women making significant contributions to Americanist archaeology during this period. If I could find fieldwork, publications, or an advanced degree for an individual, I put her name on my list. All too often, I would find a woman who had done some fieldwork for an MA, even obtaining the degree, but then failing to obtain access to a PHD program, or failing to find gainful employment in archaeology, and subsequently dropping out of the field. Whether or not to include a specific woman practitioner sometimes was a judgment call. Due to my wish to include the maximum number of women involved in Americanist archaeology, I may have erred on the side of discussing a few who may not have clearly merited inclusion by my criteria. Initially in tracking women in Americanist archaeology, I found myself wondering why it was that women who succeeded in being admitted to the PHD program seemed to proceed through academic training at a pace

Women Entering Archaeology | 151 not much different from men until they approached the degree, but then the awarding of the degree was delayed, sometimes for decades. The case of Gene Weltfish is a goodexample. Once I understood the basis of her delayed degree, as well as then identifying related examples, it became clear why the separation between finishing degree work, and the final granting of a doctoral degree, asw often very extended for some female candidates. Because it plainly pertains to women in the 1930s, I think it is useful to reiterate the salient points that relate to the case of Gene Weltfish. Weltfish was one of the first fellows elected to the SAA in 1935, so she was recognized by her colleagues as being an exemplary scholar. Although she completed her dissertation at Columbia in 1929, she would not receive her degree officially until 1950. Degree rules at that period in the Ivy League schools, as well as other private schools, such as the University of Chicago, required the dissertation to be published in order for the degree to be conferred, and publication could cost substantial sums. Because funds were scarce, and because men were presumed to need degrees more than women because men were viewed as the primary wage earners for their families, what scarce funds departments or institutions might have to assist PHD students with conforming to this rule were often limited only to subsidizing the publication of dissertations by men. Weltfish therefore received no help in publishing from Columbia. So she could only get a job as an untenured lecturer because she lacked the officially conferred PHD, and Columbia kept her limited to an appointment as a lecturer from 1936 to 1953. When Columbia changed its policy, abandoned its publication requirement, and began accepting less expensive mimeographed theses and dissertations in 1950, Weltfish acted and finally was awarded her official PHD parch- ment. This is not a unique story; there were several women trapped in the same publication dilemma in the 1930s and 1940s. Weltfish is one of the few, however, who persevered and finally obtained her degree. During this period, as in the decade before, the position of women in anthropology improved, although there were few jobs for them. As Lyn Schumaker (2007:281) observes, “women entered the field with interest

152 | Women Entering Archaeology and goals shaped by their lower status in the Western societies from which they came and the difficulties they encountered while making places for themselves in the discipline.” Sometimes this discrimination was overt, as when Hewett ran a two-tier field school system (Joiner 1992), where women were mainly relegated to the lower tier, with little responsibility, and the men mainly to the upper tier. While the two field schools combined had a significant number of women, 35 out of 47 listed for one period (Joiner 1992:58), opportunities for women were severely limited. And though it is more difficult to explicitly document, Schumaker (2007:282) has noted that status as a married woman negatively impacted a woman’s professional evaluation by both her male and female colleagues. The relatively large numbers of women involved has resulted in the discussion in this chapter reading more like a prosopographical or biographical dictionary than I would wish. However, I have felt compelled to take this approach, because I have been frustrated by the almost complete lack of awareness of the contributions of women in Americanist archaeology in the period prior to World War II. Reading standard history of archaeology sources, one comes away with the impression that there were at best a mere handful of women conducting this kind of research. To disabuse others from this perception, I have attempted to identify, in rather short reviews, the women I have been able to identify who made recognizable contributions during this decade. Thus the format that follows is deliberate, in an attempt to summarize the great influx of women into the field in a parsimonious, hence abridged, delineation.

Women Conducting Fieldwork

NORTHEAST Mary Butler [Lewis] (1903–70) was born in Media, Pennsylvania. She received her BA from Vassar College in 1925. She then went to the Sor- bonne in Paris for a year before returning to enter the graduate program at Radcliffe, one of the first Radcliffe students to take advantage of the newly liberalized linkages between Radcliffe and Harvard graduate

Women Entering Archaeology | 153 programs. She worked on Adena culture sites of West Virginia, the basis of her Radcliffe MA in 1930, although she also took coursework on Mayan archaeology at Harvard. On Alfred Tozzer’s recommendation, she transferred to the University of Pennsylvania, where she worked for the 1932 field season with John Alden Mason and Linton Satterthwaite at Piedras Negras in Guatemala. That work was the basis of her 1936 PHD from the University of Pennsylvania, “Piedras Negras Pottery,” which provided a significant contribution to Mesoamerican archaeology (Browman and Williams 2013). Butler was assistant archaeologist of the Pennsylvania Historical Commission from 1935 to 1937, and she conducted excavations in western Pennsylvania in 1936. She worked in Illinois in the summer of 1937 (Herskovits and Ames 1950:25). In 1939–40 she was placed in charge of the Hudson Valley Archaeological Survey for Vassar. During this project, she investigated 45 sites and expected to do more research, but the project was cut short by the onset of World War II. Her monograph on three of the sites of the first season is still a defining work on Monongahela culture in the region. She also continued work in Guatemala, with three additional field seasons at Alta Verapas and Quiche between 1939 and 1941, funded by her own grants (Butler 1939; Satterthwaite et al. 2004:385). Butler taught briefly at Hunter College, 1937–38, at Vassar, 1939–40, and Bryn Mawr, 1942–43. But most of her career was centered on the American section of the University Museum at the University of Penn- sylvania, where she was an assistant from 1930 to 1939 and a research associate from 1940 to 1970. During her career, her early archaeological publications were mainly on the Maya, but her later ones were mainly on northeastern U.S. archaeology. Most of her active fieldwork was limited to the period before she married Clifford Lewis III in 1942, although she directed an amateur excavation of a rock shelter near Broomall, Pennsylvania, in 1943 and worked as assistant state archaeologist for Pennsylvania in 1946. Her last project was the restoration of Mortonson House in Norwood, Pennsylvania (Herskovits and Ames 1950:25; Keur 1971:255). Dorothy Cross [Jensen] (1906–72) was born in Bala Cynwyd, near

154 | Women Entering Archaeology Philadelphia. She received her BS in education from the University of Pennsylvania in 1928, and then continued there in Oriental studies and anthropology. She was a member of the joint University of Pennsylvania and American University School of Oriental Research Expedition, and spent 1931 and 1932 excavating at Nuzi near Kirkuk and Tell Billa and Tepe Gawra near Mosul in Iraq (Conant 1974:80). She returned to the States in 1932 and published two works dealing with the research she did in Iraq (Cross 1935a, 1935b). She completed her PHD at Pennsylvania in 1936, “Movable Property in the Nuzi Documents,” and published it the next year. While this may sound as if Dorothy Cross was not an Americanist archaeologist, she had her feet in two camps. Beginning in 1929, she was an assistant in the New Jersey State Museum, cataloging collections and arranging exhibits. She was also a charter member of the Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology (Ehrich 1973:408). In 1930 she was involved in founding the New Jersey State Museum Advisory Com- mittee for Indian Research, which formed the Archaeological Society of New Jersey in 1931 (Mounier 2003:46). She then excavated two rock shelters in Sussex County with aid from the New Jersey State Museum and the University of Pennsylvania. She took training in the 1930s with a University of Chicago field school.This was a sensitive situation. In 1930 Fay-Cooper Cole supported his summer dig with assistance from the Laboratory of Anthropology fellowships in Santa Fe. While Cole wanted the graduate student support, he informed the competition committee that he would prefer not to have female students. However, the committee ended up assigning him three scholarship students: Dorothy Cross, who was then a graduate student at Pennsylvania, Frida Katherine Hahn Husemann, a graduate student from Columbia University who went on to study Ponca linguistics, and Eva May Horner, a schoolteacher from Oklahoma. These three women went on to excavate as a separate team that summer for Cole. In 1936 Cross returned to the New Jersey State Museum, as an archaeologist, working as one of three supervisors for their Works Progress Administration (WPA) Indian Site Survey from 1936 to 1942 (Mounier

Women Entering Archaeology | 155 2003:47). This was a signal recognition of her abilities, because she was one of the few women hired to run a WPA excavation (Claassen 1999:92). She was married to Paul H. Jensen from 1937 until his death in 1957. Her teaching was done under her married name, but all of her publications were under her maiden name. She lived in Trenton and did most of her archaeological work in New Jersey, even while teaching in New York at Hunter College in 1938. The WPA survey provided Cross with the database for one of her first summary volumes,The Archaeology of New Jersey (1941). She followed this up 15 years later with a second volume, based her own extensive excavations of the Abbott Farm. In the late 1940s, she directed the Delaware Project, sponsored by the Indiana Historical Society and Eli Lilly, which focused on finding historic villages of the Delaware Indians (Cross 1953). While at Hunter College, she served as divisional chair from 1950 to 1957. Kathryn Burch [Greywacz] (1893–1979) was born in Philadelphia, and she married August H. Greywacz in 1917. Beginning in 1917 she was employed as an acting curator, then curator, and finally director at the New Jersey State Museum. She was designated to be the clearinghouse and collator of archaeological work in New Jersey for the National Research Council committee on reports on fieldwork in the state from 1929 until 1935 (when these reports were terminated). She was one of the founders of the Eastern States Archaeological Federation in 1933 and served as its corresponding secretary for 32 years, and she served in a similar capacity for the Archaeological Society of New Jersey from 1934 until 1965. Beginning in 1936 she, as director, was responsible for the New Jersey State Museum sponsoring the state’s WPA Indian Site Survey. This program employed an average of 60 people, and Greywacz hired Dorothy Cross to direct the work. As museum director, she established the research protocol for the WPA projects, requiring four components: excavation, research, site survey, and inventory of collections, with most emphasis upon excavation (Notes and News, American Antiquity 3(3)(1938):20). Greywacz was clearly a major player in archaeological research in New Jersey. Ethel Boissevain [Lesser] (1913–2002) was born in Rockville Center,

156 | Women Entering Archaeology near New York City. She received her BA from Vassar in 1934, and then went to Europe for a season of excavation with the American School of Prehistoric Research (Bricker 2002:283). She stayed on to work on her PHD at the University in Prague, focusing on the European Neolithic in the Donau and Dnieper regions, in Czechoslovakia and the Balkans, receiving her PHD from Prague in 1936 with “Neolithische plastische Kunst in den Regionen zwischen der Donau und dem Denjepr.” She returned to the United States, where she secured a position teaching at Hunter College. In 1938 she married Arthur Lesser Jr., and they set up residence in Hoboken, where he taught engineering at Stevens Institute of Technology. As far as I could ascertain, there was no direct kinship link between Arthur Lesser and Alexander Lesser, the New York City area anthropologist who married the Columbia University archaeologist Gene Weltfish. In 1942 and 1943 Ethel spent her first two seasons doing archaeological excavations on Narragansett village sites on Cape Cod and in Rhode Island, the first of more than three decades of research she dedicated to archaeology and ethnohistory of this area. Her early research was published in 1944; later she summarized much of her work in her 1975 and 1978 publications. She joined the Archaeological Society of New Jersey in 1944 and wrote a summation of their work in 1956. She spent her entire career at Hunter, teaching archaeology and anthropology, and was a major contributor to New England archaeological research. Eva Lutz [Butler] (1897–1969) was born in Pleasantville, New Jersey. She met her husband, Sylvester Benjamin Butler, during her senior year at Pleasantville High School, when he began teaching there in the fall of 1916, and they were married at the Cape May Court House, Connecticut, in 1928. While her husband was in graduate school at Columbia University, 1926–28, Eva wrote manuals for the Manhattan Indians for the Industrial Arts Cooperative. In 1928 the family moved to Groton, where Sylvester had secured a teaching job, and in 1931 he became superintendent of schools for Groton, where he remained until his retirement in 1959, and Eva began her career as archaeologist and historian (Petrash 2004:130–31)

Women Entering Archaeology | 157 During the Connecticut Tercentenary (1935), Eva Butler interested local citizens in establishing the Fort Hill Indian Memorial Association and in constructing a replica of an early settler’s home at the summit of Fort Hill where the Pequot tribe sachem Sassacus had his “fort” in 1637. The Fort Hill location operated as a museum displaying Indian artifacts and colonial relics. Eva also became involved in some of the first archaeological excavations at Fort Shantock, Poquetannock, and Ledyard in Connecticut. She went to the University of New Mexico, where she participated in the Chaco Canyon field school in 1936, and then returned to New Mexico for further classwork between 1939 and 1941, receiving her BA there in 1941. She began studies at the University of Pennsylvania, where she wrote her master’s thesis, “A Preliminary Outline of Algonkian Culture and the Use of Maize in Southern New England,” in 1946. Butler then became a part-time instructor at Willimantic State Teachers College (later Eastern Connecticut State University). She was still there in 1955 when a crew under her direction was completing excavations at the Main Site, Connecticut. She was the author of a dozen or more articles on the archaeology of New England between 1945 and 1982 in the Archaeological Society of Connecticut Bulletin, the Massachusetts Archaeological Society Bulletin, and the Eastern States Archaeological Federa- tion Bulletin, on excavations and artifacts. She helped found Tomaquag Museum in Ashaway, Rhode Island, in 1958, donating her own collection of New England Indian artifacts. Her papers are at the Indian and Colonial Research Center in Old Mystic, Connecticut. Catherine Josephine McCann (1908–86) was born in Carlyle, just outside of Wibaux, Montana. She started out in classical archaeology, obtaining her BA from the University of Montana in 1930, and her MA from the University of Wisconsin in 1931 with a thesis entitled “Roman State Lands in Campania.” The Depression and her status as a woman seem to have left her without a job. She entered the University of Pennsylvania graduate program in Americanist archaeology in 1937 (Claassen 1999:97). In 1938 she joined the WPA project staff, assigned to oversee the excavations at Irene Mound in Georgia, one of the few

158 | Women Entering Archaeology women in a supervisory position in the WPA. Her first papers were on work at Irene Mound, including contributions on the general ecology of the area (1939a), faunal remains at the mound (1939b), Irene Mound cord-marked pottery (1940), and a general summary paper (Caldwell and McCann 1941). McCann also worked for the WPA at Deptford, Georgia, in 1940, but then the WPA program was shut down because of World War II. She returned to graduate studies after the war, receiving her PHD in 1947 with a dissertation entitled “Aboriginal Urn Burial in the Southeastern United States.” She then began a survey of the upper and middle Dela- ware River. She worked with Dr. William Ritchie at the Bell-Philhower site, New Jersey, and then began her own excavations at the Ware site, New Jersey, in 1947, where she worked out a vertical distribution of ceramics and cross-referenced it to date historical types from adjacent regions (Mounier 2003; McCann 1950). McCann published a number of short papers on this research. In 1957 she became curator of the Tioga Point Museum in Athens, Pennsylvania, and she moved to the William Penn Memorial Museum in Harrisburg in 1962, where she retired in 1971 (Lucy 1991:55). Her archaeological publications thus shifted from New Jersey to eastern Pennsylvania from the 1950s on. Lucy Lumpkin Barrow [McIntire] (1886–1967), born in Athens, Geor- gia, was the daughter of a U.S. senator, and she married Francis Percival McIntire in 1909. She is perhaps better known as a poet and civic leader. She helped found the Historic Savannah Foundation, but in the 1930s, because of her family’s Democratic Party credentials, she was appointed a field supervisor for Georgia WPA projects. It was in this position that she supervised work at Irene and Swift Creek Mounds, together with Preston Holder. She reported on her estimate of the age of Irene Mound, which had been pointed out to her by Dolores Colquitt Floyd, based on the size and number of rings of the trees growing on the mound (Claas- sen 1999:113). The end of WPA funding apparently marked the end of her involvement in archaeology. Alice Leczinska Lowe [Ferguson] (1880–1951) was trained as an artist at the Corcoran School of Art in Washington DC. She married Henry

Women Entering Archaeology | 159 Gardiner Ferguson, who was employed by the United States Geologi- cal Survey, in 1914. When they bought their farm on Accokeek Creek in Maryland in 1922, they found a great number of people had become accustomed to walking across the farm’s fields to collect artifacts. Alice Ferguson said, “Since nobody wanted it and it was in my front yard, the development seemed up to me” (Dent 1984:7). She went to the Smith- sonian Institution, where T. Dale Stewart and others taught her some excavation techniques and methods to deal with burials. She began excavating in 1935 and continued through 1939, excavating a circular stockade village and the trash pits in the village, as well as a major ossu- ary on Piscataway Creek. Ferguson published on her finds, but still had little professional help. Alice was also very concerned about preservation. When suburban development spread closer, she began purchasing hundreds of acres around her property, as the Moyaone Company, and sold it to others of like mind such as Robert Ware Straus, from the Department of the Interior, and architect Charles Wagner (Meringolo 2008:49). When she died, her will provided for the establishment of the Alice Ferguson Foundation, created in 1954, which provided funds for James B. Griffin to hire a student to complete the analysis of materials. Griffin created the Alice L. L. Ferguson Memorial Fellowship and assigned Robert L. Stevenson to analyze the ceramics (Price 2004:179). This research was the basis of Stevenson’s 1956 PHD dissertation, a revised version of which was published in 1963. The remaining portions of the land purchases not in the Ferguson Foundation holdings were established as the Piscataway Real Estate Company trust and the Moyaone Associa- tion trust. In 1961 the federal government accepted the lands from the Ferguson, Piscataway, and Moyaone trusts and created the Piscataway National Park (Meringolo 2008:50, 54). Phoebe Underwood Hunter [Gilkyson] (1891–1975) turned to archaeology late in life. She married Hamilton H. Gilkyson Jr. in 1912. She was a writer of some talent, with her firstpublications at age 14, and she received $500 for her story “The Amateur,” which was published in Harper’s Magazine in 1925. More fiction asw published in the next few

160 | Women Entering Archaeology years. Her husband’s family was interested in local Pennsylvania history, and she began writing a column in the local Phoenixville Republican entitled “Our Yesteryears,” later “Our Yesterdays.” She became involved in local Pennsylvania archaeology at least by the 1930s and published a report in 1945, based on three years of archaeological exploration that she conducted along the Schuylkill Valley between Norristown and Pottstown (Gilkyson 1945). She was a member of the SAA in the 1930s, and by the late 1940s and 1950s she was one of the directors of the Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology. While I have not found any additional documentary evidence that she began her involvement in actual archaeological fieldwork in the 1930s, I include her here as a likely contributor by the end of that decade. Flora Snyder [Black] (1870–1951) was born in Centerville, Pennsyl- vania, and she married Frank Bradfield Black in 1893. She is included here primarily as a woman helping other women in archaeology. She was very interested in the history of Somerset County, Pennsylvania, and her interest ultimately resulted in her securing a seat on Pennsylvania’s Historical Commission, which put her in a good position in the 1930s to influence how the state spentNew Deal money related to historical projects. She “seized the opportunity to push for projects in her home county” (Malakoff 2008:39). She was instrumental in getting the first document survey of archaeological sites in Somerset County by the Civil Works Administration in 1934. She followed this by obtaining support by WPA and Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) funding for excavations from 1935 to 1940, which ended in June 1940, as the war spread in Europe. Black helped recruit and support the work of Mary Butler Lewis, who was a major contributor to Pennsylvania archaeology.

SOUTHEAST Madeline Dorothy Kneberg [Lewis] (1903–96) was born in Moline, Illinois. She dreamed of singing opera and went to Florence, Italy, to study from 1924 to 1928. She then shifted career goals and returned to take a three-year program in nursing at Presbyterian Hospital in Chi- cago. She enrolled at the University of Chicago in 1931 to take pre-med

Women Entering Archaeology | 161 courses, but with the Depression in full swing, the cost of becoming a physician resulted in her dropping that goal. With one more year of study at Chicago, she received her BS in 1932, with a major in sociology (Sullivan 1999:61). Fay-Cooper Cole in the anthropology department then helped Kne- berg secure a National Research Council grant to work on the racial differences of human hair. Her first two professional publications in 1935 and 1936 were based on research from this project. Her MA in physical anthropology at Chicago, finished in 1936, was conferred in 1937, with a thesis entitled “Improved Technique for Hair Examination,” and she was admitted to the PHD program. Because of financial troubles, she took a one-year visiting position at Beloit College in 1936–37, replacing Paul Nesbitt, who was returning to Chicago to finish his PHD with Cole. This led to her only reported excavation work prior to moving to Tennes- see: in the spring of 1937, she organized a joint Chicago-Beloit project, to excavate the largest conical mound at an Effigy Mound culture site near Shireland, Illinois (Sullivan 1999:66). This field school took just two days to complete their excavation. Kneberg returned to Chicago intent on completing her doctoral research. But deepening financial problems made her receptive to securing other paying research. Thomas M. N. Lewis desperately needed someone to help run the laboratory for the large WPA project he was heading up in Tennessee. On the recommendation of Fay-Cooper Cole and William Krogman, Lewis hired Kneberg, even though she basically had no archaeological experience at that point. Kneberg took over the lab, which only had a few graduate students working in it. By the time she had it really functioning well, Kneberg had six graduate student supervisors directing the work of 40 lab workers (Sullivan 1999:70). Almost immediately, Kneberg began giving papers on her archaeological work at the annual SAA meetings — being one of three women giving a paper in 1938, and again one of only three women giving papers in 1940 (Guthe 1938:43, 1940:96–97). Although Kneberg had originally intended the job to be temporary, archaeology in Tennessee became her career. Lewis and Kneberg worked very closely together for the

162 | Women Entering Archaeology next quarter-century. Lewis divorced his first wife in 1939, and then he and Kneberg lived as a couple, but they could not marry and keep their academic positions because of nepotism rules at the University of Tennessee. Hence they did not officially marry until they both retired in 1961 and left the institution. Lewis and Kneberg created a manual for field and lab methods for the Tennessee projects, based on Fay-Cooper Cole’s manual for field schools in Illinois, which they modified and improved over the years. Kneberg became a member of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Tennessee in 1940, when the department picked up part of the cost of her lab salary. When the WPA projects wrapped up in 1942, Kneberg then worked full time for the department, becoming one of the first female full professors in southeastern archaeology. She and Lewis helped found the Tennessee Archaeological Society and the Frank H. McClung Museum in 1960, now a major research facility (Sullivan 1994:114). While there were a score of joint publications by Lewis and Kneberg, in most cases his name came first on the publication. But Kneberg was a major contributor to these volumes, clearly the major one for the Hiwassee Island (1946) and Eva (1961) reports with their significant osteological discussions (Lewis, Kneberg, and Nash 1946; Lewis and Kneberg 1961). Kneberg was the sole author of a few publications, beginning in 1945, but these represent only a minor part of her corpus of written work. Alice Stuart Hendrick [Robinson] was born in Trinidad, Colorado. Her first publication was a series of book reviews in 1930 as a high school student in the Horn Book: Bookshop for Boys and Girls 6/7:257–75. She entered college at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, but then transferred to the University of Michigan. By the time she received her BA there in 1937, she was a member of the student anthropology club and had spent two seasons of fieldwork with University of New Mexico field schools. After graduation, she worked as a museum assistant at the Peabody Museum at Harvard (Lyon 1996:141). In 1938 Thomas M. N. Lewis hired her to do pottery cataloging and classification for the University of Tennessee WPA projects, and she became the principal

Women Entering Archaeology | 163 pottery analyst for the Hiwassee Island report. But when WPA funds ran out, evidently her job disappeared, as I found no further reference to her archaeological work after that point. She then seems to have gone into teaching Romance languages at a Knoxville high school. Marion Lucile Dunlevy [Heimlich] (1913–2001) was born in San Diego. She received her BA from the University of Nebraska in 1934 and her MA in 1935. Her thesis, “A Comparison of the Cultural Manifestations of the Burkett (Nance County) and the Gray-Wolfe (Colfax County) Sites,” was published in 1943 with five other archaeological reports in a University of Nebraska volume. She was hired in the 1933–34 season by David DeJarnette to work as a WPA supervisor in the lab for the Wheeler Basin project, Alabama (Fagette 1996:113), and after completing her MA, she continued working in the lab and museum at the University of Alabama in Birmingham. She was registered as a doctoral student at the University of Chicago from 1936 to 1938, and spent one season working with Fay-Cooper Cole at Kincaid, Illinois, but apparently her WPA- Alabama obligations prevented her from becoming a full-time student (National Research Council 1940:39). She was one of the behind-the- scenes heroines, analyzing and providing the binomial nomenclature for many of the ceramic styles in Alabama. Only rarely did she provide public presentations, such as at the 1939 Southeastern Archaeological Conference (SEAC) in Birmingham, where she gave the paper “The So-called Plain Wares from Moundsville and Guntersville Basin.” At some point she married Oscar W. Heimlich, later director of a major hospital charity in New York City, whom she first met when they were both working as researchers and publishing assistants in New York City as early as 1943. She was still listed as Marion Dunlevy as late as 1947 but as Marion Dunlevy Heimlich by 1952 when she published a short monograph on the Guntersville Basin pottery (White et al. 1994:107). She moved to Rye, New York, in 1957 with her husband, and they both volunteered and served as officers at the local historical society there. While frustrating for my research, it is not unusual to find a woman dedicating more than two decades to archaeology in this period but receiving little public recognition of her contributions.

164 | Women Entering Archaeology Julia Christine Adcock [Wimberly] (1915–2004), usually referred to as Christine, was born in Rossville, Georgia, and received her BA in anthropology from the University of Alabama. With degree in hand, she began supervising lab crews at the Alabama Museum of Natural History. In 1933–34 David DeJarnette hired her as one of the supervisors for the WPA work in the Wheeler Basin. Because the WPA was interested in integrating more black workers into the project, she began supervising a mixed white and black and female and male excavation crew for the WPA (Claassen 1999:95; Fagette 1996:113). She married Steve Boynton Wimberly in 1942. Later she was the copy editor for David DeJarnette (White et al. 1994:107) and was active in the Alabama Archaeological Society. She published in archaeology as well, writing a book with her husband on the analysis of materials from Clarke and Mobile Coun- ties in Alabama (Wimberly et al. 1960), and a popular book, Exploring Prehistoric Alabama through Archaeology (1980). Frances Isabel Garrard [Patterson] (1894–1955) was born in Colum- bus, Georgia, and went to school at the Lucy Cobb Institute in Athens, Georgia, and Hollins College for Women in Hollins, Virginia. After receiving her bachelor’s degree, she married Harman Wayne Patter- son in 1915. Neither of them liked their first names, so in the historical records, one usually finds her listed as either Isabel Patterson or Mrs. H. Wayne Patterson. For the first two decades after their marriage, she appears to have been concerned about raising her family, but by 1934, references to archaeology began appearing in her writings, and she visited archaeological excavations at Macon to see field techniques firsthand (Ledbetter 1999:43). Patterson seems to have spent her first years in archaeology collecting artifacts and trying to interest professional archaeologists in working at sites in Georgia. She collected ceramics for Arthur R. Kelly and John R. Swanton in 1935. She collaborated with Gordon R. Willey in 1938. That same year she took Vladimir Fewkes on a tour of several Georgia sites she had explored, spending considerable time with him at Kolomoki and loaning him projectile points she had collected and donated to the Georgia Society of Archaeology (Claassen 1999: 97; Ledbetter 1999:446–49).

Women Entering Archaeology | 165 Patterson surveyed and collected Irene Mound and several mound sites in the Chattahoochee Valley in 1935, and as an early member of the SAA, she presented one of the handful of papers at the second annual meetings in 1936, “Archaeological Survey of the Chattahoochee Valley in Georgia.” She tried to interest A. R. Kelly in conducting excavations at Irene Mound using WPA funds, but Kelly resisted her suggestion as he did not want to lose control of making decisions for WPA work in Georgia. Patterson also excavated at the Mississippian period site of Bull Creek near Columbus in 1936, finding among other things an out-of-context Clovis style projectile point. She sent her catalogued sherds and site maps to A. R. Kelly in 1936, trying to get him to work at Bull Creek, but also with little luck initially. She did not publish her own report on her work at Bull Creek until 1950. These materials as well as other artifacts from her collections were donated to the Auburn University in her hometown of Columbus in 1953. Patterson finally succeeded in convincing the WPA state office to begin the work at Bull Creek and Irene Mound in the late 1930s. Gay Shepperson, the state FERA administrator, decided to fund a statewide project for archaeological survey in late 1937, and Irene Mound was then set up for 1938 (Ledbetter 1999:47; Lyon 1996:112). In the interim, Pat- terson had so assiduously been surveying sites in Georgia that in 1937 she wrote the first overall survey of Georgia archaeology, “Archaeology of Georgia,” a mimeographed paper put out by the University of Georgia in Athens. For students of historical archaeology, perhaps some of her most important work was her combined effort with Caroline Dormon of Louisiana to get the De Soto Commission, created in 1936, to celebrate the 400th anniversary of De Soto’s explorations in 1941 and to provide another large-scale effort in public archaeology. Marie Dolores H. Boisfeuillet [Colquitt] [Floyd] (1887–1966) was born in Savannah, Georgia. She married William Neyle Colquitt in 1905, and after he died in 1924, she married Marmaduke Hamilton Floyd in 1930. Her first husband had been the clerk of the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee, so while in Washington DC, she studied painting at the Corcoran School of Art and library science at Georgetown University.

166 | Women Entering Archaeology She became an avid historian and was one of the first individuals to promote the restoration and renewal of Georgetown (Johnson 2007:50). After her marriage to Floyd, she moved back to Savannah, became the assistant librarian at the city library, and acted as liaison between the library and the Georgia Historical Society. Dolores Floyd and her husband have been credited with discovering Irene Mound, but it appears it was more a rediscovery, as Clarence B. Moore had tested the mound in 189–98 (Jelks and Jelks 1988:362). Nevertheless, the Floyds began to extensively collect the site, recording several burials and artifacts, including pottery and European trade items. They explored other archaeological sites in Georgia as well, working at times with Antonio J. Waring Jr. and Preston Holder, later known for their contributions to the Southeastern Ceremonial Cult, as well as taking neophyte archaeologist Margaret Ashley Towle around to visit various sites. At the urging of the Georgia Archaeological Society and the Savannah Historical Research Association, Dolores Floyd published a 26–page pamphlet in 1936, New Yamacraw and the Indian Mound Irene (Jelks and Jelks 1988:362). Subsequently, the mound became the locus of the first black female crew working in archaeology in Georgia. In 1937 she also began a research project on the early history of the Georgia coast, which resulted in her founding the Maritime Museum of Savan- nah in the “Pirates House” in town, as well as being involved in saving several historic buildings (Johnson 2007:50). Helen Virginia Donovan [Barnard] (1910–2011) was born in Muncie, Indiana. Her family moved to Texas in 1926, and she entered the Uni- versity of Texas in 1928, receiving her BA in American history in 1932. She was a tutor in the Department of Anthropology and an assistant in the temporary departmental museum in the fall of 1932. In 1933 she married Philip Dickinson Barnard, an architecture student, and in 1934, she was appointed laboratory supervisor in anthropology and curator of the Museum for the newly open Anthropology Museum, a position she kept until the war (Barnard 1939:385–86). She finished her MA in 1939, writing the definitive early history of archaeological research by the University of Texas in an immense thesis. She assisted Texas

Women Entering Archaeology | 167 graduate students and staff members in their fieldwork. But with the onset of the war and the birth of two children, she disappears from the archaeological records in the mid-1940s. She died in Houston at the age of 100. Mary Mildred Pickle [Mayhall] (1902–87) was born in Austin and finished her BA at the University of Texas in 1924, with a focus on anthropology, geology, and psychology. She completed her MA thesis, “The Psychology of Primitive Dancing,” in 1926. She married Temple Bland Mayhall in San Antonio in 1925. She then taught in the anthropology department. Although she took graduate courses at the University of Chicago between 1929 and 1933, her PHD in 1939, “The Indians of Texas: The Atakapa, the Karankawa, the Tonkawa,” was completed at the University of Texas. This 730-page dissertation was a massive summation of archaeological, ethnohistoric, and ethnographic evidence. Barnard (1939) also listed Mayhall as assisting the archaeologists at the University of Texas during the 1930s. Although Mary Mayhall spent most of her research time on ethnographic materials, writing up major volumes on the Kiowas and Comanches, in the 1930s she still listed her research interests as “history, ethnography, and archaeology of Texas Indians” (National Research Council 1938:63, 1940:94). Because of family issues and returning war veterans who had priority, she left her job at the university in 1946. Ten years later, she took a job teaching history at Austin Public High School. Her husband was an architect for the school district. Mamie Ruth Eunice Tanquist [Miller] (1893–1971) was born near Mankato, Minnesota. She worked in archaeology for a limited period, but spent most of her career doing sociology and social anthropology. She received her BA in 1927 from Hamline College in St. Paul, and then entered graduate school at the University of Minnesota, where she finished her MA thesis, “A Statistical Study of the Changes of Occu- pation and Economic Status of 600 American Families during Four Generations.” The next summer she took part in her first archaeological fieldwork at Chaco Canyon with the University of New Mexico field school (Anonymous 1928:134), while still enrolled in graduate school.

168 | Women Entering Archaeology She participated in the 1929 field season and in 1930 was appointed an instructor in anthropology and archaeology at the University of New Mexico. Edgar Hewett was the only other faculty member that year; the two were assisted by Reginald Fisher (Bock 1989:1–2). Mamie Tanquist had enrolled in the anthropology department at the University of Southern California, under Edgar Hewett, to work on her dissertation, “The Ancient Jemez Pueblo of Unshaqi, New Mexico,” based on her excavations at the ruins in Chaco Canyon. She married in 1934, and her publications from 1935 onward are by Mamie Miller or Mamie Tanquist-Miller. She continued researching the Jemez (El Palacio 42/43:129, 1937) and working on historical archaeological studies (Miller 1941, Pueblo Indian Culture as Seen by the Early Spanish Explorers). In 1935 the number of anthropology and archaeology faculty members had increased to five; in 1936, the Department of Sociology was formed, and Mamie shifted to that program (Bock 1989:2; Fowler 2003:317). Until her retirement in 1953, the bulk of her work was in social anthropology, ethnography, and rural sociology. Based on her teaching of anthropology and archaeology in the early 1930s, her participation on excavations, and archaeologically oriented publications, Mamie fits into this chapter, even though most of her academic labor was in sociology.

MIDWEST Along with Hewett’s field schools in New Mexico and Cumming’s excavations in Arizona, Fay-Cooper Cole’s field digs in Illinois were among the best known in the 1930s. As previously discussed, in 1930 Cole received excavation funding for three women students and set up Dorothy Cross, Frida Hahn, and Eva Horner on a separate all-female crew. Cross went on to become an important archaeological contributor in the Northeast, Hahn went into linguistics, and Horner pursued ethnology. The next year, Cole integrated Betty Frey and Olive Eggan into his male crews at the Morton site. At that time, Cole required all of the University of Chicago graduate students to have at least one season of archaeological excavation experience. Betty Frey may be a non-archaeologist thus involved because of that requirement. She disappears from

Women Entering Archaeology | 169 the archaeological scene after this excavation, although I wondered if she were the Mary Elizabeth Frey who received an education degree at the University of Southern Illinois in 1937. Olive S. Eggan [Redfield] (1909–82) had just a bit more archaeological visibility. She had received her BA from the University of Chicago in 1930 and had been admitted to the graduate program in anthropology. Her brother, Frederick Russell Eggan (1906–91), would become a well-known anthropologist. At that point in Fred’s career, he was still interested in archaeology; he participated in several seasons of excavation at the University of Chicago with Cole and worked with J. O. Brew at Atawovi in 1939–40; thus Olive’s involvement with the excavations made archaeology somewhat a family project. James Griffin, whose negative comments about women archaeology students were noted earlier, was one of the graduate students working with Olive in the 1931 season, but in her case, he reported that Olive was “the one who did the best excavation in the Whitnah Village Site (Fv49) and sorted the sherds to obtain the ceramic sequence” (Griffin 1992:8). Olive was primarily interested in linguistics at this point; in 1931 she had written a pamphlet, Notes on Mohican, under the guidance of Frank Speck, based on her interviews with one of the few surviving Mohican speakers. In 1934 she and John M. Stalnaker published a graduate student article on “The German Requirement for the PHD Degree” (German Quarterly 7(March):69–76). After World War II, Olive married fellow University of Chicago graduate student Charles E. Redfield and moved with him to San Francisco, where he was involved in public administration. In 1932 Fay-Cooper Cole had no women on his excavation crews. But in 1933, he put Harriet Smith in charge of a Putnam County excavation project, supervising the only other women in that year’s field school, Dorothy Miller and Jean Stellman. The women formed their own crew and excavated separately from the men (Sampson 1992:9). Regrettably, as with Betty Frey in 1930, other than this one season’s excavation, there is no more record of archaeological involvement by Miller or Stellman. Harriet Minola Smith (1911–92) was born in Illinois and received her BS from Northwestern University. She wrote a paper on the physical

170 | Women Entering Archaeology anthropology of “Mississippi Negros” with her instructor, Melville Hers- kovits (Herskovits et al. 1931). She then entered graduate school at the University of Chicago and received her MA with an ethnoarchaeological thesis, “On the Coincidence of Folklore Subject Matter with Culture Areas,” in 1937. She reported to one of her friends, Jean Dunkerley, that archaeology wasn’t “a proper occupation for a young lady,” but she continued on anyway (Dunkerley 1992:5). From 1933 through 1938, she was an unpaid laboratory assistant in anthropology at the University of Chicago. In 1937 Harriet passed her junior park archaeologist exam with the National Park Service, which allowed her to secure employment with the Illinois WPA in 1938 (National Research Council 1940:140). Finding an appropriate job descriptor for a woman archaeologist seemed difficult for the WPA personnel, so initially her position was termed “Museum Technician with the Illinois WPA Statewide Museum Extension Proj- ect,” and under this job title she helped Thorne Deuel supervise WPA work in Illinois in 1939 and 1940. But then she took on her own WPA work at Mound 55 or Murdock Mound at Cahokia, Illinois, ceasing only when the war broke out in December 1941. Harriet observed that the sides of Murdock Mound were parallel to the sides of Monks Mound at Cahokia, and she argued that this orientation represented intentional site planning, making this observation nearly a quarter-century before Cahokia’s Woodhenge was discovered and other male regional archaeologists adopted this interpretation (Chappell 2002:148). Smith wrote up a preliminary report on her work in 1942 and then created a longer, more detailed report in 1969 for Fowler’s review of Cahokia archaeology. When the WPA projects were canceled, Smith found a job as assistant to the director of the museum at the Chicago Academy of Science in 1943. She made some educational films for the Academy before shifting over to do similar work for the Field Museum of Natural History. She subsequently became a teacher in Evanston, Illinois, although she continued being an occasional lecturer in archaeology at the Field Museum (Pickering 1992:4). For 18 field seasons, she ran an NSF summer excavation program at the Field Museum for high school students

Women Entering Archaeology | 171 (Claassen 1999:109; Dunkerley 1992:5). She wrote several children’s books and articles while at the museum, such as Prehistoric People of Illinois (1963). Harriet Smith also had hired a fellow University of Chicago archaeology graduate student, Trava Wilson, to help with the technical supervision of the Murdock Mound crews at Cahokia (McCorvie 2008:5–6). Wilson worked with Smith for the final four months of the project, but with the onset of the war, she completely disappears from my search base. Gretchen Froehlich Cutter [Sharp] (1909–88) received her BA in anthropology from Radcliffe College in 1931. She entered graduate school at the University of Michigan in 1935, but after one year, transferred to the University of Chicago graduate program and took classes there from 1936 to 1938 under the guidance of Fay-Cooper Cole. Beginning in 1939 through 1941 she became involved in various WPA excavation projects on behalf of the University of Chicago and the Illinois State Museum. This was the time of development of McKern’s “Midwest Taxonomy,” so Cutter gave a paper at the SAA meetings on classification issues in 1939, an excerpt of which was published in American Antiquity that year. In 1940 and 1941 Cutter was the director of a large WPA excavation project at the Fisher site, near Channahon in Will County, Illinois, working for the University of Chicago and the Illinois State Museum (Cole 1940:82; McCorvie 2008:4). Along with Harriet Smith, Dorothy Cross Jensen, and Catherine McCann, she was one of the few women selected to direct a WPA project. She had worked with the materials that George Langford had excavated from the Fisher site in the 1920s in preparation for her MA thesis, which was why she revisited the site, found it endangered, and managed to secure Cole’s support in running the WPA project there (Emerson and Emerson 2008:13). She wrote weekly reports and consulted with James Griffin (Griffin 1943:283n34) on the analysis of the ceramics from this site for her thesis, producing an unpublished document, “Fisher Pottery Types.” But this analysis may never have been finished as she left the project early for financial reasons (Emerson and Emerson 2008:14). She was still listed as a student at the University of Chicago in 1941, but shortly after that, apparently in

172 | Women Entering Archaeology 1942, she married Jack Sharp, to judge by the name change in references. While I think she was likely single up to that date, four references to her in American Antiquity and Science between 1939 and 1941 refer to her as Mrs. Gretchen Cutter, which is somewhat confusing. Was she already married to Jack Sharp but keeping her maiden name for professional purposes, did Fay-Cooper Cole in his communications misidentify her, was she married at age 18 when she entered Radcliffe and thus was Mrs. Cutter from the first references, or was the title “Mrs.” premature or in error? I presume the latter, because when I checked the alumnae records in the archives in the Schlesinger Library at Radcliffe, she was listed as single. She appears to have dropped out of archaeology by 1942, and after the war she went on to become an expert in early American folk art. Mildred Ingram Mott [Wedel] (1912–95) was born in Marengo, Iowa. She attended the University of Iowa, where she received her BA in history in 1934. She then enrolled at the University of Chicago. In later commentary, she indicated that she believed she was the first woman student at the University of Chicago to be given a graduate fellowship in anthropology (Gradwohl 1997:399). In the summer of 1933, she went to the University of New Mexico field school at Jemez. In the field season of 1936 she was back home in Iowa working at Brazell’s Island Bear Effigy Mound and Hill Mound group. In the field season of 1937 she worked at Kincaid, Illinois. In 1938, she received her MA; her thesis, “The Relation of Historic Indian Tribes to Archaeological Manifesta- tions in Iowa,” was immediately published. That summer she was the director for fieldwork at the Willson Mound group and Humble Village site in Iowa. A young researcher named Waldo Rudolph Wedel came from his Great Plains research for the Smithsonian Institution to visit her sites; they were married the following summer in Iowa City. While Mildred Mott was at Chicago, she was one of the research assistants for Florence Hawley Senter and wrote a paper on midwestern dendrochronology with her (Senter et al. 1941). She also studied ethnohistory with Sara Jones Tucker at Chicago — a skill which she honed to provide the bulk of her later research (Gradwohl 1997:401). In 1940,

Women Entering Archaeology | 173 Mildred and Waldo Wedel worked together in field excavations in Kan- sas, but it was at about that point she interrupted most of her active field research to raise children for two decades, although as a typical wife of an archaeologist, she assisted her husband in the field with his projects on the River Basins Survey through the 1960s. I have not said much about the difficulty of raising children while pursuing a career in these pages. But as Francis Joan Mathien told me, “I know that some of the most successful archaeological career women didn’t marry or didn’t have children.” For example, that was the decision that Frederica de Laguna explicitly made. Even if a woman was adamant about continuing on in the discipline, the obligations of child-rearing made field work difficult. Thus, even though a mother, Mildred Wedel was able to continue to be very active on her own outside of fieldwork doing archival and documentary research. She made significant contributions in historical archaeology and ethnohistory, particularly focusing on the French explorations of the Great Plains area and the interaction of Euro-Americans with the Iowa and Wichita First Nations groups. She produced a useful paper for midwestern archaeologists on the “payoffs and pitfalls” of ethnohistory resulting from this research (Wedel 1976). With her children raised, in 1974 Mildred was appointed a Smithsonian Institution research associate in anthropology. Her work, particularly in the case of the Iowa and Otoe tribes, was important in the land claim suits which the First Americans pursued to secure remuneration for broken treaties. With her last active project in 1985, she contributed over half a century of research to the field. Mary Eugenia “Jean” Tyree [Hamilton] (1909–99) was born in Shelbyville, Missouri, but moved very young to Lexington, Missouri. She obtained her BS in education from the University of Missouri in 1932 and continued graduate work in history that year, but left school for financial reasons. She was deputy assessor and then treasurer of Lafayette County from 1932 to 1940, and was active in local politics. She joined the Missouri Archaeological Society (MAS) in 1939, where she met Henry William Hamilton. She legally changed her first name to Jean, married Hamilton in February 1940, and moved to Marshall, Saline County, Missouri. Both

174 | Women Entering Archaeology of them were active as avocational archaeologists, being involved in advocating historic preservation as well as funding for archaeology and serving as prime movers for many decades in the MAS and the Friends of Arrow Rock. She served as secretary-treasurer of the MAS from 1942 to 1944. She became vice president of the Friends of Arrow Rock in 1959 and served in that position for two decades before becoming a trustee. She wrote the seminal history of the site, Arrow Rock: Where the Wheels Started West (1963), which has been reissued multiple times. While she penned works on historic archaeology in local newspapers and journals, she is best known in professional circles for her work with her husband on reconstructing the copper artifact assemblage from Spiro Mound with information they salvaged from various collectors over 16 years (Hamilton, Hamilton, and Chapman 1974). Dorothy Electa Fraser (1894–1969) was born in Yonkers, New York. She graduated from Barnard College in 1916 and secured a job as reference librarian at the Library of Congress, where she worked for a decade or more. In 1937–38, she returned to school to study archaeology at Columbia University with W. Duncan Strong. She participated in excavations in the 1937 and 1938 summer field seasons on a Brewerton Phase Middle and Late Archaic site in upstate New York. In 1939 she was one of Strong’s lab technicians at Columbia. In the summer season of that year, she was one of a party of five students who went on a survey along the Missouri River basin in South Dakota for Strong. She worked up her part of these materials for a 1941 MA thesis, “The Cultural Significance of an Archaeological Site on the Middle Missouri River,” but then the war interfered with further research. Strong recruited her for Missouri River Basin Survey work on the Oahe and Fort Randall Reservoir projects in South Dakota in 1948 and 1949, where she was particularly involved with the Rygh site excavations. Thus relatively late in her life, Fraser was an active participant and contributor to field archaeology research. Gretchen A. Beardsley [Obrecht] (1916–2009), from Jones, Michigan, was a University of Michigan undergraduate and graduate student. She did her first fieldwork at the University of New Mexico at Chaco Canyon at Tseh So in 1936, where she wrote a paper on prehistoric textile analysis,

Women Entering Archaeology | 175 and in 1937 she received her Michigan BA. She then went on a fieldwork project in 1937 with George Quimby for a University of Michigan excavation at a Late Woodland site. After completing her MA at Michigan in 1938, she received a scholarship that allowed her to do ethnobotanical research with the Michigan Chippewa and Ojibwa. She seems to have focused on archaeobotanical and ethnobotanical research. In her graduate work she received funding from both the anthropology and botany departments. Her first paper both at the SAA and AAA meetings in 1941 was on Chippewa medicine, and her first publications on aboriginal use of ground nut (Apios sp.) and the material medica of the Cree (1940, 1942) indicate the shift in her research direction. But owing to the war, perhaps her marriage to Carl B. Obrecht by 1942, and many of the same issues that women students faced and dealt with time and again, she was unable to continue on in archaeobotany or ethnobotany as a career after 1945. The last mention I found of her work was in reference to her serving on the faculty of Western College for Women in Oxford, Ohio, teaching botany. Sara Julia Jones [Tucker] (1907–68) was born in Oberlin, Ohio, and received her BA from Oberlin College in 1928. She then went to Colum- bia University, where she obtained an MA in 1931. In 1932 she married William Boose Tucker, who received his MD from the University of Chicago in 1934. From 1934 to 1936 she was a graduate student at Chi- cago, working on her PHD research. She left the university in 1936 to become an anthropological research assistant, using SSRC funds, to conduct research for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and to work on an Indian land problem for the Atkinson, Topeka and Santa Fe railroad until 1938. It was at this point, searching legal documents on the Hualapai lands, that she apparently became interested in historic archaeology and ethnohistory. Through the cooperation of the railroad, she did an archaeological survey on their project lands in Arizona in 1938. Later in 1938 and 1939 she was again at the University of Chicago, this time doing archaeological fieldwork in theUpper Mississippi valley (National Research Council 1940:156). By the early 1940s, she was solidly into ethnohistory, writing on the use of archival materials and the historic

176 | Women Entering Archaeology Indian villages of Illinois. She was listed as instructor and research associate in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Chicago from 1938 to 1947. Joan Howson [Clarke] (1917–2011) was born in New York City and was a member of the Bryn Mawr Class of 1938. In 1938 she entered graduate school at Columbia University. That excavation season she assisted Watson Smith (of Harvard’s Peabody Museum) and Edward Twitchell Hall (of Columbia University) in the excavations at the early Spanish stockade settlement of Gobernador, New Mexico. In 1939 she went with W. Duncan Strong on his archaeological excavations in South Dakota. Among the graduate papers she wrote for Strong were “History in the Zuni Valley” (1939) and “The Anthropological Aspect of Thomas Henry Huxley” (1940), which are listed with Strong’s papers in the Smithsonian Institution Archives. In 1941 she completed her Columbia MA thesis, “A Protohistoric Arikara Village: The Buffalo Pasture Site,” an analysis of the results of Strong’s excavations at the site in South Dakota. She then took a job with the War Department, married John Alden Clarke in 1942, and moved to Morristown, New Jersey. However, she kept up her interest in American Indians and was listed by Klein and Icolari (1973:48) as the curator of the American Indian materials in the 1970s at the Morris Museum of Arts and Sciences, Morristown, New Jersey.

SOUTHWEST As might be expected, archaeological programs at the University of New Mexico, the University of Arizona, the University of Denver, and the University of Southern California had a major impact on the growth of southwestern archaeology, but women students in these programs were recruited from all areas of the country, in addition to the Southwest, particularly in the Chicago area and New England. Marjorie Elizabeth Ferguson [Tichy] [Lambert] (1908–2006) was born in Colorado Springs, Colorado. There seems to be some question of her birth date; a number of history of science researchers list it as 1910, but Marjorie herself lists it as 1908, as does the Social Security Index, so that is the date I am utilizing. She became interested in classical

Women Entering Archaeology | 177 archaeology (Egyptology) in high school, but planned to major in psychi- atric social work when she entered Colorado College (Constable 2006; Irwin-Williams 1990:26). However, after going to lectures by Edgar L. Hewett and Sylvanus W. Morley while at Colorado College, she changed her mind. She completed her BA in sociology in 1930. (Recollect that many institutions did not yet have separate anthropology departments, so sociology was a frequent academic major venue for students interested in anthropology or archaeology.) Hewett offered Marjorie a research teaching fellowship at the Uni- versity of New Mexico (Irwin-Williams 1990:26). The first summer field school was rather frustrating. As he typically did during this period, Hewett ran two field schools in the summer of 1930, one at Battleship Rock in the Jemez Mountains for the neophytes and interested public and a second one at Chaco Canyon for the advanced and presumably more serious students. Hewett maintained this program of two field schools while he was in charge in the 1930s, and by far the greater number of women students mentioned in this chapter went first to Jemez and only subsequently were allowed to participate in the Chaco digs. Ferguson told her biographer, “The male crew chiefs, Gordon Vivian and Paul Reiter, refused to teach excavation techniques to the female students as a way of discouraging them from pursuing a career in archaeology. They would also assign the female students some of the most difficult excavation tasks, hoping they would fail” (Tisdale 2008:189). Regrettably, this kind of behavior persisted. Half a century later, Esther Reidbord Skirboll reported her surprise when at the University of Pittsburgh, in her first job as a teaching assistant,“I was not permitted to assist in archaeology classes” and “Over the years of doing field archaeology, I saw women being made the butt of humiliating jokes and being given jobs that were clearly subservient” (Skirboll 2006:139–40). For the field school in the summer of 1931, Marjorie wrote “A Study of the Architecture of the Chaco Canyon Indians, the Province of Tusayan, and the Indians of the Seven Cities of Cibola,” but her 1931 MA thesis at New Mexico was entitled “The Acculturation of Sandia Pueblo.” Marjorie and her biographers list the MA degree as the highest she completed.

178 | Women Entering Archaeology In his history of the Department of Anthropology at the University of New Mexico, Philip Bock (1989:4) says that Marjorie received a PHD from the University of Southern California under Edgar Hewett, but I could find no supporting evidence for this idea. After receiving her MA, Marjorie Ferguson became a part-time instructor at New Mexico as well as a member of the museum’s staff. In 1932 she apparently embarked on her first marriage, to George Tichy, who was a member of the museum’s advisory board. She wrote under the name Tichy from then until her second marriage in 1950. She remained married to George Tichy for 18 years, even though the two lived together for less than a year, “feeling that it was safer to remain in a bad marriage than to live as a single woman” (Tisdale 2008:202). In 1950, Marjorie married Everett Vey “Jack” Lambert, a dude ranch owner, who had sold part of his land to the School of American Research for their buildings and later served on their board. Marjorie Tichy taught at the University of New Mexico from 1932 to 1937 and supervised their summer field school excavations at Teco- lote, Puaray, Kuaua, Giusewa, and Pa’ako (see, e.g., Tichy 1937, 1938, 1939a, 1939b). She was one of the pioneers combining ethnohistorical and ethnoarchaeological research with excavation methods. She hired First American and Hispanic men as crew members and consulted with them about the artifacts and oral traditions, treating them “much different from that of other archaeologists at the time,” and incorporated their commentaries into her write-ups (Tisdale 2008:184). In terms of excavation work, these were the most productive years for Tichy. Hewett seemed to have had confidence in her abilities, providing her with six assistants utilizing FERA money. And in the fall of 1936 Hewett asked her to take complete charge of the excavations at Pa’ako, to develop the research design as well as to lead the crew. But when he came out to visit her project, Hewett was not happy. “Even his students and supporters agreed that Hewett showed little interest in the increasingly technical and scientific aspects of archaeology, including such basic field methods as taking meticulous notes in the field and using stratigraphic excavation techniques for dating sites and artifacts” (Tisdale

Women Entering Archaeology | 179 2008:195). Hewett complained vehemently because Marjorie was doing stratigraphic excavation, which meant she was not moving enough dirt to secure the maximum number of museum specimens, which was his goal. In 1937 Hewett retired from teaching, although he kept his job as director of the museum. He moved Paul Reiter from the museum staff to the university staff to teach, and moved Marjorie to the museum to serve as chief preparator and curator in archaeology, a position she kept until she retired in 1969. “Marjorie quickly learned that women in the museum had to work harder for less pay and that they enjoyed fewer opportunities for advancement than their male colleagues in similar positions” (Tisdale 2008:185). She was saddled with unpaid jobs: for example, as curator, she was the de facto secretary of the Archaeological Society of New Mexico from 1943 to 1956. She was required to arrange annual lectures and other society activities, but she was not paid for this work or assisted by the male staff (Tisdale 2008:201). While she tried to keep up her own research on prehistoric and early historic Rio Grande pueblos, the demands of her museum job left her with little access to the students and little opportunity to conduct fieldwork. Her later fieldwork is limited to projects such as Yuque Yunque near Oke Owinge Pueblo in 1944, some fieldwork in Mexico in 1946 and 1947, and research at caves in Hidalgo County in 1960. Marjorie Lambert then shifted the focus of her research at the museum, turning her attention to public education and the preservation of the native arts and cultures of the First American and Hispanic peoples of New Mexico. She wrote some 200 publications during her career (Tisdale 2008:183). Bertha Pauline Dutton (1903–94) was born in Algona, Iowa, and she entered the University of Nebraska in 1931. On the advice of friends, she then went to the Southwest, transferring to the University of New Mexico in 1932, where she obtained a BA in 1935 (Morris and Olin 1995:653). She participated in her first field school at Alibates, Texas, under the direction of Marjorie Ferguson Tichy in 1932, and then worked on several other field projects in New Mexico. She supported herself from 1933 to 1936 by serving as the secretary of the Department of Anthropology. She

180 | Women Entering Archaeology finished her master’s thesis, “Leyit Kin — a Small House Ruin, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico,” in 1937, based on fieldwork she had done at Chaco Canyon (Dutton 1938). Her first publications were based on Chaco Canyon and then on Peruvian fieldwork. Dutton worked for Edgar Hewett at the Museum of New Mexico from 1936 to 1939, primarily as his secretary. Having gone in the field season of 1935 to Peru and Bolivia with Hewett, and to Mexico with him in 1935 and 1936, Dutton developed an interest in Latin American archaeology and participated in projects in Guatemala from 1937 to 1941 (Dutton 1937, 1939; Dutton and Hobbs 1943). She began graduate work at Columbia University in 1938, and at Hewett’s suggestion, she was going to write up the kiva murals of Kuaua for her PHD, but W. Duncan Strong at Columbia suggested that she work on Tula (Mexico) archaeology instead (Morris and Olin 1995:654). Dutton remained employed at the Museum of New Mexico as an associate in archaeology and a curator of ethnology from 1939 until she retired in 1965, so her dissertation work was completed during breaks in her regular job, although after 1945, she took more extended leave to work on her research. Hence she finished her dissertation from Columbia in 1952, entitled “The Toltecs and Their Influence on the Culture of Chichen Itza,” but this appears to end her research in Latin America. Bertha Dutton was one of the earliest Americanist archaeologists to recognize the need for public participation in archaeology, long predating the general profession’s recognition of the importance of this involvement (Cordell 1993:211). Dutton ran field camps for Senior Girl Scouts in the Southwest for many years through the museum. Among Dutton’s “Dirty Digger Girl Scouts” recruits was Catherine “Kay” Sweeney Fowler, who has subsequently published several contributions in archaeology with her husband, Don D. Fowler. Because of her position as curator, Dutton also was more involved in ethnology in her later years. After retiring from the museum, she served as director of the Museum of Navaho Ceremonial Art from 1966 to 1975. Unlike some of her peers, Dutton was a solid writer, with more than 50 publications to her credit. Hulda Ruth Hobbs [Heidel] (1909–99) was born in Roswell, New

Women Entering Archaeology | 181 Mexico. After receiving her BS from the University of New Mexico, she went to the University of Washington, where she received her MS, “Attempted Desensitization of Tuberculous Guinea Pigs by Means of Living BCG and H27 Antigens,” in 1932. Apparently there were no jobs in this field or this topic turned out not to be a satisfactory direction, as by 1934 (if not before), she was back in New Mexico and had joined the local AIA society. Mathien (1992:121) lists a 1938 MA for Hulda. It is not clear whether Hulda attempted a second MA at New Mexico, or whether this date is a clerical error. I could find no published reference to any title of a thesis for her except the 1932 one, so I believe she may only have had the MS from Washington. In 1936 Hulda Hobbs was hired as secretary and translator at the School of American Research; the next year she was advanced to curator of documentary history, and she remained a curator there for the next decade. She worked at the summer excavations at Chaco Canyon in 1936, excavating and writing up Room 20 at Tseh So (BC 50), and then went with Hewett to Guatemala with the field school in 1937. In 1938–39 she and Bertha Dutton directed excavations at Tajumulco in southwest Guatemala, which they wrote about in 1943. In 1939 Hobbs, Dutton, and Jean Cady conducted excavations near Alibates in western Texas, and Hobbs did more work there again in 1941. Hobbs helped transcribe Adolph Bandelier’s journals at the museum for publication, and she published a dozen articles in the journal El Palacio on her various archaeological excavation projects. She was called to serve in the war and was in the U.S. Navy WAVES (Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service) in 1943–44. In 1946 in her position as museum historian, she wrote up the history of the Archaeological Society of New Mexico, which is still a valuable resource document. She resigned her position as curator of history at the museum in June 1947, leaving to marry a local lawyer and state politician, Finis Leroy Heidel; this appears to have ended her career in archaeology. Eleanor Brown Pack [Hibben] (1898–1992) was born in Waterbury, Connecticut. There is some confusion over her birth date — most of the genealogies I consulted cite it as 1900, but a personal interview

182 | Women Entering Archaeology reference shortly before she died, as well as her Social Security information, place her birth in 1898. Her first marriage in 1919 was to Arthur Newton Pack, later a well-known naturalist and conservationist. While living in Princeton, New Jersey, she had three children with him. In the 1920s, she started “camera hunting” with Pack on nature tours and being cited as the second author, or at least the photographer, on several of his articles. In 1933, the couple purchased the “Ghost Ranch” near Santa Fe. By 1935 and 1936 Arthur and Eleanor Pack are listed separately as donating funds to the University of New Mexico field schools for excavations — in 1936 for the Kuaua mural work. The marriage broke apart about that time, and in June 1936, Eleanor “Brownie” Pack married Frank Cummings Hibben, who had just finished his master’s degree at the University of New Mexico. Presumably Eleanor had met Frank a year earlier, when he and William Stallings were working on the excavations of Riana ruin and the Chama Valley survey, where Eleanor took photographs as well as excavating and participating in the write-up (Hibben, Hibben, and Stallings 1937). In the summer of 1936 Brownie and Frank excavated at the University of New Mexico field school. Frank then went to Harvard to work on his PHD, which he received in 1940. While at Harvard, in 1937 or 1938, Eleanor and Frank jointly participated in one of the American School of Prehistoric Research excavation projects in Europe (Bricker 2002:283). Frank Hibben continued working in the Southwest; for example, in 1942, Hattie Cosgrove reports helping Eleanor and Frank out for part of the season at Pottery Mound near Albuquerque (Davis 1995:212). Eleanor reported that when she firstmarried Hibben, she expected to continue being a naturalist’s wife, as she had with Arthur Pack, but she soon “began to study archaeology in order to help his work, both in the field and at the University” (Hibben 1983:110). She noted that no matter where they were, she and Frank would always start surface collecting (Hibben 1983:6, 106). Eleanor was clearly a significant archaeological colleague for her husband, but as with a great many wives of archaeologists, she fails to get mentioned by her husband or male colleagues. Winifred Stamm [Reiter] (1909–90) was born in Albuquerque. She

Women Entering Archaeology | 183 joined the local chapter of the AIA and became very involved in excavations at the University of New Mexico as an undergraduate, first going to Chaco Canyon in 1928 as a sophomore (National Research Council 1938:81). From 1929 to 1931 she was the first editor of the short-lived publication Digs, put out by the students on the Chaco projects. (Digs ceased publication in 1934.) While this student journal was published separately, it also was included as a section of the journal El Palacio, so Stamm served as an assistant editor of El Palacio in 1930. She published a number of articles about University of New Mexico fieldwork during this period (Stamm 1929, 1930a, 1930b, 1931). After she received her BA in 1930, she continued on in the UNM graduate program. In 1931 she married a fellow student, Paul David Reiter, shortly after he received his BA. Winifred finished her MA in 1933 with the thesis “Personal Adornment of Ancient Pueblo Indians.” Her husband finished his own thesis, “The Ancient Pueblo of Chetro Ketl” that year and was hired as the curator of archaeology at the Museum at the School for American Research. Thus while Winifred continued participating in archaeological excavations with him for some years, her own research took a back seat to her husband’s projects. Winifred had part-time positions, such as filling in as the director of the Art Museum in 1936, but she shifted to work in the library for her intellectual outlet, occasionally doing articles on archaeology (Reiter 1933, 1939), but basically not competing with her husband. After her husband’s death in 1953, she became the director of the UNM alumni association and continued in this position for many years, her third career. Nan Ashton Glenn [Chamberlain] (1916–89) was born in Dallas, Texas, and initially enrolled in Randolph-Macon Women’s College in Virginia. She transferred to the University of New Mexico in 1935 and spent the summer of 1936 in Peru on Hewett’s project there, finishing her BA at New Mexico. In 1937 and 1938 she went to the Chaco Canyon field school, working the second year at Tseh So (BC-50), which she wrote up as a separate report. She finished her MA at New Mexico in 1937, with a thesis entitled “The Probable Origin of Modern Pueblos.”

184 | Women Entering Archaeology She entered graduate school at the University of Chicago in 1938 and was initially prepared to move with Dr. Leslie Spier from Chicago to Yale to continue graduate studies when marriage intervened. She wed Joseph P. Chamberlain Jr. in 1939, and the couple moved to Redwood City, California. She became active in the local historical society there, but no longer was involved in archaeology. Esther Funk (1907–66) was born and spent her career in Southern California, mainly teaching in the Huntington Beach school system. She received a BA from the University of Southern California in 1922, with a major in sociology. She began teaching in the kindergarten; over the years she moved up in grade levels, advancing to high school teaching in 1945. In 1935 she returned to graduate school at USC, working with Edgar Hewett. She went with Hewett to Peru in 1935, worked with ancient highland Peruvian textiles, and published an article on this research in 1936. She went to Guatemala in 1936 to work on aboriginal textiles and designs for the University of New Mexico field school. In 1937 she participated in the Chaco Canyon fields school, doing what today would be called paleoethnobotanical collecting. She wrote this first year’s research up as “Collection of Seeds, Talus Unit #1, Chetro Ketl.” During this period, she continued her graduate studies at USC. As with many students, the obligations of World War II interfered; hence her MA in anthropology, “A Comparison of Ancient and Modern Peru- vian Textiles,” from USC was delayed until 1946. Mathien (1992:121) indicates that Esther married an Army general during that period; if so, this would be a reason for her disappearing from archaeological research lists, although I have found that she continued to teach at Huntington Beach High School for the next two decades under her maiden name. Dorothy Louise Luhrs (1910–1972) was born in Gardnerville, Nevada. She completed her BA at the University of New Mexico in 1935, and then continued on in graduate work there (Herskovits and Ames 1950:115). In the 1935 field season, she worked at Kin Nahasbas and Una Vida in Chaco Canyon. She wrote her 1935 work up in a report for the School of American Research. Luhrs completed her MA thesis in 1937, entitled “The Identification and Distribution of the Ceramic Types in the Rio

Women Entering Archaeology | 185 Puerco Area, Central New Mexico.” She was put in charge of supervising all prehistoric structural repairs after the excavation at Chaco Talus Unit #1 in 1937, and as junior archaeologist for the NPS she also began working at the Kuaua excavations in Largo Canyon. She provided a short note in El Palacio, detailing all of the 1937 research projects. She and Albert G. Ely wrote up their first season’s work at Kuaua in 1938, and for 1938–39 she was the director of the Kuaua excavations. After the Kuaua project was completed, the University of New Mex- ico department staff actively discouraged Luhrs from continuing on for her PHD in archaeology. She thus took a position at the Coronado State Monument in 1938 and the Museum of New Mexico in 1939. She then moved to California, where she was named a research associate in anthropology at USC in 1941. There she completed her PHD in social anthropology in 1944, “An Anthropological Study of the Sources of Mal- adjustment among Eastern Pueblo Adolescents,” and then joined the Allan Hancock Foundation of USC and became involved in part-time teaching. She participated in archaeological projects in Arizona, New Mexico, and California in 1946–47 (Herskovits and Ames 1950:115), but then seems to have done no more archaeology, although she kept teaching and doing social anthropological research at the Hancock Foundation USC at least through the mid-1950s, and she was named as the researcher identifying potsherd styles on a project report by the Hancock Foundation for the USGS in the 1970s. Sarah Elizabeth “Betty” Murphey [Fitzgerald] was a California native recruited by Hewett to graduate archaeological work at USC, where she received her BA. She participated in Chaco Canyon projects in 1935–37. She wrote “Description of Sherds Found during Excavations of 1935, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico” (SAR report, Chaco Digital Archives). She completed her MA with a thesis, “A Pre-Columbian Housing Program: A Correlation of Climatic Zones and Pre-Columbian Housing Types” at USC in 1936. In the summer season, she worked as one of Marjorie Lambert’s assistants at Pa’ako. In 1937 she undertook survey, as well as test excavations, of Navaho archaeological sites in the Blanco and Largo canyon areas of northern New Mexico (Farmer 1942:66) and produced

186 | Women Entering Archaeology a report for the SAR, “A Study of Navaho Archaeology.” She also made the first complete translation from French to English of Hewett’s 1908 Swiss dissertation, producing a manuscript utilized by New Mexico students for decades: “Archaeological Researches on the Distribution and the Social Organization of Ancient Populations in the Southwest of the United States and the North of Mexico.” Her translation formed the basis of the later official English version,The Ancient Communities of the American Desert, published by the Archaeological Society of New Mexico in 1993. Murphey remained an active member of the SAA until 1940. By that time, she had taken a position as the high school librarian in McKinney, Texas, and by 1945, if not earlier, she had married Joseph Price Fitzgerald in McKinney and was no longer involved in archaeology. Mary I. Scanlan [Lehmer] did her undergraduate as well as graduate work at the University of New Mexico. According to notes in the New Mexico Anthropologist, she was very active in the undergraduate anthropology club (and later vice president of the graduate anthropology group, Mu Alpha Nu). In 1937 she, Donald Jayne Lehmer, and Douglas Osborne went out early to set up the field camps in Chaco. She was reported as also playing the accordion for the field crews during the 1937 season. In the fall of her senior year, she conducted an ethnoarchaeological study on Zia pottery. She began spending a lot of time with another undergraduate there, Donald Lehmer. For her first year of graduate work, Mary, Jane Olson, and Barbara Clark received small cash awards from the School of American Research to subsidize their summer field season. In 1938 she went to the Pecos conference. In 1940 and 1941 she participated in the WPA archaeological excavation project in the Forestdale Valley in east-central Arizona, sponsored by the Museum of New Mexico and Arizona State Museum, and directed by Lehmer. Lehmer and Scanlan soon married. She was still listed as Scanlan on the 1941 SAA membership list, but after that she can only be found in the literature as Lehmer. Strangely, the obituary of Donald Lehmer in American Antiquity fails to mention her at all, but only discusses Lehmer’s

Women Entering Archaeology | 187 second wife, whom he married in 1955 (Wood 1976). Lehmer does mention his first wife’s contributions in his preface to the Forestdale report, writing: “My wife, Mary Scanlan Lehmer, was an important addition to the field party. She hauled water, did the camp marketing, kept up the workmen’s morale with bilingual poker for matches in the evening, and many other things. I would thank her, too, but this is her report as well as mine” (Lehmer 1948:2). Of course, although he gave Mary credit for helping write the report in the preface, the document itself only lists Donald Lehmer as author. Mary apparently became Donald’s “fellowship” when he went to Har- vard to work on his PHD from 1949 to 1952. She worked as the assistant registrar at Radcliffe at first,hile w she studied for her own MA. With that degree in hand, she began working for the Arnold Arboretum at Harvard as the business secretary by the early 1950s. However, after receiving his PHD degree in 1952, Lehmer divorced Mary. She stayed on at Harvard working at the Arnold Arboretum until the mid-1960s, when she retired to Albuquerque. Regrettably, the story of a wife being the support “fellowship” for a male graduate student, who then divorces her once he has his PHD in hand, is still all too familiar. Lolita Huning [Pooler] (1889–1966) was born in Albuquerque, and she married Frank Clay Winsor Pooler in 1913. He worked for the U.S. Forest Service and was regional forest manager for Arizona and New Mexico from 1920 to 1945. In that position he and his wife often visited the University of New Mexico excavations, where he occasionally lectured to the archaeological students, beginning as early as 1928 (Anonymous 1928:142). Lolita Pooler apparently became interested in the local heritage after her children were raised. She finished her BA at the University of New Mexico in 1929 and her MA in 1932, entitled “Gregory Martinez Sierra: A Study of His Women Characters.” She then joined the UNM faculty as an instructor in Spanish. In the summer of 1937 she participated in the Chaco Canyon excavations. That fall, even though an instructor in Spanish, she led an all-girl crew to excavate the ruins of Alameda pueblo and wrote up the project in a report in 1940. She continued her research in Hispano-American and Native American

188 | Women Entering Archaeology ethnomusicology and folklore. While her involvement in archaeology was minimal, I include her here particularly because of her leadership as an instructor at UNM of an all-female excavation project. Marion Grace Hollenbach [Saunders] (1908–98) was born in Ohio and received her BA in 1934 under Edgar Hewett at the University of New Mexico. As an undergraduate, she had gone with classmate Frances Watkins to work with J. Charles Kelley on an excavation in the lower Rio Grande valley in the early 1930s. After receiving her BA, she entered the graduate program in anthropology officially at USC, still under Hewett’s guidance there. In the summer of 1934, she was listed as a junior archaeologist at the Chaco Canyon summer field school. In 1935 Hewett arranged for her to receive a fellowship and funding through the School of American Research. With the ongoing assistance of Hewett, she and Frances Watkins received graduate scholarships in archaeology from USC, allowing them to continue fieldwork for their second year in 1936. Hollenbach went with Hewett to Mexico and Guatemala that field season (Hollenbach 1937a, 1937b). She received a renewal of the USC scholarship for the 1937–38 year, and was reported there as nearing completion of her MA degree. There is a bit of confusion on the date of the first MA: Mathien (1992:112) puts the degree as 1938, but Hollenbach herself (National Research Council 1940:68) as well as the University of Southern California list the date of her thesis, “Dogs in Native American Culture,” as 1940. Although during the late 1930s Hollenbach was loosely associated with the School of American Research in Santa Fe, apparently her primary base was in Southern California. In 1938 she took a position with the Los Angeles County Museum as curator of pre-Columbian art and the Pacific Islands, a job she kept through 1945. In 1940 and 1941 she participated in a museum expedition to Santa Rosa Island, California, as an archaeological assistant. She resigned her museum position and moved to Hawaii in 1946 to marry Allan Saunders of the University of Hawaii. She then shifted to applied anthropology, worked for many years with students at the University of Hawaii in the East-West Center, and finished a second MA at Hawaii in 1960, “A Cross-cultural Study of

Women Entering Archaeology | 189 Coalitions in the Triads.” She was later an editor for the applied anthropology journal Human Organization. Elizabeth “Betty” Holmes [Huscher] [Bachman] (1915–2006) was very active in Colorado archaeology for half a dozen years, in terms of both research and publications, and then seems to have disappeared from the archaeological scene. She was a University of Denver alumna and took a job with the Colorado Museum of Natural History as an associate curator in 1935. She catalogued and analyzed part of the museum’s collections of Paleo-Indian materials, including a study of 500 Yuma projectile points, and had a lively discussion with Marie Wormington about their proper chronological placement (Knudson 2004:702). In 1937 the museum sent Holmes and Wormington to give a presentation on this work at the International Symposium on Early Man held at the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, where the two junior- level women led a roundtable discussion of senior researchers on the distribution of Folsom, Yuma, and Clovis points (Howard 1937:443–44). It was their first professional presentation. In 1937 Holmes and Wormington directed the excavation of some Colorado sites for the museum. Holmes met Harold Allison Huscher, who was hired as field assistanton these excavations, and married him in 1938. Harold started as an avocational archaeologist and did not receive his own BA until 1952, at which point he began working for the River Basin Surveys program and later taught archaeology at the Uni- versity of Georgia (Baker 1995:5). During the late 1930s, Betty worked with Marie Wormington on Wormington’s landmark volume on Paleo- Indian cultures, Ancient Men in North America (1939). Betty labored particularly on the Yuma points, but also described the materials from the Lindenmeier site, among other collections. Betty and her husband also excavated Athapaskan sites in 1939 for the museum. From 1941 through 1943, the American Philosophical Association funded an archaeological survey of western and southern Colorado, and Betty and Harold conducted excavation and survey work for the museum on this project. There are at least eight publications that relate to Betty’s work from 1939 to 1943, where she is listed as the first

190 | Women Entering Archaeology author. After 1942 the couple’s association with the museum ended, and Harold entered Army service. Harold and Betty divorced at some point in the mid-1940s, and Betty seems to have left archaeology, because after 1943 I find no mention of her involvement in research. She remarried and lived in Conifer, Colorado, in the foothills west of Denver, for the rest of her life. Hannah Marie Wormington [Volk] (1914–94) was born in Denver. She had originally planned to study French literature at the Sorbonne because her mother’s family came from southern France. Due to financial problems related to the Depression, she ended up going to the University of Denver, tentatively planning work in zoology or medicine. After taking a course with Etienne B. Renaud, who was a dramatic lecturer, she shifted to archaeology (Irwin-Williams 1990:29). She received her BA in 1935, with her senior honors research focus under Renaud on Paleo-Indian materials from the Lindenmeier site. After graduation, Renaud planned to send Wormington to France to work on Upper Paleolithic sites. She was scheduled to go on an American School of Prehistoric Research excavation, but the project was canceled due to a Depression-related funding shortage. She then went to Europe on her own, designed her own tutorial, and visited with noted archaeologists such as Dorothy Garrod, Edgar Howard, Harper “Pat” Kelley, Henri Martin, and Dennis Peyrony. From Pat Kelley, Wormington arranged to obtain some Paleolithic artifacts for the Denver Museum of Natural History. As noted above, Wormington and Betty Holmes, another University of Denver student, began work on the Yuma collections and other Paleo-Indian artifacts in the winter of 1935–36, and some of this material was sent to France to Kelley in exchange for the French artifacts (Irwin-Williams 1990:30–31). Wormington began to collaborate with Jesse D. Figgins, working on a wide variety of Paleo-Indian materials, and she then secured an official position at the Denver Museum of Natural History in 1937. Before Worm- ington became fully involved in this new position, she was awarded a fellowship to Radcliffe College orf the 1937–38 academic term. During this period, she worked on her best-known publication, the Ancient Men

Women Entering Archaeology | 191 of North America. The first edition was publishedin 1939; the fourth revised edition was released in 1957, shortly after she finished her doctorate (Browman and Williams 2013). Wormington apparently had no great incentive to finish her degrees rapidly, as the position at the Denver Museum did not require an advanced degree, and moreover, her immediate boss tried for many years to elimi- nate her position. Figgins had hired her, but he was replaced in 1937 by Alfred M. Bailey, who did not want a woman on the staff. This started three decades of battles between Bailey and Wormington, ending in 1968, when Bailey terminated the museum’s archaeology department in order to force her out (Irwin-Williams 1990:31). Wormington observed: “[Bailey] didn’t feel there was a place for either a women or an archaeologist in a science museum. . . . I always published under my initials, H. M. Wormington. The director of the museum felt nobody would read a book written by a woman” (Parezo 1993:5). Wormington worked intermittently on her MA degree for over a decade and a half, returning to Cambridge in the 1940–41 term for another series of studies, and finally receiving her MA from Radcliffe in 1950 and her PHD, “The Archaeology of the Upper Colorado Plateau Area in the Northern Periphery of the Southwestern United States,” in 1954. She wed George D. Volk, a geologist and petroleum engineer, in 1940, and their marriage does not seem to have changed any of her career focus; in fact, Volk shared her interest in archaeology and went with her on several projects. She worked at the Colorado Museum of Natural History (now the Denver Museum of Natural History) from 1935 until 1968. She also gave some seminar courses at the University of Denver and at the University of Colorado at Boulder on a pick-up basis, as well as teaching in some visiting professor positions such as at the University of Arizona and Colorado College, because her museum salary was so minimal. Wormington’s work was widely recognized by her colleagues in the SAA, such that she was elected the first woman president of the SAA in 1968–69, after having served two terms as vice president. Mary Elizabeth “Betty” Yelm [Kingman] (1911–2005) was born in Lafayette, Indiana, but seems to have moved to the Denver area as a

192 | Women Entering Archaeology child. She earned her BA from the University of Denver in anthropology in 1934, and then went on to graduate work there. For her senior honors thesis, she analyzed Great Plains side-scrapers to see if she could determine if the prehistoric users were left-handed or right-handed (Anonymous 1934:297). She began working for the National Park Ser- vice in the Rocky Mountain National Park area and Mesa Verde area immediately after receiving her BA, preceding Jean Pinkley and Sallie Pierce in passing her NPS junior archaeologist exam in the spring of 1934, the term she graduated. She had spent the summers at her family’s cabin in Estes Park, so she knew the Rocky Mountain National Park area well (Kaufman 1996:85). Betty Yelm worked as a ranger naturalist at Mesa Verde from 1934 to 1938. She published on the archaeology of the area, including a paper she gave at the Southwest division of the AAAS (Yelm 1935a, 1938; Yelm and Beals 1934). Betty Yelm finished her MA at Denver in 1935, “An Archaeological Survey of Rocky Mountain National Park — Eastern Foothills Districts,” which she also managed to have the university publish for her. In 1939 Betty Yelm married Eugene Kingman in Denver. He took a job as the director of the Philbrook Art Museum, Tulsa, in 1940. After the war, when he worked for the Office of Strategic Services, he became director of the Joslyn Memorial Art Museum in Omaha. While her husband was alive, Betty filled the role as a museum director’s wife, although she kept her membership in the SAA. After his death, she moved to Santa Fe, where she was the librarian of the School of American Research until her retirement. While at Santa Fe, she assisted in the analysis of materials from Arroyo Hondo pueblo, and later summarized the holdings the library had by Edgar Hewett. Cecelia Maria Evans [Sowers] (1914–94?) was born in Colorado. She received her BA from the University of Denver and continued on in the graduate program. She participated in archaeological field excavations in Wyoming in 1935 and in New Mexico in 1936, 1937, and 1938 (National Research Council 1940:142). She finished her MA thesis, “Comparative Indian Mythology,” at Denver in 1937. She and her future husband, Theodore Carl Sowers Jr., were Etienne B. Renaud’s field assistants on

Women Entering Archaeology | 193 the 1938 Third Denver — New Mexico Expedition, a project focused on surveying Indian petroglyphs in north central New Mexico. During this field trip, Cecelia and Ted also surface collected pottery from various sites and wrote up their fieldwork. Ted was in charge of the Wyoming Archaeological Survey from 1939 to 1941, which was supported with WPA funding. Cecelia wrote up some of her other research while with him during this period. After the war, Cecelia assisted her husband in his work at Great Sand Dunes National Monument, Colorado, where he was the federal custodian from 1946 to 1950. Carol Cox was listed as the secretary and graduate assistant on the Third Denver — New Mexico Expedition, thus participating in the archaeological field survey with Cecelia Evans, Ted Sowers, and Profes- sor Renaud in 1938. Cox had started out at the University of Denver as a biology major, but shifted to anthropology and completed her BA in 1937. She then entered the graduate program in anthropology at Denver, where she finished her MA, “A Study of Indian Dwellings in the Western Area of North America,” in 1939. She appears to have left archaeology at that point. Helen Sloan Daniels (1899–1979) was born in Colorado and graduated from the University of Colorado with a BA in 1921. She was one of the founders of the San Juan (Colorado) Archaeological Society. In 1936 the National Youth Administration opened an office in Durango to provide summer jobs, and Helen Daniels was put in charge. Thus from 1936 to 1939 she directed excavations and inventories of archaeological sites in the Durango area for the Durango Public Library Museum Project — National Youth Administration. After Earl H. Morris had come to visit her work in 1937, Daniels took his suggestion, and in 1938 she traveled throughout the Southwest to learn how archaeological records were kept. Thus she made sure National Youth Administration excavations under her supervision were described in detailed notes and drawings and photographs, to conform to professional standards after that point (Lister 1997b:53). During this project, eight Basket Maker III sites were excavated (Daniels 1940, 1941). In 1938 Earl Morris came back to the Durango area and excavated

194 | Women Entering Archaeology seven more Basket Maker period sites for the Carnegie Institution of Washington. Helen did the pictograph chapter in his Carnegie Institution summary volume of his work near Durango (Daniels 1954). But 1940 marked the end of this collaboration. Daniels had been working closely with another San Juan area amateur archaeologist, Isaiah “Zeke” Flora, in her dealings with Morris. Daniels and Flora resented the fact the Morris was removing the materials from the area for his own museum back east. Thus Daniels and Flora undertook a series of weekly columns, entitled “Sherds and Points,” in the Durango News and Durango Herald Democrat about the prehistoric past of Animas area. This collection of about two dozen columns was compiled by Daniels and republished as a mimeographed series through the Durango Public Library, under the title “Sherds and Points: Durango Amateur Archaeology Story.” They sent this report to other Southwest archaeologists, at least one of whom, Etienne B. Renaud of the University of Denver, responded to Daniels and Flora with a thinly veiled criticism of Morris and his “pot-hunting” reputation (Lister 1997b:71–72). Helen Daniels published little after this point, writing a late summary of her work in 1976 for a local college history project (Daniels 1976). Byron Cummings, like his colleagues Edgar Hewett at the Univer- sity of New Mexico and Fay-Cooper Cole at Illinois, began recruiting women to his field school excavations, which were in the first seasons at Kinishba. Initially the few women involved had to commute daily from Fort Apache, which was four miles away, but in the 1933 season, Cummings finally allowed women to camp at the site. The first official admission of women in 1933 included seven women. Four of these women — Ruth Arntzen, Dorothy Knipe, Margaret Murry, and Irene Vickery — are included later in this chapter: Arntzen for her research and master’s thesis, Knipe for her assistance to other archaeologists, Murry for her prehistoric and historic archaeological museum work, and Vickrey for her research and WPA work (Bostwick 2006:251; Welch 2007:11). The other three did not proceed further in archaeology. Ruth Miller Arntzen [Allen] [Gregory] (1912–80) was born in Elsinore, Utah, but at some point her family moved to Tucson. She entered the

Women Entering Archaeology | 195 University of Arizona in 1931 with her first fieldwork in 1933. After receiving her BA from Arizona, she continued on in graduate work, completing her MA thesis, “The Influence of Prehistoric Religious Ceremonies upon the Living Tribes of the Southwest,” in 1936. As with so many of her peers at the time, she found further study was out of the question, and she became a grade school teacher in 1937. Shortly thereafter she married Paul Kling Allen. Her husband joined the Navy during World War II; by the time he was promoted to lieutenant, Ruth was working at Davis Monthan Air Base in Arizona. Allen was killed in action in 1943, but Ruth stayed in the service. In 1946 she was stationed at Fort Ruger, Hawaii, and she married James Frederick Gregory there. She seems to have no archaeological activities after the war. Helen Mildred Forsberg (1912–98) was born in New York and received her BA from Hunter College in 1933. She then enrolled at the University of Arizona in the anthropology program, excavating at the sites of Kin- ishba and Tuzigoot (Bostwick 2006:253), and received her MA with a thesis, “A Study of the Skeletal Remains from the Pueblos of Kinishba and Tuzigoot in Arizona.” An abridged version of her thesis was also published as an appendix of the 1935 document on Tuzigoot for the National Park Service (Caywood et al. 1935). Forsberg seemed primed to continue on in archaeology, but she was unable to find a job in her area of training. She finally secured employment as a science librarian at George Washington University. After World War II, she entered the University of Washington, where she secured a second BA in library science in 1947, and she spent the next several decades as a science librarian, mainly at Louisiana State University. She was forced to fulfill her interest in archaeology by becoming a science librarian, a choice that other MA female students of the 1930s also had to make. Sarah “Sallie” Louise Pierce [Brewer] [Van Valkenburgh] [Harris] (1911–2005) was born in Victor, Colorado, but grew up in the foothills of the Santa Rita Mountains just south of Tucson. Sallie Pierce entered the University of Arizona in 1928 and went to the University of New Mexico field schools in Jemez in 1930 and Chaco Canyon in 1931, graduating from Arizona in anthropology in 1932 (National Research Council 1938:13).

196 | Women Entering Archaeology She apparently entered the archaeological workforce shortly after earning her BA. She became an archaeological technician and advanced to archaeologist in region 3 of the National Park Service. Shortly thereafter, in 1934, she married James Walter Brewer Jr., a fellow NPS employee. The two of them were employed as Civil Works Administration workers at the restoration of Montezuma’s Castle in Arizona. Sallie then worked at Wupatki National Monument near Flagstaff. She was also kept on as an unpaid research associate at the University of Arizona. Jimmy Brewer moved to Navaho National Monument in 1939, where he was custodian from 1939 to 1943 and again from 1946 to 1950, with a break to serve in the U.S. Navy Construction Battalion “Sea Bees” from 1943 to 1946. As Sallie Pierce Brewer, she wrote a few research articles with her husband on local ruins, such as their Montezuma’s Castle work, from 1935 to 1945, but thereafter she was the sole author. At some point during the late 1940s, the Brewers divorced. Sallie married Richard Fowler Van Valkenburgh, a noted Navaho ethnographic specialist, by at least 1950, as her publications after that point list her as Sallie Brewer Van Valkenburgh or Sallie Pierce Van Valkenburgh. During her marriage to Richard, Sallie penned a number of articles on Navaho artifacts and ruins. Van Valkenburgh died relatively young in 1957 from a heart attack. Sallie continued as a staff member of the Southwestern Archaeologi- cal Center of the National Park Service, initially working at places like Casa Grande and Canyon de Chelly. But over her career, working at ten of the national archaeological monuments of the park system in the Southwest, she was particularly important in publishing on Montezuma Castle archaeology. Sometime about 1965, Sallie married for a third time, as her publications now carried the name Sallie Van Valkenburgh Harris or Sallie Pierce Harris. I have not been able to find Mr. Harris’s first name or identify his occupation. As the reader might well appreciate, tracking Sallie’s work is a major project: some of her early publications, such as the first one I could locate, list her as Sarah Louise Pierce; then once she married the first time, the publications change to Sallie Pierce Brewer, then to Sallie Brewer Van

Women Entering Archaeology | 197 Valkenburgh or Sallie Pierce Van Valkenburgh, and finally to Sallie Pierce Harris or Sallie Van Valkenburgh Harris. She was able to make a career in archaeology by working for the federal government, and accepting less senior positions, until she retired in 1967 as a museum specialist. Florence McKeever Connolly [Shipek] (1918–2003) was born in North Adams, Massachusetts. She served as a lab assistant for Emil Haury in 1935 and again at the 1939–41 Arizona field schools. She received her BA from the University of Arizona in 1938 and her MA there in 1940, entitled “A Study of the Origin and Development of Smudged Pottery in the Southwest.” Based on her fieldwork, she published on petroglyphs (Tanner and Connolly 1938) and ceramics (Connolly 1940). She then studied at the University of Washington in 1941, but soon left to join the war effort with the U.S. Navy, where she met her future husband. Beginning in 1944 she was an instructor in geology at the University of Washington. After the war, she and her husband, Carl Shipek, a marine geologist and oceanographer, moved to San Diego. There she became a volunteer at the Museum of Man and initially kept up some archaeological interests, publishing on local pottery (Shipek 1951). In 1954 she began working on the local Indian reservations, helping them with Bureau of Indian Affairs problems. Her husband had been involved in both the 1946 Bikini Island and 1952 Nevada nuclear testing, and apparently contracted terminal cancer from radiation exposure in these tests. After being widowed in 1969, Florence returned to academia and received her PHD from Hawaii in 1977, but as was often the case with the cadre of women discussed here, she shifted to ethnography, writing a dissertation, “A Strategy for Change: The Luiseno of Southern Cali- fornia.” She then secured a job at the University of Wisconsin–Parkside before moving in 1987 to the University of California–Riverside, where she finished her career working on applied anthropology of California Mission Indians. Mary Youngman [Ayer] graduated from Smith College in 1931 and then received her MA from Columbia University in 1933. After graduation, she married Richard Gordon Lawrence Ayer of Philadelphia. She took a job with the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, where

198 | Women Entering Archaeology she was listed as the associate researcher in mammals. In 1934 and 1935 she and Edgar B. Howard went on an expedition jointly funded by the Academy of Sciences and the University of Pennsylvania Museum to explore archaeological and paleontological remains in the caves of the Guadalupe Mountains National Park in New Mexico and Texas (Lister and Lister 1983:113). In 1936 Mary Ayer wrote up and published the materials excavated from Williams Cave on this expedition, and she did zooarchaeological identifications for excavation projects in New Jersey as part of her duties for the Academy of Natural Sciences. She then disappears from the archaeological record; the last mention I have of her is from the Smith College directory (1943) and from her father’s obituary (1947), where she was listed as living in Narberth (1943) and Bal-Cynwyd (1947), Pennsylvania. A budding zooarchaeologist, perhaps, but the Depression seems to have ended her career. Sarah “Sallie” R. Wagner [Lippincott] (1913–2006) was born and raised in Wheeling, West Virginia. Her brother kept finding arrowheads and grinding stones on their land; when he got older, he tired of the collection and gave it to Sallie, which got her interested in archaeology. She noted: “As my home in West Virginia was on a prehistoric campsite, I found many stone tools in the gardens and corn fields around me” (Wagner 1997:1). Her father was in the steel business, and the company owned lands with prehistoric burial mounds along the Ohio River. As a 14-year-old, Sallie Wagner persuaded her father to have the firm pay for a dig on some of the mounds in 1927. She talked her way on to this project, which was being run by the University of Pennsylvania museum. In addition to training her in some excavation techniques, the students there suggested that she go to the University of Chicago for her college degree. Sallie persuaded her father to take the family vacation in the Southwest in 1928; she became hooked on the area, and the family took several vacations there. Sallie entered the University of Chicago in 1932 and graduated with a BA in 1936. As a particular mark of her original enthusiasm for archaeology, she was one of only six women who signed the papers of incorporation and the constitution for the Society of American Archaeology in December

Women Entering Archaeology | 199 1934, while still just an undergraduate. She met her husband, William J. Lippincott, who was working on his MA at Chicago, on summer excavation training in the Southwest. Bill obtained a job with the National Park Service, working in Canyon de Chelly, and they were married in 1936. In 1938, they spent the summer on projects in Canyon de Chelly. She had participated in a summer field camp at Battlefield Rock near Jemez Pueblo, sponsored by the School of American Research. Somehow she got cross-wise with budding Navaho ethnologist Clyde Kluckhohn and was thrown out of camp. But this did not sour Sallie on the SAR: later in her life she was one of its staunchest supporters, serving as a member of the board of managers from 1974 to 1988, its executive committee from 1987 to 1994, and the collections committee from 1988 to her death in 2006 (Wagner, website interview 1997). In 1938 Bill quit his NPS job, and the two of them bought Wide Ruins, a Navaho trading post. They ran Wide Ruins until 1950, when he became the assistant director of the Museum of International Folk Art in Santa Fe, a position which he held for the next decade. Sallie became reinte- grated into the archaeological community at that point, but does not seem to have been actively involved in any archaeological excavations, but rather was primarily involved through her assistance at the SAR. Her publications are all under her maiden name. Julia Dorothea Schatz [Kelly]’s family lived in Poughkeepsie, New York. In 1927 she married William Henderson Kelly of Tucson, who started out in the newspaper business but then shifted to archaeology. It seems that the two may have entered the University of Arizona at the same time. Dorothea went to the field school offered by Arizona at Kinishba in 1934 (Gifford and Morris 1985:400). They received BA degrees in 1936. Dorothea then worked for the Gila Pueblo Archaeologi- cal Foundation with Winifred and Harold Gladwin, helping with the analysis and write-up of the archaeological textiles and sandals from the 1934–35 excavations at Snaketown (Gladwin et al. 1937). She also conducted field research and wrote up the “McCuen Cave Report” for the Gladwins in 1937. Her husband explicitly credits her with part of the fieldwork for the Harvard-Peabody project among the Cocopa in

200 | Women Entering Archaeology 1940 (Kelly 1942). Ten years later, she wrote up a short history of work among the Cocopa for a festschrift for Byron Cummings, but by 1959 her husband was referring to her as his “late wife.” Dorothea is obviously another example of a wife whose archaeological career was masked by her marriage. Dorothy Challis [Mott] (1902–2001) was born in Berkshire, Massachu- setts. Her husband, Harvey L. Mott, had been born in Delawanna, New Jersey, and began his writing career there as editor of his high school newspaper. Dorothy had met him in New England, and after they married, they came west where Harvey took a job as a newspaperman in Phoe- nix. Dorothy became interested in the local Indians and began writing articles for the magazine Arizona Highways. She entered the University of Arizona in the early 1930s, first focusing on southwestern history. In 1935, she and Clara Lee Fraps presented a paper at the southwestern sectional meetings of the AAAS. In 1936 she participated in the fourth year of the University of Arizona field excavation camp at Kinishba, working there when Gordon Willey was a graduate student finishing his MA (Gifford and Morris 1985:400). Her MA thesis in 1936 was on “Some Unusual Textiles of the Prehistoric Southwest,” an abstract of which was published earlier that school year (Mott 1935). She went on to write a summary article of the excavations at Kinishba and on prehistoric burials and their artifacts, later including a short biographical piece on Cummings (Mott 1936a, 1936b, 1939, 1940a, 1940b), but then her interests shifted to more ethnohistoric and ethnographic pieces, although she was still occasionally writing on archaeological subjects as late as 1967. Eleanor Parker Clarke (1877–1933) was originally from the East Coast. She was a graduate of Massachusetts Normal Art School in 1899 and the New York School of Fine and Applied Art in 1914. She then taught at the Ingleside School in New Millbrook and became head of the Bennett School of Fine Arts, Millbrook, New York, in the late teens. She was listed as a member of the AIA during the 1920s, and in 1926–27 she went to the American School of Classical Studies in Athens as a fellow. By the 1930s, she was enrolled at the University of Arizona. Although I initially

Women Entering Archaeology | 201 suspected a possible linkage between Eleanor P. Clarke and Jesse C. Clarke, who was an amateur archaeologist, a founding member of the Museum of Northern Arizona, and for several years the custodian of Wupatki National Monument, I could find no good evidence; he seems to have been in El Paso in the early part of the century while she was in New York. Eleanor worked in the field with Byron Cummings on the Forestdale Valley projects in 1932, and using her artistic background, she completed her MA thesis, “Designs on the Prehistoric Pottery of Arizona” in 1933, graduating with “highest archaeological distinction.” She and Ana Mae McGrath had just presented the results of their work at the southwestern branch of the AAAS meetings at Las Cruces, and were returning to Tucson, when a tire blew out as Ana was driving, and Eleanor was killed when the car overturned (Bostwick 2006:297). Her MA thesis was published posthumously by Arizona in 1935. Ana Mae McGrath [Martin] (1913–2007) was from Tucson and was a married woman when she graduated from the University of Arizona about 1931. She also worked in the field with Byron Cummings in 1932, and she finished her MA in 1932 on the “Antiquity of the American Indian” after spending five years doing archaeology at Arizona (Bostwick 2006:154, 163, 328). She then was involved in a two-month field project on the Guajira peninsula in Colombia. However, the car accident in 1933 seems to have ended the active fieldwork component of Ana Mae’s career. She was a founding member of the Hohokam Museums Association and was named its treasurer when it was established in 1937. She retained that office at least through 1944, but seems to have disappeared from the archaeological scene by the mid-1940s. After her son was killed in World War II, she married George I. Martin. Murel M. Warmoth [Hanna] (1897–1985?) was born in Seattle, started school at the University of Washington in 1915, but transferred to the University of California–Berkeley during her freshman year. In 1916 she married John Edward Hanna from Sacramento, who had graduated from Berkeley in 1915. In 1917 she took one semester at Stanford University, majoring in economics, but then the couple left for a job in Washington

202 | Women Entering Archaeology DC, where they apparently lived for much of the next decade. Murel returned to Berkeley in the late 1920s, receiving her BA in anthropology in 1928. She enrolled as a graduate student at the University of Arizona at least by the 1929–30 year, and in the spring of 1930 she took a course on dendrochronology from Dr. Douglass along with Clara Lee Fraps and Florence Hawley. She completed her MA in 1932 with a thesis entitled “An Archaeological Review of Middle Gila Culture,” and wrote up a summary of the work as “The Red on Buff Ware of the Middle Gila” in the Museum Notes. She was listed as a postgraduate student at the University of Arizona in 1932, working on an Indian tribes document, completed in 1940: “Four Smokes: An Unpublished Manuscript about the Papago People with Extensive Notes. Four Volumes,” which was among her papers sent to the Heard Museum in Phoenix in 1985 by her cousin William Barker after her death. After leaving Arizona, she became a high school teacher in California, and she shows up on various school lists there during the 1940s. Irene Singleton [Vickrey] (1911–46) was born in Hume, Illinois, and went to school at Indiana University, where she met and married Parke Edwin Vickrey. They moved to Arizona in 1931. Parke had done his first fieldwork with ByronCummings in 1919, and participated in a variety of Arizona excavation projects for the next three decades (Gifford and Morris 1985:398). Irene participated in the third Arizona field school at Kinishba with her husband in 1933, and then continued working at the site for the next two seasons (Welch 2007:11). In 1935, she was named to the board of directors of the newly formed Gila County Archaeologi- cal Society, and her University of Arizona teacher, Emil Haury, put her in charge of excavations at Besh-ba-gowah near Globe using Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) funds. In the 1938 season, the name of the federal funding agency was changed to the Works Progress Administration (WPA). Because the regional WPA policy was interpreted as prohibiting women from directing federal jobs, she was named sponsor supervisor instead of foreman of the dig (Irene S. Vickrey Papers, 1935–41, Autry National Center of the American West, Los Angeles, website). The excavation part of the project ended with the onset of

Women Entering Archaeology | 203 World War II, although Irene Vickrey continued working on analysis and exhibits for the Gila County Museum in Globe, Arizona (Notes and News, American Antiquity 5(3):249, 1940). She published various reports on her progress (Vickrey 1939, 1945), but was in poor health, and died in 1946. Irene was certainly very involved in local archaeology, to the point of being in charge of WPA and FERA excavations for five years, but perhaps because of modesty, as well as the regional WPA interpretation of rules, I could find very little documentation of her contributions. This is yet another reason why the work of female archaeologists is under- represented in syntheses from early years. Susan Kent [Hubbard] (1910–97) of Madison, New Jersey, graduated with a degree in geology from Vassar College in 1931. In 1930 she joined the New York City chapter of the Archaeological Institute of America. In 1931 she and her sister Ann became charter members of the Archaeologi- cal Society of New Jersey. In the summer of 1930, Susan and Ann went on their first archaeological dig out at Jemez with Edgar Hewett. They then went on the archaeological trip down to Toluca, Mexico, also led by Hewett. Susan entered graduate school at Barnard College. In the summer of 1931 Ann and Susan went on another season of excavation at Chaco Canyon, working at BC-51. Susan prepared reports for the School of American Archaeology on the “Masonry at Chetro Ketl” and a “Summary of the Work at Chaco Canyon Field School, June 10–July 8, 1931.” She completed her MA at Barnard in 1933, with a thesis entitled “The Problem of Local Development vs. Chronological Sequences in the Archaeological Southwest.” Susan participated in another Chaco Canyon field school in 1934. In 1935, she married John Clark Hubbard in Madi- son, New Jersey, and this seems to have marked the end of her career as an archaeologist. Mathien (1992:113) reported that Susan became Mrs. “Heubban” of Madison, but that must be a typographical error. Less is available regarding the work by her sister, Ann Kent [Crane] (1909–90). The Kent family seemed to have a vested interest in Ameri- canist archaeology. The girls’ father, Edward G. Kent, had a hobby of collecting Indian relics and was a member of the SAA from its founding until his death in 1940, and the girls’ mother continued a membership

204 | Women Entering Archaeology in the SAA through the 1940s. As noted, Ann Kent, who was also identified as a student from Vassar in the University of New Mexico books, participated in the Chaco Canyon excavations of 1930 and 1931 and took part in the expedition to Toluca. In the fall of 1931 Ann and Susan initiated investigations of a rockshelter near Newton, New Jersey. A December 6, 1931, article noted that both Ann and Susan “are taking courses in anthropology under Prof. Franz Boas at Columbia University” (Anonymous 1931). I could not find any records at either Vassar College or Columbia University of Ann matriculating, so she must have taken classes as a part-time student. Ann apparently returned a few years later for one further field season, working atBC-50 (Tseh So) and BC-51 in 1938. She then married a rancher, Lon Crane, and moved to Arizona; after divorcing him in 1950, she moved back home (John Hubbard, personal communication, November 15, 2010). Janet McCleery Woods [Dickey] (1910–2005) and Margaret Sout- ter Woods [Keith] (1910–2001) were twins, born in Philadelphia, who received their BA degrees from Bryn Mawr in 1932. Both went on into graduate work in archaeology at Radcliffe College and field research in New Mexico. Janet Woods was involved in field school work at the University of New Mexico in 1931, 1932, 1934 and 1935. She wrote a report, “Excavation of the Court Kiva, Chetro Ketl” (1934 Chaco Archives, National Park Service) and utilized this plus other data she collected to complete her MA in archaeology at Radcliffe in 1936. In 1935, she had married Parke Atherton Dickey, a petroleum geology specialist. They went to Colom- bia for two years, where he worked for the Tropical Oil Company. Janet collected archaeological specimens for the National Museum in Bogota (Hernandez de Alba 1941:31). When they returned to the United States in 1939, Janet helped prepare mineral samples for her husband’s research for the Pennsylvania Geological Survey. Parke Dickey was involved in geological field research in various locales until 1950, when he took a job teaching at the University of Tulsa for the next 15 years. Janet kept her membership up in the SAA through these moves, but as far as I have found, she no longer was actively involved in archaeology.

Women Entering Archaeology | 205 Margaret Woods also went to the Southwest to excavate with the Uni- versity of New Mexico field schools. Margaret took part in field seasons in 1931, 1932, 1934, 1935, and 1937. For example, Talus Unit #1, Chetro Ketl, was “under the immediate supervision of Margaret Woods” in 1934. She produced supervisory reports for the U.S. Park Service on her work for 1935 and 1937. In 1936 she was recruited by Hetty Goldman, along with other former Bryn Mawr students, to work at the Hittite site of Tarsus in Turkey. Margaret received Radcliffe College’s Bartol Fel- lowship to study anthropology in 1937–38, and finished her MA thesis based on Chetro Ketl in 1938. Margaret married Edward Gordon Keith, an economist and tax specialist, who had received his PHD at Harvard in 1937. While she kept her interest in archaeology alive for the next decade, as intuited from her membership in the SAA through 1949, under her husband’s influence, she shifted to a new career. She studied at the Wharton School of Busi- ness in Philadelphia from 1939 to 1941 to secure training in economics, and then was hired as a researcher in the U.S. Treasury Department, Tax Division. Dorothy Penrose “Penny” Davis [Worman] (1917–2007) was born and raised on a farm just outside of Shirley, Massachusetts, part of an archaeological “dynasty” family that included E. Mott Davis, Jr., Jona- than O. Davis, and Hester A. Davis (1930–?). They had a winter home in Winter Park, Florida, and Penny graduated in 1938 from Rollins College there, where her father had taken the job as director of the Thomas R. Baker Museum. She also graduated from the Amy Sacker School of Design in Boston in 1938 and was then hired as the Peabody Museum’s graphic artist (Davis 2008:64). In 1939 the Peabody sent her, along with her brother E. Mott Davis, to work with J. O. Brew at Awatovi. Penny was put in charge of reconnaissance at the site, but that changed when the Awatovi kiva murals were found. As a graphic artist, Penny helped Watson Smith record the kiva murals there; she was also drafted to serve as the bridesmaid for Evelyn Nimmo when Evelyn married Brew that summer at Awatovi. After Penny returned to the Peabody, she spent the next three years

206 | Women Entering Archaeology working with Watson Smith on preparing the kiva mural analysis and write-up. Mott Davis was also working on his degree at the Peabody then, and a good friend was fellow archaeology student Eugene C. Worman Jr. In 1940 a group of Harvard students formed the Harvard Excavator’s Club, and on the title page of their first publication, Penrose Davis is listed as a council member. Over the semester break in December 1940 to January 1941, the Harvard Excavator’s Club, including Worman and both Penny and Mott Davis, went down to Florida to excavate at the Palmer-Taylor mounds in Seminole County (White 1999b:207). During the early 1940s, she worked for the Carnegie Institution of Washington preparing fine-line drawings of A. V. Kidder’s materials from Peru. Penny married Worman in 1942 and then went to Washington to work in the Navy Department. Following the war, she continued work as a graphic artist for the Carnegie Institution of Washington while her husband finished his PHD work at the Peabody (Davis 2008:154). In 1948 Eugene took a position with the CIA; the couple moved back to Washington, and Penny’s work in archaeology ended. Penny’s last archaeological contribution, perhaps, was to suggest to her younger sister, Hester A. Davis (1930–?), that after her sophomore year at Rollins, she should apply to work at the Peabody Museum. Hester was accepted on the Upper Gila Expedition to New Mexico, worked with Bob and Mary McGimsey, and went on to be the “mother” of Arkansas archaeology (White 1999b:208). Archaeology almost missed out on one of its most important professional archaeologists, however. Nancy White (1999b:210) reports that at the Peabody Museum: “Hester was advised by [J. O.] Brew not to go into archaeology unless she developed a particular talent such as her sister had in art. Brew advised her to go to graduate school at some place like the University of Oregon, where archaeologist Luther Cressman was known to take women on his crews.” Brew’s advice here was given to Hester in the late 1940s; when Cress- man first started his field archaeology program in 1937, he did not take women students either (Cressman 1988:364, 367, 375). Clearly even in the 1940s, some of the Harvard museum staff were still like their

Women Entering Archaeology | 207 colleagues elsewhere, discouraging women students. [Hester Davis is a giant of Americanist archaeology, but is not covered in these pages, as her archaeological involvement is after my 1940 cut-off date.]

WEST COAST Mabel Virginia Harding (1909–89) appears to be one of the students that Edgar Hewett recruited to work in the Chaco Canyon excavations when he was at the University of Southern California. She was originally listed as a student from “State College, San Diego” at the field camps. She participated in the 1929, 1930, and 1932 New Mexico summer field seasons. In 1929 she wrote a paper for the SAR entitled “Architectural Details of Chetro Ketl.” By this point she had transferred to the Uni- versity of New Mexico, and she received her BA in archaeology there in 1930. She then returned to San Diego. During the war, she served as a member of the U.S. Women’s Army Corps (WAC). Then she became reengaged in archaeology. She participated in several salvage archaeology operations relating to a prehistoric culture complex which she defined as “La Jolla.” She wrote up her understanding of this culture in a 1951 report, in which she defined three phases of the La Jolla culture, phase characterizations that were utilized by California archaeologists for many years. A note in the 1956 Notes and News column of American Antiquity refers to her continuing excavations in La Jolla sites in the San Diego area. I could locate no further written reports. Marian Wesley Smith (1907–61) was born in New York City. She received her BA from Barnard in 1929, her MA from Columbia in 1934, and her PHD, “The War Complex of the Plains Indians,” in 1938 from Columbia. She started fieldwork in the Pacific Northwest (Puget Sound) in 1935. In 1937 she secured a teaching appointment at Barnard as an assistant professor, and then was an instructor at Columbia from 1941 to 1951, “but because she was a woman, no advancement was offered to her” (de Laguna 1962:568), and she left that position. Although she is perhaps best known for her work in ethnography, she also had an active interest in archaeology, penning a number of contributions, such as “A Note on Extinct Fauna and Man” (1941) or the Archaeology of the

208 | Women Entering Archaeology Columbia-Fraser Region (1950). No summary of the archaeology of the Pacific Northwest is complete without discussing her work. Florence “Flossy” D. Erford [Sunderland] (1885–1972) received her BA from the University of Nebraska in 1907. She married James Sun- derland in Lincoln in 1910, and the two then moved to Omaha. Flossy Sunderland was involved in archaeological collecting in both Nebraska and in Oregon. She shows up on the records as a household arts school teacher in Omaha in the mid-1920s who was already collecting Great Plains Indians prehistoric and ethnographic artifacts. After her children were married, she went to the Jemez field school in New Mexico in 1935, where she worked at BC-53. Weldon Frankforter, reporting on his paleontological and archaeological work for the University of Nebraska Museum in the mid-1940s, wrote a nice summary of her contributions. Because it is similar to the trajectory of several other women of the decade in giving a typical pattern of their involvement, I include it here:

One of the individuals who helped support some of our fieldwork by the university museum was Mrs. Florence Sunderland. When I knew her, she was widowed, had grown children and grandchildren, and had the means to do whatever she pleased. Rather than spend her time at what she considered frivolous activities, she opted to take up archaeology and fossils. As I recall, she took classes at the University of New Mexico and traveled to Mexico on several occasions. Her Nebraska home was in Omaha, but she had discovered the Oregon area and, eventually, had a home in Portland and a cottage on the Pacific at Lincoln Beach. She spent at least part of the summer in Nebraska and was interested in my research in Pleistocene geology and paleontology, often accompanying me on visits to gravel pits along the Elkhorn River in search of fossils. We corresponded regularly, and I sent her literature from the university museum and subsequently from the Sanford Museum and Planetarium, Cherokee, Iowa, where I was director from 1951 to 1962, and then from the Public Museum of Grand Rapids,

Women Entering Archaeology | 209 Michigan, where I was director until my retirement in 1988.” (Frank- forter 2002:12)

Florence Sunderland seems to have been equally active in Oregon. A note about the Oregon Archaeological Society responding to the request for volunteers to assist in the survey of the Lower Columbia River basin in 1954 reported that the group met at the home of Mrs. Florence Sun- derland, “one of the most gifted and generous members of the society, well informed in archaeology” (Jones 1972:137). She made gifts of her artifacts to the University of Nebraska–Lincoln State Museum, as well as to West Coast museums. It is possible to track her involvement in anthropology as late as 1967. While her work in terms of publications does not meet the cut-off that most of the other women in this chapter have demonstrated, nevertheless, the West Coast was much less organized in terms of archaeology than the rest of the country in this period, and she seemed to be fillingone of the typical slots for women to contribute to archaeological research in that area.

LATIN AMERICA Doris Zemurray [Stone] (1909–94) was born in New Orleans, the daughter of Samuel Zemurray, who was president of the United Fruit Company until his retirement in 1951. He endowed the Middle American Research Institute at Tulane University in 1924. After Doris graduated from Rad- cliffe College in 1930, she met and married Roger Thayer Stone. The two then worked at the Middle American Research Institute, where she was involved in archaeology from 1931 until 1939, when they moved to Costa Rica, where her husband had a job on a plantation, and then to Honduras. Doris kept her ties as an associate with the Middle American Research Institute, continuing involvement with local Central American archaeology, conducting archaeological excavations, and working in regional museums. Doris Stone was first officially appointed a research fellow in Central American archaeology at the Peabody Museum in 1942, with a particular focus in Costa Rica and Honduras. Her first formal paper for the

210 | Women Entering Archaeology Peabody, Archaeology of the North Coast of Honduras, had been published in the museum series in 1941. This volume, plus a 1957 volume, The Archaeology of Central and South Honduras, were the major sources on Honduran archaeology for half a century. The same was also true for her 1966 Introduction to the Archaeology of Costa Rica. By the 1950s, she had become the president of the board of directors of the National Museum of Costa Rica. She was responsible for organizing the 33rd International Congress of Americanists held in San Jose in 1958. She was the well- known author of several books on Central American archaeology, and in total had more than 150 items on her list of publications, as well as becoming a significant financial supporter of many museum projects. In addition to her position at the Peabody Museum, she served as one of the Radcliffe trustees from 1941 to 1952 and again from 1968 to 1980. Isabel Truesdell Kelly (1906–83) was born in Santa Cruz, California. She enrolled at Berkeley, planning to major in physical education, but because of an illness, she registered late and took anthropology instead because the other classes she had wanted were full (Knobloch 1988:175). She finished her BA in 1926, then went on to do her MA in 1927, with the thesis “A Study of the Carvers’ Art of the Indians of Northwestern California.” She completed her PHD at Berkeley in 1932, with “Funda- mentals of Great Basin Culture.” She received one of six fellowships in the summer of 1929 sponsored by the Laboratory of Anthropology at Santa Fe to work in archaeology. Three of these fellowships went to women. As previously noted, Kelly, Eva Horner, and Frances Watkins went to work with Alfred V. Kidder at Pecos, New Mexico, and after some initial field training, he sent the three of them out to Tecolote, making them what is said to be the first all-female run archaeological field project in North America. Kelly and her female colleagues at Berkeley found it hard to proceed in studies for a doctoral degree in archaeology because Alfred Kroeber “felt they were not interested in archaeology, but only in male archaeologists” (Lepowsky 2002:131n1). In fact, he had opposed granting the fellowships in 1929 to the women who had gone to Tecolote — “Kroeber indicated that he was ‘still voting for an all-man’s school this first year,’

Women Entering Archaeology | 211 but Kidder replied that he could ‘see no good excuse for not having them at Pecos’” (Fowler and Van Kemper 2008:143). Kelly was further handicapped in her pursuit of archaeological training at Berkeley because “there was little emphasis on it in the department and no formal courses were offered” (Fowler and Van Kemper 2008:142). Following her PHD, Isabel Kelly secured a three-year National Research Council fellowship to do ethnogeographic research on the Southern Pai- ute. When that fellowship ran out, she returned to archaeology, going on her first field trip, under the sponsorship of Carl Sauer and Alfred Kroeber from Berkeley in 1935–36 to Sinoloa, Mexico (Knobloch 1988:176). The following year she found a position at the Gila Pueblo Archaeological Foundation with Emil Haury and did archaeological excavations in the Southwest on Hohokam sites in 1937–38. She returned to Mexico to continue her work in the Sinoloa and Colima area in 1939, stayed in Jalisco, and became a Mexican resident in 1940. She moved to Mexico City in 1946 and was the ethnologist in charge of the Smithsonian Institution’s Institute of Social Anthropology until 1951, when she began working for the U.S. AID program. These two programs took her to various field projects in Bolivia, Ecuador, Chile, El Salvador, Puerto Rico, and Paki- stan, as well as in Mexico (Fowler and Van Kemper 2008:139). In 1966 she returned to focusing primarily on archaeology in the Colima area of Mexico and continued that research focus through the early 1970s. Over her career, she published more than 180 articles, many of them defining archaeological cultures and issues in western Mexico. Tatiana Avenirovna Proskouriakoff (1909–85) was born in Tomsk, Siberia. The family moved to Pennsylvania in 1916 because of the unrest in Russia. Her grandfather had taught natural science and written articles on Siberian archaeology, so as a child Tatiana had some awareness of the discipline (Graham 1990:7). Because of the lower tuition rate, she attended Pennsylvania State University rather than the University of Pennsylvania, and received a BS in architecture in 1930. She found that there were no jobs for women in architecture because of the Depression, so from 1930 to 1932, she took several graduate courses in anthropology and archaeology at the University of Pennsylvania (Jackson 2004:528).

212 | Women Entering Archaeology Tatiana competed for a position on an archaeological expedition to Meso- potamia, but was denied the chance to join the excavations because she was female. She began volunteering at the University of Pennsylvania museum, doing drafting work for the Classics Department in exchange for library privileges. The classics collections were directly outside of Linton Satterthwaite’s office, andhe observed her drafting skills. Because she was running out of work for classics, he then recruited her to draw some of his Mayan Piedras Negras artifacts (Solomon 2002:31–32). Satterthwaite needed someone to draw architectural reconstructions of his Piedras Negras buildings as well. Tatiana began working for Satterthwaite in 1934, and in his 1936 and 1937 field seasons, he invited her as an unpaid research associate to come work with him in the field at Piedras Negras, Guatemala (Graham 1990:7). She was finally hired in 1939 by Sylvanus Morley to continue this kind of work for the Carnegie Institution of Washington project at Copan, and A. V. Kidder kept her doing architectural reconstructions at other Maya projects, such as Mayapan, until the Carnegie archaeological program closed in 1958. Kidder got Carnegie to keep Proskouriakoff on at a reduced salary, and she was able to work at the Peabody Museum at Harvard as an honorary curator from 1958 until she retired in 1970 (Graham 1990:8) or 1977 (Marcus 1988:298). During her career, she produced some seminal classics, such as An Album of Maya Architecture (1946) and A Study of Classic Maya Sculpture (1950) illustrating 400 stela, still basic resources in the field. Based on her meticulous study, she was able to demonstrate in groundbreaking work in 1960 that, contrary to the then received wisdom, the Mayan stela did not just have dates but contained important information of political events of historical personages, that the Maya were recording their own vibrant political and dynastic histories. Proskouriakoff is one of the giants on whose shoulders Maya studies are built, but the politics of the day kept her in quite secondary (at best) academic situations. Carolyn Mildred Miles [Osborne] (1919–2008) was born in Tehcow, China, and attended Albuquerque High School, where she took the first known high school course in the United States on archaeology, taught

Women Entering Archaeology | 213 by Sara Goddard. When she entered the University of New Mexico, she participated in her first fieldwork in Chaco Canyon in 1936, and received her BA in 1938. She continued on in graduate school there, serving as the managing editor of the New Mexico Anthropologist in 1938–39, participating in UNM projects in Mexico in 1939, and in Chaco again in 1940. In 1940 Carolyn Miles and Marjorie Flinn, along with Douglas Osborne, accompanied Professor Donald Brand of UNM on an archaeological reconnaissance in Michoacán, Mexico [Notes and News, American Antiquity 5(5), 1940, 347–48], and she wrote her 1941 MA thesis, “An Ethnological Study of Michoacán in the 16th, 17th, and 18th Centuries,” based on this fieldwork. She then married Homer Douglas Osborne, a fellow UNM student, who received his BA there in 1938 as well as his MA in 1942 before serving in the war. Both Carolyn and Douglas enrolled in the graduate program at the University of California–Berkeley in 1946–47. He then took a job with the Smithsonian Institution’s new River Basin Survey program, and that ended Carolyn’s graduate work. As Carolyn Osborne, she found that ever so typical niche for female archaeologists — an area of specialization that the male archaeologists did not control — and became an expert on textiles. She wrote up her husband’s River Basin Survey textiles and wrote several articles on twines, fibers, and textiles from Tennessee, California, Oregon, Washington, and the Alaskan sub-Arctic over the next 35 years. When Douglas moved to Mesa Verde in the late 1950s, Carolyn was added to the staff and became an expert on local Southwest textiles. One of her more widely known projects, the one where I first encountered her work, was her assistance in 1962 in editing the masterful Textiles of Ancient Peru and Their Techniques by the Frenchman Raoul d’Harcourt. Virginia Louise Ross (1915–79) was born in Covina, California, and did her undergraduate work at Stanford University, graduating in 1937. She went to Yale for graduate work and became interested in Mexican archaeology. She took field training at the University of New Mexico’s Chaco Canyon field camps in 1936 and 1938 (Mathien 1992:123). In 1939 she worked with Isabel Kelly at the first season in Colima, Mexico, helping to classify the Colima tomb sherds (Kelly 1980:18). This work

214 | Women Entering Archaeology became part of her 1939 MA thesis at Yale, “Some Pottery Types of the Highlands of Western Mexico.” With the Depression still in full swing, no jobs were available in her area. She thus obtained a second MA from the University of California–Berkeley in library science in 1941 and worked with the U.S. Navy in California during World War II, serving as the ship’s company librarian for the USN-TS Farragut. That work seemed to change her career opportunities, as after the war she worked as a science librarian in various California locales (principally San Mateo) for the next three decades. Clearly an MA in archaeology was one of the paths that led to becoming a science librarian. Marion Hutchinson [Tschopik] (1910–91) was a graduate student in the Peabody Museum anthropology program and received her MA from Radcliffe in 1933. She attended the Chaco Canyon field school in 1932, her first documented fieldwork. She then was hired at the Peabody to assist Samuel Lothrop with the analysis of his Cocle, Panama, fieldwork (Roberts, Lothrop, and Hutchinson 1937). She was apparently a good writer and lab analyst. She then helped with manuscript preparation for some of the Museum’s Southwest publications in 1938, including Kluckhohn’s Navaho archaeological work. She was the official Peabody Museum cataloguer in 1937 and 1938, and in that post, she helped J. O. Brew with the materials from the Awatovi excavations. She helped her husband, Harry, in the preparation of one report at the American Museum of Natural History before they were married in 1939, and she was materially involved in the preparation of his other reports after their marriage. For example, in the published version of his MA thesis, Harry Tschopik wrote that thanks were due “to my wife, Marion Hutchinson Tschopik, who undertook the most unpleasant task of all, the preparation of the manuscript.” He wrote similar acknowledgments in subsequent reports. In 1939 Marion assisted Isabel Guernsey, Alfred V. Kidder, and Harry on the analysis of a Paracas, Peru, mummy bundle, and helped prepare the results for publication before the war intervened (Rowe 1958:133). Her husband finished his MA in 1940, and the Tschopiks went to Puno, Peru, to work with Institute of Andean Research funding. While Harry

Women Entering Archaeology | 215 became involved in ethnographic work for his PHD research, Marion investigated the burial chullpas, conducted test excavations at various Puno sites, and studied the ceramic assemblages of the Late Intermedi- ate Period and Late Horizon cultures in the northern Titicaca basin, a work published in 1946. More than 60 years later, her work is still the single most important published source on late period ceramics in the region. In 1942 the Tschopiks were co-opted to work for intelligence organizations with the U.S. government in the war effort, which seemed to mark the end of Marion’s archaeological research. Catherine Allison Clement [Withers] [Paulsen] (1918–2006), from Brooklyn, graduated from Vassar College in 1939. She then entered Columbia University for a brief time. Enrolled as C. Allison Clement, she prepared a couple of research papers for W. Duncan Strong — one on “Warren King Moorehead,” and the other on “The Otomi of Central Mexico.” She also volunteered at the Brooklyn Museum. Presumably on the advice of Strong, Allison Clement participated in one of the post-Kinishba University of Arizona field schools in 1939 or 1940, which seems to have attracted her to the Southwest, as she transferred to the University of Arizona. It was here that she met Arnold Moore Withers, a Colorado native who was working on his PHD in archaeology at Arizona. They were married in 1941. Allison finished her MA at Ari- zona on “Copper in the Prehistoric Southwest” in 1946. She disappears from the archaeological record then for nearly a quarter of a century. She occurs occasionally on archaeological membership lists as Allison Withers through 1962. Arnold and Allison divorced in the 1960s. She then married Ivar Paulsen, and the two stayed together until his death in 1993. During this marriage, she reenrolled at Columbia University, began to publish on her new research focus in Andean archaeology, finished her PHD in 1970 (“A Chronology of Guangala and Libertad Ceramics of the Santa Elena Peninsula in South Coastal Ecuador”), and went on to another two decades of productive publications on Andean archaeology while teaching at Hartwick College in Oneonta, New York. Barbara H. L. Loomis [Woodward] of Colorado Springs, Colorado, was a member of the AIA for a quarter-century, beginning in 1924.

216 | Women Entering Archaeology She received her undergraduate degree from the University of Cali- fornia–Berkeley in 1932, with her first field season apparently at Chaco Canyon that year, where her summer’s end paper for Hewett was “The Chetro Ketl Class of July 1932.” She then enrolled at the University of New Mexico for graduate work. She went on field projects in Mexico and Guatemala with Hewett and prepared a report on her part of the research, “Notes on the Ornamentation of the Facades of Some of the Churches of Antigua, Guatemala.” She also participated in the 1936 field school in Chaco Canyon. In 1937 she and Honour McCreery went to Peru and helped Julio C. Tello in his excavations at Cerro Sechin and Sechin Alto in the Casma valley (Tello 1943:140). From December 1938 to March 1939 she worked with Bertha Dutton and Hulda Hobbs on a School of American Research project in Guatemala at Tajumulco and Antigua (Dutton 1939). Barbara married Albert Arthur Woodward, his third marriage, in about 1948. Woodward was head curator of the Anthropology Division at the Los Angeles County Museum of History, Science, and Art, until he retired in 1953, and a widely known expert on American Indian trade beads. Barbara worked as assistant curator in the History Division of the museum there, from 1941 until about 1950. During this period she was also secretary of the Southwestern Anthropological Association (Anonymous 1947:92). In their retirement years, the couple moved to Arizona. Barbara thus was involved in archaeology for more than two decades, but mainly behind the scenes. Jane Honour McCreery [Schaps] (1910–82) was a native Californian with an outdoor bent. She completed her BA at Scripps in 1933, with a thesis entitled “A Survey of Southwestern Archaeology, Incorporating in Map Form, Culture, Pottery, and Tree-Ring Chronologies, and the Location to Date of Important Sites,” while also collecting awards as a horseback jumper in local rodeos. She then entered graduate school at the University of Southern California, where Edgar Hewett was then director of anthropology. She went with the University of New Mexico students to Guatemala in 1934 and became interested in Latin American archaeology. She wrote a paper the next year on the Peruvian mummy

Women Entering Archaeology | 217 collection in Cuzco. In 1936 she took part in the Chaco field school, and she also finished her MA at USC that year, entitled “The Sequence of Material Culture Traits in the Southwest.” In 1937 she, Barbara Loomis, and Donald Collier all went to Peru to help Julio C. Tello with Chavin period culture excavations at Cerro Sechin and Sechin Alto (Tello 1943:140). McCreery had responsibilities for work at Cerro Sechin and wrote up an analysis that appeared many years later in 1956. On paper, it seemed that McCreery may have been on her way to becoming one of the first North American female Peruvian archaeological specialists. But it appears that horses were her first love. She married H. Theodore Schaps, an equestrian journalist, in 1938. She kept her membership in the SAA, so one can document her moving from the Bear Valley Ranch, San Miguel, California, to Big Canyon River Ranch, Sparks, Nevada, and back again to Auburn, California, where she established the Honour Schaps Equestrian School. Gladys Ayer [Nomland] was born in Piedmont, a suburb of Oakland, California. She was a pre-med major at the University of California– Berkeley, where she met Jorgen O. Nomland (1885–1943), who received his PHD from Berkeley in 1916. The two were married in 1918, after he secured employment as a geologist for Standard Oil of California in San Francisco. Jorgen conducted fieldinvestigations for the company, including locations in Central America and South America. Gladys apparently stayed home, finishing her BA at Berkeley in 1927 and continuing on in anthropological graduate work with Alfred Kroeber there. For Kroeber, she started with ethnographic work on northern California Bear River, Sinkyone, and Wiyot groups in 1928 and continued on with field investigations, publishing ethnographic notes on these groups from 1931 to 1938. But Gladys was also involved in archaeological analysis of materials recovered in Latin America during the explorations by her husband and his colleagues. Thus most of her archaeological work, if not all, was what could be called “at a distance,” that is, she did not collect the materials herself but did the analysis and publication. Her earliest paper is on an Olmec statue from the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (Nomland 1932). When

218 | Women Entering Archaeology her husband and colleagues shifted explorations to Venezuela, she wrote two contributions on the archaeology there — a short paper in 1933 on the archaeological site of Hato Viejo, and a longer monograph in 1935 on new sites from the state of Falcon in Venezuela. She later did the analysis of a Chavin-contemporary site in the high sierra of Peru near Lake Junin, based on materials collected there by one of the Standard Oil researchers, Leonard W. Henry, who had also collected materials for her in Venezuela. After her husband died in 1943, her archaeological and anthropological publications stopped, but she was still listed as a researcher associated with the Berkeley department as late as 1947. While at least two of her publications were of MA quality and length, she may not have completed the degree requirements, perhaps discouraged by Kroeber’s and the department’s rather negative view of women in archaeology. Ernestine Henrietta Wieder [Singer] (1911–38) was born in Philadel- phia and received her BS from the University of Pennsylvania in 1933 (National Research Council 1938:90). She married at some point during her undergraduate years, as the 1930 U.S. Census lists her as single, but she was married by the time of graduation in 1933. She received her MA from the University of Pennsylvania in 1935 with the thesis “Analysis and Distribution of Netting Techniques among the South American Indians,” and she continued on at the museum as a research assistant. In 1936 she published two papers on prehistoric textile analyses in Revista del Museo Nacional (Peru) and American Antiquity (1936a, 1936b). Also in 1936 she was one of five women outof 17 presenters at the Second Annual Meetings of the Society for American Archaeology, giving a paper on archaeological textiles from Chira, Peru (Guthe 1937:291). For the 1938 listings of anthropologists in the United States, she listed her interests as American Indian archaeology and ethnology (National Research Council 1938:90). She died later that year, at the age of 27, cutting short what promised to be a stellar career in prehistoric Andean textile analysis. Anita Brenner [Glusker] (1905–1974) had a somewhat unusual academic trajectory. She was born in Aguascalientes, Mexico, but the family

Women Entering Archaeology | 219 moved to San Antonio, Texas, at the beginning of the Mexican Revolu- tion. She was very interested in contemporary Mexican art and artists, and as a member of the so-called “Mexican Renaissance,” she worked with several artists, such as Diego Rivera, interpreting their art for the public in her written works. In the early 1920s, Brenner collaborated with Manual Gamio, Franz Boas’s former archaeology PHD student. “Anita worked with Gamio as a translator and editor. She was deeply influenced by him and helped him disseminate his ideas” (Glusker 1998:37). Because of her family background, Boas accepted Brenner into the PHD program at Columbia University in 1927. Brenner, however, had taken only three semesters of undergraduate work at two schools. She went on to obtain her PHD at Columbia in 1930 on an apparently Americanist archaeological topic, “The Influence of Technique on the Decoration Style in the Domestic Pottery of Culhuacan,” with Franz Boas as her chairman. Her dissertation was published by the department in 1931. For her PHD, Brenner analyzed the artistic components of groups of Aztec potsherds from Culhuacan, in light of her own view of the behavior of modern rural potters in Mexico. These potsherds were a collection that Boas had brought back to Columbia from his year (1911–12) as director at the International School in Mexico City. After receiving her PHD degree, she married David Glusker, MD, in 1930. Anita had also received a Guggenheim Fellowship to pursue her study of Aztec art; her honeymoon was spent going to European museums on this fellowship to check out their Aztec materials. However, her writing both before and after her PHD was primarily on Mexican art and history, usually viewed from the perspective of an art historian, art critic, and journalist. While her later books sometimes contained information on Mexican archaeological sites, it was mainly in the form of a travelogue description. Lucy Perry Knox (1903–40) was Anita Brenner’s roommate for part of the time they were in graduate school at Columbia. She graduated from Daniel Baker College in Brownwood, Texas, in 1923, and then went on to graduate work in anthropology, completing her MA, “Archaic

220 | Women Entering Archaeology Pottery from the Valley of Mexico,” in 1928. However, she then pursued a freelance career in journalism — working as a newspaper reporter in Mexico, Central Africa, Japan, and China, as well as serving on the staff of the Moscow Daily News (Anonymous 1940).

WOMEN ARCHAEOLOGISTS ASSOCIATED WITH MUSEUMS AND JOURNALS Isabel Hannah Guernsey (1907–71) was in charge of the textile collection at the Peabody Museum, Harvard, from at least 1936 through 1942. She was the daughter of the well-known southwestern archaeologist Samuel J. Guernsey, who was also associated with the Peabody. Isabel had gone to Wellesley College for her BA before working on textiles and other materials at the Peabody. In 1936 she worked on the artifacts from the Sacred Cenote at Chichen Itza, Yucatan. She then received the very first Institute of Andean Research fellowship after it was incorporated in February 1937, supported by funds from Ambassador Robert Woods Bliss and Marie Chase Oge Beale (1880–1956), widow of Ambassador Truxton Beale, who shared an interest in art and archaeology (Mason 1967:3). She published the preliminary analyses of textile investigations done with this fellowship on Paracas and other coastal textiles which she studied in museums in Lima, Peru, in 1938 (Guernsey 1938). Isabel also brought back one mummy to the Peabody Museum, where each stage of the unwrapping was carefully recorded by photographs and drawings. Nearly 100 separate pieces of textile were removed from this mummy bundle, one of which was 47 feet long and 12 feet wide. Various objects of gold, shell and bone, together with food offerings, were included within the wrappings. This work was written up by Guernsey, A. V. Kid- der, and Harry Tschopik Jr., but the war intervened before funds were found for its publication, so it remains in manuscript form only at the museum. For 1940–41, Isabel went to work at Pucara, Peru, with Kid- der. During the war, the museum staff was dramatically reduced, and Guernsey does not appear on the employee roster after 1942, although she continued using the Peabody Museum as her mailing address for the AAA through 1950.

Women Entering Archaeology | 221 Helen Constance Palmatary (1884–1976) was born in Wilmington, Delaware. She entered the University of Pennsylvania in 1901. But after taking some classes, she left to work first as a librarian and then as a high school teacher. She apparently returned to college, as she is listed as receiving a BS in education in 1924. Sometime in the 1920s, she began to pursue an interest in Brazilian archaeology. In the early 1930s she became a research associate in Brazilian studies at the University Museum. Research associate appointments were generally unpaid positions, but this was a mechanism for women to pursue their archaeological interests. Palmatary continued teaching in Philadelphia high schools to support herself, finishing her MA at Pennsylvania in 1936, “The Ceramic Art of the Tapajos Indians and Its Relation to Pottery Design in Cultures to the North,” and beginning a major study of Tapajo ceramics in the museum collections, culminating in the publication of her monograph in 1939 over the materials, with a 1960 follow-up volume, based on additional work in Brazil. She then shifted to the Marajo Island ceramic collections in the museum and published a major monograph in 1950. She spent 10 weeks studying museum collections in Brazil in 1953. She continued as a research associate at the University Museum until 1960, when she retired and moved to Des Moines (near Seattle), Washington. Palmatary was part of a small cadre of women working with pre- Columbian ceramic complexes at Pennsylvania during this period. For example, Palmatary’s 1939 volume gives thanks to the archaeological insights of Mildred Itter Jantzen (1900–1976), who was born in Phila- delphia and initially trained at the Pennsylvania Museum of Art and Pennsylvania School of Industrial Art in the 1920s. She continued on at Pennsylvania for her MA in anthropology, receiving the degree in 1934 with the thesis “The Geographical Distribution and Chronologi- cal Position of Three Identifiable Motifs in Peruvian Art: The Bird, the Fish, and the Puma or Cat.” A synopsis of this work was published in Etnologiska Studier in 1939. She did not stay in anthropology, but went on to a career serving as the supervisor of art in Philadelphia public schools in the 1940s and 1950s. Another colleague was Dorothea Elsean Steinmacher (1894–1991). She was a Philadelphia resident who entered

222 | Women Entering Archaeology graduate school at the University of Pennsylvania in 1931 and completed her MA in anthropology in 1934 on Peruvian ceramics: “An Analytical Study of Chimu Ware, Particularly of the Stirrup Handle Type.” As did Jantzen, she also went on to a career in art education, serving as a high school art teacher in Philadelphia in the 1940s and 1950s. Gertrude Frances Hill [Muir] (1909–81) was a student at the University of Arizona. According to Gifford and Morris (1985:400), she went to the first University of Arizona field camp where women were officially admitted in 1933, and returned again in 1934 and 1935, although Welch (2007) lists her for fewer seasons. After she finishedher undergraduate degree at Arizona, she continued on there to complete her MA in 1938, “Turquoise, Its History and Significance in the Southwest.” She then took various museum jobs and wrote commentaries in regional journals such as Kiva about Navaho silversmiths and Zuni and Papago basketry and pottery; she also had an article in the American Anthro- pologist (Hill 1942). In 1947 she went to Denver to work on a library degree and returned to the Southwest in 1950, working as a librarian at the Museum of New Mexico and then at Arizona State University– Tempe, where she built an extensive document collection on Southwest Indians, particularly Navaho photographs and artifacts, and became a recognized local authority on Southwest archaeology and history. She married Robert Muir in 1963. Jean M. Cady [Bopst] [Woodman] came to the University of New Mexico from the eastern states, possibly being the Jean M. Cady who entered the University of Vermont–Burlington in 1931; if so, she transferred to New Mexico in 1932. At New Mexico, she took part in some fieldwork with Hulda Hobbs, Marjorie Lambert, and Bertha Dutton at Alibates, west Texas, in the summer of 1935 for the School of American Research. That summer she also took part in Edgar Hewett’s excavation and research project in Peru (Daggett 1994:59n12). She received her BA degree from New Mexico in 1936, but stayed on at the Laboratory of Anthropology. In the summer of 1936 she excavated at the UNM field school at Chaco Canyon. She was a research associate at the University Museum from 1936 through the early 1940s, and served as the secretary

Women Entering Archaeology | 223 of the Archaeological Society of New Mexico in 1937 (Mathien 1992:120). She worked at Sandia Cave in 1939. Once she took the museum position, her interests seemed to focus more on museum and laboratory work — writing about new exhibits at the museum (Cady 1937), and then also doing projects such as the analytical laboratory work for the Cochiti pueblo excavations two decades later. Sometime in 1942 or early 1943, Cady married for the first time, as she is carried on the 1942–43 AAA list of members as Jean M. Cady, but a note in the 1943 El Palacio reported that Jean M. Cady Bopst had moved to California to work in the war effort, and a note in the 1945El Palacio reported that Mrs. Jean Cady Bopst, formerly of the museum, had returned to her post at the museum after working in a California war plant. Presumably her husband was lost in World War II, as the museum lists indicate a second marriage, now with Mrs. Jean Cady Woodman working there in 1946, and she was carried on the roster after that as Jean Woodman. There are occasional papers by her for the next two decades; the latest one I noted was a book review in 1967. So while Jean Cady worked in archaeology for at least three decades, after her marriages she became rather invisible in her museum position, showing up mainly on SAA and AAA memberships lists. Kate Stott Peck [Kent] (1914–87) was born in Washington DC. She graduated from the University of Denver in 1935. From 1935 to 1937 she attended Barnard College with a $300 scholarship and served as an assistant in anthropology. She returned to the Denver Art Museum in 1937 without finishing her MA. In 1949 she completed her MA at the University of Arizona with a thesis entitled “An Analysis and Interpreta- tion of the Cotton Textiles from Tonto National Monument.” Kate Peck published only one paper under her maiden name that I have found. In 1938 she married a private secondary school teacher, Arthur Tufnell Sabine Kent, and under the name of Kate Peck Kent she wrote dozens of papers. Kate Peck was chiefly involved in lab analysis after her initial fieldwork. In the 1930s, she still occasionally went to the field, working at the early stockaded community of El Gobernador, New Mexico. But in

224 | Women Entering Archaeology the main, she took the path of developing an expertise in an area with few male competitors — that of the analysis of prehistoric textiles. The bulk of her publications are upon various Southwest textile collections, although when she was working for the museum, she also made a collection of West African textiles. She began teaching at the University of Colorado in 1950 and then shifted to the University of Denver, where she retired about 1976 (Whiteford 1988:957). Martha Jean McWhirt [Pinkley] (1910–69) was born in Miami, Arizona. Her father was an Army doctor who was transferred from post to post frequently. McWhirt spent much of her childhood living in Pennsyl- vania (Thomas 1969:471). When her father retired, he took a job with Old Dominion Copper Company, and they lived near Prescott, Arizona (Kaufman 1996:86). Jean McWhirt entered the University of Arizona and completed her BA in 1933 in anthropology and archaeology, studying with Emil Haury, Clara Fraps Tanner, and Byron Cummings. Follow- ing her graduation, she then served as the head of the City Museum in Prescott, Arizona, responsible for securing loans from collectors and arranging exhibits of many prehistoric southwestern artifacts. In the fall, she entered graduate school at Arizona, working at Kinishba in the summer of 1935 and finishing her MA in 1936 at Arizona with the thesis “Incised Decoration in the Prehistoric Pottery of the Southwest.” McWhirt began working for the National Park Service at Mesa Verde in 1937. She passed her junior archaeologist exam with NPS in 1938. At the time, Frank Pinkley was the federal officer in charge of 27 historic sites in the region, including Mesa Verde. Jean married Pinkley’s son, Addison Boyd Pinkley, in 1942, and in 1943 she took leave to be with her husband, a Navy submarine commander. Addison was killed in his submarine in the Pacific that year, so she returned to Mesa Verde. She became chief of the Interpretative Division that year and kept the position until 1966, when she moved to Pecos Pueblo to take over the restoration project there. During her tenure at Mesa Verde, she was involved in the major development of the archaeological museum, and she created one of the best interpretive programs in the NPS, as well as developing new techniques for preserving and conserving archaeological

Women Entering Archaeology | 225 ruins, which she employed both at Mesa Verde and Pecos Pueblo. She ran several field schools at Mesa Verde during the 1950s (Gifford and Morris 1985:404), but published little directly in archaeology — a short note on a mummy at Mesa Verde before she was married (McWhirt 1939), and a short piece on turkey domestication just before she left Mesa Verde (Pinkley 1965). Catherine Lucile Serrem [Paterson] received her BA in 1930 from Columbia University, and then enrolled at Radcliffe. She took part in the 10th American School of Prehistoric Research excavations in Palestine, France, Spain, and Czechoslovakia. One of the training assistants in this program was Vladimir J. Fewkes (Bricker 2002:283). In the summer of 1931, she was named first alternate for the third national competition for an archaeological fellowship administered through the School for American Research in Santa Fe, to work at a pueblo excavation near Houck, Arizona. Lucile was named a research associate at the University Museum in Philadelphia in the mid-1930s. She seems to have focused mainly on European archaeology up to that point. But in 1940 and 1941, now married and listed as Mrs. Lucile Paterson, she helped Fewkes write up research on Catawba and Cherokee pottery making. She remained on the University Museum staff through the end of World War II. Margaret Whiting Murry [Shaeffer] [Dowd] (1912–2004) was born in Warren, Arizona. She graduated from the University of Arizona in 1933 with a concentration in art, but already had taken work with Byron Cummings in archaeology, and she continued on into graduate school in anthropology. She participated in the excavations at the Kinishba ruins in 1933 and again in 1936, and based on the Kinishba work, she finished her MA thesis, “The Development of Form and Design in the Pottery at Kinishba,” in 1937 (Bostwick 2006:254, 256, 278). She entered the University of Southern California to pursue PHD work, but married James Ball Shaeffer in 1939; she had met him when he dug with her at Kinsihba in 1936. After the war, James and Margaret were hired as custodians for the Kinishba Museum in 1946 by the Indian Service, and they stayed there through 1951. James Shaeffer then moved to a new job in Oklahoma salvage

226 | Women Entering Archaeology archaeology, and Margaret was able to get a position as curator at the Southern Plains Museum in Anadarko, Oklahoma, after a few years, while her husband finished his MA andPHD work through Columbia University. Margaret served as assistant editor of the Plains Anthropologist from 1959 to 1963. She shifted more into research in museum studies, particularly as reflected in her 1958 paper on wickiup constructions and her 1971 paper on museum education (Shaeffer 1958, 1971). In 1962 the couple took jobs at the Stuhr Museum of the Prairie Pio- neer in Grand Island, Nebraska, where James was director and she was assistant director, positions they held through 1970. In 1971 they moved to similar positions at the Jefferson County Historical Association of Watertown, New York. They divorced in 1972, and James resigned his position. Margaret stayed on now as the director of the museum through 1986. She married James Dowd in 1977. She served as the president of the Northeast Museum Association in 1978 and 1979. While her earlier publications were on the archaeology, art, and artifacts of the First Americans in the Plains and the Southwest, her later publications were based mainly on the collections at the Jefferson County Historical Asso- ciation, which had a large contingent of Euro-American pioneer crafts (Marquis 1976:804; Karen Mitchell, Tri-Counties Obituaries: Huerfano County, Pueblo County, Las Animas County, Colorado, kmitch.com/ Pueblo/obits/obitindex.html). Dorothy L. Schulte, who sometimes listed herself as Mrs. R. C. Schulte, was Carl E. Guthe’s secretary on the National Research Council’s Com- mittee on State Archaeological Surveys, from 1927 until it was officially terminated in 1935, when the SAA and American Antiquity took over its functions. Dorothy Schulte was in at the formation of the SAA in December 1934, one of the 31 signers and thus “founding mothers” of the SAA. She resigned her position as secretary of the NRC committee to become secretary of the University Museum at Michigan. In that position, she assisted William C. McKern as editor of the first three years of American Antiquity. When Melvin R. Gilmore resigned as curator of the museum in 1938, she also resigned her position as museum secretary. She seems to have stayed around for a few years, as at least one graduate

Women Entering Archaeology | 227 student in the late 1930s tendered thanks to Mrs. Dorothy Schulte for typing his dissertation manuscript. Marian Angell [Godfrey] [Boyer] (1892–1989) worked in the Uni- versity Museum of the University of Pennsylvania. The first mention of archaeological involvement that I have in my records refers to her making casts of Piedras Negras materials in 1935. She spent some time in the 1930s studying anthropology and archaeology to learn more about the museum’s holdings. She was married to William Simpson Godfrey until his death in 1947; then she married Francis Boyer. In 1941, she was chosen as the secretary of the Board of Managers of the University Museum. When George Vaillant was tapped by the State Department in 1943 to run the cultural relations post in Peru, Marian Godfrey became the acting director of the museum. Vaillant returned from Peru in the fall of 1944, but the government asked him to be cultural attaché to Spain in 1945. Vaillant shortly thereafter committed suicide, and Mar- ian Godfrey was acting director until Froelich Rainey took over in 1947 (details from Madeira 1964:54). Marian thus worked early on in hands-on archaeological museum lab work, but later was responsible for guiding the archaeological programs in the museum as its director. The Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago had 70 WPA employees from 1934 to 1940. Only four had archaeologically related appointments, and all four were women: Ann Perkins, Edith Ware, Mary Warren, and Elizabeth Siegrist Willis. It appears that these women had (just like the rest of the Field Museum WPA workers) museum-related duties but no field-based activities. Mary Warren worked at the Field Museum under WPA aegis from 1934 to 1939 as an archaeological textile conservator. Ann Louise Perkins and Edith Williams Ware secured doctorates, but only on Middle East archaeological topics. Perkins worked at the Field Museum as a senior archaeologist in 1936–37, and Edith Ware succeeded her as a staff archaeologist from 1938 to 1940. Edith Ware had received her training at the University of Chicago, with a 1925 thesis, “Egyptian Artists Signatures,” and a 1928 dissertation, “Egyptian Royal Messenger Service, the Predecessor of Later European Diplomacy.” She was working for the WPA because she could not find other employment.

228 | Women Entering Archaeology Ann Perkins received her MA from the University of Chicago’s Depart- ment of Oriental Languages and Literatures in 1936, with the thesis “Beads as a Source for Ancient History,” and went on to complete her PHD at Chicago in 1940 with “The Comparative Stratigraphy of Pre- historic Mesopotamia.” Only one of the Field Museum WPA archaeologists, Elizabeth Siegrist [Willis] (probably 1909–96), was involved in Americanist studies. She was hired as a senior archaeologist in 1936. In 1937 she married Roger W. Willis from the University of Chicago’s Department of Anthropology, who was working on Early and Middle Woodland archaeology, was a supervisor for two years at the Cole’s Kincaid mound project in Illinois, and in 1940 was the supervisor of the WPA excavations at a Hopewell site at Boulder, Illinois, near Carbondale. After her marriage, she was carried on the Field Museum WPA rosters from 1937 to 1940 as Elizabeth Willis. The records available are mute on what she did earlier at the Field Museum, but at least at the end of her tenure she was involved with the analysis of Americanist materials. In 1939 she and Paul S. Martin did the analysis of more than 5,000 Anasazi vessels in the Field Museum, arriving at a subset of some 900 vessels which they jointly published and illustrated in 1940 in a Field Museum Anthropological Memoir (Anasazi Painted Pottery in the Field Museum of Natural History) as part of their chronological seriation of this material. Elizabeth does not appear in the archaeological records after the beginning of the war. Malcolm Carr [Collier] (1908–83) was a University of Chicago graduate student. In 1936 she participated in archaeological fieldwork at Grand Coulee Dam, Washington. In 1937 she, Katherine Spencer, and Doriane Wooley studied Navaho clans and marriage practices in the Pueblo Alto district as part of the University of New Mexico field school project that summer, and the three published their work in the American Anthropolo- gist in 1939. That year she also married archaeologist Donald Collier. Although she subsequently assisted her husband with his archaeological research, she developed her own studies on the Navaho. The two served in various ways in World War II, then returned to finish their studies at the University of Chicago after the war. Malcolm Carr Collier completed

Women Entering Archaeology | 229 her PHD there in 1951, “Local Organization among the Navaho”; her husband finished his PHD in 1954. But while Malcolm started in archaeology in 1936 and was one of the wives who assisted her archaeological husband, her shift in career trajectory to social anthropology means that she does not figure much in these discussions. Jane Virginia Olson (1916–2006) was born in Chicago and lived in the northern suburb of Winnetka. In 1936, as an undergraduate anthropology major at the University of New Mexico, she, Mary Scanlan, and Barbara Clark were all awarded $300 fellowships for the next fieldwork season. Jane worked with Hulda Hobbs and Bertha Dutton at Tajumulco, Gua- temala. She participated in excavations in Michigan in the summer of 1937. She continued her interest in archaeology, graduating from UNM in 1939, where she did her senior honors thesis on ethnoarchaeological fieldwork on ceramics utilized in food preparation among the Zia Indi- ans in New Mexico. She was named a fellow of the School of American Research following graduation and was on the staff of the Museum of New Mexico for the next two years. Jane Olson had a particular flair for writing and editing. She took a job with the Commerce Clearing House in 1941. In 1942–43 she worked for the Peabody Museum at Harvard. From 1943 to 1949 she worked for Conde Nast Publications, working on the Atlantic Monthly and Vogue. In 1949 she became the technical editor at the Illinois State Geological Sur- vey and the editor of the Transactions of the Illinois Academy of Science. She joined Yale University Press in the 1960s. In 1969 she became the editor of the American Scientist and was responsible for transforming it from its small handbook sized quarterly journal into the current bimonthly standard magazine format. She retired from the American Scientist editorship in 1981, but during this period she was responsible for helping a number of women scientists to publish their research (Reid 2006:394). Margaret Constance Irwin (1910–88) was born in Walla Walla, Wash- ington. She received her BA from the College of Puget Sound in 1932, and went on to graduate work at the University of Washington (Hers- kovits and Ames 1950:87). She took a job at the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History in 1935, and worked there through 1950, primarily

230 | Women Entering Archaeology as a librarian but also as a curator. She was occasionally involved with archaeological materials, taking part in an archaeological expedition to San Nicolas Island, discussing petroglyphs near Santa Barbara, and also analyzing Northwest Coast Haida slate artifacts (Irwin 1942, 1950; Irwin and Roediger 1945), but most of her research was on California coastal ethnographic material culture, so she is at best peripheral to the entourage of regional women archaeologists working in museums.

Other Women Involved in Archaeology

In identifying the women with prosopographical or short biographical commentaries, my criteria were essentially that the individual should have participated in one or more excavations and that there was written evidence from further archaeological research, such as a thesis or dissertation, publications, and the like. However, I also identified women for whom I could not find evidence in more than one of my categories but who seemed to merit further research (beyond what is reported here), as well as discussion in this chapter. These women did not fulfill all of the classificatory categories, but they seemed to belong to an important subset of women involved in some aspect of Americanist archaeological study in this period. Thus the paragraphs below include a brief selection of many of those individuals, primarily as a definition of this subset. However, I also identified several dozen women who participated in one archaeological dig in the continental United States prior to 1940 — but that seems to be the limit of their involvement. A number were graduate students at schools such as the University of Illinois or the University of New Mexico, where during the 1930s, by the numbers, all graduate students, even if they were concentrating in sociocultural, linguistical, or biological anthropology, were required by departmental regulations to participate in at least one archaeological field school as part of their graduate training. For these students, beyond their participation in a required single excavation project, I could find no further evidence of archaeological interest. Hence the women in this latter category I systematically eliminated from listing.

Women Entering Archaeology | 231 As a representative sample of the women students for whom more information should be sought, I have elected to provide the short summaries of women students, mainly involved in a field school and with some write-up of that work (including MA theses), engaged in research in the Southwest. Among these women, only for the Southwest sample, listed alphabetically, are the following: Carol L. Bloom (1916–?) was the second daughter of Lansing Bartlett Bloom. Lansing Bloom had a staff position at the School of American Research, with a focus on New Mexico history, starting in 1919, but by 1927 he had shifted to the University of New Mexico staff. Carol worked in Chaco Canyon in 1936, served as an excavation assistant at Chaco in 1937, and also went on the University of New Mexico archaeological expedition to Guatemala in 1937 as a traveling fellow, but after her BA in 1939, she was no longer involved in archaeology. She served in World War II and afterwards moved to Chicago. Barbara Palmer Clark [McKnight] (1917–2010) received her BA in 1939 from the University of New Mexico. She had worked at the Chaco Canyon excavations for the 1936 and 1938 seasons. In 1936 she had excavated Room 18, Tseh So, BC-50. In 1938 she and Marjorie C. Flinn supervised the Jemez field school, and Clark wrote up their “Report of Fieldwork, 1938, Chaco.” Along with Jane Olson and Mary Scanlon, she had received partial scholarships for the first year of graduate work in 1939. She was a graduate assistant in 1939–1940 at the University of New Mexico. In 1940 she was a member of the excavation crew at the Sandia dig, along with Daniel McKnight, and shortly thereafter the two married and set up a home in Cedar Crest (Glenwood), New Mexico. During the war, she took the position as secretary of the Department of Naval Science and Tactics at the University of New Mexico, and after this she disappears from my inventory of women archaeologists, although remaining a resident of New Mexico. Edith Conrad [Sage] worked at Chaco Canyon in 1930, writing up a “Comparative Study of the Great Kiva, Kiva E, and the East Tower According to the Masonry at the Sanctuary of the Great Kiva,” and she also participated with 15 students, led by Hewett, who took an archaeological

232 | Women Entering Archaeology trip to Toluca, Mexico, in 1930. However, after she graduated in 1931, there is no work reference to her in archaeology. She married and continued living in New Mexico. Dorothy Craighead [Andrews] (1907–93) received her first MA in education from the University of Maine in 1928. In 1930 and 1931, her only membership years in the AAA, she listed herself as living in Lands- downe, Pennsylvania. In 1930 she married Alfred Carleton Andrews of Lewiston, Maine. Alfred was involved in classical studies, and he received his MA from the University of Pennsylvania in 1929 and his PHD in 1931. Dorothy had also entered graduate school at the University of Pennsylvania and completed her firstarchaeological MA, “Preliminary Geographic Survey of the Burial Types of North American Indians: Sug- gestions on the Possible Influences on the Distribution,” in 1931. Albert’s first job was at Bates College in Maine; Dorothy apparently enrolled at the University of Maine, as in 1936 she secured her second MA there in psychology: “A Survey of the Elementary Schools in the State of Maine Concerning Procedures in Operation and Facilities Available for the Education and Training of Children of Intelligent Quotients Ranging from 30 to 80.” Dorothy joined the American Psychological Associa- tion and was a member until her death. Much of her career was spent in Miami, as her husband moved to the University of Miami where he had a long career as a professor of classics. Elizabeth “Betty” Didcoct [Burrill] (1916–2008) earned her BA degree in archaeology from Mt. Holyoke College in 1938, based on her 1936 work at the University of New Mexico field schools, where she wrote “A Comparative Study of Architectural Elements, Distribution, and History of the Upper-Story Kivas.” She entered Peabody College, Vanderbilt, and obtained an MA in library science in 1939. She went on, however, to a career in geography, earning her second MA from Peabody College in 1944, working as a geographer for Latin America in the U.S. State Department, and serving as the president of the Society of Women Geographers from 1975 to 1978. Late in life, in 1981, she married Mer- edith Frederic Burrill. Helen Elizabeth Elliott was born in New Jersey and received her BA

Women Entering Archaeology | 233 from the University of Delaware in 1932. She enrolled in graduate school at the University of Pennsylvania just at the end of my time frame and received her MA in 1942 with the thesis, “An Archaeological Survey of Utah: A Thesis in Anthropology.” She was an active member of the Archaeological Society of New Jersey from the 1940s through the 1960s. Neola A. Eyer (1911–79), who was born in El Paso, Colorado, graduated with a BA from the University of Denver. In 1935 she went on the Second Denver-Wyoming Summer Expedition to northern New Mexico, and based on this trip, she wrote a 1937 honors thesis, “A Study of the Kiva as an Architectural Feature.” She also went to Guatemala with Hewett’s crews for one summer season, but listed her primary interest as physical anthropology, and she is not listed in an archaeological context after her BA degree. Muriel H. Fellows (1902–84) came from Germantown, Pennsylvania, where she won a writing contest in 1920 at Germantown High School writing on local history. She apparently went both as an undergraduate and a graduate student to the University of Pennsylvania, as she received her MA there in 1936 with the thesis “Petrography in the New World.” While at the University of Pennsylvania, she began her career of writing children’s books about anthropological and archaeological topics, early on penning such books as A Cheesebox Becomes a Tom-tom (1934), The Land of Little Rain: A Story of Hopi Children (1936), Little Magic Painter: A Story of the Stone Age (1938), with the last one I could find,Ancient Aztecs, in 1974. Marjorie Cramer Flinn [Maclure] (1915–98), from Pittsburgh, was a member of the Vassar Class of 1937. She was then listed as a co-supervisor with Barbara Palmer Clark in 1938 of the field school in Chaco Canyon. In 1939 she was among six graduate students and three undergraduates who went with Professor Donald Brand from the University of New Mexico to conduct survey work in southern Mexico. In 1940 she completed her MA thesis at UNM, “A Preliminary Survey of Mammalian Bone Implements of the Anasazi Region.” She then returned home and obtained a job as the secretary of the Herpetology Department, Carn- egie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, in 1941. She resigned

234 | Women Entering Archaeology the following year to marry James H. C. Maclure and move to Calgary, Alberta, where she was no longer involved in archaeology. Hope Elizabeth Gilbert (1901–72) was born in Los Angeles and received her BA in history from Berkeley in 1924. She went into secondary education, but in the early 1930s she spent two seasons working with the University of New Mexico field schools, and in 1933 she earned her MA in southwestern history from Berkeley, with the thesis “The Relations of the Spaniards to the Tewa Indians, 1540–1696.” Over the next two decades, she continued as a Spanish and social studies teacher at the Pasadena Union High School, and except for one archaeological article in 1942, her other roughly dozen publications were on southwestern ethnohistory. She is a typical example of a few other women I have not mentioned, who participated in fieldwork, even in some cases completing MA degrees, but then ended up in high school teaching, and if they published, wrote either on ethnographic or ethnohistoric topics, rather than continuing in archaeology. Frances Gillmor (1903–93) received her MA at the University of Arizona in 1931 with the thesis “The Biography of John and Louisa Wetherill.” As noted earlier in this book, Louisa Wetherill had made significant contributions as a female avocational archaeologist. Thus Gillmor’s thesis was not so much a contribution to Americanist archaeology as it was about an in-depth discussion of a pair of amateurs involved in the early history of Americanist archaeology. She later published a number of books and articles on Southwest anthropology, primarily on the Wetherills, and on Aztecs and regional folklore. Marie L. Gunst [Lawther] was born in Yazoo, Mississippi. The family moved to Tucson, and she attended the University of Arizona as both an undergraduate and graduate student. She was one of the 14 students who enrolled in Dr. Douglass’s very first class on dendrochronology in the spring of 1930 (Nash 1999:73). She had done some work with Ruth Underhill in the late 1920s on Pima and Papago dance ceremonies, and completed her MA degree in anthropology with the thesis “Cer- emonials of the Papago and Pima Indians, with Special Emphasis on the Relationship of the Dance to Their Religion.” She was a member of

Women Entering Archaeology | 235 the AAA from 1931 to 1939, continuing some anthropological research, and married Thomas Lawther in 1937. When her father died in 1937, however, Marie and her brother Jacob took over his General American life insurance underwriting business in Tucson, and she left academia. Elizabeth Boies Hagberg [Lewis] (1912?–99) likely was born in Min- nesota, as she was enrolled as an undergraduate at the University of Minnesota in 1933. She is listed at the University of New Mexico in 1935 as a graduate student, and she later completed an incredibly detailed MA thesis of 264 pages, entitled “Southwestern Indian Burial Practices,” in 1939. This thesis covered modern Papago and Apache burial practices as well as southwestern archaeological burial practices. She married Cloyd Deloss Lewis sometime during World War II, but continued an interest in archaeology through museum diorama exhibits. The last listing I have found on the web for her was in 1949, where she is listed as Elizabeth Hagberg Lewis, employed at the Milwaukee Public Museum and is noted as looking for a new job, referencing much experience in diorama construction. Doris Louise Harvey [Wooton] (1911–2002) is one of the women for which I could find little information relating to archaeology, but whom because she completed an MA thesis in the field still should be mentioned. Harvey enrolled at the University of Arizona, and completed her MA thesis, “The Pottery of the Little Colorado Culture Area,” in 1935. After marrying James K. Wooton, a graduate student at the University of Southern California, in 1937, she disappears from the archaeological research record. Mary Jane Hayden [Nichols] (1911–?) and Courtney Reeder [Jones] are included here because of their involvement with managing archaeological ruins for the National Park Service. Mary Hayden was originally from Kansas City and participated in the University of Arizona field excavations at Kinishba in 1935 and 1936 as an undergraduate student. She joined the SAA in 1935 and remained a member through 1941. She participated in the field school at Forestdale, Arizona, from 1939 to 1941, but then with the war she dropped out of archaeology. She married Edward “Tad” Tattnall Nichols in 1937. Tad Nichols had participated

236 | Women Entering Archaeology in the University of Arizona field excavations at Kinishba in 1935 and 1936. In 1937 apparently the couple began work for the NPS-Southwest Monuments for a site near Wupatki. Courtney Reeder [Jones] (1915–?) was a classmate of Mary Jane Hayden, and she also participated in the 1935 excavations at Kinishba. She married David Jones in 1938, who had been a fellow student in the 1935 work at Kinishba. Mary Hayden Nichols wrote a story about her newlywed friends in 1940 (“They Live in an Ancient Ruin”) about the their curation position at Wupatki, a job which they had from 1938 to 1949. Courtney Jones went on to do some work on Pima basketry but no further archaeological research. Mary Katherine Higgs [Caldwell] (1917–1988) was from Roswell, eastern New Mexico, and was a member of the University of New Mexico Class of 1939. In 1937 she helped excavate Rooms 20 and 21, BC-51, at Chaco Canyon (Chaco Digital Archives). In 1938 she was one of four main excavation leaders of the Roswell Archaeological Society excavations at Bloom Mound, apparently in her position as cataloger at Roswell Museum that summer. Higgs and the Roswell Archaeological Society continued working at Bloom Mound until 1949, and then again assisted Texas Tech University when it ran more excavations at the mound in 1954 (Wiseman 2000:261). The four main supervisors kept a notebook documenting their multi-year explorations (Maj. M. G. Fulton, Capt. G. M. Sayre, Mary K. Higgs, and Ed Raymond, n.d., History of Excavation of Bloom Mound on the Hondo.) Higgs also took part in the first season’s excavations at Sandia Cave, New Mexico, in 1939. She married Robert Carl Caldwell in 1940 and shifted her career to raising a family. Sarah Elizabeth Hindman was likely a native Texan. Because I have tried to include all the women who completed MA thesis work in the 1930s on Americanist archaeology topics in this list, I add her in here, although I have found distressingly little information. Hindman was an undergraduate at the University of Texas from 1927 through 1930 and then went on to graduate school there. She completed her MA thesis on Caddoan pottery in 1932, a work entitled “Material Used in the Manu- facture of East Texas Pottery.”

Women Entering Archaeology | 237 Gertrude Dexter Howe (1910–2006) of Pleasantville, New York, received her BA from Mt. Holyoke College in 1932. She went to the American School of Prehistoric Research excavations in Yugoslavia in 1932 following graduation. In 1933 she went to the Chaco Canyon field school, where she produced the unpublished report for the School of American Research: “Report on the South Wall Enclosing the Plaza at Chetro Ketl.” Following that, she took a museum position, received training at the 1932–33 Buffalo Museum of cienceS Sixth Museum Train- ing Class, took additional classes at Yale (but with no degree), and then found a job as a curator with the Museum of Modern Art for the next couple of decades. Alice Elizabeth Kober (1906–50) was born in New York and went to Hunter College, where she received her BA in 1928, and to Colum- bia University, where she finishedher MA in 1929 and PHD in 1932, in Minoan and Mycenaean archaeology. She had a job teaching classics at Hunter from 1928 to 1930, and in 1930, she took a position at Brooklyn College, teaching classics until her death in 1950. In order to get a better handle on the archaeological aspects of her studies, she participated in working at Chaco Canyon in 1936, excavating Room 8, BC-50, and went on to additional archaeological excavations at the American School of Classical Research–Athens in 1939. Shirley W. Kretschmer [Dick] (1918–93) was a member of the Beloit College Class of 1936. After graduation she took a position as an assistant in anthropology there. She participated in the University of New Mexico summer excavations in 1937, and in 1938 she went on the Beloit College expedition to excavate Starkweather Pueblo. She apparently became interested in archaeology through her father, Edward E. Kretschmer, an official of the Chicago Transit Authority, who was a member of SAA in the 1930s and 1940s and a member of the Illinois State Archaeological Society in the 1940s. Shirley later took a job as the assistant in the Chi- cago office for Beloit Collegeand married a Chicago businessman, Ross Melvin Dick, in 1940. She was no longer visibly involved in archaeology after that year. Margaret Eleanor Lane [Young] (1916–93), originally from Oakland,

238 | Women Entering Archaeology started at the University of California–Berkeley in 1932 as a member of the class of 1936, but transferred to the University of New Mexico as a member of the class of 1937. She went on the New Mexico summer program to Chaco Canyon in 1936, excavating Room 1, BC-50. She then entered the University of New Mexico graduate school, but in 1938 she married Webb Young, a prominent Santa Fe artist and trader, whom she had first met whenshe came to Santa Fe six years earlier. She participated in the first season’s excavation at Sandia, where she was credited with finding the first Sandia “point.” After the Sandia project, she apparently no longer actively participated in field archaeology, but was a supporter of the UNM Laboratory of Anthropology for at least the next two decades. Margaret Robertson Latady and her mother moved to Cambridge in 1923 from Birmingham, Alabama. She later entered Radcliffe College as a member of the class of 1937, where she graduated cum laude in anthropology. Her senior honors thesis was somewhat “avant garde” for the period, as she did an analysis of the lithic artifacts from her previous summer’s excavation work at Chaco Canyon, doing a percentage study of the artifacts, stratigraphic level by level from the excavations. This seems to have been the culmination of her archaeological work. Alice Leinau [McMahon] (1911–86) of Riverside, California, received her BA degree in anthropology from Berkeley in 1932 and entered graduate school at the University of New Mexico. She participated in the field school out at Chaco in 1933 and finished her MA thesis, “Sanctuaries in the Ancient Pueblo of Chetro Ketl,” in 1934. The next field season she went with the University of New Mexico crew to Guatemala, where Alice worked on the problems of Guatemalan agriculture. Then the editors of El Palacio report that she left school and went to Yuma, Arizona, to marry Richard McMahon in 1937, and they moved back to Riverside. After that, the only mention of her is on the membership lists of the SAA and the AAA through 1941, when she disappears from the search base. Delphine Bosworth McCready (1916–42?) received her BA in Spanish from the Pennsylvania College for Women (now Chatham College) in Pittsburgh in 1937. She had joined the AIA in 1934, and later participated

Women Entering Archaeology | 239 in the Chaco Canyon excavations at Tseh So in 1936 between her junior and senior years at college. Subsequently she used this fieldwork for her senior honors thesis. When asked by a hometown reporter why she had gone to New Mexico instead of the Old World ruins to excavate, she replied, “There is much more chance of a woman really doing something in archaeological work in our own Southwest” (Burke 1936:41). In the same article, she also wryly noted that her parents had been “a little bit alarmed when she asked for a pick and shovel and overalls” for her summer class. To put this request into more graphic context, in the teens and twenties, Radcliffe College asked studentsto wear ladylike hats and gloves to class, and trousers were forbidden. As Barbara Miller Solomon noted (1985:159), even when the students put on a play, stereotyped dress codes interfered: in order to portray a male character, a student actress had to wear a floor-length overcoat instead of being allowed to wear trousers. Solomon went on to say that “Radcliffe was theleast fashionable of the Seven Sisters; twenty-five percent of the students were working their way through college, and half were commuters,” but nevertheless “Radcliffe students in the 1930s, myself included, were told never to appear in Harvard Square without hat and gloves” (Solomon 1985:183, 246n7). Pennsylvania College for Women listed very similar regulations at the time. Photos of the women students who participated in either the Jemez or Chaco field schools in the 1930s in the University of New Mexico archives reinforce this observation, as they clearly show that “other than when the girls were actually participating in the excavations in the canyon, women wore dresses or skirts at all times. They went on field trips to other sites, and some of them look like tourists rather than students in their heels and skirts” (Frances Joan Mathien, November 30, 2010). These students were following the fashion dictates of the day. The then etiquette guru, Emily Post, instructed the women in her first Blue Book version in 1922, and continuing in several revisions up through the mid-1940s, that “on a city street always wear a hat and gloves,” and that “if you are wearing street or sports clothes, then a

240 | Women Entering Archaeology hat is obligatory,” “always wear gloves . . . on the street; a really smart woman wears them outdoors always, even in the country,” and “if you want to be thought a person of taste, don’t wear shorts unless you are less than sixteen” (Post 1944:717, 720, 721, 845). Looking back from today’s situation, one tends to forget how difficult it was for young women to obtain outdoors field experiences then. Delphine McCready entered graduate school at the University of New Mexico in 1937, and by 1938 she was listed as associate editor of the graduate student newsletter at the University of New Mexico. She had joined the Society for American Archaeology in 1936 and maintained her membership there as well as in the American Anthropological Associa- tion for the six years. But as early as 1938 she left Albuquerque, possibly shifting her interests to American history, and moved back to Pittsburgh, working with her mother in their antiques shop and collaborating with her mother on publishing an intermittent antiques collectors’ newsletter, McCready Broadside. She worked for the federal government during the war, and one source suggests that she died doing her job in 1942, which I have not been able to verify. Edith Aurie Mueser [Miller] (1919–2005) was from Mountain Lakes, New Jersey, and a member of the Radcliffe College class of 1940. She participated in the Chaco Canyon excavations with the University of New Mexico in 1937, where she excavated Rooms 4, 7, and 17 at BC-51 (Chaco Digital Archives). She worked at the AMNH in the summer of 1939, and served as the secretary-treasurer of the undergraduate Excava- tors Club at Harvard in 1940, participating in several of their digs that year. After graduation, she was involved in the war effort. In 1946 she married Andrew Paul Miller, MD, and the couple moved to California, where she spent the rest of her life. Esther Newberg [Mahoney] (1896–1996) was born in Hibbing, Min- nesota. She also appears to be a student who came relatively late in life to archaeology. She is listed as a student at the University of Minnesota in various semesters from 1912–13 through 1916–17, when she was still listed at the sophomore level, majoring in home economics. At some point during World War I, she met Vernon Litsinger Mahoney, originally

Women Entering Archaeology | 241 from Catonsville, Maryland, who had his MD from the Maryland College of Physicians and Surgeons in Baltimore in 1915, and was commissioned as a lieutenant in the medical corps. The two were married in 1920. Shortly thereafter they moved to Tucson, where Vernon practiced his specialty in thoracic surgery. In the 1930s, Esther returned to graduate school at the University of Arizona, and in 1936 she completed her MA thesis, “The Development and Classification of Chihuahua Pottery.” I found no mention of further archaeological research after this thesis. Grace Hester Robinson [Fisher] (1910–?), originally from Arizona, seems to have been involved in archaeology primarily as the wife of Reginald Gilbert Fisher, whom she married in 1930. Reginald Fisher went on in archaeology at the University of New Mexico, becoming an instructor after completing his MA in 1932. Grace participated in the Chaco Canyon work in 1931, where she wrote the unpublished report “General Observations of the Excavations at Chetro Ketl in 1931,” but after her graduation in 1932, the only mention of Grace that I could locate was in assisting her husband on his projects. Mary Elizabeth Sanford completed her MA thesis at the University of Minnesota in 1936, “The Techniques of Mimbres (New Mexico) Pot- tery Design.” Because I had identified only one other women involved in graduate work in archaeology at the University of Minnesota, I was particularly curious about her involvement. An examination of her MA thesis showed that it was based on the ceramics recovered from the Mimbres culture site of Galaz by Professor Albert E. Jenks of the Uni- versity of Minnesota during his excavations from 1929 to 1931. Jenks had visited with Hattie Cosgrove in 1928, and she had arranged with the landowner for the excavations by the Minnesota group. After the MA thesis, I found no subsequent archaeological work by Sanford. Dorothy A. Stoddard [Knipe] (1887–1963) was born in Fairhaven, Massachusetts. She arrived in Arizona in 1911 with her husband, Frederic O. Knipe, and the pair homesteaded in the Rincon valley southeast of Tucson, on land just south of the Saguaro National Monument. Fred- eric tried ranching, but did not do well, so he joined the U.S. Forest Service in 1916 and spent a few years with them. Along the way he

242 | Women Entering Archaeology acquired architectural skills, and in the 1940s through the 1960s, he is frequently mentioned as an area architect, becoming president of the local Architectural Institute of America chapter in Tucson in the 1950s. Dorothy became very interested in local history and archaeology and filled notebooks full of materials of Arizona history, mainly dating to their homesteading days, materials on homestead claims, and brand registration, which she donated to the Arizona Historical Society in 1940. In 1930, Dorothy arranged for the donation of part of their homestead, which contained Indian ruins, to the University of Arizona (Bostwick 2006:154). In 1933 her interest was such that at 46 years of age she became a member of the first archaeological crew officially accepting females at the University of Arizona excavations at Kinishba. She served on the Executive Council of the Arizona Archaeological and Historical Soci- ety in 1934–35, and she became a member of the Society for American Archaeology. Dorothy was intrigued by tree-ring dating, and what may be her only archaeological publication relates to a tree-ring dating of the Chaco Yuma West ruin in southern Arizona (Knipe 1941). But in general, Dorothy Knipe served in a support role for other archaeological investigators. Pauline Vonnegut [Eck] (1912–2002) was born in Indianapolis and was a cousin of the writer Kurt Vonnegut Jr. She was a member of the Indiana University Class of 1933 and graduated with a focus in natural science. She participated in the Chaco Canyon summer excavations in 1936 and joined the Indiana Historical Society in 1937. She entered graduate school in 1934 and completed an MA in education in 1941. In 1943 she went to the National Museum of Natural Science in Santiago, Chile, to study the collections, and met and married Rene Eck while there. The rest of her career she taught zoology and biology first in junior colleges in Indiana and then at St. Petersburg (Florida) College. Gail Jeanette Wellwood [Bailey] [Kellum] [Curtis] (1914–2010), from Flint, Michigan, was a member of the University of Michigan Class of 1937. She went to the Chaco Canyon field school in 1936, where she excavated Room 3 at BC-50 (Tseh So). She looked for museum jobs

Women Entering Archaeology | 243 after graduation, first contacting theUniversity of California–Berkeley in 1938, and finally obtaining a job at the Fleming Museum at the Uni- versity of Vermont. There she met the North American archaeologist John Haynes Bailey, whom she married in 1940, and moved with him to a museum position at Davenport, Iowa. After he died in 1948 she took a job at the University Museum in Ann Arbor and married the museum paleontologist, Lewis Burnett Kellum, in 1949. When he died in 1985, she married a Mr. Curtis. Mary Whittemore [McEvoy] (1917–2001), from Scarsdale, New York, was a member of the Radcliffe College Class of 1938, where she graduated with an anthropology major. In 1937 she excavated Kiva 4, BC-55, in Chaco Canyon. She returned to excavate in the 1938 season as well. The results of her work were published in 1939. In 1938 she began graduate work with Clyde Kluckhohn on his Navaho research and published a short piece in 1941 based on her research. She married Charles Dillon McEvoy Jr., a 1941 Amherst College graduate, in 1942, and they moved to Baltimore, where he completed his MD at Johns Hopkins in 1944. Katherine Burks Young [Hearn] (1916–1978?) was a member of the Radcliffe College Class of 1937, graduating cum laude in anthropology. She subsequently entered graduate school at Harvard and started thesis research under the guidance of the archaeologist Alfred M. Tozzer upon Basket Maker culture burials curated at the Peabody Museum from Durango, Colorado. But she shifted to work with Earnest A. Hooton, finishing her MA thesis, “Yucatecan Children: A Comparative Growth Study,” in 1938. She then worked with Hooton at the Peabody Museum until 1940, when she married and moved to South Africa. Mayme Linda Young [Guenther] (1914–98) was born in Las Vegas. She married Edgar T. Guenther, then of Prescott, Arizona, in the 1930s, about the time she entered the University of Arizona, as she is listed at the Kinishba field school in 1935 as Linda Young Guenther, but still carried on the University of Arizona records as Mayme Linda Young as late as 1937, when she got her MA in archaeology. She is listed in different university documents both as Mayme Linda Young and Linda Young Guenther, with a thesis: “Gila Polychrome: The Origin and Development

244 | Women Entering Archaeology of Polychrome Pottery in the Gila River Drainage Area.” She was the daughter-in-law of E. Edgar and Minnie Knoop Guenther, who were Lutheran missionaries on the Fort Apache Reservation in the Gila drainage area of Arizona east of Phoenix from 1911 to 1982. They donated a huge collection of Western Apache artifacts to the Arizona State Museum, which has become an important study collection. Beyond her MA, however, I found no later archaeological work by Linda Guenther. As can be seen, I am able to identify a significant umbern of women who contributed to Americanist archaeology albeit in a limited fashion, many of whom took part in excavations in the Southwest, or did senior honors theses or even MA theses on their work, but for whom I have little other information relevant to further archaeological contributions. While there were no doubt more women students like this to be found in the Southwest than elsewhere in the country, there were similar cohorts of women students working in other regions that I have not listed here. The above Southwest group serves to provide the reader with a glimpse of the membership of the particular cohort of women involved in this fashion.

Commentary

Edgar Lee Hewett’s name shows up quite often in the commentaries on women archaeology graduate students and professionals during the 1930s. (Alfred Vincent Kidder and Frederic Ward Putnam similarly appeared often in the discussions of earlier decades, but I have discussed their contributions elsewhere — Browman 2002, Browman and Williams 2013.) What should one make of Hewett’s association in this decade? It might be tempting to see him as some kind of early hero of sexual equality in archaeology, but the little vignettes that I have included here and there in these pages by women who trained at the anthropology departments at the University of New Mexico and the University of Southern California and at the School for American Research — all institutions that Hewett helped found and where he supervised women students — make it clear that Hewett did not include women in training programs for archaeology out of any concern for equality.

Women Entering Archaeology | 245 Rather what one sees with Hewett’s strategy is his solution to the typical problems for anyone trying to build a new program, particularly for programs that are part of larger institutions funded by tax dollars. Carrie C. Heitman, curator at the Chaco Digital Research Archives, tells me that their files contain multiple letters from Hewett during the early 1930s to women’s colleges in the East such as Vassar, Chatham, and Wellesley, advertising the Jemez and Chaco digs as ideal summer programs for women students. An institutional program director (such as Hewett) must demonstrate a need for the program to the administration, usually by showing a demand by clients (undergraduate and graduate students) for the training and materials produced. Hewett deliberately padded his participant numbers to try to bolster the apparent impact of his programs, and recruiting and admitting women students was one of the easy ways to accomplish this. And funding is always a problem, so enrolling potential women advocates for his program (and potential donors) was another way that Hewett succeeded in building his institutions. What kind of training did these women receive? As detailed in this chapter, there was reluctance by some male students to allow the women to obtain proper field training at the University of New Mexico. Thus the good women students learned archaeological method and technique against great odds, and their careers are all the more noteworthy. As various commentators (including me) have noted, Hewett’s archaeological technique was very poor. He had learned it (mainly self-taught) back about 1900, and seems to have changed it little if at all during his 35 years conducting excavations in New Mexico, with his principal goals mainly to recover museum specimens and to clean out ruins to create tourist venues, to increase tourism and thus increase state support for his programs. Advances in technique such as stratigraphic excavation and the like passed him by. Fortunately there were gatherings such as the Southwest Pecos Conference, and the bright young male and female students learned contemporary research techniques there as well as from A. V. Kidder and archaeologists from other institutions. One of the severe problems, however, seems to have been the “glass

246 | Women Entering Archaeology ceiling” for women after obtaining the MA degree at the University of New Mexico. Hewett fully appreciated the need for having capable young women work up the more tedious components of the field excavations as MA theses, but after supporting the women to that point, he cut them loose. Some of the most successful women from the southwestern area carved out specialty niches — working on dendrochronology, petrographic analyses, textile studies, and the like. Hewett’s programs then were perhaps a mixed blessing. Hewett’s need for increasing participation and securing more financial donations certainly provided a substantial toehold for young women interested in archaeology to begin to become involved in the profession and to participate in a limited fashion in an archaeological excavation. His programs were thus much more “welcoming” than many other universities in the country at this time for women students. Many of the women in his programs made significant contributions to the growth of southwestern archaeology. But as noted in far too many instances in this chapter, their archaeological careers came to a halt after the MA degree; Hewett did not support women for PHD degrees. But to be clear, I have focused on Hewett’s programs in part because they are the best documented, making them the easiest to critically evaluate. Many of his male (as well as occasional female) colleagues at other institutions were no better and, in many cases, much less welcoming of female archaeology concentrators. The 1930s were a period of fluorescence of anthropology in the United States. Between 1930 and 1939, 125 PHDs were awarded in anthropology. However, nearly 90 percent (n = 111) of the degrees came from six institutions: Harvard with 25, Columbia with 22, Chicago with 19, Uni- versity of California–Berkeley with 19, Yale with 15, and the University of Pennsylvania with 11. The remaining 10 percent of the degrees were awarded by the Catholic University of America, Duke, Hartford Semi- nary, Northwestern, the University of Michigan, and the University of Wisconsin, with the mean at all these other institutions between 1 and 2 PHD degrees in anthropology over this decade (Ebihara 1985:102). There was perhaps inevitably some trickledown effect on this resurgence

Women Entering Archaeology | 247 upon the success of women in American archaeology securing advanced degrees. In all categories, I have touched upon more than 130 women involved in Americanist archaeological research in the 1930s. Because of the difficulty in determining career particulars, because women are so often overlooked, I am reluctant to make too many sweeping statements based on the numbers. However, preliminary analyses do allow for some rough-and-ready pattern characterizations. More than 60 percent of the women discussed for this decade secured advanced degrees. While only 13 percent went on to complete their doctoral degrees, which seems a decrease from the previous decade, this percentage is somewhat misleading. Because the total decadal figures include the numbers of women obtaining terminal MA degrees, and the number of women getting terminal MA degrees increased by a factor of five over the previous decade, even though the number of women securing PHD degrees had jumped by half, to 17, these 17 compute as a smaller percentage of the whole. Moreover, unlike the previous decade, 60 percent of this decade’s cohort of doctoral degrees were now in archaeology, with the rest of the dissertations generally on ethnographic aspects of the region where the candidates had started out on their earlier archaeological researches. And with few exceptions, significantly, the more than 60 terminal MA degrees now were in Americanist archaeology. Again, in comparison with the previous decade, most of the completion dates for the PHD degrees for this cohort were in the 1930s through the mid-1940s. Only a few took longer completing their doctoral dissertations (not finishing until as late as 1952 and 1959, 1970, and 1977). Unlike the earlier decades, now roughly 90 percent of the women in this decade cohort had college degrees, although it was not possible to ascertain what field the undergraduate degree was in for most cases, because a very typical mode of reporting such degrees was only by listing “BA Class of 193x.” A bit more than 45 percent of the decadal group ended their advanced graduate work with their MA degree. Regrettably the majority of these women students with terminal MA degrees did not remain in archaeology. There appear to be several reasons that can

248 | Women Entering Archaeology be proffered to explain this situation. For example, the University of New Mexico (as well as several other universities) seemed to regularly terminate women in their graduate program after they completed their MA degree. At least 3 percent of the decadal group were pushed aside because of nepotism regulations. Some 45 percent of the entire sample left the field when they married — many but not all of these after their MA degree. Nearly 20 percent of the decadal sample with advanced degrees in Americanist archaeology went on to careers in allied fields, working in ethnology or parlaying their MA training into credentials for a job as a science librarian or a social science high school educator. The apparent ability of women with BA degrees only, or even with no recorded college degrees, to contribute to archaeology was less in the 1930s than in previous decades. Nevertheless, about 40 percent of the 1930s cohort discussed still fall into this category. One pattern that I think I see in the above data is that of the women identifying a niche for themselves by working with specific, almost esoteric, categories of archaeological materials, particularly in museums. Focusing upon a specialized research class, as for example, archaeological textiles, allowed several of this cohort of women to create a position where they could work on archaeological material types that most of the male archaeologists were ignoring or lacked the patience and skills to analyze. As noted earlier, this was one of the strategies that women have employed (and clearly still utilize) to work in archaeology, bypassing active competition with their male colleagues in the general field, but securing strong credentials by developing specialized skills in great demand. A fair question would be how different was the situation for men? In a study of anthropological training in the department at the Peabody Museum of Harvard University (Browman and Williams 2013), I tracked 63 men receiving graduate training in archaeology there in the 1920s and 1930s. Of the 27 who were in the program in the 1920s, 8 did not complete any advanced degrees, but half of this latter group secured museum or research institute jobs, and the other half were active in amateur archaeological groups, including excavation and publishing. Another 7 obtained terminal MA degrees, and all of these individuals

Women Entering Archaeology | 249 secured employment in museums and research institutions. And 12 of the group acquired their PHD degrees, going into teaching as well as securing jobs at museums and research institutes. So while not all men who entered the graduate program received advanced degrees, they all continued being involved in archaeology. All of the men with MA or PHD degrees found employment doing some aspect of archaeological research, in significant contrast to omenw discussed in these pages for the same period. The success of men in archaeology in the Peabody Museum program increased in the 1930s. Of the 36 men entering the graduate program, 24 completed their PHD degrees, and 5 completed their MA degrees only, with only 7 receiving no advanced degrees at all from Harvard. There was some shift in emphasis in careers in archaeology, with only one of the men continuing involvement just through an amateur group as compared to nearly a quarter of the men in the 1920s. Those men of the 1930s group with no advanced degrees and MA degrees only still secured employment in archaeology mainly in research institutes and museums, but now 55 percent of the men with PHD degrees obtained discipline teaching positions in colleges, compared with only 33 percent of the 1920s group. And as well, not only were more teaching positions opening for men in the 1930s, but success in securing PHD degrees increased markedly for the men: 67 percent of the men acquired PHD degrees from the 1930 cohort, as compared with 44 percent of the 1920s set, and both were markedly more successful in the archaeological job market than their women compatriots. Several men from the Harvard cohort in the 1920s and 1930s went on to establish anthropology departments at other institutions, a career path essentially not open to women. Thus while career opportunities in archaeology were increasing for both men and women, trajectories and prospects for men were still significantly different.

250 | Women Entering Archaeology Concluding Remarks

This volume incorporates explicit research on the status of women in Americanist archaeology. Alison Wylie (2001:23) asks, “What difference has feminism made to archaeological research?” and responds that among other issues, there is an emerging subfield of gender archaeology, involving archaeological research on women and gender. Several of the problems of gender bias, she argues, are a consequence of intellectual dependence on unexamined stereotypes about the capacities and roles proper to women and men and hence a goal of gender archaeology ought to be countering the invisibility of women and distortions due to gender stereotypes (Wylie 2001:32, 38). That has been a principal goal of this volume. One pattern that I argue developed in career choices in Americanist archaeology for women was to select research topics and areas that men found onerous, often because these researches involved rather tedious analyses, such as the bioarchaeological fields of paleoethnobotany or zooarchaeology. While my own unscientific review of the lists of SAA members over the past 50 years indicates an increasing presence and perhaps even dominance of these fields by women, in general the women practitioners still find themselves rather invisible, as indicated by the 2010 review article by Mary Lucas Powell and a dozen of her fellow bio- archaeologists, entitled “Invisible Hands: Women in Bioarchaeology.” Another pattern that I identify emerging in the 1930s was the entry of women into fields such as textile analyses and other areas traditionally

251 considered part of household arts. Because field archaeology focuses upon material remains, this is a critical area of analysis and one that as an archaeologist I find essential to my work. However, Margaret Rossiter, in her 1982 book Women Scientists in America: Struggles and Strategies to 1940, which covers anthropologists and archaeologists as well as astronomers, chemists, and other scientists, makes the point that while the development of women’s careers in science was paralleled by the growth of education for women beginning in the late nineteenth century, she feels that women lost ground in the 1930s, being diverted to areas such as home economics and library science. Ruth Watts makes a similar argument in Women in Science: A Social and Cultural History, which covers the period up to World War II:

The complete reversal of women’s prominence in science education by the 1930s, indeed, can be traced to several factors: the male backlash against women’s “feminizing influence” on boys; discrimination and erection of barriers against women as the physical sciences grew in significance and becameincreasingly professionalized and promoted as “masculine”; a corresponding fall in women’s confidence that they could gain decent employment in science, even in teaching; and finally, alternative pathways in liberal arts, home economics, and commerce initiated by women themselves which helped the decline of female science and math enrollments. (Watts 2007:150)

As I noted in chapter 4, one of the trajectories taken by women to create research niches in archaeology was to focus on a specialized area such as textile or ceramic analyses — household arts. And one of the options selected by several women after securing their MA degree in archaeology was to utilize the degree as credentials in obtaining a job in library science. Thus while the patterns defined for the omenw in Americanist archaeology of the 1930s do in fact show the propensity observed by Rossiter and Watts, such as the decline in employment opportunities and the rise of alternative pathways in household arts, business, and humanities, this was not perhaps as unfavorable for women in archaeology. A control of textiles, pottery, and other aspects of household arts

252 | Concluding Remarks are essential for archaeological research, and humanistic studies (such as ethnohistory) have been critical for the interpretations of archaeological evidence. Thus depending on whether one looks at these events from the eyes of an archaeologist or the eyes of, say, an engineer, these trends commented upon by Rossiter and Watts could be viewed in either a positive or negative light. As suggested by my reference to the volumes of Rossiter and Watts above, there is a good literature on women involved in scientific fieldwork other than archaeology. A few of the other volumes that are useful studies of women doing fieldwork inprimatology, botany, geology, and other sciences include Marcia Bonta’s Women in the Field: America’s Pioneering Women Naturalists, Angela Creager et al.’s Feminism in Twen- tieth-Century Science, Technology, and Medicine, Jane Kahle’s Women in Science: A Report from the Field, Sally Kohlstedt’s History of Women in the Sciences, and Angela Pattatucci’s Women in Science: Meeting Career Challenges. Many of the issues these volumes identify for women in other scientific fields are the same issuesthat I have traced for women working in archaeology. Turning to the specific issues in Americanist archaeology, in the early 1990s Nancy Parezo published a synthetic essay on the problems that women encountered in creating anthropological careers during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. Anthropology departments have housed the majority of women conducting Americanist archaeology, so that the discussion of issues impacting women in anthropology is essentially synonymous with those in archaeology. In that piece, Parezo argued, “The rediscovery of women scholars is a critique of the history of anthropology and a call for a reexamination of anthropology, academia, and society” (Parezo 1993:29). I summarized some of her observations in the introductory chapter. There I list a series of attitudes and barriers that she perceived as contributing to the invisibility of women in the sciences in general, as well as in anthropology and archaeology specifically, matters that had to be overcome by women seeking to pursue an academic career. It is useful to revisit some of those points briefly. The issue of attitudes is laid mainly at the feet of male colleagues, but

Concluding Remarks | 253 Parezo also aptly observes that “women who have managed to secure permanent positions are actually the harshest critics of women” (1993:35n3). Four attitudinal preconceptions and biases resulting in discrimination against admitting women to study for advanced degrees particularly galled Parezo: (1) that women don’t take themselves seriously; (2) that women will stop their careers to have babies; (3) that women don’t need money because they have husbands to support them; and (4) that women lack ambition and ability. These were the rationales often explicitly or implicitly given to marginalize women. The strategy summarized can be construed as follows: if you can’t ignore women, then find leveling mechanisms. The result, Parezo concludes (1993:16), is that “women anthropologists in the official texts have thus been devalued, trivialized, demeaned, ignored, dismissed, made less important, and hidden from view. Their contributions, perspectives, and accomplishments have been marginalized.” Expanding on this thought, she writes, “I have often told my [women] students that part of getting through graduate school is the ability to endure years of poverty and years of subordination. I have not told them of the years of subtle marginalization that will be encountered later” (1993:37n23). These are harsh words. Unfortunately they seem to reflect that tired old saw “The more things change the more they remain the same.” Regrettably the issues that Nancy Parezo identified for the last quarter of the twentieth century are nearly identical to the issues discussed in the previous pages that characterized the position of women in the discipline a century earlier, from the last quarter of the nineteenth century into the first quarter of the twentiethcentury. I would like to think that my male colleagues no longer exhibit these attitudes, but my colleagues in the history of anthropology such as Alice Kehoe assure me that such discrimination is still alive and flourishing in archaeology as well as in the academy. It appears to me, however, that now because more than half of the students receiving doctorates in anthropology and archaeology are women, and thus women are becoming the majority group, there should be a significant paradigm hifts in this academic worldview. I base this observation in part on my own experience: in my own department

254 | Concluding Remarks during one recent decade when 75 percent of the archaeological faculty were women, I found out firsthand what it was like to be in a minority, to be ignored and bypassed, to become invisible, if you will. Now both components of my department’s archaeological faculty make extra efforts to include and appreciate minority viewpoints. Revisiting the seven barriers that Parezo (1993:17–27) felt characterized the end of the twentieth century, it is evident that the academic situation she reviewed was not much different from the situation present at the origins of American archaeology in universities and museums nearly a century earlier. Thus, for the time under consideration in these chapters, Parezo’s first barrier — the structure of the discipline and the academy — favored men. The pattern existing in anthropology and archaeology can be perceived to be much like that characterizing the Roman Catholic Church. There, in the first ewf centuries of the Christian epoch, men and women were equally serving as bishops, priests, deacons, and other religious functionaries. But over time the men in the church seized power and women were relegated to secondary positions, so that the hierarchy of that church today is exclusively a male domain. This same structural process operated more rapidly in Americanist archaeology between 1890 and 1925, when the push was on to upgrade American university training and credentials by hiring only individuals with doctorates. Prior to that time, there was no specific stated institutional edge for men over women in participating in anthropology, although there were cultural constraints. But due to the fact that the first doctorate degree — granting institutions in anthropology, such as Harvard and Columbia, were exclusively male preserves, structurally women were de facto largely prevented from securing doctorates. The structure of the discipline thus limited the pool of candidates with doctorates available to upgrade graduate training essentially to men during this period. Parezo’s second barrier was focused on education. She was most concerned about the trajectory of women students once they had been admitted to advanced degree — granting programs. After detailing various issues, she observed, “As a result of these conscious and unconscious

Concluding Remarks | 255 barriers, preconceptions, and double standards, women students took longer to receive their doctorates and had a higher attrition rate than men” in the time frame of her analysis (Parezo 1993:20). That turned out also to be true in the early part of the century covered here. The third of the barriers was that of finding a job. The requirement by several institutions until after World War II that the dissertation had to be published prior to granting the doctorate degree severely handicapped women candidates. Inability to publish the dissertation thus delayed extensively or even prevented women from being awarded their doctoral degree in a timely fashion. This had a direct impact on Parezo’s fourth and fifth barriers as limned during this period, because the jobs available for women (who lacked doctoral “union cards”) were thus low status, in nontenured positions, and mainly in lower prominence or unprestigious departments and institutions. Without a published dissertation, the doctoral degree could not be granted; without the degree, a tenure-track position would not be secured; and without a doctoral degree, the main job market for women was limited to less prestigious institutions, which could not afford torestrict jobs to candidates with doctorates. All this clearly carried over to Parezo’s sixth barrier, teaching assignments as it related to women in this volume’s time frame. Because women lacking the doctoral degree were systematically assigned heavier teaching assignments and a large number of new courses, they, like the gypsy scholars of today, found that they spent their academic life doing the main burden of teaching for their department, while the rest of the staff was able to conduct research and publish. In the publish or perish atmosphere that had developed in the early twentieth century and still permeates the bulk of the graduate research and degree-granting institutions in America today, this means that gypsy scholars have become the new “women” in terms of treatment by colleagues in their departments. This syndrome contributed to Parezo’s seventh barrier, that of the difficulty women had in publishing, obtaining resources, and receiving equal pay, well documented for both her time frame and this volume’s coverage. One issue not mentioned by Parezo and other disciplinary historians

256 | Concluding Remarks that may have changed over time is that of nepotism. While married women were often systematically excluded from teaching positions because of nepotism rules before 1940, and certainly into the 1950s, it appears to me, on an informal survey, that nepotism rules no longer pose as much of a barrier. I started my investigation of cultural negotiations by women scholars with the Civil War epoch. The drawdown of men from the labor pool into the armed forces to fight in the Civil War left white-collar positions to be filled, and women thus oundf acceptance in that workforce. A few intrepid women, like Francis Babbitt or Alice Fletcher, actually did some fieldwork in Americanist archaeology. So while there was a small tear in the fabric of sexist and social stigmas preventing women from full participation, there were still major barriers. At this period, however, it was also difficult for men to become involved in Americanist archaeology. The Archaeological Institute of America promoted an explicit disciplinary ethnocentrism (some would say racism) in the late nineteenth century, with its officers and members for the most part believing that Americanist archaeology had no value. In their view, Americanist studies were about groups that had not yet achieved significant human sophis- tication, and thus the only legitimate study for archaeological scholars was the prehistory and early history of places like Egypt, Greece, and Rome. Although not addressed here, there were important archaeological fieldwork research projectsby female classical archaeologists at the turn of the century. If a woman insisted on becoming involved in archaeology, then it was more socially acceptable at that point for her to take up Greco-Roman studies, for example. Resources for both men and women were severely limited, however. Except for newly established government jobs at places like the Bureau of Ethnology, United States National Museum, and Smithsonian Institu- tion, until the late nineteenth century the only way most men became involved in Americanist archaeology as a vocation was through having the independent resources to fund their own research. In chapter 1, I discussed a few women who became very important to Americanist

Concluding Remarks | 257 archaeology, like Mary Hemenway, by making sizeable grants to individuals pursuing archaeological research and often insisting that their grants must be utilized to employ women as well as men. It was no accident that most of these women philanthropists were widows. The social and legal situations of most women at the time were such that once women married, husbands controlled all their economic resources. Only as a widow did a woman usually have the freedom to mobilize financial resources as she saw fit. Butthis freedom was limited. For example, in my own family there is a rich legacy of women kinfolk (including Lucy Stone Blackwell), who wrote in their letters and diaries, as well as proclaiming in meetings, about their frustration about being taxed the same as men after their husband’s deaths, but having no say (no vote) in how the local municipality or state chose to utilize those funds, which men, of course, did. Not just a few comments were made about “taxation without representation.” Thus from the Civil War until the turn of the century, the women I have identified in chapter 1 made most of their contributions to archaeology not through fieldwork butthrough other venues. They provided the funds for archaeologists and archaeological projects. They became involved in the development and management of archaeological museums. They also provided the funding as well as the backroom labor and public outcry for conservation of archaeological sites, such as the early successful preservation efforts atSerpent Mound in Ohio, Casa Grande in Arizona, and Mesa Verde in Colorado. As journalism opened up to women, women began writing about the American archaeological heritage, setting the stage for public archaeology. The writers were able to capitalize on growing public interest in the First Americans, fueled in part by a couple of phenomena. On one hand, there was the so-called American Renaissance or Gilded Age, which generated more interest in the patrimony of the country. And as well, after the 1890s, there was an increasing interest in visiting American Indian ruins and collecting artifacts. As noted earlier, Hulda Hobbs (1946a:85) reported one factor that led to significantly increased interest in Southwest archaeology at this time was the decoration of

258 | Concluding Remarks “Indian dens,” which had become quite a fad in the eastern U.S. cities, supplanting the older antiquarian fads of Egyptian or Greco-Roman artifact displays. The period between the Spanish-American War and the First World War marked a time of major growth in professionalization of anthropology and archaeology, with the rapidly spreading establishment of degree programs in colleges and universities, and awarding of the first group of master’s and doctoral degrees in Americanist archaeology. Women were initially left out of this disciplinary expansion. There was a major push in education to upgrade training and professionalization in the academy. Leading universities sought to hire individuals with advanced degrees, but most of the training in Americanist archaeology available was in programs such as that pioneered at Harvard, where advanced classroom instructions were effectivelylimited to male students. Thus the women that I reviewed for the firsttwo decades of the twentieth century were involved in archaeology in much the same ways as their predecessors in the previous quarter-century. A few of these women now were obtaining university training, but not for the most part in Americanist archaeology. Shifts in attitudes were brought about by women’s participation in various new positions during the First World War, as men were drawn from other jobs into the armed forces and women replaced them. In addition, the social ferment of the period, which led to the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment, helped in redefining options open to women researchers. By the mid-1920s, women students were beginning to be regularly enrolled in undergraduate and graduate programs within Americanist archaeology. The generally held cultural perception at that time that men were the breadwinners, and women were in some ways naturally subservient, however, restricted the ability of women to obtain PHD degrees, as well as helping relegate them to archaeological jobs considered more akin to “women’s work,” such as tedious ceramic analyses, working with museum collections, and the like. It was not until the Second World War once again reduced male labor pools that female students in Americanist archaeology were able to secure another

Concluding Remarks | 259 academic bridgehead, with access to PHD degrees, shifting significantly in the 1940s and 1950s. A major change in cultural attitudes from the end of the nineteenth century resulted in the situation that, by the 1930s, virtually all women in Americanist archaeology were now involved in research and in excavations: they were now “doing” archaeology. In the earlier periods, many women were constrained by the social expectations of American culture that generally viewed fieldwork in archaeology as unladylike, thus making it a difficult option for these women to pursue. Hence many of them had devoted their energies to founding museums and institutes, where others could do archaeological research, or otherwise providing funding opportunities for those wishing to do archaeology. By the 1930s, that cultural restriction was beginning to loosen, and women, although still often ostracized for actually participating in excavations, felt more able to become involved in fieldwork. Other cultural barriers, mainly academic ones, slowed their progress toward disciplinary equality. The leavening of social mores after the participation of women in World War I and their further liberation in the 1920s were reflected in archaeology by officially allowing and even recruiting women to work in field situations. The increasing upsurge of women engaged in Ameri- canist archaeology can be viewed in various manners to delineate the sort of changes in the ways they were involved. Pattern of training and expertise shifted. From 1900 to 1920 there were virtually no women with relevant advanced degrees doing Americanist archaeology. By the end of the 1920s, slightly more than one-third of women involved in Americanist archaeology had advanced degrees, and by the end of the 1930s, nearly two-thirds had advanced degrees. If the total of all women involved in Americanist archaeological endeavors is broken down by decades, for the periods of 1900–1909 and 1910–1919, there are roughly 10 women per decade involved in Americanist operations; for 1920–1929, approximately 40 women per decade; and by 1930–1939, more than 120 women per decade. Thus one could speak of a tenfold increase between the 1910s and the 1930s. My preference, however, would be to simply emphasize the tremendous

260 | Concluding Remarks growth and the soaring involvement. I am comfortable saying that the evidence shows a tenfold increase in women’s participation in American- ist archaeology, but getting too precise with numbers and percentages implies that I have a 100 percent sample of all women involved in Ameri- canist archaeology during this period. Although I have striven to identify every woman I could by utilizing every search tool of which I am aware, I may have missed some contributors. As noted, from the days of the Civil War to the First World War, men and women both needed independent resources to become involved in Americanist archaeology as a vocation. Anthropology departments were just developing, and there was little in the way of outside research monies. With her own resources, a woman might become involved in archaeological research, but there was considerable resistance to accepting her work until she became a well-known researcher. For example, Matilda Coxe Stevenson was denied membership for nearly two decades in the all-male Anthropological Society of Washington (the group which founded anthropology’s flagship journal, theAmerican Anthropologist). Together with a number of likeminded female colleagues, she founded a separate Women’s Anthropological Society of America. Because of potential bias or dismissal of her publications should the readers know she was a woman, she at firstsigned her publications T. E. Stevenson or M. C. Stevenson to obscure her sex. Harriet Newell Wardle similarly signed her papers as H. Newell Wardle or H. N. Wardle, just as half a century later, Hannah Marie Wormington regularly signed her research as H. M. Wormington. This use of initials on publications continues to be a practice among women today. Unfortunately for my research, it was rather common in the 1920s and 1930s, so that it was a challenge to figure out from sources such as the SAA membership lists whether an individual identified only by initials was male or female. This was a significant problem because those lists were part of the database I employed to seek out overlooked female archaeologists. Married women had an even more difficult time being acknowledged as researchers than did single women. For Bureau of American Eth- nology and Smithsonian Institution researchers in the late nineteenth

Concluding Remarks | 261 century such as the Stevensons, one learns that the director was quite open in stating that the convention of the time for a husband and wife was that only the husband’s name would be listed. Therefore many of the early publications apparently co-authored, if not entirely authored, by Matilda Coxe Stevenson were published under her husband’s name. This convention died a very slow death. In chapters 3 and 4, I noted several women who had made significant contributions, in many cases equal to or greater than those of their husbands. Yet other than perhaps a mention in a footnote, these women were ignored in the final report, which frequently carried only the husband’s name as author. Even if the publication was jointly authored, women’s contributions were often ignored by fellow archaeologists. For example, Winifred Gladwin performed a major portion of the ceramic analyses in the jointly authored reports on ceramics with her husband. But as Cynthia Irwin-Williams (1990:13) observed, most male archaeologists (even Willey and Sabloff in the three editions of their seminal history of the discipline) refer to the significant methodological contributions of the Gladwins’ research as “his.” In the 1910s, 1920s, and 1930s, there was little opportunity for women to take on Americanist projects as the main investigator. Hence one of the primary ways for a woman to engage in field archaeology during this period was as part of a husband and wife team. Another early practice was relegating women to lab work and museum work. Founding disciplinary notables, such as Clark Wissler and Edgar Hewett, explicitly stated that because this type of work was much like housework, women were most suited for doing it. Thus one finds women interested in archaeology being routinely assigned to cleaning, sorting, repairing, and cataloging the specimens, rather than being allowed to engage in fieldwork. For abundant materials, such as pottery, women classified and analyzed potsherds by the thousands. In this volume’s introduction, I noted Thomas Woody’s 1929 survey of women’s education in the United States. His report documented the fact that through the mid-1920s, women were given lower salaries and lower ranks than men for the same work and were much less likely to be promoted. Women in Americanist archaeology began to have a

262 | Concluding Remarks much more significant participation in academia during the mid-1920s, increasing their involvement. But it appears that many of the issues facing women in higher education that Woody reported for 1890 to 1925 did not change much if at all between 1925 and 1940. In chapters 3 and 4, I reported case after case of exactly the same problems of lower pay, lower rank and status, and little chance of promotion for women archaeologists in colleges and museums. This disparity was exacerbated by the fact that Americanist archaeology researchers were extremely dependent for disciplinary (and thus often livelihood) support on foundations and fellowships in the 1920–40 period, while academic institutions were able to provide only a few teaching positions, which meant that there was a tendency to give temporary fellowships to women while the few permanent jobs available went to men (Rossiter 1982). Even in the 1930s, when the federal government became involved in archaeology as a means to provide jobs during the Depression through programs like the WPA, women generally had little access to such positions. This meant that several of the women discussed in chapter 4 were forced to build their careers on a series of temporary fellowships and grants from agencies like the Rockefeller Foundation, NRC and SSRC. Hence in the 1930s, women in Americanist archaeology often found themselves with no career position when soft money from such sources dried up later during the Depression. Some women, such as Frederica de Laguna, devised innovative ways to fund their work. When low- paying jobs at the University of Pennsylvania Museum were no longer available, she began writing detective stories and used the royalties to help finance her archaeological publications. In many cases, women accepted unpaid positions as assistants or research associates. These were most often courtesy appointments that provided institutional affiliation and access to research facilities. Lacking paid jobs, a large number of women who accepted these positions were ultimately forced out of the discipline for strictly economic reasons, being compelled to take more traditional paying jobs as secretaries, secondary school teachers, or science librarians in order to support themselves.

Concluding Remarks | 263 Even for women during this period who managed to keep an association with an institution and continued working on an advanced degree, the lack of resources and somewhat disapproving attitudes of their professors meant that they proceeded through degree programs at a slower pace than their male colleagues. The delay in awarding degrees thus also had a negative impact on job opportunities and research options for these scholars. The policy observed at the University of New Mexico, for example, where women with advanced degrees were slotted into museum positions, while men were given the teaching jobs (a policy which was also seen at other institutions), impacted women’s job and research opportunities. The demands of museum positions left women scholars in those situations with little access to students, as well as limited opportunity to conduct fieldwork. While the few women who secured teaching jobs theoretically had more access to students than did their peers in museums, this access did not usually materialize, due to the fact that the women were often given heavy teaching loads and access to students only in the large introductory courses because of their low-status positions. This situation meant in practice that there was little time for research interaction between the woman lecturer and the neophyte undergraduates outside of the classroom and virtually none between the woman instructor and any graduate students. Rossiter (1982:270) reported that for the 1920–40 period, 30 percent of all doctorates in anthropology were earned by women, and 40 percent of the NRC grants went to women, but this pattern was not reflected equally in Americanist archaeology. Reyman (1994:86) reported for this same period that for the women archaeology students working at Chaco Canyon, only 25 percent in his sample went on to obtain a master’s degree and only about 10 percent completed their doctoral degree. Many women who started in archaeology found too many barriers, and they either dropped out of anthropology completely or shifted their graduate work into ethnography. Among the barriers facing potential women archaeologists were those

264 | Concluding Remarks raised not only by the faculty but also by their fellow graduate students. At the University of New Mexico excavations, Edgar Hewett initially established a two-level training program: one for male students, whom he assumed were more serious, and another for female students, whom he treated mainly as dilettantes. At the dig projects themselves, there was discrimination by male graduate students. For example, Marjorie Lambert (Tisdale 2008:189) reported that male crew chiefs refused to teach excavation techniques to the female students as a way of discouraging them from pursuing a career in archaeology (eliminating the competition, as one reviewer commented). The female students were also sometimes assigned the most difficult excavation tasks, in hopes that they would fail. And of course men dominated supervisory positions, even though occasionally some women were allowed to participate. Edgar Hewett’s rather discriminatory attitude toward women students was widely shared by his male colleagues. Thus Byron Cummings assigned a competent female archaeological graduate student just to babysit his children while the men excavated, and Edward Burgess ordered his female student to bring him lunch every day and to kick back half of her fellowship so he could purchase artifacts. There were also references to notable male archaeologists, such as Alfred Kroeber at Berkeley, Fay-Cooper Cole at Chicago, or Alfred Tozzer, Alfred V. Kidder, and J. O. Brew at Harvard, actively discouraging women from continuing for graduate degrees in archaeology. For these institutional archaeologists, one of the frequently verbalized rationales for espous- ing this position was the issue of marriage. The financial and family obligations taken on when couples married were viewed as resulting in women dropping out of archaeology after the departmental staff had expended considerable resources training them, thus resulting in a loss of intellectual investment and institutional resources. For male students, marriage was not perceived as such a problem. In fact, A. V. Kidder said he was not worried about men marrying because their wives thus could be recruited to serve as unpaid field assistants, allowing more work to be done. Even in the 1930s, women frequently found that the best way to break

Concluding Remarks | 265 into the discipline was either to marry an archaeologist or to find some aspect of research that men did not enjoy doing and become a specialist in it. Marriage to secure access to archaeological work had its costs for women. Because of the social stigma involved, at least some felt it was safer to remain in a bad marriage than to live as a single woman. As well, some male archaeologists used their wives as “fellowships” and then, after securing a doctorate, quickly divorced them. Field situations led to considerable stress in marriages and an — at least anecdotally — high divorce rate among archaeologists. Marriage often precluded the woman from obtaining or keeping a job at the same institution because of nepotism regulations. Women who stayed married and involved in field archaeology often became the field camp director, providing personnel and logistics management, including water hauling and marketing, as well as counseling, problem solving, and staff support, including entertainment. Often in addition to performing these duties, they spent a good part of the day excavating with their husbands, but seldom were their contributions recognized. The marriage option seems to be characterized by three variations of wives, at least as parsed in remarkably similar fashion by two archaeological wives writing nearly half a century apart. In their autobiographical memoirs, Eleanor Bachman Lothrop (Throw Me a Bone: What Happens When You Marry an Archaeologist) and Florence Cline Lister (Pot Luck: Adventures in Archaeology) developed tripartite typologies of wives. Lothrop characterized her first type as a woman who

becomes so serious and so erudite that by contrast her scientific husband seems a master of frivolity. She bones up on bones, she grows a mental gray beard, her interests comprise nothing that is less than eight hundred years old. She develops an intellectual arrogance which makes her scorn to straighten the hem of her skirt, powder her nose, curl her hair, or in any way interfere with what God has seen fit to give her. With such a female, vanity flies out the window the moment archaeology flies in. (1948:227)

Lister’s first type was her “anything you can do, I can do better” group.

266 | Concluding Remarks Primarily that meant appearing as masculine as possible in their dress and grooming, defiantly hanging tough under field conditions that would have devastated most of the so-called weaker sex, and culti- vating aggressive, roustabout behavior and vocabulary. (1997a:19)

In contrast, both Lothrop’s and Lister’s second variant was a polar opposite, of whom they seemed to be rather contemptuous. Lister (1997a:19) saw this second group as “composed of the neutral, mousey creatures who retreated into their working realms without concern for the real world, much less for the men who dominated it.” Lothrop characterized the second cluster as

the archaeological wife who perversely encases herself in a shell of flightiness that is proof against any form of education. She flut- ters through archaeological life. She approaches a dig as if it were a reception, wearing a costume which should make even a skeleton sit up and take notice. “What’s this, honey?” she gurgles, breaking off a vertebra or pushing a painted jar out of place with her toe. At this point, Honey, if he is wise, will send Mrs. Honey home, for it is obvious she has made up her mind to learn nothing. To her, B.C. is something to be avoided as assiduously as B.O. (1948:227)

Lothrop further suggested (1948:227) for that “the greatest help an archaeologist’s wife can give her husband is negative — just not be an impediment.” However, both Lothrop and Lister saw themselves as belonging to the third grouping. Lothrop (1948:228) saw women in this third variant as readily adapting to the field situation, as well as being “a better mate than most. She is a good sport and apt to have a sense of humor.” Lister (1997a:19) typified this third cluster as being “comprised of those women whose femininity had not been compromised and who resented but quietly accepted male professional prejudice while still enjoying male social companionship.” All three of these groupings of wives are present among the women discussed in this book. More is probably known about Lothrop’s and

Concluding Remarks | 267 Lister’s Type 1 wives because they made themselves more visible. Type 3 wives are somewhat more visible if their husbands were sensitive and honest enough to include a note of thanks in the acknowledgments; Type 2 wives tend to disappear into archaeological oblivion. The chapters have dealt with the relatively rare occurrence of successful marriages where both husband and wife were able to develop careers in archaeology from the Civil War period onward. In the 1930s especially, more women avocational or amateur archaeologists show up. Along with them a few remarkably successful married couples appeared on the scene, where both husband and wife were actively involved in avocational archaeological endeavors, such as Bob and Jo Nichols Evans in Louisiana, Tom and Charlotte Mikulus Hodges in Arkansas, Henry and Jean Tyree Hamilton in Missouri, Burt and Hattie Cosgrove in New Mexico, and William and Elizabeth Crozer Campbell in California. The question of whether to succeed in archaeology it is better to be married or single is still current today. My own students are continually facing that issue. If I were to judge from my own experience, I would perceive a shift over the last half-century: when I started in the 1960s, few of my fellow female graduate students married, but today, at least in my institution, the majority of them now marry. However, there are many examples on both sides of the issue noted in these pages. Some commentators felt that the surest way for a woman to break into the field in the early twentieth century was to marry an archaeologist. But in the case of Madeline Kneberg, nepotism rules allowed her to live with an archaeologist but not marry him until she retired. Marriage was such a deal breaker for Frederica de Laguna that she decided to terminate her engagement to a scientist and remain single in order to conduct her research without matrimonial impediment. In addition to dealing with the issue of the marriage conundrum, some of the more successful vocational women archaeologists of the 1930s exploited the option of developing a research specialty that male archaeologists avoided, such as becoming superb illustrators, paleo- ethnobotanists, or ceramic petrographic analysts, or by focusing on the archaeology of virtually uncontested geographic areas, such as the

268 | Concluding Remarks sub-Arctic or heavily urbanized zones. Working in marginal areas did not mean that the women archaeologists always became respected experts there. In Elizabeth Campbell’s case, her well-reasoned arguments were disregarded when a male archaeologist challenged them, although we now know she was correct. Another option for staying involved in archaeology was writing popularized books on the subject. This is what Ann Morris, Eleanor Lothrop, and Julia Adcock did. This activity allowed them to produce archaeological works and promote the profession for other women, without necessarily needing to be involved in fieldwork. An added plus was that such writing could be fitted around matrimonial or other support duties. Specializing in urban archaeology or the archaeology of the immediate vicinity was another variation explored particularly by married women. As Mary Ann Levine (1994b:37) observed, “Utilizing the strategy of ‘backyard archaeology,’ legitimized by her position as a research associate, enabled her to continue with her career and have children without completely restricting her participation in fieldwork.” The periods from the Civil War to First World War and from the First to Second World War both exhibited different sorts of paradigm shifts in the participation of women in American archaeology. Hence, by the 1930s, it was not unusual to see a number of women on archaeological field excavation crews and even to find crews directed by women. Women in the discipline could finally secure prestigious positions in competition with their male colleagues. By this latter period, inherited love of archaeology is also present, that is, where a woman interested in archaeology in one generation passed that interest to her daughter, and her daughter also continued to participate in archaeological work. Not only were women archaeologists making pioneering strides in paleoethnobotanical research, in petrographic analyses, and similar technical areas, but also public archaeology was being initiated by women such as Marjorie Lambert and Bertha Dutton. It was, as the cliché goes, not a rose garden, but this interwar period witnessed the first major steps toward women securing non-gender-biased respect in American archaeology. The experiences of women in Americanist archaeology were, not

Concluding Remarks | 269 surprisingly, a mirror of the problems experienced in general by women seeking to enter into science at this period. Studies by Sally Gregory Kohlstedt (1976, 1978, 1990, 1999) and Margaret Walsh Rossiter (1980), detailing the problems confronting women in science in general in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, remark on many of the issues addressed above. A brief review of their comments in the next few paragraphs highlights several of these similarities. Regarding the issue of whether it was proper to admit women into the same scientific societies with men, earlier in these pages I referred to the commentary by Anita McGee (1889a, 1889b), discussing the deliberate exclusion of women from the Anthropological Society of Washington for the first two decades of its xistencee after the Civil War. Comparable is the consideration of the Boston Society of Natural History, when it debated whether or not to admit women in 1876. Kohlstedt (1976:184n53) reports the following rather common male viewpoint in a letter written by Charles Sprague to the society’s director on March 20, 1876:

But the great majority, even of the highest of female minds, have not that peculiar logical exactness which is characteristic of the scientific minds of men. They have not that unimpassioned, pertinacious, com- prehensive and self-denying impulse which leads some men to devote themselves to a dry detail of study in a field of totally uninteresting, except to the votaries of each specialty. . . . The presence of woman is inevitably a hindrance to a calm, passionless, self-forgetting study.

Initially this bias was limited to rationalizing why women would not be permitted to join the scientific societies.As Rossiter (1980:382) pointed out, “There were still so few women scientists in the United States in the 1870s, hardly any of whom were employed, that there was barely a hint yet of sexual stereotyping or ‘women’s work’ in science; all fields were presumed to be open to women, who were assumed to be equally adept at all of them.” But as more individuals became involved in science, both men and women, there was both the institutionalization and the professionalization of scientific fields, which ingeneral resulted in shifting patterns

270 | Concluding Remarks of access. Prior to professionalization, contributions both by closet or armchair scientists and by field scientists were equally acceptable, but as the natural sciences evolved, conflict between the amateurs and professionals became sharper and was parallel to the increasing distinction that separated amateurs from institutionally employed naturalists.

As the scientific community became more professional, it limited the acceptance of all who presented themselves or were perceived as amateur-like. Thus, women doing research and writing remained largely invisible. Indeed, standard accounts of American science have tended to miss the individual women who pursued scientific study throughout much of the nineteenth century. (Kohlstedt 1978:81–82)

In the process of professionalization, many of the non-institutionally affiliated researchers, particularly women, found their efforts were eliminated or were subordinated.

The process narrowed participation in formal and public institutions to include some men but very rarely the women who had successfully popularized science. Nonetheless, some traditional activity by men and women persisted, usually defined as amateurism or as staff support and little acknowledged by contemporaries or by historians until very recently. (Kohlstedt 1990:445)

In anthropology, for example, in 1901 Franz Boas, who was beginning to strongly advocate developing professionalism in American anthropology, wrote Zelia Nuttall that the way to upgrade the field was to train “a small number of young men” (Rossiter 1980:389n20; Franz Boas to Zelia Nuttall, May 18, 1901, Phoebe Apperson Hearst Papers). Boas persisted in this argument (i.e., a few good men) a year later when he sought to convince President Nicholas Murray Butler of Columbia University of the pressing need for professionalization of anthropology in the department there (Browman and Givens 1996:89). Margaret Rossiter argues that federal government employment practices were deliberately manipulated to create sexual divisions. Because there was a reluctance to appoint women scientists to any job for which

Concluding Remarks | 271 men were in good supply, scientific jobs could be upgraded (masculin- ized) or downgraded (feminized) over time as the budget required, thus manipulating the kind of workers desired. In anthropology, for example, women were argued to be better suited than men in studying the cultural activities of women and children. Rossiter (1980:387) argued that this “was a kind of ‘market signal’ to both potential workers and future employers as to what type of person would be hired.” Women researchers frequently adapted to this situation by two general strategies — either working lower in the hierarchy, or creating new fields of expertise. For the most part, women ended up being assigned to jobs that were so low-paying or low-ranking that competent men would not take them, usually jobs requiring painstaking attention to detail. The categorization of these positions was often justified by rhetoric that alleged that women had special skills or unique talents for certain kinds of work, resulting in the channeling of women into jobs with appropriate calling that did not threaten men directly, and even enhanced male dominant roles (Rossiter 1980:383). Rossiter argues (1980:381) that the phenomenon was in large part an economic one, sustained by three forces: the rise of a supply of women seeking employment in science, including the first female college graduates; strong resistance to women entering the available scientific employment, such as university teaching or government jobs; and the changing structure of scientific work at the end of the nineteenth century, which provided new fields for women. While the two options, working lower in the hierarchy or creating new fields of expertise (such as paleoethnobotany or dendrochronology in Americanist archaeology), gave women opportunities and thus had immediate advantage, as was argued in chapter 3 and 4, both of these strategies also became limiting patterns for advancement in the early third of the twentieth century. As Rossiter (1980:386) aptly noted, women became cheap, intelligent labor:

Not only did the women have no chance for advancement, they rarely received a raise . . . even after years of devoted service. Because they were not promoted to other more administrative or managerial duties

272 | Concluding Remarks when their scientific work was good, as happened to the more talented men, the female assistants were forced (or expected) to make a whole career out of a job that should have been just a stepping stone to more challenging and prestigious roles. In a sense, science benefited from this practice, since the women, having no alternatives, remained on the job for decades and completed many major projects.

And in addition to providing skilled but cheap labor, a second standard argument for stereotyping specific occupations, such as ceramic analysis, was that it was somehow inherently feminine, that it was a research matter which women could conduct better than men, that there was something uniquely feminine about the subject or task. The withholding of recognition and lack of credit for work accom- plished is a theme repeatedly observed by those who investigated pioneering women scientists (Kohlstedt 1999:7). Even among married researchers, this was frequently the case. Gornick (2009:73) observed that “if a husband and wife work together in science, it is almost invari- ably assumed that he does the ‘real’ work (that is, the thinking), and she the subordinate work (execution of the experiments).” This is what I noted, for example, in the case of Matilda Stevenson in the late nineteenth century, as well as with the lack of proper evaluation of the work of Winifred Gladwin in the 1930s by modern scholars. Not surprisingly, academia was just as full of bias as society and the general workplace. In 1911 the male faculty at Cornell University fought a bitter battle against women being promoted to full professorships.

Faculty arguments against their promotion included those that the university would lose status by appointing women to professorships, that the women did not have families to support and did not need the money (a common fallacy, but the women’s pay always lagged anyhow), that these women were not as well trained as most men (probably true in this particular case), and that there was no need to bring the women into competition with the men. (Rossiter 1980:390)

In the discussion of women’s contributions and involvement in Americanist archaeology, by stripping away the curtains of invisibility, I

Concluding Remarks | 273 have briefly discussed careers of approximately 200 women. It is more than just numbers, however, that I wish to emphasize. Other students of the history of archaeology have begun to include brief discussions of a few women in Americanist archaeology in their publications. While such histories are produced by different scholars, they regrettably usually refer to the same handful of women over and over, while ignoring many others. These studies also neglect a factor that I think is very important: the cohort effect. The dozen or so prominent women noted by other discipline historians did not struggle alone. They had plenty of “sisters” in the struggle. Many, if not most, of the women knew of other women participating in the battle, communicated with them, shared ideas, shared strategies, and shared ideals and goals. The remarkable growth in the 1930s, for example, came about in large part because of just such a cohort effect. Although one of my primary goals in this book is to identify the dis- parate potential members of these cohorts, I am not the first to propose this intellectual approach. May Ebihara (1985:102) suggested that the proper way to conduct the ethnography of anthropologists was to consider communities of anthropologists, which she defined as“academic centers of anthropological training and research; the teachers and students who comprised such communities and formed age-sets, intellectual lineages, and social networks.” The women archaeologists then form a sub-set of such communities, one I term a “cohort” to distinguish it from the larger community. If the cohort effect is so important, then why have I not addressed it more explicitly in these chapters? Considering the women discussed in the pages above makes it evident that Arizona, Barnard, Chicago, Denver, Illinois, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Radcliffe were among the few universities and colleges where women were able to pursue post-bachelor’s studies in Americanist archaeology successfully during the early twentieth century. It would seem only natural for cohorts to develop at these places. However, discussing them is beyond the scope of this book.

274 | Concluding Remarks Perhaps as a clearer way to perceive the ramifications of the cohort effect, consider a pair of students from one of these institutions, the twins Janet McCleery Woods and Margaret Soutter Woods, who undertook graduate studies in archaeology at the Peabody Museum and Radcliffe College during the 1930s. Traditionally one would look primarily at the courses they took and the instructors in those courses to identify the intellectual trajectories for this pair. But my argument is that the cohort of fellow graduate students was equally as important in the intellectual development of an individual. Thus one component that one would want to know about would be which male Harvard graduate students were in their classes as well as resident in the museum, students who would have commented on ideas, had bull sessions, and otherwise interacted with the twins. For the specific focus of this volume, one would need to address who their female colleagues were, because in addition to interacting with them in the same fashion as their male colleagues, they would have identified other female associates how would provide possible role models or would be facing similar problems as females trying to make their way in a male-dominated profession. During the years that the twins were at Radcliffe, there were at least 10 other women working on master’s degrees at the Peabody Museum such as Marion Tschopik (see Browman and Williams 2013, chap. 12). Not all these female colleagues were concentrating in archaeology, of course. Some were involved in biological anthropology or sociocultural anthropology, but all would have potentially provided critical peer support. Further, there is the issue of bonding with other women during field research. For many researchers, the most lasting friendships and professional associations in archaeology have been made with other graduate students during field projects. With respect to the Woods twins, one would need to investigate possible bonding with other graduate students they worked with at the University of New Mexico fieldwork projects, including Jean Cady, Bertha Dutton, Hope Gilbert, Nan Glenn, Hulda Hobbs, Marion Hollenbach, Susan Kent, Barbara Loomis, Dorothy Luhrs, Martha McNary, Betty Murphey, Lolita Pooler, Winifred Reiter, Mamie

Concluding Remarks | 275 Tanquist, Marjorie Ferguson Tichy, and Frances Watkins, as well as other members of the University of New Mexico crews who were not discussed in these pages. For the Woods twins alone, this would be at least a chapter-length enterprise. Thus in this volume, I have not attempted to undertake the cohort analyses I advocate because of the sheer enormity of the project for the number of women archaeologists identified here. Any future serious intellectual history of specific individuals, however, must include such analyses. I hope my volume will serve as a pilot project to encourage future detailed analyses of these other cultural negotiations.

276 | Concluding Remarks References

ARCHIVAL SOURCES Cutter, Gretchen 1940 Weekly field reports 1 through 21 on the Fisher site excavations. Lang- ford Archives, Illinois Transportation Archaeological Research Program, Springfield. Ferguson, Marjorie E. 1931 “A Study of the Architecture of the Chaco Canyon Indians, the Province of Tusayan, and the Indians of the Seven Cities of Cibola.” Chaco Canyon archives, compiled by F. Joan Mathien. Searched on the website. Harvard University Archives HUG 1717.2.2. Frederic Ward Putnam Papers. Administrative Papers, box 22, HUD 3146. Putnam, 1906. “Anthropology at Harvard.” Report sent to Hodge for the American Anthropologist. Includes a discussion of the Harvard Anthropological Society and the Radcliffe Anthropological Club. Patterson, Mrs. H. Wayne (Isabel) 1937 “Archaeology of Georgia.” Mimeographed report, University of Georgia, Athens. Pierce, Sarah Louise 1932 “Report on Excavation of a Talus Ruin North of Chetro Ketl.” School for American Archaeology report, Santa Fe. Chaco Canyon archives website. Putnam Papers, Peabody Museum Archives and Collections Department, accession file 999–24, Harvard University. Correspondence between Alice Putnam and Frederic Putnam, various dates, box 1.2. Smithsonian Institution Archives, Women and Science at the Science Service, 1925. At siarchives.si.edu/research/sciservwomenreh.html

277 Smithsonian Institution Archives, Record Unit 7091, Emma Reh Stevenson (1896–1982) Box 108, folder 1, undated letter (ca. mid-1926), from Emma Reh Stevenson to Watson Davis. Box 108, folder 1, letter dated November 7, 1927, from Emma Reh Stevenson to Frank Thone. Box 120, folder 3, letter dated January 1929, from Emma Reh Stevenson to Watson Davis. Searched on the Smithsonian Institution website. Sterns, Frederick H. 1918 “Women of Scientific Expeditions.” Manuscript, 10 pp., on file, Tozzer Library of Harvard College Library, Cambridge. Vickrey, Irene S. Irene S. Vickrey Papers, 1935–1941, Autry National Center of the American West, Los Angeles. Searched on their website. Wagner, Sallie R. 1997 “Interview with Sallie Wagner: Guardian of Cultural Heritage.” In Santa Fe Living Treasurers: Honoring Elders and Their Stories since 1984. Living Treasures Collection (AC 338), Fray Angélico Chávez History Library, Santa Fe, vol. 1. At sflivingtreasurers.org/treasures/wagner_sallie.html.

PUBLISHED SOURCES Aldana, Barbara Kidder 1983 “The Kidder Pecos Expedition, 1924–1929: A Personal Memoir.” Kiva 48(4): 243–50. Allen, Louise Anderson 2001 A Bluestocking in Charleston: The Life and Career of Laura Bragg.” Columbia: University of South Carolina Press. Allyn, Harriett M. 1930 “Excavations near Athlit, Palestine, 1929.” American Anthropologist 32(4): 643–50. Alves, Eileen E. 1930 “Shelter Caves of the El Paso District.” Bulletin, Texas Archeological and Paleontological Society 2: 64–68. 1931 “Pottery of the El Paso Region.” Bulletin, Texas Archeological and Paleon- tological Society 3: 57–59.

278 | References 1932a “Small Ruin in New Mexico.” Bulletin, Texas Archeological and Paleon- tological Society 4: 40–43. 1932b “Perishable Artifacts of the Hueco Caves.” West Texas Historical and Scientific Society4: 20–23. 1933 “Metate Factory in New Mexico.” Bulletin, Texas Archeological and Pale- ontological Society 5: 66–68. Anderson, David G. 2002 “A History of Archaeological Research in South Carolina.” In Histories of Southeastern Archaeology, ed. Shannon Tushingham, Jane Hill, and Charles H. McNutt, 145–59. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Anonymous 1900 “Colorado Cliff-Dwellings Association.”American Anthropologist 2(6): 600–601. 1921 “Los Angeles Public Library, 1872–1920.” Library Journal for April 1, 1921, 307–10. 1927 “The Summer School.” El Palacio 23: 2–7. 1928 “Summer Camp School of 1928.” El Palacio 25: 131–42. 1931 “Madison Girls Explore Ruins of Pueblo Life.” Newark Call, December 6, 1931. 1934 “Plains Indians Liked Two-Handed Tools.” Science News Letter 25, May 12, 1934. 1938 “Museums, Historical Monuments, and Remains.” New York History: Quarterly Journal of the New York State Historical Association 19(2): 221–26. 1940 “Obituary: Lucy Perry Knox.” Dallas Morning News, July 18, 1940. 1947 “Notes and News: Southwestern Anthropological Association.” American Antiquity 13(1): 92. 1987 “Hulda Penner Haury.” Anthropology Newsletter 28(5): 4. 2001 “In Memoriam: Katharine Bartlett, 1907–2001.” Society for American Archaeological Record 1(5): 32. Antevs, Ernst 1945 “William Henry Campbell, 1895–1944.” American Antiquity 10(4): 379–82. Ashley, Margaret Elizabeth 1927 “A Creek Site in Georgia.” Indian Notes 4: 221–26. Ayer, Mary Youngman 1936 “The Archaeological and Faunal Materials from Williams Cave near Guadeloupe Mountains, Texas.” Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sci- ences, Philadelphia 88: 599–619.

References | 279 Babbitt, Frances “Franc” Eliza 1883 “Vestiges of Glacial Man in Central Minnesota.” Proceeding of the Ameri- can Association for the Advancement of Science 32: 385–90, and Science, o.s., 2(32): 369–70. 1884a “Vestiges of Glacial Man in Minnesota.” American Naturalist 18(6): 594–605; 18(7): 697–708. 1884b “Indian Implements of the North-west.” Science (o.s.) 3(67): 589–90. 1884c “North-eastern and North-western Indian Implements.” Science, o.s., 4(75): 33. 1884d “Some Implements of the Minnesota Ojibwa.” Science, o.s., 4(97): 527–29. 1885 “Exhibition and Description of Some Palaeolithic Quartz Implements from Central Minnesota.” Proceeding of the American Association for the Advancement of Science 33: 593–99. 1886 “Some Ojibwa and Dakota Practices.” Science, o.s., 7(175): 526–28. 1890 “Points Concerning the Little Falls Quartzes.” Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science 38: 333–39. Babcock, Barbara A., and Nancy J. Parezo 1988 Daughters of the Desert: Women Anthropologists and the Native American Southwest, 1880–1980: An Illustrated Catalogue. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Baker, Steven G. 1995 “Harold A. Huscher: Pioneer Colorado Archaeologist Crosses the Great Divide.” Southwestern Lore 61(2): 1–9. Bandelier, Adolph Francis Alphonse, and Fanny Ritter Bandelier, comps., and Charles Wilson Hackett, ed. 1923, 1926, and 1937 Historical Documents Relating to New Mexico, Nueva Vizcaya and Approaches Thereto, to 1773. Publication of the Carnegie Institution of Washington no. 330, vols. 1–3. Barnard, Helen Virginia Donovan 1939 Early History of Research in Texas Archaeology by the Department of Anthro- pology, and the History of the Anthropology Museum of the University of Texas. Master’s thesis, University of Texas, Austin. Bar-Yosef, Ofer, and Jane Callander 2004 “Dorothy Annie Elizabeth Garrod, 1892–1968.” In Breaking Ground: Pio- neering Women Archaeologists, ed. Getzel M. Cohen and Martha Joukowsky, 380–424. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

280 | References Beardsley, Gretchen 1940 “The Groundnut as Used by the Indians of Eastern North America.” Papers of the Michigan Academy of Sciences 24(4): 507–15. 1942 “Notes on Cree Medicines.” Papers of the Michigan Academy of Sciences 27(4): 483–96. Bernstein, Jay H. 2002 “First Recipients of Anthropological Doctorates in the United States, 1891–1930.” American Anthropologist 104(2): 551–64. Bishop, Ronald L. 1991 “Anna O. Shepard: A Correspondence Portrait.” In Ceramic Legacy of Anna O. Shepard, ed. Ronald L. Bishop and Frederick W. Lange, 42–87. Niwot: University Press of Colorado. Blackwell, Elizabeth 1895 Pioneer Work in Opening the Medical Profession to Women. London: Long- mans Green. Bock, Philip K. 1989 “Anthropology at the University of New Mexico, 1928–1988: A Trial For- mulation.” Journal of Anthropological Research 45(1): 1–14. Boissevain, Ethelf 1944 “Observations on a Group of Shell Heaps on Cape Cod.” Bulletin of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society 5(3): 6–11. 1956 “The First Twenty-five Years of the Archaeological Society of New Jersey.” Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of New Jersey 12: 1–7. 1975 The Narragansett People. Phoenix: Indian Tribal Services. Bonta, Marcia Meyers 1981 Women in the Field: America’s Pioneering Women Naturalists. College Sta- tion: Texas A&M University Press. Bostwick, Todd W. 2006 Byron Cummings: Dean of Southwest Archaeology. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Bourque, Bruce J. 2002 “Maine Shell Midden Archaeology (1860–1910) and the Influence of Adolphe von Morlot.” In New Perspectives on the Origins of Americanist Archae- ology, ed. David L. Browman and Stephen Williams, 148–63. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

References | 281 Boyer, Ruth M. 1978 “Obituary: Anna Hadwick Gayton, 1899–1977.” Journal of American Folk- lore 91: 835–41. Brace, Martha A. 1986 “On the Road and in the Field in 1919: The University of Arizona Summer Archaeological Field Season.” Kiva 51(3): 189–200. Bragg, Laura Mary, and Albert Smith Rowell 1918 “Indian Mound Excavation in South Carolina.” Bulletin of the Charleston Museum 14(4): 17–20. Brenner, Anita 1931 “The Influence of Technique on the Decoration Style in the Domestic Pottery of Culhuacan.” Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology no. 13. Brew, J. O., ed. 1968 One Hundred Years of Anthropology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Brewer, Sallie Pierce 1937 “The ‘Long Walk’ to Bosque Redondo.” Museum Notes 9(11), Flagstaff, Arizona. Bricker, Harvey M. 2002 “George Grant MacCurdy: An American Pioneer of Palaeoanthropology.” In New Perspective on the Origins of Americanist Archaeology, ed. David L. Browman and Stephen Williams, 265–85. Tuscaloosa: University of Ala- bama Press. Browman, David L. 2002 “Frederic Ward Putnam: Contributions to the Development of Archae- ological Institutions and Encouragement of Women Practitioners.” In New Perspective on the Origins of Americanist Archaeology, ed. David L. Brow- man and Stephen Williams, 209–241. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. 2010 “Founding ‘Mothers’ of the Society for American Archaeology.” SAA Archaeological Record 10(2): 31–34 Browman, David L., and Douglas R. Givens 1996 “Stratigraphic Excavation: The First ‘New Archaeology.’” American Anthropologist 98(1): 80–95. Browman, David L., and Stephen Williams 2012 Anthropology at Harvard: A Biographical History, 1790–1940. Cambridge: Peabody Museum Press.

282 | References Bullard, William R. 1970 “Introduction: A Postclassic Maya Site in Peten, Guatemala.” In William R. Bullard, ed., Monographs and Papers in Maya Archaeology, 246–308. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology no. 61. Burke, Evelyn 1936 “Give Her the Southwest: It Is a Fine Field for the ‘Digger.’” Pittsburgh Press, November 27, 41. Butler, Mary 1939 Three Archaeological Sites in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Historical Commission. Buzalkjko, Grace Wilson 1988 “Theodora Kracaw Kroeber (1897–1979).” In Women Anthropologists, ed. Ute Gacs et al., 187–93. Westport: Greenwood Press. Cady, Jean M. 1937 “The New Pecos Room Exhibits, Organized by Paul Reiter.” El Palacio 42: 76–80. Caldwell, Joseph R., and Catherine J. McCann 1941 Irene Mound Site, Chatham County, Georgia. Savannah: University of Geor- gia Series in Anthropology no. 1. Campbell, Elizabeth W. Crozer 1931 An Archaeological Survey of the Twenty Nine Palms Region. Southwest Museum Papers, no. 7. Los Angeles. 1936 “Archaeological Problems in the Southern California Deserts.” American Antiquity 1(4): 295–300. Campbell, Elizabeth W. Crozer, and William H. Campbell 1937 “The Mohave Site.” In The Archaeology of Pleistocene Lake Mohave: A Sym- posium, ed. Elizabeth W. Crozer Campbell, William H. Campbell, Ernest Antevs, Charles A. Amsden, Joseph A. Barbieri, and Francis D. Bode, 9–44. Los Angeles: Southwest Museum. Carr, Malcolm, Katherine Spencer, and Doriane Woolley 1939 “Navaho Clans and Marriage Practices at Pueblo Alto.” American Anthro- pologist 41(2): 245–57. Cattell, Maria G. 2006 “Voices of Women Anthropologists: Autobiography, Social History, and Anthropology.” In Women in Anthropology: Autobiographical Narratives and Social History, ed. Maria G. Cattell and Marjorie M. Schweitzer, 15–40. Wal- nut Creek: Left Coast Press.

References | 283 Caywood, Louis Richard, Edward Holland Spicer, Morris G. Fowler, and Helen Forsberg 1935 Tuzigoot. Berkeley: National Park Service. Chapman, Janet, and Karen Barrie 2008 Kenneth Milton Chapman: A Life Dedicated to Indian Arts and Artists. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Chappell, Sally Anderson 2002 Cahokia: Mirror of the Cosmos. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Chester, Hilary Lynn 2002 “Frances Eliza Babbitt and the Growth of Professionalism of Women in Archaeology.” In New Perspectives on the Origins of Americanist Archaeol- ogy, ed. David L. Browman and Stephen Williams, 164–84. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Chiñas, Beverly Newbold 1988 “Zelia Maria Magdalena Nuttall (1857–1933).” In Women Anthropologists: ed. Ute Gacs et al., 269–74. New York: Greenwood Press. 1999 “Zelia Maria Magdalena Nuttall.” In American National Biography, ed. John A. Garrity and Mark C. Carnes, 16: 559–60. New York: Oxford Uni- versity Press. Chute, Ruth Sears 1939 “The Pottery from Pit L4 of Yorgan Tepe: Prehistoric and Ga. Sur Levels.” In Nuzi: Report on the Excavations at Yorgan Tepa near Kirkuk, Iraq, Conducted by Harvard University, in Conjunction with the American Schools of Oriental Research and the University Museum of Philadelphia, 1927–1931, ed. Richard Francis Strong Starr, 1: 591–607. Claassen, Cheryl 1999 “Black and White Women at Irene Mound.” In Grit-Tempered, ed. Nancy Marie White et al., 92–114. Gainesville: University Press of Florida Press. Claassen, Cheryl, ed. 1994 Women in Archaeology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Clarke, Eleanor P. 1935 “Designs on the Prehistoric Pottery of Arizona. Social Science Bulletin no. 9, University of Arizona Bulletin vol. 6, no. 4. Clements, Forrest E., Sara M. Schenck, and Theodora K. Brown 1926 “A New Objective Method for Showing Special Relationships.” American Anthropologist 28(4): 585–604.

284 | References Cole, Fay-Cooper 1940 “Notes and News.” American Antiquity 6(1): 81–88. Cole, Fay-Cooper, Roland B. Dixon, and Alfred V. Kidder 1929 “Anthropological Scholarships.” American Anthropologist 31(3): 571–72. Colles, Julia Keese 1895 Authors and Writers Associated with Morristown, with a Chapter on Historic Morristown. 2d ed. Morristown NJ: Vogt Bros. Collins, June M. 1979 “Ruth Sawtell Wallis, 1895–1978.” American Anthropologist 81(1): 85–87. Colton, Mary-Russell Ferrell, and Harold S. Colton 1918 “The Little-Known Small House Ruins in Coconino Forest.” Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association 24: 101–26. Conant, Francis P. 1974 “Dorothy Cross Jensen, 1906–1972.” American Anthropologist 76(1): 80–82. Conkey, Laura E., Ethel Boissevain, and Ives Goddard 1978 “Indians of Southern New England and Long Island: Late Period.” Hand- book of North American Indians 15: 177–89. Connolly, Florence McK. 1940 “Two Pottery Types from East-Central Arizona: A Revised and a New Description.” Southwestern Lore 5: 77–78. Constable, Anne 2006 “Trailblazer for Women in Archaeology Dies.” Santa Fe New Mexican, December 27, 2006. Cook, Della Collins 2010 “Katharine Bartlett (1907–2001).” In Bioarchaeology: The Contextual Analysis of Human Remains, ed. Jane E. Buikstra and Lane A. Beck, 154–55. London: Elsevier/Academic Press. Cook, Robert C., and Mary Alice Smith, eds. 1950 Who’s Who in American Education, 14th ed., 1949–1950. Nashville: Who’s Who in American Education. Cordell, Linda S. 1991 “Anna O. Shepard and Southwestern Archaeology: Ignoring a Cautious Heretic.” In The Ceramic Legacy of Anna O. Shepard, ed. R. I. Bishop and F. W. Lange, 132–53. Niwot: University of Colorado Press. 1993 “Women Archaeologists in the Southwest.” In Hidden Scholars, ed. Nancy J. Parezo, 202–20. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

References | 285 Cosgrove, Harriet Silliman, and Cornelius Burton Cosgrove 1932 The Swarts Ruin: A Typical Mimbres Site in Southwestern New Mexico. Report of the Mimbres Valley Expedition Seasons of 1924–1927. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 15. Crane, Agnes 1894 “The Noble Life of Mary Hemenway.” Leisure Hour 43: 708–10. Creager, Angela N. H., Elizabeth Lunbeck, and Londa Schiebinger, eds. 2001 Feminism in Twentieth-Century Science, Technology, and Medicine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cressman, Luther Sheeleigh 1988 A Golden Journey: Memoirs of an Archaeologist. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Cross, Dorothy 1935a “The Pottery of Tepe Gawra.” In Excavations at Tepe Gawra, Levels I–VIII, ed. E. A. Speiser, 38–61. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. 1935b “Objects from Ur.” University Museum Bulletin 5: 32–34. 1937 Movable Property in the Nuzi Documents. American Oriental Series, vol. 10. New Haven: American Oriental Society. 1941 The Archaeology of New Jersey, vol. 1. Trenton: Archaeological Society of New Jersey and New Jersey State Museum. 1953 “Delaware and Related Horizons in New Jersey.” Bulletin of the Archaeo- logical Society of New Jersey 6: 7–11. 1956 The Archaeology of New Jersey, vol. 2: The Abbott Farm. Trenton: Archaeo- logical Society of New Jersey and New Jersey State Museum. Curry, Lynne 2004 “Women in the Reform and Progressive Era.” In A History of Women in the United States: State-by-State Reference, 4 vols., ed. Doris Weatherford, 1: 21–26. Danbury CT: Grolier. Cutter, Gretchen F. 1939 “Northeastern Classification.”American Antiquity 4(4): 352. Daggett, Richard 1994 “The Paracas Mummy Bundles of the Great Necropolis of Wari Kayan: A History.” Andean Past 4: 53–75. Daniel, Glyn E. 1950 A Hundred Years of Archaeology. London: Duckworth. 1968 “One Hundred Years of Old World Prehistory.” In One Hundred Years of Anthropology, ed. J. O. Brew, 54–93. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

286 | References Daniels, Helen Sloan 1940 Report of the Durango, Colorado, Public Library Museum Project of the National Youth Administration, 1936–1940. Durango Public Library Museum Project of the Archaeological Department. 1941 The Ute Indians of Southwestern Colorado. Durango Public Library Museum Project, National Youth Administration. 1954 “Pictographs.” In Basket Maker II Sites near Durango, Colorado, ed. Earl H. Morris and Robert F. Burgh, appendix A, 78–88. Washington DC Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication no. 604. 1976 Adventures with the Anasazi of Falls Creeks. Center of Southwest Studies Paper no. 3, Fort Lewis College, Colorado. Danien, Elin C., and Eleanor M. King 2003 “Sara Yorke Stevenson and the Development of Archaeology in Phila- delphia.” In Philadelphia and the Development of Americanist Archaeology, ed. Don D. Fowler and David R. Wilcox, 36–47. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Davis, Carolyn O’Bagy 1995 Treasured Earth: Hattie Cosgrove’s Mimbres Archaeology in the American Southwest. Tucson: Sanpete. 2000 “A Most Pleasant Madness: Eileen Windsor Alves, 1873–1935, Amateur Archaeologist and Naturalist.” Artifact 38: 1–19. Davis, Emma Cleveland 1931 Ancient Americans: The Archaeological Story of Two Continents. New York: Henry Holt. Davis, Hester A. 2002 “Pot Hunters, Salvage, and Science in Arkansas, 1900–2000.” In Histories of Southeastern Archaeology, ed. Shannon Tushingham, Jane Hill, and Charles H. McNutt, 77–87. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. 2008 Remembering Awatovi: The Story of an Archaeological Expedition in North- ern Arizona, 1935–1939. Cambridge: Peabody Museum Monograph no. 12. Deacon, Desley 1997 Elsie Clews Parsons: Inventing Modern Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Deese, Helen R., ed. 2005 Daughter of Boston: The Extraordinary Diary of a Nineteenth-Century Woman, Caroline Healey Dall. Boston: Beacon Press.

References | 287 De Laguna, Frederica 1934 The Archaeology of Cook Inlet, Alaska. Philadelphia: University of Penn- sylvania Museum. 1947 The Prehistory of Northern North America as Seen from the Yukon. Society for American Archaeology, Memoir no. 3. 1956 Chugach Prehistory: The Archaeology of Prince William Sound, Alaska. Seattle: University of Washington Press. 1962 “Marian Wesley Smith, 1907–1961.” American Antiquity 27(4): 567–70. 1964 Archeology of the Yakutat Bay Area, Alaska. Bulletin 192. Washington DC: Bureau of American Ethnology. 1977 Voyage to Greenland: A Personal Initiation into Anthropology. New York: W. W. Norton. Dent, Richard J. 1984 “Archaeological Research at the Accokeek Creek Sites.” In The Accokeek Creek Complex and the Emerging Maryland Colony, 7–23. Printed version of lectures for the Alice Ferguson Foundation, 1984. Desmond, Lawrence G. 1989 “Of Facts and Hearsay: Bringing Augustus Le Plongeon into Focus.” In Tracing Archaeology’s Past: The Historiography of Archaeology, ed. Andrew L. Christenson, 139–50. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Desmond, Lawrence G., and Phyllis M. Messenger 1988 “A Dream of Maya: Augustus and Alice Le Plongeon in Nineteenth-Century Yucatan. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Dexter, Ralph W. 1978 “Guess Who’s Not Coming to Dinner? Frederic Ward Putnam and the Sup- port of Women in Anthropology.” History of Anthropology Newsletter 5(1): 5–6. 1984 “‘Dear Alice’ — Letters of F. W. Putnam to His Daughter (1874–1914).” Essex Institute Historical Collections 120(2): 110–31. Dormon, Caroline 1934 “Caddo Pottery.” Art and Archaeology 35(2): 59–69. Douglas, Frederic Huntington 1937 “Section on Anthropology, H. The Second Denver Meeting of the Ameri- can Association for the Advancement of Science. Science 86 (2224): 143–44. Drinker, Katherine R., and Ellen S. Collier 1926 “The Significance of Zinc in the Living Organism.”Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Abstract of the Literature 8: 257–69.

288 | References Dubrow, Gail Lee, and Jennifer B. Goodman 2003 Restoring Women’s History through Historic Preservation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Dundy, Elaine 1991 Ferriday, Louisiana. New York: Donald I. Fine. Dunkerley, Jean 1992 “Harriet Minola Smith: In Memoriam.” Illinois Antiquity 27(3): 5. Dutton, Bertha P. 1935 “The 1935 Expedition to Peru.” El Palacio 39: 97–110. 1936 “The Laguna Calendar.” Bulletin, University of New Mexico, Anthropologi- cal Series 1(2). 1937 “The 1937 Guatemala Session.” El Palacio 44: 19–28. 1938 “Leyit Kin, a Small House Ruin, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico.” Bulletin, University of New Mexico, Anthropological Series 1(5). 1939 “Excavation in Guatemala: Tajumolco, a Sacred Precinct.” El Palacio 46: 99–107. Dutton, Bertha P., and Hulda R. Hobbs 1943 Excavations at Tajumulco, Guatemala. Monograph no. 9. Santa Fe: School of American Research. Early, Ann M. 1986 “Dr. Thomas L. Hodges and His Contributions to Arkansas Archeology.” Arkansas Archeologist 23/24: 1–10. Eastwood, Alice 1893 “Notes on the Cliff Dwellers.”Zoë 3(4): 375–76. Ebihara, May 1985 “American Ethnology in the 1930s: Contexts and Currents.” In Social Contexts of American Ethnology, ed. June Helm, 101–21. Washington DC: American Ethnological Society. Ehrich, Robert W. 1973 “Dorothy Cross Jensen, 1906–1972.” American Antiquity 38(4): 407–11. Elliott, Melinda 1995 Great Excavations: Tales of Early Southwestern Archaeology, 1888–1939. Santa Fe: School of American Research. Elsasser, Albert B. 1980 “Theodora Kroeber-Quinn, 1897–1979.” American Anthropologist 82(1): 114–15.

References | 289 Emerson, Kjersti E., and Thomas E. Emerson 2008 “The 1940 Fisher Site Excavations, Will County, Illinois.” Illinois Antiq- uity 43(3): 13–15. Evans, Cecelia 1939 “Comparison of Dwellings” Journal of the Colorado-Wyoming Academy of Science 2: 12. Evans, Cecelia, and Ted Sowers Jr. 1939 “First Survey on Upper Jemez-Puerco Pottery.” Southwestern Lore 5(1): 9–14. Fagette, Paul 1996 Digging for Dollars: American Archaeology and the New Deal. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Farmer, Malcolm F. 1942 “Navaho Archaeology on Upper Blanco and Largo Canyons, Northern New Mexico.” American Antiquity 8(1): 65–79. Ferguson, Alice L. L. 1937a “Burial Area in Moyaone.” Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 27(6): 261–66. 1937b Moyaone and the Piscataway Indians. Privately printed. 1941a The Susquehannock Fort on Piscataway Creek.” Maryland Historical Magazine 36: 1–9. 1941b Adventure in Southern Maryland, 1922–1940. Washington DC: National Capital Press. Ferguson, John L. 1965 Arkansas Lives: The Opportunity Land Who’s Who. Hopkinsville KY: His- torical Record Association. Fitzpatrick, Ellen Frances 1990 Endless Crusade: Women Social Scientists and Progressive Reform. New York: Oxford University Press. Fletcher, Alice, and Tilly C. Stevenson 1889 “Report of the Committee on the Preservation of Archaeological Remains on the Public Lands.” Proceedings of the American Association for the Advance- ment of Science 37: 35–37. Flora, Isaiah F., and Helen Sloan Daniels 1940 Sherds and Points: Durango Amateur Archaeological Story. Durango: San Juan Chapter of the Colorado Archaeological Society.

290 | References Fowler, Catherine S., and Robert Van Kemper. 2008 “Isabel T. Kelly: A Life in the Field.” In Their Own Frontier: Women Intel- lectuals Re-visioning the American West, ed. Shirley A. Leckie and Nancy J. Parezo, 137–79. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Fowler, Don D. 2000 A Laboratory for Anthropology: Science and Romanticism in the American Southwest, 1846–1930. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. 2003 “E. L. Hewett, J. F. Zimmerman, and the Beginnings of Anthropology at the University of New Mexico, 1927–1946.” Journal of Anthropological Research 59(3): 305–27. Fowler, Don D., and David R. Wilcox, eds. 2003 Philadelphia and the Development of Americanist Archaeology. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Fox, Margalite 2004 “Frederica de Laguna, 98, Arctic Anthropologist Dies.” New York Times, November 28. Frankforter, Weldon Deloss 2002 “Discovery at Medicine Creek.” In Medicine Creek: Seventy Years of Archaeo- logical Investigations, ed. Donna C. Roper, 9–15. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Franklin, Christine Ladd 1891 “The Education of Woman in the Southern States.” In Woman’s Work in America, ed. Annie Nathan Meyer, 89–106. New York: Henry Holt. French-Sheldon, Mary 1894 “Woman as Explorer.” In A Historical Resume for Popular Circulation of the World’s Congress of Representative Women, Convened in Chicago on May 15, and Adjourned on May 23, 1893, under the Auspices of the Woman’s Branch of the World’s Congress Auxiliary, ed. May Wright Sewell, 2: 736–38. Chicago: Rand McNally. Frisbie, Charlotte J. 1989 “Helen Heffron Roberts (1888–1985): A Tribute.”Ethnomusicology 33(1): 97–111. Frisbie, Theodore R. 1975 “A Biography of Florence Hawley Ellis.” In Collected Papers in Honor of Florence Hawley Ellis, ed. Theodore R. Frisbie, 2: 1–21. Albuquerque: Archaeo- logical Society of New Mexico.

References | 291 1991 “Florence Hawley Ellis, 1906–1991.” Kiva 57(1): 93–97. Funk, Esther 1936 “Textiles in the Peruvian Highlands.” El Palacio 40(4/6): 17–29. Gabriel, Kathryn, ed. 1992 Marietta Wetherill: Reflections on Life with the Navajo in Chaco Canyon. Boulder: Johnson Books. Gacs, Ute, Aisha Khan, Jerrie McIntyre, and Ruth Weinberg, eds. 1988 Women Anthropologists: A Biographical Dictionary, ed. 181–86. New York: Greenwood Press. Gershanek, Sinai, and Mihran Nicholas Ask, eds. 1925 Who’s Who in Journalism, 1st annual edition. New York: Journalism Pub- lishing Co. Gifford, Carol A., and Elizabeth A. Morris 1985 “Digging for Credit: Early Archaeological Field Schools in the American Southwest.” American Antiquity 50(2): 395–411. Gifford, Edward W. 1957 “William Egbert Schenck, 1884–1956.” American Anthropologist 59(2): 326–27. Gilbert, Hope Elizabeth 1933 The Relations of the Spaniards to the Tewa Indians, 1540–1696. Master’s thesis, Department of History, University of California, Berkeley. 1942 “Pecos Ruin.” New Mexico 20: 12–13, 33–34. Gilkyson, Phoebe Hunter 1945 “Surface Explorations along the Schuylkill Valley: Norristown-Pottstown Section.” Pennsylvania Archaeologist 15(2): 51–58. Givens, Douglas R. 1992 Alfred Vincent Kidder and the Development of Americanist Archaeology. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Gladwin, Winifred J., and Harold S. Gladwin 1928a A Method for Designation of the Ruins in the Southwest. Globe AZ: Gila Pueblo Archaeological Foundation. 1928b The Use of Potsherds in an Archaeological Survey of the Southwest. Globe AZ: Gila Pueblo Archaeological Foundation. 1930 A Method for the Designation of Southwestern Pottery Types. Globe AZ: Gila Pueblo Archaeological Foundation. 1934 A Method for Designation of Cultures and Their Variations. Globe AZ: Gila Pueblo Archaeological Foundation.

292 | References Gladwin, Harold S., Emil W. Haury, Edwin B. Sayles, and Nora Gladwin 1937 Excavations at Snaketown, Vol. 1, Material Culture. Globe AZ: Gila Pueblo Archaeological Foundation. Glenn, Nan Ashton 1939 “Substructures of Mound 50.” In Preliminary Report on the 1937 Excava- tions, BC 50–51, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, ed. Clyde Kluckhohn and Paul Reiter, appendix B. Anthropological Series, University of New Mexico, 3(2): 166–74. Glusker, Susannah Joel 1998 Anita Brenner: A Mind of Her Own. Austin: University of Texas Press. Goddard, Sara A. 1933 “Great Kiva at Tunque.” El Palacio 34(25/26): 193–96. Gornick, Vivian 2009 Women in Science: Then and Now. New York: City University of New York Feminist Press. Gower, Charlotte D. 1927 The Northern and Southern Affiliations of Antillean Culture. American Anthropological Association, Memoir no. 35. 1935/1971 Milocca: A Sicilian Village. New York. Cambridge: Schenkman. Gradwohl, David M. 1997 “Obituary of Mildred Mott Wedel, 1912–1995.” Plains Anthropologist 40(154): 399–403. Graham, Ian 1990 “Obituary: Tatiana Proskouriakoff, 1909–1985.”American Antiquity 55(1): 6–11. Gregorie, Anne King 1925 Notes on Sewee Indians and Indian Remains of Christ Church Parish, Charles- ton County, South Carolina. Charleston: Contributions from the Charleston Museum no. 5. Griffin, James Bennett 1943 The Fort Ancient Aspect, Its Cultural and Chronological Position in Mississippi Valley Archaeology. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 1985 “The Formation of the Society for American Archaeology.” American Antiquity 50(2): 261–71. 1992 “Women in Archaeology: A Point of Clarification.”Illinois Antiquity 27(4): 7–8.

References | 293 Guernsey, Isabel Hannah. 1938 “A Study of Ancient Peruvian Textiles.” Report for the Institute of Andean Research 1937/38: 7–8. Guthe, Carl E. 1936a Report of the Secretary, Society for American Archaeology: Annual Meeting, 1935. American Antiquity 1(4): 310. 1936b Program. Society for American Archaeology, Annual Meeting, 1935. American Antiquity 1(4): 315–16. 1936c Report of the Secretary-Treasurer, Society for American Archaeology, Annual Meeting, 1936. American Antiquity 2(1): 289–91. 1938 Report of the Secretary-Treasurer, Society for American Archaeology: Annual Meeting 1938. American Antiquity 4(1): 41–43. 1939 Report of the Secretary-Treasurer, Society for American Archaeology: Annual Meeting 1939. American Antiquity 5(1): 36–39. 1940 Report of the Secretary-Treasurer, Society for American Archaeology: Annual Meeting 1940. American Antiquity 6(2): 96–98. 1952 “Twenty-five Years of Archaeology in the Eastern United States.” In Archeology of the Eastern United States, ed. James B. Griffin, 1–12. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hamilton, Jean Tyree 1963 Arrow Rock: Where the Wheels Started West. Columbia: American Press, Friends of Arrow Rock, Inc. Hamilton, Henry W., Jean Tyree Hamilton, and Eleanor F. Chapman 1974 Spiro Mound Copper. Columbia: Missouri Archaeological Society Memoir No. 11. Harding, Mabel Virginia 1951 “La Jollan Culture.” Museo 1(1): 10–11, 31–38. San Diego: Museum of Man. Harrington, Mark R. 1940 “Man and Beast in Gypsum Cave.” Desert Magazine 3(6): 3–5. Hawley, Florence M. 1936 Field Manual of Prehistoric Southwestern Pottery Types. Albuquerque: Uni- versity of New Mexico, 1936. Harris, Charles H. III, and Louis R. Sadler 2003 The Archaeologist Was a Spy: Sylvanus G. Morley and the Office of Naval Intelligence. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Harris, Sallie Van Valkenburgh 1965 “The History of Casa Grande Ruins National Monument.” Kiva 27(3): 1–31.

294 | References Harrison, Margaret W. 1948 “Lila Morris O’Neale: 1886–1948.” American Anthropologist 50(4): 657–65. Haury, Emil W. 1983 “Madeleine Appleton Kidder, 1891–1981.” American Antiquity 48(1): 83–84. 1988 “Gila Pueblo Archaeological Foundation: A History and Some Personal Notes.” Kiva 54(1): 1–74. Hays-Gilpin, Kelley 2000 “Feminist Scholarship in Archaeology.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 571: 89–106. Heimlich, Marion Dunlvey 1952 Guntersville Basin Pottery. Geological Survey of Alabama, Museum Paper no. 32. Henderson, Alice E. Palmer 1890 “The Flathead Indians: A Visit to Their Agency and to the St. Ignatius Mission.” Illustrated Monthly Northwest Magazine 8(8): 1–3. 1893a “Cliff-Dwellers’ Houses.”American Antiquarian 15(3): 170–72. 1893b “The Cliff Dwellers.” Literary Northwest 3: 169–78. 1898 The Rainbow’s End: Alaska. Chicago: H. S. Stone. 1906 “Group 127, Department N, Anthropology, Mrs. Alice Palmer Henderson, of Tacoma, Washington, Juror.” In Louisiana Purchase Exposition Commission. Final Report of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition, 1906, 481–82. Washington DC: Department of State. Hendrick, Alice S. 1940 “Stamped and Painted Pottery of Hiwassee Island [Abstract].” Newsletter, Southeastern Archaeological Conference 2(3): 5. Hernandez de Alba, Gregorio 1941 Archaeological Guide to Colombia. Bogota: Ministerio de la Economia Nacional. Herskovits, Melville J., and Barbara Ames, eds. 1950 International Directory of Anthropologists. 3rd ed. Ann Arbor: Edwards Brothers. Herskovits, Melville J., Vivian K. Cameron, and Harriet M. Smith 1931 “The Physical Form of Mississippi Negroes.” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 16(2): 193–201. Hewett, Edgar L. 1904 “Archeology of Pajarito Park, New Mexico.” American Anthropologist 6(5): 629–59.

References | 295 1917 Organic Acts and Administrative Report, of the School of American Archaeol- ogy, 1907 to 1917, Santa Fe. Santa Fe: Archaeological Institute of America. Hibben, Eleanor B. 1983 In Outer Places: Adventures with Frank C. Hibben. Santa Fe: Sunstone Press. Hibben, Frank C., Eleanor B. Hibben, and William S. Stallings Jr. 1937 Excavation of the Riana Ruin and the Chama Valley Survey. University of New Mexico, Anthropological Series, No. 2(1). Hieb, Louis A. 1993 “Elsie Clews Parsons in the Southwest.” In Hidden Scholars, ed. Nancy J. Parezo, 63–75. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Higginson, Thomas Wentworth 1879 “Collegiate Training for Women at Cambridge.” Woman’s Journal 10(44): 345. 1880a “Young Ladies at Harvard.” Harvard Register 1(1): 10. 1880b “The Harvard ‘Annex.’” Woman’s Journal 11(47): 369. Hill, Gertrude F. 1942 “Notes on Papago Pottery Manufacture at Santa Rosa, Arizona.” American Anthropologist 44(3): 531–33. Hobbs, Hulda R. 1946a “The Story of the Archaeological Society. Part 1: Prologue: The Amateurs of Interest.” El Palacio 53(4): 79–88. 1946b “The Story of the Archaeological Society, Part 2: The First 13 Years.” El Palacio 53(7): 175–86. 1946c “The Story of the Archaeological Society, Part 3: The First 13 Years (Con- cluded).” El Palacio 53(8): 203–11. Hodges, Charlotte 1957 “The Cahinnio-Caddo: A Contact Unit in the Eastern Margin of the ‘Caddo Area.’” Texas Archeological Society Bulletin 28: 190–97. Hodges, Thomas, and Charlotte Hodges 1943a “The Watermelon Island Site in Arkansas.” Texas Archeological and Pale- ontological Society Bulletin 15: 66–79. 1943b “Possibilities for the Archaeologist and Historian in Eastern Arkansas.” Arkansas Historical Quarterly 2: 141–63. 1945 “Suggestion for Identification of Certain Mid-Ouachita Pottery as Cahinnio Caddo.” Texas Archeological and Paleontological Society Bulletin 16: 98–116.

296 | References Hogan, Meghan 2010 “Heat of the Woods: Caroline Dormon, Creating a Safe Haven for Nature.” Common Ground 15(2): 30–37. Hollenbach, Marion 1937a “The Hewett 1936 Class in Mexico.” El Palacio 42(13/15): 73–76. 1937b “An Ancient Quiche Ceremony.” El Palacio 42(13/15): 80–84. Holmes, William H. 1916 “In Memoriam: Matilda Coxe Stevenson.” American Anthropologist 18(3): 552–57. Horner, Eva M. 1936 “Keewtoowah Society, Guardian of Cherokee Tradition.” Tulsa Daily World, July 26. Horsford, Cornelia 1893 Graves of the Northmen. Boston: Damrell and Upham. 1895 An Inscribed Stone. Boston: J. Wilson and Sons. 1898 “Dwellings of the Saga-Time in Iceland Greenland and Vineland.” National Geographic 9(3): 73–84. Washington DC 1899a “Vinland and Its Ruins: Some Evidence That the Northmen Were in Massachusetts in Pre-Columbian Days.” Appleton’s Popular Science Monthly 56(2): 160–76. 1899b “A Tradition of Shelter Island, New York.” Journal of American Folk-Lore 12: 43–44. Howard, Edgar B. 1937 “Minutes of the International Symposium on Early Man Held at the Acad- emy of Sciences in Philadelphia, March 17th to 20th, 1937.” In Celebration of Its One Hundred and Twenty-fifth Anniversary, ed. Edgar B. Howard, Pro- ceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, vol. 89, 439–47. Hunt, Stanley L., printer’s compiler 1936 Principal Women of America, Being the Biographies of Approximately Two Thousand Two Hundred Women Who Stand Pre-eminent in the United States of America and the Dominion of Canada, vol. 2. London: Mitre Press. Hurt, Mary Darden 2000 “The Albuquerque High School Archaeological Society.” In The First 100 Years: Papers in Honor of the State and Local Archaeological Societies of New Mexico, ed. Frances Joan Mathien, Meliha S. Duran, and David T. Kirkpat- rick, 159–66. Albuquerque: Archaeological Society of New Mexico, no. 26.

References | 297 Huscher, Betty Holmes, and Harold A. Huscher 1941 “The Need for Stratified Sites.” Clearing House for Southwestern Museums Newsletter 1(32): 106–8. 1942a “Athapaskan Migration via the Intermontane Region.” American Antiq- uity 8(1): 80–88. 1942b “Continuation of Archaeological Survey of Southern and Western Colo- rado.” American Philosophical Society Yearbook for 1941: 226–29. 1943 “The Hogan Builders of Colorado.” Southwestern Lore 9(2): 1–92. Irwin, Margaret C. 1942 Haida Slate Carving. Museum leaflet, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History 17(3): 31–33. 1950 Petroglyphs near Santa Barbara. Museum leaflet, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History 25(1): 1–5. Hutchinson, Elizabeth West 2009 The Indian Craze: Primitivism, Modernism, and Transculturation in Ameri- can Art, 1890–1915. Durham: Duke University Press. Irwin, Margaret C., and Virginia More Roediger 1945 San Nicolas Island Expedition. Museum leaflet, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History 20: 51–56. Irwin-Williams, Cynthia 1990 “Women in the Field: The Role of Women in Archaeology before 1960.” In Women of Science: Righting the Record, ed. Gabriele Kass-Simon, Patri- cia Farnes, and Deborah Nash, 1–41. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Jackson, Sara E. 2004 “Tatiana Proskouriakoff (1909–1985).” In Notable American Women: A Biographical Dictionary — Completing the 20th Century, ed. Susan Ware and Stacy Lorraine Braukman, 4: 528–29. Cambridge: Belknap Press. Jackson, Earl, Sallie Pierce Van Valkenburgh, and Katharine Bartlett 1954 Montezuma Castle Archeology. Globe AZ: Technical Series, Southwestern Monuments Association 3(1). James, Alice 1988 “Dorothy Louise Strouse Keur (1904–).” In Women Anthropologists, ed. Ute Gacs et al., 181–86. New York: Greenwood Press.

298 | References Jayanti, Vimala 1988 “Erminnie Adelle Platt Smith, 1836–1886.” In Women Anthropologists, ed. Ute Gacs et al., 327–30. Westport: Greenwood Press. Jelks, Edward B. and Juliet C. Jelks 1988 Historical Dictionary of North American Archaeology. New York: Green- wood Press. Jepsen, Thomas C. 2000 My Sisters Telegraphic: Women in the Telegraph Office, 1846–1950. Athens: Ohio University Press. Johnson, Eleanor Hope 1911 “The New School of American Archaeology.” Outlook 97, March 25, 687–95. Johnson, Fran Holman 1990 The Gift of the Wild Things: The Life of Caroline Dormon. Lafayette: Uni- versity of Southwestern Louisiana. Johnson, Susan Belt 2007 Savannah’s Little Crooked Houses: If These Walls Could Talk. Charleston: History Press. Joiner, Carol 1992 “The Boys and Girls of Summer: The University of New Mexico Archaeo- logical Field School in Chaco Canyon.” Journal of Anthropological Research 48: 49–56. Jones, Roy Franklin 1972 Wappato Indians of the Lower Columbia River Valley. Vancouver: Privately printed. Joyce, Rosemary A. 1994 “Dorothy Hughes Popenoe: Eve in an Archaeological Garden.” In Women in Archaeology, ed. Cheryl Claassen, 51–66. Philadelphia: University of Penn- sylvania Press. Kahle, Jane Butler, ed. 1985 Women in Science: A Report from the Field. Philadelphia: Falmer Press. Kaufman, Polly Welts 1996 National Parks Service and the Woman’s Voice: A History. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Kehoe, Alice Beck 1998 The Land of Prehistory: A Critical History of American Archaeology. Rout- ledge: New York.

References | 299 Kelly, Dorothea S. 1950 “A Brief History of the Cocopa Indians of the Colorado River Delta.” In For the Dean: Essays in Anthropology in Honor of Byron Cummings on His Eighty-ninth Birthday, ed. Erik K. Reed and Dale S. King, 159–69. Tucson: Hohokam Museum Association. Kelly, Isabel Truesdell 1980 Ceramic Sequence in Colima: Capacha, an Early Phase. Anthropological Papers no. 37, University of Arizona, Tucson. Kelly, William H. 1942 “Cocopa Gentes.” American Anthropologist 44(4): 675–91. Keur, Dorothy Louis Strouse 1941 Big Bead Mesa, an Archaeological Study of Navaho Acculturation, 1745–1812. Memoir no. 1, Society for American Archaeology. 1944 “A Chapter in Navaho-Pueblo Relations.” American Antiquity 10(1): 75–86. 1971 Mary Butler Lewis, 1903–1970. American Anthropologist 73(1): 255–56. Kidder, Alfred V. 1957 “Harriet and Burton Cosgrove.” New Mexico Quarterly 27: 52–55. 1959 “The Diary of Sylvanus G. Morley.” Proceedings of the American Philosophi- cal Society 103(6): 778–82. Kidder, Madeleine Appleton, and Alfred V. Kidder 1917 “Notes on the Pottery of Pecos.” American Anthropologist 19(3): 325–70. Klein, Barry T., and Daniel Icolari, eds. 1973 Reference Encyclopedia of the American Indian. 2d ed., vol. 2. Rye NY: Todd. Kluckhohn, Clyde, and Paul Reiter, eds. 1939 Preliminary Report on the 1937 Excavations, BC 50–51, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Anthropological Series, University of New Mexico. Knipe, Dorothy A. 1941 “A Date from Chaco Yuma West, Southern Arizona.” Tree-Ring Bulletin 8: 24. Knobloch, Patricia J. 1988 “Isabel Truesdell Kelly, 1906–1983.” In Women Anthropologists, ed. Ute Gacs et al., 175–80. Westport: Greenwood Press. Knudson, Ruthann 2004 “Marie Hannah Wormington.” In Notable American Women. Vol. 5: A Biographical Dictionary Completing the Twentieth Century, ed. Susan Ware and Stacy Braukman, 701–703. Cambridge: Belknap Press.

300 | References Kohlstedt, Sally Gregory 1976 “The Nineteenth-Century Amateur Tradition: The Case of the Boston Society of Natural History.” In Science and Its Public: The Changing Relation- ship,” ed. Gerald Holton and William A. Blanpied, 173–90. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science no. 33. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. 1978 “In from the Periphery: American Women in Science, 1830–1880.” Signs 4(1): 81–96. 1990 “Parlors, Primers, and Public-Schooling: Education for Science in Nine- teenth-Century America.” Isis 81(3): 425–45. 1999 Introduction to History of Women in the Sciences, ed. Sally Gregory Kohl- stedt, 1–9. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Koob, William L. 1976 “The Anne King Gregorie Collection.” South Caroline Antiquities 8(2): 19–24. Krogman, Wilton Marion 1939 “Section on Anthropology, H. The Milwaukee Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.” Science 90(2325): 51. Kuklick, Bruce 1996 Puritans in Babylon: The Ancient Near East and American Intellectual Life, 1880–1930. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Laird, Carobeth 1975 Encounter with an Angry God: Recollections of My Life with John Peabody Harrington. Banning CA: Malki Museum Press, Morongo Indian Reservation. Lange, Charles H., and Carroll L. Riley 1996 Bandelier: The Life and Adventures of Adolph Bandelier. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Lange, Frederick W., and Diana Leonard, eds. 1985 Among Ancient Ruins: The Legacy of Earl H. Morris. Boulder: University of Colorado Museum. Ledbetter, R. Jerald 1999 “Isabel Garrard Patterson: Advocate for Georgia Archaeology.” In Grit- Tempered, ed. Nancy Marie White et al., 42–56. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Lee, Dayna Bowker 2009 “Caroline Dormon, 1888–1971: Louisiana’s Cultural Conservator.” In Louisiana Women: Their Lives and Times, ed. Janet Allured and Judith F. Gentry, 253–69. Athens: University of Georgia Press.

References | 301 Lee, Ronald F. 1970 “The Antiquities Act of 1906.” Washington DC Office of History and Historic Architecture, Eastern Service Center, National Park Service, U.S. Depart- ment of the Interior. Lehmer, Donald J. 1948 Jornada Branch of the Mogollon. Tucson: University of Arizona, Social Science Bulletin 17, Bulletin of the University of Arizona 19(2). Le Plongeon, Alice Dixon 1879 “Notes on the Yucatan.” Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society, o.s., 72: 77–106. 1885 “The New and Old in Yucatan.” Harper’s New Monthly Magazine 70: 372–86. 1886 “Yucatan: Its Ancient Temples and Palaces.” Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences 5(6): 169–89. 1887 “Eastern Yucatan: Its Scenery, People, and Ancient Cities and Monu- ments.” Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences 7: 45–48. 1896 “The Potter’s Art among Native Americans.” Popular Science Monthly 49(5): 646–55. 1897 The Monuments of the Mayach and Their Historical Teachings. New York: Albany Institute. Lepowsky, Maria 2002 “Charlotte Gower and the Subterranean History of Anthropology.” In Excluded Ancestors, Inventible Traditions: Essay toward a More Inclusive His- tory of Anthropology (History of Anthropology, vol. 9), ed. Richard Handler, 123–70. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Levine, Mary Ann 1994a “Presenting the Past: A Review of Research on Women in Archaeology.” In Equity Issues for Women in Archaeology, ed. Margaret C. Nelson, Sarah M. Nelson, and Alison Wylie, 23–36. Washington DC: Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association no. 5. 1994b “Creating Their Own Niches: Career Styles among Women in American- ist Archaeology between the Wars.” In Women in Archaeology, ed. Cheryl Claassen, 9–40. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Lewis, Thomas M. N., and Madeline D. Kneberg 1961 Eva: An Archaic Site. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Lewis, Thomas M. N., Madeline D. Kneberg, and Charles H. Nash 1946 Hiwassee Island: An Archaeological Account of Four Tennessee Indian Peoples. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.

302 | References Lister, Florence Cline 1997a Pot Luck: Adventures in Archaeology. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. 1997b Prehistory in Peril: The Worst and Best of Durango Archaeology. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. Lister, Florence C., and Robert H. Lister 1968 Earl Morris and Southwestern Archaeology. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Lister, Robert H., and Florence C. Lister 1983 Those Who Came Before: Southwestern Archeology in the National Park System. Globe AZ: Southwest Parks and Monuments Association. Lothrop, Eleanor [Bachman] 1948 Throw Me a Bone: What Happens When You Marry an Archaeologist. New York: Whittlesey House. 1955 “Mystery of the Prehistoric Stone Balls.” Natural History 65(7): 372–77. Lucy, Charles L. 1991 “Memorial: Catherine J. McCann.” Pennsylvania Archaeologist 59/61: 55. Luhrs, Dorothy L. 1937. “Research Projects of the 1937 Season.” El Palacio 43: 87–90 Luhrs, Dorothy L., and Albert G. Ely. 1939 “Burial Customs at Kuaua.” El Palacio 46(2): 27–32. Lurie, Nancy Oestreich 1971 “Erminnie Adele Platt Smith.” In Notable American Women, 1607–1950: A Biographical Dictionary, ed. Edward T. James, Janet Wilson James, and Paul S. Boyer, 3: 312–13. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 1999/1966 Women and the Invention of American Anthropology. Prospect Heights IL: Waveland Press. (Originally published in 1966 as “Women in Early American Anthropology,” in Pioneers of American Anthropology: The Uses of Biography, ed. June Helm, 29–82. American Ethnological Society, University of Washington Press.) Lyon, Edwin A. 1996 A New Deal for Southeastern Archaeology. Tuscaloosa: University of Ala- bama Press. Lytle-Webb, Jamie 1988 “Clara Lee Fraps Tanner (1905–?).” In Women Anthropologists, ed. Ute Gacs et al., 350–54. Westport: Greenwood Press.

References | 303 MacCurdy, George Grant 1901 “The American Association for the Advancement of Science, Section H: Anthropology.” Science, n.s., 14: 717–21. 1902 “The Teaching of Anthropology in the United States.” Science 15: 211–16. 1906 “Recent Progress in American Anthropology: A Review of the Activities of Institutions and Individuals from 1902 to 1906.” American Anthropolo- gist 8(3): 441–554. Madeira, Percy C., Jr. 1964 Men in Search of Man: The First Seventy-five Years of the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Magoffin, Ralph van Deman, and Emma Cleveland Davis 1929 Magic Spades: The Romance of Archaeology. New York: Garden City Press. Malakoff, David 2008 “A New Deal for Archaeology.” American Archaeology 12(3): 38–42. Marcus, Joyce 1988 “Tatiana Proskouriakoff, 1909–1985.” InWomen Anthropologists, ed. Ute Gacs et al., 297–302. Westport: Greenwood Press. Mark, Joan T. 1980 Four Anthropologists: An American Science in Its Early Years. New York: Science History Publications. 1988 A Stranger in Her Native Land: Alice Fletcher and the American Indians. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Marquis 1976 Who’s Who of American Women, 1976. Chicago: Marquis Who’s Who. Martin, Paul S., and Elizabeth Siegrist Willis 1940 Anasazi Painted Pottery in the Field Museum of Natural History. Chicago: Field Museum Press, Anthropology Memoirs, vol. 5. Mason, John Alden 1967 A Brief History of the Institute of Andean Research, Inc.: 1937–1967. New York: Institute of Andean Research. Mathien, Frances Joan 1992 “Women of Chaco: Then and Now.” In Rediscovering Our Past: Essays in the History of American Archaeology, ed. Jonathan E. Reyman, 103–30. Avebury: Aldershot 2003 “Lucy L. W. Wilson, PHD: An Eastern Educator and the Southwestern Pueblos.” In Philadelphia and the Development of Americanist Archaeology,

304 | References ed. Don D. Fowler and David R. Wilcox, 134–55. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. McCann, Catherine J. 1939a Ecology of the Georgia Coast. Atlanta: University of Georgia. 1939b “Faunal Remains at Irene Mound, Savannah.” Proceedings of the Georgia Society for Archaeology 2(2): 137–39. 1940 “The Development of Cord-Marked Pottery in Chatham County.” Pro- ceedings of the Georgia Society for Archaeology 3(1): 13. 1950 “The Ware Site, Salem County, New Jersey.” American Antiquity 15(4): 315–21. McClellan, Catharine 1988 “Frederica de Laguna (1906–?).” In Women Anthropologists, ed. Ute Gacs et al., 37–44. Westport: Greenwood Press. McClurg, Virginia 1930 “The Making of Mesa Verde into a National Park.” Colorado Magazine 7(6): 216–19. McCorvie, Mary R. 2008 “A New Deal in Illinois Archaeology: An Introduction.” Illinois Antiquity 43(3): 3–7. McCreery, J. Honour 1934 “Summer Session in Guatemala.” El Palacio 36/37: 137–41. 1935 “The Mummy Collection of the University of Cuzco.” El Palacio 39: 118–21. 1956 “Estratificación no. 2 en las terrazas de la sección primera de Cerro Sechin, Informe de J. Honour McCreery.” In Arqueología del valle de Casma, ed. Julio C. Tello, 259–61. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. McDaniel, Sean 2007 “The Lure of Moo: A Victorian Archaeologist’s Obsession with a Ficti- tious Maya Queen.” Archaeology 60(1): 48–51. McDonald, David R. 1977 Masters’ Theses in Anthropology: A Bibliography of Theses from United States Colleges and Universities. New Haven: HRAF Press. McGee, Anita Newcomb 1889a “Historical Sketch of the Women’s Anthropological Society of America.” In Organization and Historical Sketch of the Women’s Anthropological Society of America, 16–22. Washington DC: Women’s Anthropological Society of America.

References | 305 1889b “Women’s Anthropological Society of America.” Science, o.s., 13(321): 240–42. 1897 “Abstracts from the Records of the Section.” Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science 46: 391. McGreevy, Susan Brown 1993 “Daughters of Affluence: Wealth, Collecting, and Southwestern Insti- tutions.” In Hidden Scholars, ed. Nancy J. Parezo, 76–106. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. McNary, James Graham 1956 This Is My Life. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. McVicker, Mary Frech 2000 “Parlours to Pyramids.” Archaeology 53(6): 60–62. 2005 Adela Breton: A Victorian Artist amid Mexico’s Ruins. Albuquerque: Uni- versity of New Mexico Press. McWhirt, Jean 1939 “Esther.” Mesa Verde Notes 9(1): 5–7. Meringolo, Denise D. 2008 “The Accokeek Foundation and Piscataway Park.” CRM: The Journal of Heritage Stewardship 5(1): 45–63. Miller, Darlis A. 2007 Matilda Coxe Stevenson: Pioneering Anthropologist. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Miller, Mamie Tanquist 1941 Pueblo Indian Culture as Seen by the Early Spanish Explorers. University of Southern California, School of Research Studies no. 18, Social Science Series no. 21. Moldow, Gloria 1987 Women Doctors in Gilded-Age Washington: Race, Gender, and Professional- ization. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Moore, Diane M. 1984 Their Adventurous Will: Profiles of Memorable Louisiana Women. Lafayette LA: Acadiana Press. Morley, Frances Louella Rhoads, and Sylvanus G. Morley 1939 The Age and Provenance of the Leyden Plate. Publications in American Anthropology and History, vol. 5, no. 24, Publications of the Carnegie Insti- tution of Washington no. 509: 1–17.

306 | References Morris, Ann Axtell 1931 Digging in Yucatan. Garden City: Doubleday, Doran. 1933 Digging in the Southwest. Garden City: Doubleday, Doran. Morris, Elizabeth Ann 1974 “Anna O. Shepard, 1903–1973.” American Antiquity 39(3): 448–51. Morris, Elizabeth Ann, and Caroline B. Olin 1995 “Bertha Pauline Dutton, 1903–1994.” American Antiquity 62(4): 652–58. Mott, Dorothy Challis 1935 “Abstract: Some Unusual Textiles of the Prehistoric Southwest.” Kiva 1(1): 3. 1936a “Progress of the Excavations at Kinishba.” Kiva 2(1): 1–4. 1936b “Prehistoric Burials.” Kiva 2(1): 21–24. 1939 “‘Natani Yazi’: Little Captain (Byron Cummings).” Arizona Highways 15(10): 4–5, 27–28. 1940a “Prehistoric Textiles.” Kiva 5: 13–16. 1940b “Kinishba, Prehistoric Pueblo of the Great Pueblo Period.” Kiva 6(1): 1–4. Mott, Mildred Ingram 1938 “The Relation of Historic Indian Tribes to Archaeological Manifestations in Iowa.” Iowa Journal of History and Politics 36(3): 227–314. Mounier, R. Alan 2003 Looking beneath the Surface: The Story of Archaeology in New Jersey. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Munson, Marit K., ed. 2008 Kenneth Chapman’s Santa Fe: Artists and Archaeologists, 1907–1931. Memoirs of Kenneth Chapman. Santa Fe: School of American Research. Murray, Margaret Alice 1963 “Centenary.” Antiquity 37(146): 92–95. Murry, Margaret Whiting 1937 “The Development of Form and Design in the Pottery at Kinishba.” Mas- ter’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona. Nash, Stephen Edward 1999 Times, Trees, and Prehistory: Tree-ring Dating and the Development of North American Archaeology 1914–1950. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. National Research Council 1938 International Directory of Anthropologists. Washington DC: National Research Council. 1940 International Directory of Anthropologists, Section 1: Western Hemisphere. Washington DC: National Research Council.

References | 307 Nelson, Ethelyn G. Hobbs [Field] 1917 “Camp Life in New Mexico: The Enchantment of Wanderings and Study among Ancient Indian Ruins in the American Southwest.” El Palacio 4(4): 19–32. 1925 “Humpty Dumpty Outdone: A Heap of Broken Pottery That Took Shape as a Beautiful Jar.” Natural History 25: 87–89. 1926 “Prehistoric Man of Central China and a Houseboat on the Yangtze.” Natural History 26(6): 570–87. Newcomer, Mabel, and Ruth G. Hutchinson 1939 “Occupations of Vassar Alumnae.” In College Women and the Social Sci- ences: Essays by Herbert Elmer Mills and His Former Students, 307–24. New York: John Day. Nomland, Gladys Ayer 1932 “The Proboscis Statue from the Isthmus of Tehuantepec.” American Anthropologist 34(4): 591–93. 1933 “Archaeological Site of Hato Viejo, Venezuela.” American Anthropologist 35(4): 718–41. 1935 “New Archaeological Sites from the State of Falcon, Venezuela.” Ibero- Americana, vol. 11. Berkeley. 1939 “New Archaeological Site at San Blas, Junin, Peru.” Revista del Museo Nacional 8: 61–66. Nuttall, Zelia 1901 The Fundamental Principles of Old and New World Civilizations. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 2. O’Neale, Lila Morris 1932 “Yurok-Karok Basket Weavers.” University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 32: 1–184. O’Neale, Lila Morris, and Alfred L. Kroeber 1930 “Textile Periods in Ancient Peru: I.” University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 28: 23–56. Osborne, Carolyn M. 1965 “The Preparation of Yucca Fiber: An Experimental Study.” In Contribu- tions of the Wetherill Mesa Project, ed. H. Douglas Osborne. Memoirs, Society for American Archaeology 19: 45–50. Palmatary, Helen Constance. 1939 Tapajo Pottery. Etnologiska Studies no. 8, Goteborgs Etnografiska Museum.

308 | References 1950 “The Pottery of Marajo Island, Brazil.” Transactions of the American Philo- sophical Society 39(3): 261–470. 1960 “The Archaeology of the Lower Tapajos Valley, Brazil.” Transactions of American Philosophical Society 50(3). Palmer, Alice Elvira Freeman 1893 “A Review of the Higher Education of Women.” In Woman and the Higher Education, ed. Anna Callender Brackett, 103–30. New York: Harper and Brothers. Parezo, Nancy J. 1988 “Matilda Coxe Evans Stevenson, 1849–1915.” In Women Anthropologists, ed. Ute Gacs et al., 337–43. Westport: Greenwood Press. 1999 “Matilda Coxe Evans Stevenson.” In American National Biography 2, ed. John A. Garrity and Mark C. Carnes, 730–31. New York: Oxford University Press. 2003 “Clara Lee Fraps Tanner, 1905–1997.” American Anthropologist 105 (1): 233–34. Parezo, Nancy J., ed. 1993 Hidden Scholars: Women Anthropologists and the Native American Southwest. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Parezo, Nancy J., and Don D. Fowler 2007 Anthropology Goes to the Fair: The 1904 Louisiana Purchase Exposition. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Parezo, Nancy J., and Margaret A. Hardin 1993 “In the Realm of the Muses.” In Hidden Scholars, ed. Nancy J. Parezo, 270–93. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Parker, Arthur Caswell, ed. 1908 Introduction to Myths and Legends of the New York State Iroquois, by Harriet Maxwell Converse. Albany: New York State Museum, Education Depart- ment, Museum Bulletin 125: 6–30. Pathe, Ruth E. 1988 “Gene Weltfish, 1902–1980.” InWomen Anthropologists, ed. Ute Gacs et al., 372–81. Westport: Greenwood Press. Pattatucci, Angela M. L. 1995 Women in Science: Meeting Career Challenges. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Patterson, Mrs. H. Wayne (Isabel) 1950 “Notes on the Exploration of the Bull Creek Site, Columbus, Georgia.” Early Georgia 1(1): 35–40.

References | 309 Paulsen, Allison C. 1968 “A Middle Horizon Tomb, Pinalla, Ica Valley, Peru.” Ñawpa Pacha 6: 1–6. 1973 “The Thorny Oyster and the Voice of God: Spondylus and Strombus in Andean Prehistory.” American Antiquity 39(4): 597–607. 1976 “Environment and Empire: Climatic Factors in Prehistoric Andean Culture Change.” World Archaeology 8(2): 121–32. Peckham, Mary C. 1879 “Alice C. Fletcher at the West.” Woman’s Journal 10(52): 409. Petrash, Antonia 2004 “Eva Lutz Butler: Teacher, Historian, Anthropologist.” In More than Petticoats: Remarkable Connecticut Women, ed. Antonia Petrash, 128–39. Guildford CT: Globe Pequot Press. Phillips, Philip, James A. Ford, and James B. Griffin 2003 Archaeological Survey in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley, 1940–1947, ed. Stephen Williams. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Pickering, Robert 1992 “Harriet Minola Smith, 1911–1992.” Illinois Antiquity 27(3): 4. Pinkley, Jean McWhirt 1965 “The Pueblos and the Turkey: Who Domesticated Whom?” In Contribu- tions to the Wetherill Mesa Archaeological Project, Memoirs of the Society of American Archaeology, ed. H. Douglas Osborne, 19: 70–72. Pooler, Lolita H. 1940 “Alameda Pueblo Ruins.” El Palacio 47: 84–88. Popenoe, Dorothy Hughes 1934 “Some Excavations at Playa de Los Muertos, Ulua River, Honduras.” Maya Research 1: 61–85. 1935 “New Pottery Found in Honduras.” El Palacio 38: 124. 1936 “The Ruins of Tenampua, Honduras.” Smithsonian Institution, Annual Report for 1935, 559–72. Washington DC. Porter, Joy 2001 To Be Indian: The Life of Iroquois-Seneca Arthur Caswell Parker. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Post, Emily 1944 Etiquette: The Blue Book of Social Usage. Rev. ed. New York: Funk and Wagnalls.

310 | References Powell, Mary Lucas, Della Collins Cook, Georgieann Bogdan, Jane E. Buikstra, Mario M. Castro, Patrick D. Horne, David R. Hunt, Richard T. Koritzer, Sheila Ferraz Mendonca de Souza, Mary Kay Sandford, Laurie Saunders, Glaucia Aparecida Malerba Sene, Lynne Sullivan, and John J. Swetnam. 2010 “Invisible Hands: Women in Bioarchaeology.” In Bioarchaeology: The Contextual Analysis of Human Remains, ed. Jane E. Buikstra and Lane A. Beck, 131–94. London: Elsevier/Academic Press Preucel, Robert W., and Meredith S. Chesson 1994 “Blue Corn Girls: A Herstory of Three Early Women Archaeologists at Tecolote, New Mexico.” In Women in Archaeology, ed. Cheryl Claassen, 67–84. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Price, David H. 2004 Threatening Anthropology: McCarthyism and the FBI’s Surveillance of Activ- ist Anthropologists. Durham: Duke University Press. Proskouriakoff, Tatiana A. 1946 An Album of Maya Architecture. Carnegie Institution of Washington Pub- lication 558. 1950 A Study of Classic Maya Sculpture. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication 593. 1960 Historical Implications of the Pattern of Dates at Piedras Negras, Gua- temala. American Antiquity 25(4): 454–75. Putnam, Elizabeth Duncan 1907 “Mary Louisa Duncan Putnam, a Memoir.” Proceedings of the Davenport Academy of Sciences, vol. 10, i–xlii. Davenport IA. Putnam, Frederic W. 1884 Report of the Curator. 17th Annual Report of the Peabody Museum of American Anthropology and Ethnology for 1883. Annual Reports of the Pea- body Museum of American Anthropology and Ethnology 3(4): 339–76. 1885 Report of the Curator. 18th Annual Report of the Peabody Museum of American Anthropology and Ethnology. Annual Reports of the Peabody Museum of American Anthropology and Ethnology 3(5): 401–21. 1886 Report of the Curator. Nineteenth Annual Report of the Peabody Museum of American Anthropology and Ethnology. Annual Reports of the Peabody Museum of American Anthropology and Ethnology 3(6): 477–501.

References | 311 Putnam, Frederic W. 1887 “Paleolithic Implements from America and Europe.” Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History 23: 421–24. 1889 Report of the Curator. Twenty-second Annual Report of the Peabody Museum of American Anthropology and Ethnology for 1888. Annual Reports of the Peabody Museum of American Anthropology and Ethnology 4(2): 31–52. Redpath, James, ed. 1914 “Caroline Healey Dall.” In The College, the Market, and the Court; or, Woman’s Relation to Education, Labor, and Law, by Caroline H. Dall, v–xiii. Memorial ed. Reprint of the 1867 book. Concord NH: Rumford Press. Reed, Helen Leah 1895 “Radcliffe College.”New England Magazine 17(5): 609–25. Reid, Rosalind 2006 “Jane V. Olson.” American Scientist 94(5): 394. Reiter, Winifred 1933 “An Unknown City of America — Discoveries at Chetro Ketl, New Mexico: One of the Largest Ruins in the United States, Revealed after 900 Years.” Illustrated London News 183: 892–93. 1939 Desert Debutantes. New Mexico 17(4): 12–13, 36–38. Reyman, Jonathan E. 1992 “Women in American Archaeology: Some Historical Notes and Comments.” In Rediscovering Our Past: Essays on the History of American Archaeology, ed. Jonathan E. Reyman, 69–80. Aldershot: Avebury/Ashgate. 1994 “Gender and Class in Archeology: Then and Now.” In Equity Issues for Women in Archeology, ed. Margaret C. Nelson, Sarah M. Nelson, and Alison Wylie, Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, no. 5, pp. 83–90. 1999 “Women in Southwestern Archaeology, 1891–1945.” In Assembling the Past: Studies in the Professionalization of Archaeology, ed. Alice B. Kehoe and Mary Beth Emmericks, 213–28. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Rhoads, Dorothy 1955 “Frances Rhoads Morley, 1898–1955.” El Palacio 62(4): 120–22. Ricketson, Editon Bayles 1937 “The Artifacts.” In Uaxactun, Guatemala, Group E, 1926–1931, ed. Oliver G. Ricketson and Edith B. Ricketson, 181–292. Washington: Carnegie Insti- tution of Washington Publication 477.

312 | References 1947 “Barbarian Jewelry of the Merovingian Period.” Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 5, no. 5. Riley, Carroll L. 1988 “Joe and Fanny: The Wives of Adolph F. Bandelier.” In Reflections: Papers on Southwestern Culture History in Honor of Charles H. Lange, ed. Anne V. Poore, 10–24. Santa Fe: Papers of the Archaeological Society of New Mexico, vol. 14. Roberts, Helen Heffron 1929 “The Basketry of San Carlos Apache.” Anthropological Papers of the Ameri- can Museum of Natural History 31(2): 123–218. 1932 “The Reason for the Departure of the Pecos Indians for the Jemez Pueblo.” American Anthropologist 34(2): 359–60. Roberts, Henry B., Samuel K. Lothrop, and Marion Hutchinson 1937 “Detailed Record of Excavation at the Sitio Conte.” In Cocle: An Archaeo- logical Study of Central Panama, ed. Samuel K. Lothrop, Memoir of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 7, 208–305. Robertson, Janet 1990 The Magnificent Mountain Women: Adventures in the Colorado Rockies. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Ross, Robert Budd 1898 Landmarks of Detroit: A History of the City. Detroit: Evening News Association. Rossiter, Margaret Walsh 1980 “Women’s Work in Science, 1880–1910.” Isis 71(3): 381–98. 1982 Women Scientists in America: Struggles and Strategies to 1940. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Rowe, John Howland 1958 “Harry Tschopik, Jr., 1915–1956.” American Anthropologist 60(1): 132–40. 1978 “Anna Hadwick Gayton, 1899–1977.” American Anthropologist 80(3): 653–56. Rowe, John H., Donald Collier, and Gordon R. Willey 1950 “Reconnaissance Notes on the Site of Huari near Ayaucaho, Peru.” Ameri- can Antiquity 16(2): 120–37. Sampson, Kelvin W. 1992 “Editorial Notes on James B. Griffin’s Women in Archaeology: A Point of Clarification.”Illinois Antiquity 27(4): 8–9.

References | 313 Sanders, Donald H., and David W. J. Gill 2004 “Theresa B. Goell (1901–1985).” In Breaking Ground: Pioneering Women Archaeologists, ed. Getzel M. Cohen and Martha Joukowsky, 482–524. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Sapir, Edward 1935 “A Navaho Sand Painting Blanket.” American Anthropologist 37(4): 609–16. Satterthwaite, Linton, Jane A. Hill, Mary Butler, and James Alden Mason 2004 Piedras Negras Archaeology 1931–1939. Philadelphia: University of Penn- sylvania, University Museum. Schenck, Sara Moffatt, and Edward W. Gifford 1952 “Karok Ethnobotany.” University of California Records 13(6): 377–92. Schnell, Frank T., Jr. 1999 “Margaret E. Ashley: Georgia’s First Professional Archaeologist.” In Grit-Tempered, ed. Nancy Marie White et al., 25–41. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Schumaker, Lyn 2007 “Women in the Field in the Twentieth Century: Revolution, Involution, Devolution?” In A New History of Anthropology, ed. Henrika Kuklick, 277–92. Malden MA: Blackwell. Senter, Florence Hawley, Mildred Mott Wedel, and Everly John Workman 1941 Tree-Ring Analysis and Dating in the Mississippi Drainage. Chicago: Uni- versity of Chicago Publications in Anthropology Occasional Publication no. 2. (Includes an appendix: “Reflections of Precipitation and Temperature in Tree Growth,” by Florence Hawley Senter and Mildred Mott Wedel.) Sewall, May Wright 1891 “The Education of Woman in the Western States.” In Woman’s Work in America, ed. Annie Nathan Meyer, 54–88. New York: Henry Holt. Shaeffer, Margaret W. M. 1958 “The Construction of a Wickiup on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation.” Kiva 24(2): 14–20. 1971 “Not All Indians Live in Tipis: Local Prehistory Sparks a Museum Educa- tion Program.” Curator 14(3): 184–93. Shipek, Florence C. 1951 “Diegueño Pots.” Museo 1(2): 5–11. San Diego: Museum of Man. Singer, Ernestine H. Wieder 1935 “Analysis and Distribution of Netting Techniques among the South Ameri- can Indians.” Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania.

314 | References 1936a “The Techniques of Certain Peruvian Hair Nets.” Revista del Museo Nacional 5(1): 15–24. 1936b “The Looping Technique in Netting.” American Antiquity 2(2): 141–42. Sizer, Lyde Cullen 2004 “Women in the Antebellum, Civil War, and Reconstruction Eras.” In A History of Women in the United States: State-by-State Reference, 4 vols., ed. Doris Weatherford, 1: 9–14. Danbury CT: Grolier. Skirboll, Esther R. 2006 “The ‘A-G-E’ Effects on My Midlife Career in Anthropology.” InWomen in Anthropology: Autobiographical Narratives and Social History, ed. Maria G. Cattell and Marjorie M. Schweitzer, 137–44. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. Smith, Duane A. 2005 Women to the Rescue. Durango: Durango Herald Small Press. Smith, Harriet M. 1942 “Excavation of the Murdock Mound of the Cahokia Group.” Journal of the Illinois State Archaeological Society, May 13–18. 1963 Prehistoric People of Illinois. Chicago: Field Museum of Natural History. 1969 “The Murdock Mound, Cahokia Site.” In Explorations into Cahokia Archae- ology, ed. Melvin L. Fowler, 49–88. Urbana: Illinois Archaeological Survey Bulletin no. 7. Smith, Marian Wesley 1941 “A Note on Extinct Fauna and Man.” American Antiquity 7(1): 69. 1950 Archaeology of the Columbia-Fraser Region. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology no. 6. Smith, Watson 1992 “One Man’s Archaeology.” Kiva 57(2): 105–91. Snead, James E. 2001 Ruins and Rivals: The Making of Southwest Archaeology. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. 2002 “The ‘Western Idea’: Local Societies and American Archaeology.” In Excavating Our Past: Perspective on the History of the Archaeological Institute of America, ed. Susan Heuck Allen, 123–40. Boston: Archaeological Institute of America, Colloquia and Conference Papers, vol. 5. Solomon, Barbara Miller 1985 In the Company of Educated Women: A History of Women and Higher Educa- tion in America. New Haven: Yale University Press.

References | 315 Solomon, Char (Charyl Ann) 2002 Tatiana Proskouriakoff: Interpreting the Ancient Maya. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Spinden, Ellen S. 1933 “The Place of Tajin in Totonac Archaeology.” American Anthropologist 35(2): 225–70. Stamm, Winifred 1929 “Excavations in East Tower (Chetro Ketl).” El Palacio 27: 15–16. 1930a “First Months of Excavation at Chaco Completed.” El Palacio 29(1): 46–56. 1930b “Successful Season at Jemez.” Digs 2, no. 4. 1931 “Another Season at Chetro Ketl.” Digs 3, no. 1. Stegner, Wallace Earle 1954 Beyond the Hundredth Meridian: John Wesley Powell and the Second Opening of the West. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Stephenson, Robert L. 1967 “Frank H. H. Roberts, Jr., 1897–1966.” American Antiquity 32(1): 84–94. Stephenson, Robert Lloyd., and Alice Leczinska Lowe Ferguson 1963 The Accokeek Creek Site, a Middle Atlantic Culture Sequence. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, no. 20. Stevenson, Matilda Coxe 1883 “The Cliff-Dwellers of the New Mexican Canyons.”Kansas City Review 6(11): 636–39. Stevenson, Sara Yorke 1899 Maximilian in Mexico: A Woman’s Reminiscences of the French Intervention, 1862–1867. New York: Century. Stone, Doris Zemurray 1980 “A Fair Period for a Field Study.” Radcliffe Quarterly 66(3): 20–22. Strong, William Duncan 1936 “Report of the Nomination Committee, Society for American Archaeol- ogy, Annual Meeting.” American Antiquity 1(2): 315. Studley, Cordelia A. 1884 “Notes upon the Human Remains from the Caves of Coahuila, Mexico.” In Sixteenth Annual Report of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, 233–59. Cambridge: Peabody Museum. 1885 “Description of the Human Remains Found in the ‘Intrusive Pit’ in the Large Mound of the Turner Group, Little Miami Valley, Ohio, during the

316 | References Explorations of Messrs. Putnam and Metz.” Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science 33: 618. Sullivan, Lynne P. 1994 “Madeline Kneberg Lewis: An Original Southeastern Archaeologist.” In Women in Archaeology, ed. Cheryl Claassen, 110–19. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 1999 “Madeline D. Kneberg Lewis: Leading Lady of Tennessee Archaeol- ogy.” In Grit-Tempered, ed. Nancy Marie White et al., 57–91. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Surles, Flora Belle 1968 Anne King Gregorie. Columbia: R. L. Bryan. Tanner, Clara Lee, and Florence Connolly 1938 “Petroglyphs in the Southwest.” Kiva 3: 13–16. Tedlock, Barbara 1995 “Works and Wives: On the Sexual Division of Textual Labor.” In Women Writing Culture, ed. Ruth Behar and Deborah A. Gordon, 267–73. Berkeley: University of California Press. Tello, Julio C. 1943 “Discovery of the Chavin Culture in Peru.” American Antiquity 9(1): 135–60. Thomas, Chester A. 1969 “Jean McWhirt Pinkley, 1910–1969.” American Antiquity 34(4): 471–73. Thomas, Dorothy 1933 “Exploring the Museum Field.” Independent Woman 12(7): 238–39, 260. Thompson, Raymond H. 1991 “Shepard, Kidder, and Carnegie.” In Ceramic Legacy of Anna O. Shepard, ed. Ronald L. Bishop and Frederick W. Lange, 11–41. Niwot: University Press of Colorado. Thompson, Raymond Harris, Caleb Vance Haynes Jr., and James Jefferson Reid 1997 “Emil Walter Haury (May 2, 1904–December 5, 1992).” National Academy of Science Biographical Memoirs 72: 150–74. Thurston, Bertha Parker 1933 “Scorpion Hill.” Masterkey 7(6): 171–77. Tichy, Marjorie Ferguson 1937 “A Preliminary Account of the Excavation of Paa-ko, San Antonio County, New Mexico.” New Mexico Anthropologist 1(5): 73–77. 1938 “The Kivas of Paa-ko and Kuaua.” New Mexico Anthropologist 2(4/5): 71–80. 1939a “The Excavation of Paa-ko Ruin.” El Palacio 47:109–16.

References | 317 1939b “The Archaeology of Puaray.” El Palacio 47: 145–63. Tinling, Marion R. G. 1986 Women Remembered: A Guide to Landmarks of Women’s History in the United States. New York: Greenwood Press. Tisdale, Shelby J. 1993 “Women on the Periphery of the Ivory Tower.” In Hidden Scholars, ed. Nancy J. Parezo, 311–33. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. 2008 “Marjorie Ferguson Lambert: Including American Indians and Hispanic Peoples in Southwestern Anthropology.” In Their Own Frontier: Women Intellectuals Re-visioning the American West, ed. Shirley A. Leckie and Nancy J. Parezo, 181–207. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Towle, Margaret Elizabeth Ashley 1961 The Ethnobotany of Pre-Columbian Peru. New York: Wenner-Gren Foun- dation for Anthropological Research. Tozzer, Alfred M. 1933 “Zelia Nuttall.” American Anthropologist 35(3): 475–82. 1934 “Dorothy Hughes Popenoe.” Maya Research 1: 68. Trissler, Alicia 1994 “Caroline Dormon and Louisiana Archaeology of the 1930s.” Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Northwestern State University of Louisiana, Lafayette. Trowbridge, Lydia Jones 1927a “Zuni.” El Palacio 22: 8–12. 1927b “The School of American Research.” El Palacio 22: 59–63. 1927c “Queen of Mesas.” El Palacio 22: 98–106. 1930 “Edgar Lee Hewett.” El Palacio 29: 163–73. Tschopik, Harry, Jr. 1941 Navaho Pottery Making. Cambridge: Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 17, no. 1. Tschopik, Marion H. 1946 Some Notes on the Archaeology of the Department of Puno, Peru. Cambridge: Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 27, no. 3. Tucker, Sara Jones 1941 “Archival Materials for the Anthropologist in the National Archives, Wash- ington DC.” American Anthropologist 43(4): 617–44.

318 | References 1942 Indian Villages of the Illinois Country: An Atlas. Vol. 2. Springfield: Illinois State Museum Scientific Papers. Van Ness, Christine Moon 1988 “Sara Yorke Stevenson.” In Women Anthropologists, ed. Ute Gacs et al., 344–49. Westport: Greenwood Press. Vickrey, Irene S. 1939 “Besh-ba-gowah.” Kiva 4(5): 19–22. 1945 “Inspiration I, a Pioneer and Colonial Hohokam Site.” Kiva 10(3): 20–28. Wagner, Sallie R. 1997 Wide Ruins: Memories from a Navajo Trading Post. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Wardle, Harriet Newell 1903 Native Spindle Whorls of North America and Adjacent Territory: A Paper Read at the 74th meeting of the New England Cotton Manufacturers’ Associa- tion, April 22–23, 1903. Waltham MA: E. L. Barry. 1906 “The Treasures of Prehistoric Moundville.” Harper’s Monthly Magazine 112(658): 200–210. 1912 “Certain Rare West Coast Baskets.” American Anthropologist 14(2): 287–313. 1919 “The Indian Knoll.” American Indian Magazine 7(4): 31–38. 1920 “Iron Ore Artifacts from Alabama.” Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 72: 209–13. 1944 “Triple Cloth: New Types of Ancient Peruvian Technique.” American Anthropologist 46(3): 416–18. 1951 “The Pile Drivers of Key Marco.” Archaeology 4(3): 181–86. Warren, Claude N. 2004 “Elizabeth W. Crozer Campbell, California Desert Archaeologist.” In The Human Journey: Ancient Life in California’s Deserts. Proceedings from the 2001 Millennium Conference, ed. Mark W. Allen and Judyth Reed, 83–91. Desert Managers Group. 2005 “Early Lithic Industries and the Archaeopolitics of the Mojave Sink.” In Onward and Upward: Papers in Honor of Clement W. Meighan, ed. Keith L. Johnson, 169–90. Chico: Stansbury. Watkins, Frances E. 1930 “My Experiences as a Field Archeologist.” Masterkey 4: 13–20. 1931 “Archeology as a Profession for Women.” Masterkey 4: 173–78. Watts, Ruth 2007 Women in Science: A Social and Cultural History. New York: Routledge.

References | 319 Wauchope, Robert 1978 “Edith Bayles Ricketson, 1899–1976.” American Antiquity 43(4): 615–17. Wedel, Mildred Mott 1976 “Ethnohistory: Its Payoffs and Pitfalls for Iowa Archaeologists.” Journal of the Iowa Archaeological Society 23: 1–44. Weimann, Jeanne Madeline 1981 The Fair Women. Chicago: Academy Chicago. Welch, John R. 2007 “A Monument to Native Civilization: Byron Cummings’ Still Unfolding Vision for Kinishba Ruins.” Journal of the Southwest 49(1): 1–94. White, Nancy Marie 1999a “Women in Southeastern U.S. Archaeology.” In Grit-Tempered, ed. Nancy Marie White et al., 1–24. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. 1999b “Hester A. Davis: A Legend in Public Archaeology.” In Grit-Tempered, ed. Nancy Marie White et al., 206–29. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. White, Nancy Marie, Rochelle A. Marrinan, and Hester A. Davis 1994 “Early Women in Southeastern Archaeology: A Preliminary Report on Ongoing Research.” In Women in Archaeology, ed. Cheryl Claassen, 96–109. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. White, Nancy Marie, Lynne P. Sullivan, and Rochelle A. Marrinan, eds. 1999 Grit-Tempered: Early Women Archaeologists in the Southeastern United States. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Whiteford, Andrew Hunter 1988 “Kate Peck Kent (1914–1987).” American Anthropologist 90(4): 956–57. Whittemore, Mary 1939 “Artifacts of Bone, Antler, and Shell.” In Preliminary Report of the Exca- vations at BC 50–51, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, ed. Clyde Kluckhohn and Paul Reiter, 131–46. Albuquerque. 1941 “Participation in Navaho Weaving.” Plateau 13: 49–52. Willard, Frances E., and Mary A. Livermore, eds. 1897 American Women: Fifteen Hundred Biographies with Over 1,400 Portraits. 2 vols. New York: Mast, Crowell and Kirkpatrick. Willey, Gordon R. 1976 “Samuel Kirkland Lothrop, July 6, 1892–January 10, 1965.” National Acad- emy of Sciences, Biographical Memoirs 48(10): 252–73. 1994 “Emil Walter Haury, 2 May 1904–5 December 1992.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 138(3): 426–30.

320 | References Willey, Gordon R., and Jeremy A. Sabloff 1974 A History of American Archaeology. 1st ed. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. 1980 A History of American Archaeology. 2nd ed. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. 1993 A History of American Archaeology. 3rd ed. London: Thames and Hudson. Williams, Jeannette Webster 1895 “The Bandelier Collection of Copies of Documents Relative to the His- tory of New Mexico and Arizona.” In Catalogue of the Hemenway Collection in the Historico-American Exposition of Madrid, ed. Jesse Walter Fewkes, 305–26. Washington DC: Report of the United States Commission to the Columbian Historical Exposition at Madrid. Williams, Stephen 1991 Fantastic Archaeology: The Wild Side of North American Prehistory. Phila- delphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Wilson, Lucy Langdon Williams 1910 “Climate and Man in Peru.” Bulletin of the Geographical Society of Phila- delphia 8(3): 1–19, and 8(4): 27–45. 1916 “A Prehistoric Anthropomorphic Figure from the Rio Grande Basin.” American Anthropologist 18(4): 548–51. 1916 “Excavations at Otowi.” El Palacio 3(2): 29–36 1917a “This Year’s Work at Otowi.” El Palacio 4(4): 87. 1917b “Excavations at Otowi, New Mexico.” Art and Archaeology 6(5): 259–60. 1918a “Hand Sign or Avanyu: A Note on a Pajaritan Biscuit-ware Motif.” Ameri- can Anthropologist 20(3): 310–17. 1918b “Three Years at Otowi.” El Palacio 5(18): 290–95. Wimberly, Christine Adcock 1980 Exploring Prehistoric Alabama through Archaeology. Birmingham: Explorer Books. Wimberly, Steve B. 1960 Indian Pottery from Clarke and Mobile Counties, Southern Alabama, with the Geographic and Historic Background, a Discussion of the Historic Indians in the Area, by Christine Wimberly; the Lithic Material, by Daniel W. W. Josselyn; and a Study of Indian Skeletal Material from Clarke and Mobile Counties by Marshall T. Newman. Birmingham: Geological Survey of Alabama, Museum Paper no. 36. Wirt, Julia J. 1878 “Explorations of a Mound near Utah Lake, Utah.” Proceedings of the Dav- enport Academy of Natural Sciences 2(1): 28–29, 82.

References | 321 Wiseman, Regge N. 2000 “The Two Lives of the Roswell Archaeological Society.” In The First 100 Years: Papers in Honor of the State and Local Archaeological Societies of New Mexico, ed. Frances Joan Mathien, David T. Kirkpatrick, and Meliha S. Duran, 261–70. Albuquerque: Archaeological Society of New Mexico, no. 26. Wood, W. Raymond 1976 “Donald Jayne Lehmer, 1918–1975.” American Antiquity 41(2): 178–80. Woodbury, George, and Edna Thuner Woodbury 1932a “The Archaeological Survey of Paradox Valley and Adjacent Country in Western Montrose County, Colorado, 1931.” Colorado Magazine 9: 1–21. 1932b “A Headhunter’s Trophy.” Colorado Magazine 9: 214–17. 1932c Differences between Certain of the North American Indian Tribes, as Shown by a Microscopical Study of Their Head Hair. Denver: State Historical Society 1935 Prehistoric Skeletal Remains of the Texas Coast. Globe, Arizona: Gila Pueblo. Woodbury, Richard B. 1993 60 Years of Southwestern Archaeology: A History of the Pecos Conference. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Woodbury, Nathalie F. S., and Richard B. Woodbury 1988 “Women of Vision and Wealth: Their Impact on Southwestern Anthropol- ogy.” In Reflections: Papers on Southwestern Culture History in Honor of Charles H. Lange, ed. Anne V. Poore, 45–56. Santa Fe: Papers of the Archaeological Society of New Mexico, vol. 14. Woodman, Jean Cady 1967 “Review: Polly Schaafsma (1966) Early Navaho Rock Painting and Carv- ing.” El Palacio 74(1): 47. Woods, Margaret S. 1935 “Talus Unit No. 1, Chetro Ketl.” U.S. National Park Service, Southwestern Monuments, Monthly Report for August, 144–46. 1937 “Talus Unit No. 1 at Chaco.” U.S. National Park Service, Southwestern Monu- ments, Monthly Report for October, 321–23. Woody, Thomas 1929 A History of Women’s Education in the United States. 2 vols. New York: Science Press. Wurtzburg, Susan J. 1994 “Down in the Field in Louisiana: An Historical Perspective on the Role of Women in Louisiana Archaeology.” In Women in Archaeology, ed. Cheryl Claassen, 120–37. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

322 | References Wylie, Alison 2001 “Doing Social Science as a Feminist: The Engendering of Archaeology.” In Feminism in Twentieth-Century Science, Technology, and Medicine, ed. Angela N. H. Creager, Elizabeth Lunbeck, and Londa Schiebinger, 23–45. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Yelm, Mary Elizabeth 1935a “Skull Deformities of the Cliff Dweller.”Mesa Verde Notes 6(1): 14–16. 1935b Archaeological Survey of Rocky Mountain National Park, Eastern Foothill District. Denver: University of Denver Press. 1938 “A Survey of Methods in Chronology.” New Mexico Anthropologist 2(4/5): 83. Yelm, Mary Elizabeth, and Ralph L. Beals 1934 Indians of the Park Region. Estes Park: Rocky Mountain Nature Associa- tion, Publication no. 2. Zeder, Melinda A. 1997 The American Archaeologists: A Profile. Walnut Creek CA: Altamira Press.

References | 323

Index

AAA. See American Anthropologi- 143–44; in the 1930s, 149–50, cal Association (AAA) 248–49; biases against women AAAS. See American Association obtaining, 254; challenges in for the Advancement of Science obtaining, 26–27, 255–56; delays (AAAS) in awarding of, 264; establish- academic employment: during ment of, 259–60; female to 1900 to 1925, 19; during the male ratios, 20. See also doctoral 1920s, 146–47; in the 1930s, degrees; master’s degrees 150; marginalization of women advancement discrimination. See in, 4, 273. See also employment promotional discrimination discrimination AIA. See Archaeological Institute of academic training. See university America (AIA) training Alabama archaeology, 164, 165 Academy of Natural Sciences Alameda (NM) pueblo, 188 (Philadelphia), 85, 198–99 An Album of Maya Architecture Academy of Natural Sciences (Proskouriakoff), 213 (Shreveport), 101, 102 Albuquerque (NM) High School accidental archaeologists, 71 Archaeological Society, 124 Adams, Edward Clarkson Leverett, Aldana, Barbara. See Kidder (de 75 Buse) (Aldana), Barbara Adcock, Julia Christine (Wimberly), Allen, Ruth. See Arntzen, Ruth 165 Miller (Allen) (Gregory) Adena (WV) culture sites, 154 all-female colleges. See women’s advanced degrees: between 1900 colleges and 1920, 94; in the 1920s, all-female crews, 105–6, 170, 188–89

325 Allyn, Harriett May, 139–40 Americanist sciences: margin- Alves, Eileen. See Windsor, Eileen alization of women in, 3–4; Emily (Alves) professionalization of, 270–71; amateur archaeologists: Charlotte women in, 270–74 and Thomas Hodges, 104–5; col- American Museum of Natural His- laboration with professionals by, tory (AMNH), 74, 83, 116 105, 109–10, 114, 160; Elizabeth American Paleolithic debate, 42–43 and William Campbell, 124–25; American Renaissance, 7–8, 258 Hattie and Burt Cosgrove, 78–81; American School for Prehistoric Jo and Bob Evans, 101–2; Marietta Research, 22 Palmer Wetherill, 52–53; profes- American School “new” anthropol- sionalization and, 14, 270–71 ogy, 91 American Anthropological Associa- AMNH (American Museum of tion (AAA), 18, 63, 64 Natural History), 83 American Anthropologist, 18 Anasazi pottery, 229 American Antiquity, 151 Ancestral Pueblo cultures, 48–49, American Association for the 54–55 Advancement of Science Ancient Men in North America (AAAS): Frederic Putnam and, (Wormington), 190, 191–92 15; women active in, 39, 41, 67; “The Ancient Ruins of Mexico” women fellows in, 42, 44, 49–50. (Foster), 55 See also Section H (AAAS) Andean archaeology, 47, 135–36, 215– American Association of University 16. See also Peruvian archaeology Professors (AAUP), 28 Andrews, Alfred Carleton, 233 American Folk-Lore Society, 39, Andrews, Dorothy. See Craighead, 59, 92 Dorothy (Andrews) American Indians. See First Angell, Marian (Godfrey) (Boyer), Americans 228 Americanist archaeology: from Annex. See Barnard College; Har- 1865 to 1900, 6–15; from 1900 vard Annex to 1925, 15–21; from 1925 to 1940, anthropological archaeology, 2 21–34; definition of, 1; develop- Anthropological Society of Wash- mental trajectory of, 2, 257–59; ington (ASW), 18, 261 invisibility of women in, 253; anthropology: American School, 91; professionalization of, 259–60; invisibility of women in, 253–54; structure of discipline, 255–56; participant observation, 38; pro- university training and, 14–15 fessionalization of, 14–15, 73, 259

326 | Index anthropology clubs, 17, 73 Ciudad site, 143; Menard (AR) Antiquities Act of 1906, 50, 65 site, 105; Montezuma’s Castle, Apperson, Phoebe (Hearst), 66–67 197; Snaketown, 123; Turkey Hill Appleton, Madeleine (Kidder), 26, pueblo, 121 81–82 Arizona State Museum, 245 applied anthropology, 38 Arkansas archaeology, 104 archaeobotanical research and Arntzen, Ruth Miller (Allen) analyses, 54–55, 176 (Gregory), 195–96 Archaeological Institute of America Arrow Rock (Hamilton), 175 (AIA), 39–40, 63, 64, 257 artifact collecting: by Alice Fer- archaeological methods and tech- guson, 160; by Anne King niques: Alice Le Plongeon’s, 46; Gregorie, 76; by Charlotte and Edgar Hewett’s, 179–80, 246; Thomas Hodges, 104–5; by Hat- Marietta Palmer (Wetherill), tie and Burt Cosgrove, 70; by 53; stratigraphic excavation Jo and Bob Evans, 102; by Maie techniques, 70. See also dating Bartlett (Heard), 142–43; by techniques Phoebe Hearst, 67; by Virginia Archaeological Survey Association McClurg, 60–63 of Southern California, 129 Ashley, Margaret Elizabeth (Towle), archaeological surveys, 86, 124–25, 99–100 166, 175 ASW. See Anthropological Society The Archaeology of Central and of Washington (ASW) South Honduras (Stone), 211 Athapaskan sites, 190 The Archaeology of New Jersey avocational archaeologists. See (Cross), 156 amateur archaeologists Archaeology of the North Coast of Awatovi (AZ) site, 80, 206–7 Honduras (Stone), 211 Axtell, Ann McCheane (Morris), Archeology as a Profession for Women 111–12 (Watkins), 23–24 Ayer, Gladys (Nomland), 218–19 archives. See museums Ayer, Mary. See Youngman, Mary Arctic civilizations, 127 (Ayer) Arizona archaeology: Awatovi site, Aztec culture, 45, 220 80, 206–7; Besh-ba-gowah exca- Aztec pueblo ruins (NM), 112 vations, 203–4; Casa Grande, 50, 56, 65; Gila Pueblo, 122–23; Babbitt, Frances Eliza, 42–43 Grand Gulch, 53; Kinishba field Bachman, Eleanor (Lothrop), 25, school, 195, 201, 226, 243; La 130–31, 266–68

Index | 327 BAE. See Bureau of American Eth- Bloom Mound (NM) site, 237 nology (BAE) Boas, Franz, 28, 99, 220, 271 Bailey, Alfred M., 192 Boisfeuillet, Marie Dolores H. Bailey, Gail. See Wellwood, Gail (Colquitt) (Floyd), 166–67 Jeanette (Bailey) (Kellum) Boissevain, Ethel (Lesser), 156–57 (Curtis) Bolivian archaeology, 47 Baird, Spencer, 49 Bopst, Jean. See Cady, Jean M. Balcony House (Mesa Verde), 60, (Bopst) (Woodman) 62 botanical analyses and research, Bandelier, Adolph Francis, 47 54–55, 176 Bandelier, Fanny. See Ritter, Fanny Boyd, Julia. See Spear, Julia Matilda (Bandelier) (Boyd) Barnard, Frederick A. P., 10 Boyer, Marian. See Angell, Marian Barnard, Helen. See Donovan, (Godfrey) (Boyer) Helen Virginia (Barnard) Bradfield, Wesley, 138 Barnard College, 9–12 Bragg, Laura Mary, 75–76 Barrow, Lucy Lumpkin (McIntire), Brand, Donald, 214 159 Brazilian archaeology, 222 Bartlett, Florence Dibell, 142–43 Brenner, Anita (Glusker), 219–20 Bartlett, Katharine, 117–18 Breton, Adela Catherine, 77–78 Bartlett, Maie (Heard), 142–43 Brew, J. O., 2, 80, 122, 207, 265 Barton, Rachel. See Warren, Rachel Brewer, Sallie. See Pierce, Sarah (Lothrop) (Barton) “Sallie” Louise (Brewer) (Van Basket Maker sites, 194–95 Valkenburgh) (Harris) Bayles, Edith Hill (Ricketson), 132–33 Brewster, Caroline “Carol” Wil- Beardsley, Gretchen A. (Obrecht), liams, 87–88 175–76 Brinton, Daniel, 46 Beauregard, Donald, 90 Brown, Eleanor “Brownie” (Pack) Beloit College, 162 (Hibben), 182–83 Berkeley trait list studies, 126, 137 Brown, Theodora. See Kracaw, Besh-ba-gowah (AZ) excavations, Theodora (Brown) (Kroeber) 203–4 (Quinn) “Big Bend Mesa” (Keur), 117 Bryn Mawr, 127 Black, Flora. See Snyder, Flora Bullard, Mary. See Ricketson, Mary (Black) (Bullard) black archaeologists, 165, 167 Bullard, William Rotch, Jr., 133 Bloom, Carol L., 232 Bull Creek (GA) site, 166

328 | Index Burch, Kathryn (Greywacz), 156 ceramics: Madeleine Kidder on, 82; Bureau of American Ethnology Mesoamerican, 138–39; Mimbres (BAE), 4, 50, 68, 81, 261–62 pottery, 242; Pecos pottery, 139; Bureau of Ethnology. See Bureau of pre-Columbian, 222–23 American Ethnology (BAE) Cerro Sechin (Peru) site, 218 Burgess, Edward Sanford, 31, 116, Chaco Canyon (NM) field school, 265 123; Digs (student journal) of, Burrill, Elizabeth. See Didcoct, 184; discriminatory practices Elizabeth “Betty” (Burrill) (training) at, 265; dress code Butchart, Linda (Roberts), 112 at, 240–41; Florence Hawley Butler, Eva. See Lutz, Eva (Butler) at, 115–16; lithic analyis by, 239; Butler, Mary (Lewis), 86, 153–54 Marietta Palmer (Wetherill) at, Butler, Sylvester Benjamin, 157 53; participation of women in, 23, 178. See also Chetro Ketl (NM) Caddoan culture, 101, 102, 104 field school Cady, Jean M. (Bopst) (Woodman), Chaco Digital Research Archives, 223–24 246 Cahokia (IL) site, 171 Challis, Dorothy (Mott), 201 Caldwell, Mary. See Higgs, Mary Chamberlain, Nan. See Glenn, Nan Katherine (Caldwell) Ashton (Chamberlain) California archaeology, 125, 142 Chamberlin, Sarah Adelaide (Law), Campbell, Elizabeth. See Crozer, 142 Elizabeth Warder (Campbell) Chapman, Charlotte. See Gower, Campbell, Helen, 144–45 Charlotte Day (Chapman) Campbell, William Henry, 124 Chavin culture, 218, 219 “Camp Life in New Mexico” (Nel- chemical analyses, 138 son), 83 Chetro Ketl (NM) field school, 53, Canyon de Chelly (NM), 48 114–15, 117, 144–45, 206. See also Carnegie Institution of Washington Chaco Canyon (NM) field school (CIW), 47, 132 Chichen Itza (Mexico), 45–46, 112 Carr, Malcolm (Collier), 229–30 Chilcote, Martha. See McNary, Mar- Casa Grande (AZ), 50, 56, 65 tha (Wilson) (Chilcote) Cattell, Maria G., 3–4 child-rearing obligations, 174 ceramic analyses: and chemical Chute, Ruth. See Sears, Ruth (Chute) analyses, 114; petrological, 122– Civil War, 1–2, 7, 257 23, 138–39; taxonomy system for, CIW. See Carnegie Institution of 122; at Uaxactun (Guatemala), 133 Washington (CIW)

Index | 329 Claassen, Cheryl, 33 Colorado Cliff Dwelling Associa- Clark, Barbara Palmer (McKnight), tion, 61–64 232 Colorado Museum of Natural Clarke, Eleanor Parker, 201–2 History. See Denver Museum of Clarke, Harriet. See Maxwell, Har- Natural History riet Arnot (Clarke) (Converse) Colorado Scientific Exploring Clarke, Joan. See Howson, Joan Expedition, 50–51 (Clarke) Colquitt, Dolores. See Boisfeuil- classical archaeology, 2, 14–15, 257 let, Marie Dolores H. (Colquitt) Clement, Catherine Allison (With- (Floyd) ers) (Paulsen), 216 Colton, Harold Sellers, 86 Clews, Elsie Worthington (Par- Colton, Mary-Russell. See Ferrell, sons), 91–92 Mary-Russell (Colton) Cliff Dwellers culture, 56, 80 Columbia Annex. See Barnard Cline, Florence (Lister), 24–25, 115, College 146, 266–68 Columbian Exposition (1893), 44, clothing standards, 240–41 50, 56, 59 Coahuila (Mexico) excavations, 40 Columbia University, 127; disserta- Codex Magliabecchiano, 45 tion publication requirement Cody, Bertha. See Parker (Pallan) at, 26–27, 107, 117, 152; doctoral (Thurston) (Cody), Bertha A. degrees at, 247; field schools, Cody, Iron Eyes, 128–29 175; and increases in female cohort effect, 5, 274–76 students, 22; professionalization Cole, Fay-Cooper: acceptance of of anthropology by, 271. See also women students by, 32, 106, 155, Barnard College 265; field school requirement of, comparative cultural studies, 137 103, 169–70; Madeline Kneberg Concord Summer School of Phi- (Lewis) and, 162 losophy, 12 Colima (Mexico) sites, 212, 214–15 Conference on Southern Pre-His- Collier, Donald, 229–30 tory (1932), 101 Collier, Ellen Sewall (Spinden), 30, Connolly, Florence McKeever 131–32 (Shipek), 198 Collier, Malcolm. See Carr, Mal- Conrad, Edith (Sage), 232–33 colm (Collier) Converse, Harriet. See Maxwell, Colorado archaeology, 190, 193, Harriet Arnot (Clarke) (Converse) 194–95. See also Mesa Verde Coordinate college system. See Har- (CO) vard Annex

330 | Index Copley, Mary Sibbet (Thaw), 65–66 Dall, William Cranch Healey, 70 Cordell, Linda, 97 Daniel, Glyn, 2 Cornell University, 273 Daniels, Helen Sloan, 194–95 Cosgrove, Cornelius Burton, Jr., dating techniques, 114–15, 125, 159, 78–80, 109–10 173, 179–80, 243 Cosgrove, Harriet. See Silliman, Davenport (IA) Academy of Natural Harriet Lovejoy (Cosgrove) Sciences, 54, 57–58 Cox, Carol, 194 Davis, Dorothy Penrose “Penny” Coyocan (Mexcio) excavations, 45 (Worman), 206–7 Craighead, Dorothy (Andrews), 233 Davis, Emily Cleveland, 121 Crane, Ann. See Kent (Crane), Ann Davis, Hester Ashmead, 207–8 Creek Shinholser (GA) site, 99 Davison, Lucy Evelyn (Peabody), Cross, Dorothy (Jensen), 25, 33, 106, 61–63 154–56 Deacon, Desley, 92 Crozer, Elizabeth Warder (Camp- Dean, Emma (Powell), 50–51 bell), 124–25 De Buse, Barbara. See Kidder (de cultural comparative methods, 126 Buse) (Aldana), Barbara cultural contexts: from 1865 to DeCorti, Espera “Oscar,” 128–29 1900, 15, 258; from 1900 to degrees, delays in awarding, 144, 1920, 16, 259–61; in the 1920s, 151–52 145–47, 260–61; affect on job De Laguna, Frederica Annis Lopez opportunities, 26; and barriers de Leo, 25, 126–27, 263 to recognition, 4–5; and stereo- Delaware Project, 156 types, 251, 270 dendrochronology, 114–15, 159, 173, 243 Cummings, Byron: allowing Denver Museum of Natural His- women to excavate, 93; treat- tory, 190, 191–92 ment of female students by, 31, Depression, 32–33 97, 113, 265; and women in field Desmond, Lawrence, 46 schools, 195 De Soto Commission, 166 Curtis, Gail. See Wellwood, Gail Jea- Dick, Shirley. See Kretschmer, Shir- nette (Bailey) (Kellum) (Curtis) ley W. (Dick) Cushing, Frank, 38, 51–52, 67 Dickey, Janet. See Woods, Janet Cutter, Gretchen Froehlich (Sharp), McCleery (Dickey) 172–73 Dickey, Parke Atherton, 205 Dall, Caroline. See Healey, Caroline Didcoct, Elizabeth “Betty” (Bur- Wells (Dall) rill), 233

Index | 331 Dietz, Ann. See Espe (Dietz), Ann A. dress code standards, 240–41 Digging in the Southwest (Morris), Duncan, Mary Louisa (Putnam), 112 57–58 Digging in Yucatan (Morris), 112 Dunlevy, Marion Lucile (Heimlich), Digs (student journal), 184 164 discrimination: biases result- Durango (CO) sites, 194–95 ing in, 254; present day, Dutton, Bertha Pauline, 180–81 254–55; in promotion, 20. See also Dzuback, Mary Ann, 149 employment discrimination; Eastern California Museum, 141–42 financial discrimination; train- Eastwood, Alice, 54 ing discrimination Ebihara, May, 274 dissertations: costs of publication, Eck, Pauline. See Vonnegut, Pauline 117; publication requirements, (Eck) 26, 107, 144, 152, 256 economic status of women, 1–2, 15 divorce, 132, 146, 266 educational opportunities: during Dixon, Alice (Le Plongeon), 45–46 Dixon, Roland B., 32 1865 to 1900, 8; from 1900 to doctoral degrees: between 1900 1925, 15–16, 19–20; Annex, 9–12; and 1920, 94; in the 1920s, arguments against, 8–9; and 143–44; in the 1930s, 150, 247, marginalization of women, 4 248–49; challenges in obtaining, Effigy Mound culture, 162 26–27; delays in awarding, 26–27, Eggan, Frederick Russell, 170 144, 151–52; women discouraged Eggan, Olive S. (Redfield), 169–70 from obtaining, 247 Elliott, Helen Elizabeth, 233–34 doctoral dissertations. See Ellis, Bruce T., 115 dissertations Ellis, Florence. See Hawley, Flor- Donaghe, Mary Virginia (McClurg), ence May (Senter) (Ellis) 60–63 El Paso Archaeological Society, Donovan, Helen Virginia (Bar- 109–10 nard), 167–68 El Paso (TX) surveys, 80 Dormon, Caroline Coroneos, El Tajin (Mexico) site, 132 100–101, 102 employment discrimination: in aca- Dorrance, Frances, 97–98 demia, 147, 152–53, 250, 256, 264; double standards, 29–30, 31–33 in government, 271–73; WPA Douglass, Andrew Ellicott, 114 policies, 203–4 Dowd, Margaret. See Murry, Marga- employment opportunities: in the ret Whiting (Shaeffer) (Dowd) 1930s, 152–53; in acadamia, 19;

332 | Index advanced degrees and, 27; the fellowships: Alice L. L. Ferguson Depression and, 32–33; general Memorial, 160; dependency education teaching, 7–8; lack on, 27–28, 263; Guggenheim of, 1920s, 146; in museums, 24; Fellowship, 136; Hemenway fel- Vassar alumnae survey of, 16; lowship, 65; Institute of Andean war and, 1–2 Research, 221; Mary Copley environmental archaeology, 125 Thaw Fellowship, 38; Thaw Erford, Florence “Flossy” D. (Sun- Fellowship, 65–66; Whitney Fel- derland), 209–10 lowship, 131 Espe, Ann A. (Dietz), 130 Ferguson, Alice. See Lowe, Alice ethnobotanical research, 176, 185 Leczinska (Ferguson) ethnocentrism, 257 Ferguson, Henry Gardiner, 160 ethnography, 144, 235 Ferguson, Marjorie Elizabeth ethnohistory, 174, 176–77 (Tichy) (Lambert), 32, 177–80, ethnology, 146, 249 265 Etowah (GA) site, 99–100 Ferguson Fellowship, 160 Evans, Cecelia Maria (Sowers), Ferrell, Mary-Russell (Colton), 86 193–94 Fewkes, Vladimir J., 165, 226 Evans, Clifford, 18 Field, Ethelyn. See Hobbs, Ethelyn Evans, Edith. See Selene, Edith G. (Field) (Nelson) Gertrude (Evans) field archaeology: between 1865 and Evans, Jo. See Nichols, Jo (Evans) 1900, 6–7, 15, 37–57, 71; between Evans, Matilda “Tilly” Coxe (Ste- 1900 and 1920, 17–18, 75–85, 93; venson), 4, 38, 39, 48–50, 261 household arts and, 251–53 field archaeology (1920s), 259–61; Evans, Thomas Horace, 98–99 in Latin America, 129–37; in the excavation methodology and tech- Midwest, 103–8; in the Northeast, niques, 46, 70, 179–80 97–99; in the Southeast, 99–102; Eyer, Neola A., 234 in the Southwest, 108–24; on the Fairbank, Nora. See MacCurdy, West Coast, 124–29 Nora (Gladwin) (Fairbank) field archaeology (1930s), 260–61, Federal Emergency Relief Adminis- 269; in Latin America, 210–21; tration (FERA). See WPA (Works in the Midwest, 169–77; in the Progress Administration) Northeast, 153–61; in the South- federal government employment. east, 161–69; in the Southwest, See government employment 177–208; on the West Coast, Fellows, Muriel H., 234 208–10

Index | 333 Field Museum of Natural History, Hester (Fisher) 171–72, 228–29 Fisher, Reginald Gilbert, 242 field schools: during the 1920s, 95, Fisher (IL) site, 172 96–97; at Jemez (NM), 169, 178, Fitzgerald, Betty. See Murphey, Sarah 232; at Kinishba (AZ), 195, 201, Elizabeth “Betty” (Fitzgerald) 226, 243; padding participants Fitzpatrick, Ellen, 19 numbers by, 246; at Pecos (NM), Fletcher, Alice Cunningham, 37–40, 23–24, 82, 84. See also Chaco 44, 65 Canyon (NM) field school; Flinn, Marjorie Cramer (Maclure), Chetro Ketl (NM) field school 234–35 financial discrimination, 262–63; Flora, Isaiah “Zeke,” 195 in academia, 21, 97, 115, 116, Floyd, Dolores. See Boisfeuillet, 147, 256; in government, 50; in Marie Dolores H. (Colquitt) museums, 180 (Floyd) financial supporters, ix; between Floyd, Marmaduke Hamilton, 166–67 1865 and 1900, 59, 64–65, Folsom culture, 118 65–66, 71–72; between 1900 and Ford, James, 102 1920, 21, 86–93, 92, 94; in the Forsberg, Helen Mildred, 196 1920s, 124–25; Frederic Ward Fort Hill Indian Memorial Associa- Putnam, 15; inequalities in, 4, tion, 158 32–33; preservation funding, 38, Foster, Gene Field, 118 160; in social context, 258. See Foster, Mary. See McFerson, Mary also fellowships Parke (Foster) First Americans: Iowa tribe culture, Fowler, Catherine “Kay” Sweeney, 174; Iroquois culture, 68, 69; 181 Middle Ouachita culture, 105; Foy, Mary Emily, 89 Navaho culture, 117, 186–87, 229– Frankforter, Weldon, 209–10 30; Nez Perce culture, 38; Omaha Fraps, Clara Lee (Tanner), 31, 97, tribe, 38; Otoe tribe, 174; Papago 112–13 Indian culture, 81, 235; Pawnee Fraser, Dorothy Electa, 175 culture, 107; Pima Indian culture, French-Sheldon, Mary, 6–7 81, 235; Seneca tribe, 69; Sewee Frey, Elizabeth (Betty), 169–70 tribe, 76; Ute tribe, 61 Frijoles Canyon (NM). See Rito de los First Americans archaeologists, Frijoles 127–29, 179 The Fundamental Principles of Old First World War, 1–2, 20, 259–60 and New World Civilization (Nut- Fisher, Grace. See Robinson, Grace tall), 45

334 | Index Funk, Esther, 185 Glusker, Anita. See Brenner Furness-Mitchell Coterie, 59 (Glusker), Anita Goddard, Sara Anne, 123–24 Galisteo basin (NM), 83 Godfrey, Marian. See Angell, Mar- Gamio, Manuel, 45, 220 ian (Godfrey) (Boyer) Garrard, Frances Isabel (Patterson), Goell, Theresa B., 33 165–66 Gayton, Anna Hadwick (Spier), 135 Gornick, Vivian, 273 Geller, Virginia. See Ross, Virginia government employment, 198, 257, Louise (Geller) 263, 271–73. See also National gender archaeology, 251, viii Park Service (NPS); Works Prog- geographic specializations, 25 ress Administration (WPA) Georgia archaeology: at Bull Creek Gower, Charlotte Day (Chapman), (GA) site, 166; at Creek Shinhol- 22, 27, 103–4 ser (GA) site, 99; at Etowah (GA) graduate training. See advanced site, 99–100; at Irene Mound degrees; training (GA) site, 158–59, 166, 167 Grand Gulch (AZ), 53 Ghost Ranch museum, 116 Great Plains side-scrapers, 193 Gila Polychrome ceramics, 114 Gregorie, Anne King, 75, 76–77 Gila Pueblo (AZ), 122–23 Gregory, Hiram Ford, Jr., 102 Gila Pueblo Archaeological Foun- Gregory, Ruth. See Arntzen, Ruth dation, 200 Miller (Allen) (Gregory) Gila River archaeology, 244–45 Greywacz, Kathryn. See Burch, Gilbert, Hope Elizabeth, 235 Kathryn (Greywacz) Gilded Age, 7–8, 258 Griffin, James Bennett, 30–31, 160, Gilkyson, Phoebe. See Hunter, 170 Phoebe Underwood (Gilkyson) Guadalupe caves project, 199 Gillmor, Frances, 235 Guatemalan archaeology, 82, 134, Girl Scout camps, 181 154, 213, 217 Gladwin, Harold Sterling, 25–26, Guenther, Linda. See Young, 122–23, 200 Mayme Linda (Guenther) Gladwin, Nora. See MacCurdy, Guernsey, Isabel Hannah, 221 Nora (Gladwin) (Fairbank) Guggenheim Fellowship, 136 Gladwin, Winifred. See Jones, Win- Gunst, Marie L. (Lawther), 235–36 ifred (MacCurdy) (Gladwin) Guthe, Carl Eugen, 22–23, 101 Glenn, Nan Ashton (Chamberlain), Gypsum Cave (NV), 128 184–85 gypsy scholars, 256

Index | 335 Hagberg, Elizabeth Boies (Lewis), Hawley, Fred, 114 236 Hayden, Mary Jane (Nichols), Hamilton, Henry William, 174–75 236–37 Hamilton, Jean. See Tyree, Mary Healey, Caroline Wells (Dall), 49, Eugenia “Jean” (Hamilton) 69–70 Hammond, John Hays, 63–64 Heard, Dwight Bancroft, 142–43 Hammond, Natalie. See Lum, Nata- Heard, Maie. See Bartlett, Maie lie Harris (Hammond) (Heard) Hanna, Murel. See Warmoth, Murel Heard Museum, 143 M. (Hanna) Hearn, Katherine. See Young, Kath- Harding, Mabel Virginia, 119, 208 erine Burks (Hearn) Harrington, Carobeth. See Tucker Hearst, George, 66 (Harrington) (Laird), Carobeth Hearst, Phoebe. See Apperson, Harrington, John P., 4 Phoebe (Hearst) Harrington, Mark R., 108, 128 Heidel, Hulda. See Hobbs, Hulda Harris, Sallie. See Pierce, Sarah Ruth (Heidel) “Sallie” Louise (Brewer) (Van Heimlich, Marion. See Dunlevy, Valkenburgh) (Harris) Marion Lucile (Heimlich) Harvard Annex, 8, 9–12, 10–14, 15, Heitman, Carrie C., 246 22 Hemenway, Mary. See Tileston, Harvard Anthropological Society, Mary Porter (Hemenway) 17 Hemenway Archaeological Collec- Harvard Excavator’s Club, 207 tion, 52 Harvard University, 22; anthropol- Hemenway Southwestern Archaeo- ogy program at, 17, 73; doctoral logical Expedition (1886–1894), degrees awarded by, 247; female 65 graduate students at, 3, 22, 74; Henderson, Alice. See Palmer (Hen- tenure system of, 28; women’s derson), Alice E. participation in fieldwork of, 73. Hendrick (Robinson), Alice Stuart, See also Harvard Annex; Pea- 163–64 body Museum Henry, Leonard W., 219 Harvey, Doris Louise (Wooton), 236 Herrman, Esther. See Mendels, Haury, Emil Walter, 52, 121 Esther (Herrman) Haury, Hulda. See Penner, Hulda Hewett, Donizetta. See Jones, Esther (Haury) Donizetta Adelaide (Wood) Hawley, Florence May (Senter) (Hewett) (Ellis), 24–25, 27, 36, 113–16, 173 Hewett, Edgar Lee: Anna Shepard

336 | Index and, 138; and attitude toward Hohokam Museums Association, women, 75, 178, 245–47; dis- 202 sertation of, 87–88, 187; double Hollenbach, Marion Grace (Saun- standards of, 31–32; excavation ders), 189–90 techniques of, 179–80; financial Hollywood, use of archaeologists supporters of, 89–90; Florence in, 128–29 Hawley Ellis and, 27; and pad- Holmes, Elizabeth “Betty” ding of field school numbers, (Huscher) (Bachman), 190–91 23, 96–97; two-level training Honduran archaeology, 134, 211 programs of, 265 Hooton, Earnest A., 30, 96, 244 Hibben, Eleanor. See Brown, Elea- Hopi culture, 81, 86 nor “Brownie” (Pack) (Hibben) Horner, Eva May, 105–6 Hibben, Frank Cummings, 183 Horsford, Cornelia Conway Felton, Higginson, Thomas Wentworth, 41–42 10–12 Horsford, Eben Norton, 41 Higgs, Mary Katherine (Caldwell), housework comparisons, 251–53, 262 237 Howard, Edgar B., 199 Hill, Gertrude Frances (Muir), 223 Howe, Gertrude Dexter, 238 Himes, Jessie May, 87–88 Howson, Joan (Clarke), 177 Hindman, Sarah Elizabeth, 237 Hubbard, Susan. See Kent, Susan hiring discrimination. See employ- (Hubbard) ment discrimination Hudson Valley Archaeological historical archaeology, 98, 174 Survey, 154 historical societies, 74 Hughes, Dorothy K. (Popenoe), 134 History of Women’s Education in the Huning, Lolita (Pooler), 188–89 United States (Woody), 19, 20 Hunter, Phoebe Underwood Hobbs, Ethelyn G. (Field) (Nelson), (Gilkyson), 160–61 82–83 husband-wife teams, 268; financially Hobbs, Hulda Ruth (Heidel), 16, supporting husband, 188; Frances 181–82, 258–59 and Sylvanus Morley, 130; wife Hodge, Frederick, 17 as invisible contributor to, 49, 51, Hodge, Margaret. See Magill, Mar- 74, 82, 122–23, 126, 132, 163, 183, garet Whitehead (Hodge) 188, 261–62, 273; wives’ duties in, Hodges, Charlotte. See Mikulus, 25–26, 121. See also marriage Charlotte (Hodges) Huscher, Betty. See Holmes, Hodges, Thomas Luther, 104–5 Elizabeth “Betty” (Huscher) Hohokam culture, 52, 143 (Bachman)

Index | 337 Hutchinson, Elizabeth, 16 Jensen, Dorothy. See Cross, Doro- Hutchinson, Marion (Tschopik), thy (Jensen) 215–16 job opportunities. See employment Hutchinson, Ruth, 16 opportunities Johnson, Eleanor Hope, 92–93 Illinois archaeology, 169–70, 171, Jones, Courtney. See Reeder, Court- 172 ney (Jones) Illinois State Museum, 172 Jones, Donizetta Adelaide (Wood) “Indian dens,” 16–17, 258–59 (Hewett), 90–91 Indian Survey of Pennsylvania Jones, Lydia Hayes (Trowbridge), (1927), 98 140–41 industrialization, growth of, 8 Institute of Andean Research fel- Jones, Sara Julia (Tucker), 176–77 lowship, 221 Jones, Winifred (MacCurdy) (Glad- International Congress of Ameri- win), 25–26, 122–23, 200, 262 canists (1902), 77 journalists, 55–57, 60–63, 120–21, International Directory of Anthro- 160–61, 258, 269 pologists 151 Journal of American Ethnology and Introduction to the Archaeology of Archaeology, 65 Costa Rica (Stone), 211 Journal of American Folk-Lore, 91 “Invisible Hands” (Powell), 251 Judson, Harry Pratt, 19 Iowa archaeology, 173 Jury of Awards for Ethnology, 59 Iowa tribe culture, 174 Kaminaljuyu (Guatemala), 82 Irene Mound (GA) site, 158–59, 166, Kehoe, Alice, 2 167 Keith, Margaret. See Woods, Marga- Iroquois culture, 68, 69 ret Soutter (Keith) Irwin, Margaret Constance, 230–31 Kelley, Harper “Pat,” 191 Irwin-Williams, Cynthia, 2, 25–26, Kellum, Gail. See Wellwood, Gail 112, 262 Jeanette (Bailey) (Kellum) The Islands of Titicaca and Koati (Curtis) (Bandelier), 47 Kelly, A. R., 166 Jantzen, Mildred Itter, 222 Kelly, Isabel Truesdell, 211–12 Jefferson County (NY) Historical Kelly, Julia. See Schatz, Julia Doro- Association, 227 thea (Kelly) Jemez (NM) field school, 169, 178, Kelly, William Henderson, 200– 232 201 Jenks, Albert E., 242 Kendel, Elizabeth Hay(e)s, 88

338 | Index Kent, Ann (Crane), 204–5 Kroeber, Alfred, 29, 91, 135–36, 137, Kent, Edward G., 204 211–12, 265 Kent, Kate. See Peck, Kate Stott Kroeber, Theodora. See Kracaw, Theo- (Kent) dora (Brown) (Kroeber) (Quinn) Kent, Susan (Hubbard), 204–5 Kuaua pueblo (NM), 186 Keur, Dorothy. See Strouse, Dorothy Laboratory of Anthropology (Santa Louise (Keur) Fe), 97, 105–6, 109, 211 Kidder, Alfred Vincent: Cosgroves Lacey’s Antiquities Act of 1906. See and, 79–80; Madeleine Appleton Antiquities Act of 1906 (Kidder) and, 81–82; Pecos pot- La Ciudad (AZ) site, 143 tery analysis by, 139; and Tatiana LaFarge, Christopher Grant, 92 Proskouriakoff, 213; on women Laird, Carobeth. See Tucker, Caro- in fieldwork, 29, 32, 105, 265 Kidder, Barbara (de Buse) (Aldana), beth (Harrington) (Laird) 26, 82, 134 La Jolla culture, 208 Kidder, Madeleine. See Appleton, Lake Mojave (CA) assemblages, 125 Madeleine (Kidder) Lake Pelican (MN) site, 99 Kingman, Betty. See Yelm, Mary Lambert, Marjorie. See Ferguson, Elizabeth “Betty” (Kingman) Marjorie Elizabeth (Tichy) Kingman, Eugene, 193 (Lambert) Kinishba (AZ) field school, 195, 201, Lane, Margaret Eleanor (Young), 226, 243 238–39 kiva murals, 206–7 Lange, Charles, 47 Kluckhohn, Clyde, 200 Latady, Margaret Robertson, 239 Kneberg, Madeline Dorothy Late Pleistocene era, 42 (Lewis), 161–63 Latin American archaeology, 181; in Knipe, Dorothy. See Stoddard, the 1920s, 129–37; in the 1930s, Dorothy A. (Knipe) 210–21; Sitio Conte (Panama), 131; Knipe, Frederic O., 242–43 Uaxactun (Guatemala), 133 Knox, Lucy Perry, 220–21 Law, Adelaide. See Chamberlin, Kober, Alice Elizabeth, 238 Sarah Adelaide (Law) Kohler, Marie Christine, 141 Lawther, Marie. See Gunst, Marie L. Kohlstedt, Sally Gregory, 270–74 (Lawther) Kracaw, Theodora (Brown) (Kroe- leadership roles: in excavations, 124, ber) (Quinn), 126, 136–37 155–56, 158–59, 172, 179, 186, 206; Kretschmer, Shirley W. (Dick), 238 in museums and universities, 39; in Krieger, Alex, 105 professional organizations, 39, 58

Index | 339 lecturers, 37–40, 48 Lothrop, Rachel. See Warren, legislation, 39 Rachel (Lothrop) (Barton) Lehmer, Donald, 26, 187–88 Lothrop, Samuel Kirkland, Jr., Lehmer, Mary. See Scanlan, Mary 83–84, 130–31 (Lehmer) Louisiana Archaeological Society, Leinau, Alice (McMahon), 239 101 Leon, Nicolas, 48 Louisiana archaeology, 100–101, Le Plongeon, Alice. See Dixon, Alice 101–2 (Le Plongeon) Louisiana Purchase Exposition Le Plongeon, Augustus, 45–46 (1904), 56 Lesser, Alexander, 106–7 Lowe, Alice Leczinska (Ferguson), Lesser, Ethel. See Boissevain, Ethel 159–60 (Lesser) low status positions, 4, 28, 146–47, Lesser, Gene. See Weltfish, Regina 256 “Gene” (Lesser) Luhrs, Dorothy Louise, 185–86 Levine, Mary Ann, 3, 25, 139, 269 Lum, Natalie Harris (Hammond), Lewis, Elizabeth. See Hagberg, Eliza- 63–64 beth Boies (Lewis) Lummis, Charles, 89 Lewis, Madeline. See Kneberg, Mad- Lurie, Nancy, 2–3, 6–7 eline Dorothy (Lewis) Lutz, Eva (Butler), 157–58 Lewis, Mary. See Butler, Mary (Lewis) Lewis, Thomas M. N., 162–63 MacCurdy, Nora (Gladwin) (Fair- Leyden plaque discovery, 130 bank), 123 librarianship, 196, 215, 249 MacCurdy, Winifred. See Jones, Lippincott, Sallie. See Wagner, Sarah Winifred (MacCurdy) (Gladwin) “Sallie” R. (Lippincott) Maclure, Marjorie. See Flinn, Mar- Lippincott, William J., 200 jorie Cramer (Maclure) Lister, Florence. See Cline, Florence MacPherson, Julia. See Wirt, Julia (Lister) Judson (MacPherson) Little Falls quartz tools, 42 Madisonville (OH), 40 Long Island (NY) excavations, 98 Magill, Margaret Whitehead Loomis, Barbara H. L. (Woodward), (Hodge), 51–52 216–17 Mahoney, Esther. See Newberg, Los Angeles County Museum, 189, Esther (Mahoney) 217 maiden names, 128, 156, 173 Lothrop, Eleanor. See Bachman, Malba (NY) excavations, 98 Eleanor (Lothrop) male colleagues: and attitudes

340 | Index toward women, 29–33, 96, McCready, Delphine Bosworth, 211–12, 246–47, 253–55; dis- 239–40, 241 couragement of women by, McCreery, Jane Honour (Schaps), 207–8, 265; opportunities open 217–18 to, compared to women, 249–50; McEvoy, Mary. See Whittemore, present day, 254–55; as support- Mary (McEvoy) ers of women, 15 McFerson, Mary Parke (Foster), 55 Mancos Canyon. See Mesa Verde McGee, Anita. See Newcomb, Anita (CO) (McGee) marriage: as barrier to academic McGee, William John, 56, 68 employment, 150; as barrier McGrath, Ana Mae (Martin), 202 to training, 96, 265; careers McIntire, Lucy. See Barrow, Lucy and, 127, 153, 184; child-rearing Lumpkin (McIntire) obligations, 174; as entry into McKnight, Barbara. See Clark, Bar- archaeology, 25, 146, 266–68. See bara Palmer (McKnight) also husband-wife teams McLean, Roy James, 93 Martin, Ana. See McGrath (Martin), McMahon, Alice. See Leinau Ana Mae (McMahon), Alice Martin, Paul S., 229 McNary, James Graham, 87 Mary Copely Thaw Fellowship, 38 McNary, Martha (Wilson) (Chil- Mason, John Alden, 154 cote), 87 master’s degrees: in the 1920s, McNary, Ruth. See Raynolds, Ruth 143–44; in the 1930s, 247, 248–49 (McNary) Maxwell, Harriet Arnot (Clarke) McWhirt, Martha Jean (Pinkley), (Converse), 69 225–26 Mayan archaeology: in the 1920s, Menard (AR) site, 105 130–34; in the 1930s, 213; Adela Mendels, Esther (Herrman), 70–71 Breton and, 77–78; Alice Dixon Mesa Verde (CO): Betty Yelm and, (Le Plongeon) and, 45–46; Pie- 193; legislation on, 39, 49–50, dras Negras (Guatemala) site, 154 64; museum at, 225–26; and Pea- Mayhall, Mary. See Pickle, Mary body Museum, 61–63; Virginia Mildred (Mayhall) McClurg at, 60–63; Wetherill McCann, Catherine Josephine, excavations of, 54 158–59 Mesoamerican archaeology. See McClatchy, Vivienne Robison, 93 Latin American archaeology McClurg, Mary. See Donaghe, Mary Mesoamerican ceramics, 138–39 Virginia (McClurg) Messenger, Phyllis, 46

Index | 341 Mexican archaeology: Chichen Morris, Ann. See Axtell, Ann Itza (Mexico), 45–46, 112; McCheane (Morris) Coahuila (Mexico) excavations, Morris, Earl Halstead, 111–12, 194–95 40; Colima (Mexico) sites, 212, Morris, Scott N., 61, 111 214–15; Coyocan (Mexcio) exca- Morton (IL) site excavations, vations, 45; El Tajin (Mexico) 169–70 site, 132; Michoacán (Mexico) Mott, Dorothy. See Challis, Dorothy site, 214; Teotihuacan (Mexico), (Mott) 44; Uxmal (MX), 45–46 Mott, Mildred Ingram (Wedel), Michoacán (Mexico) site, 214 173–74 Middle American Research Insti- mound builders culture, 37–38, tute, 210 75–76, 99–100, 162, 171, 173 Middle Ouachita culture, 105 Mount Holyoke College, 139–40 Midvale, Frank, 143 movie consulting, 129 Midwest archaeology: during the Mueser, Edith Aurie (Miller), 241 1920s, 103–8; in the 1930s, 169– Muir, Gertrude. See Hill, Gertrude 77; Spiro Mound (OK) site, 175 Frances (Muir) Mikulus, Charlotte (Hodges), 104–5 Murdock Mound (IL) site, 171, 172 Miles, Carolyn Mildred (Osborne), Murphey, Sarah Elizabeth “Betty” 213–14 (Fitzgerald), 186–87 Miller, Dorothy, 170 Murray, Margaret, 21 Miller, Mamie. See Tanquist, Mamie Murry, Margaret Whiting (Shaeffer) Ruth Eunice (Miller) (Dowd), 226–27 Mimbres culture, 79, 138, 242 Museo Nacional (Mexico), 44 Minnesota Academy of Sciences, 38 Museum of International Folk Art, Minnesota archaeology, 99 143 Missouri Archaeological Society Museum of Northern Arizona, 86, (MAS), 174–75 118 Moffatt, Sara (Schenck), 125–26 museums: as appropriate for Monks Mound (IL) site, 171 women, 24, 75, 262; as avenue Monongahela culture, 154 into archaeology, 74; discrimina- Montezuma’s Castle (AZ), 197 tory practices in, 264 Morley, Alice. See Williams, Alice museums, women associated with: Gallinger (Morley) (Espe) between 1865 and 1900, 57–59, Morley, Frances. See Rhoads, Fran- 71–72; between 1900 and 1920, ces Louella (Morley) 85–86, 93–94; in the 1920s, Morley, Sylvanus G., 129–30 141–43; in the 1930s, 221–31

342 | Index My Experiences as a Field Archeolo- New Mexico archaeology: Aztec gist (Watkins), 23–24 pueblo ruins, 112; Bloom Mound site, 237; Canyon de Chelly, names: difficulties in research, 48; Galisteo basin, 83; Kuaua 173; married names, 35–37, 128, pueblo, 186; Otowi, 78; Pueblo 197–98; personal referents, Bonito, 53; Puye excavations, 35–37; pseudonyms, 55, 90; pub- 89, 91; Rio de los Frijoles site, lishing under initials, 50, 85, 192, 89–90; Rito de los Frijoles 261; surnames, vii–viii site, 92; Sandia excavations, Narragansett (RI) sites, 157 239; Treasure Hill, 79; Tunque National Academy of Sciences, 127 pueblo, 124. See also University national parks, creation of, 61–63 of New Mexico National Park Service (NPS), 193, newspaper correspondents. See 197, 225–26, 236–37 journalists National Research Council (NRC), Nez Perce culture, 38 151, 156, 227 Nichols, Edward “Tad” Tattnall, Native Americans. See First 236–37 Americans Nichols, Jo (Evans), 101–2 native informants, use of, 68 Nichols, Mary Jane. See Hayden, Navaho culture, 117, 186–87, 229–30 Mary Jane (Nichols) Nazca (Peru) culture, 135, 137 Nomland, Gladys. See Ayer, Gladys Nebraska archaeology, 209–10 (Nomland) Neild, Edward Fairfax, 102 nontenured positions, 28, 34, 256 Nelson, Ethelyn. See Hobbs, Ethe- Norse archaeology, 41–42 lyn G. (Field) (Nelson) Northeast archaeology: in the Nelson, Nels C., 83 1920s, 97–99, 145–46; in the nepotism rules, 150, 163, 249, 257, 1930s, 153–61 266. See also marriage NPS (National Park Service). See Newberg, Esther (Mahoney), National Park Service (NPS) 241–42 Nuttall, Zelia Maria Magdalena Newcomb, Anita (McGee), 55, (Pinart), 39, 43–45, 67, 77, 271 68–69 Newcomer, Mabel, 16 Obrecht, Gretchen. See Beardsley, New England archaeology, 98, 157, Gretchen A. (Obrecht) 158, 159 Ojibwa lithic technologies, 43 New Jersey archaeology, 156, 159 Olmec culture, 68, 218–19 New Jersey State Museum, 155–56 Olson, Jane Virginia, 230

Index | 343 Omaha tribe, 38 Parson, Elsie. See Clews, Elsie O’Neale, Lila Morris, 135–36 Worthington (Parsons) Oregon archaeology, 209–10 participant observation, 38 Osborn, Henry Fairfield, 116 Paterson, Catherine. See Serrem, Osborne, Carolyn. See Miles, Caro- Catherine Lucile (Paterson) lyn Mildred (Osborne) Patterson, Frances. See Garrard, Osborne, Homer Douglas, 214 Frances Isabel (Patterson) Otoe tribe, 174 Paulsen, Allison. See Clement, Otowi NM, 78 Catherine Allison (Withers) Ouachita River sites, 104–5 (Paulsen) Owens Valley (CA) sites, 142 Pawnee culture, 107 Peabody, Lucy. See Davison, Lucy Pack, Arthur Newton, 183 Evelyn (Peabody) Pack, Eleanor. See Brown, Eleanor Peabody, William Sloane, 62 (Pack) (Hibben) Peabody Museum of American Pajarito Plateau (NM), 39, 50, 78, 89 Archaeology and Ethnology: paleoethnobotanical analyses, 54 Alice Fletcher and, 38; and Paleo-Indian cultures, 118, 190, 191 Awatovi site, 206–7; Cordelia Pallan, Bertha. See Parker, Bertha Studley and, 40–41; graduate A. (Pallan) (Thurston) (Cody) studies at, 95–96; Hester A. Palmatary, Helen Constance, 222 Davis and, 207–8; Latin Ameri- Palmer, Alice E. (Henderson), 55–57 can archaeology, 210–11; Marion Palmer, Alice Elvira Freeman, 8, Hutchinson and, 215; Mary 9–12, 12–14 Hemenway and, 65; Mayan Palmer, Frank, 89 archaeology, 77; Mimbres Palmer, Marietta (Wetherill), 52–53 culture sites, 79–80; textile col- Papago Indian culture, 81, 235 lections, 221; Thaw Fellowship, Papoose (magazine), 16–17 65–66; translation projects, 131 Paracas (Peru) culture, 215, 221 Peck, Kate Stott (Kent), 224–25 paradigm shifts, 1–2, 145–47, 269 Pecos Conference (1931), 109 Parcher, Frank Morrison, 142 Pecos (NM) field school, 23–24, 82, (Parcher), Marie Louise, 141–42 84 Parcher, William Chandler, 142 Pecos pottery, 139 Parezo, Nancy, 3–4, 49, 253–56 Pecos Pueblo restoration project, Parker, Arthur Caswell, 128 225–26 Parker, Bertha A. (Pallan) (Thurs- Peer, Frances Theresa (Russell), 81 ton) (Cody), 127–29 peer support. See cohort effect

344 | Index Penner, Hulda Esther (Haury), 121 Playa de los Muertos (Honduras), Pennsylvanian archaeology, 98, 134 154, 161 Pleistocene era sites, 125 Pequot culture, 158 Pooler, Frank Clay Winsor, 188 Perkins, Ann Louise, 228, 229 Pooler, Lolita. See Huning, Lolita personal referents, 35–37 (Pooler) Peruvian archaeology: Cerro Popenoe, Dorothy. See Hughes, Sechin (Peru) site, 218; Chavin Dorothy K. (Popenoe) sites of, 218, 219; Fanny Ritter Post, Emily, 240–41 (Bandelier), 47–48; Nazca cul- Pot Luck (Lister), 266–68 ture and, 135–36, 137; Peabody Powell, Ellen Louella (Thompson), Museum and, 221; Puno (Peru) 50–51 site, 215–16; University of Penn- Powell, Emma. See Dean, Emma sylvania and, 222–23. See also (Powell) South American archaeology Powell, Mary Lucas, 251 petrological analyses, 123, 138, 139, pre-Columbian cultures, 132 142 professional archaeologists: col- Philadelphia Commercial Museum, laboration with amateurs, 105, 78 109–10, 114, 160 philanthropists. See financial Progressive Movement, 7–8 supporters promotional discrimination, 20, Pickle, Mary Mildred (Mayhall), 168 115, 147, 150, 180, 208, 272–73 Piedras Negras (Guatemala) site, Proskouriakoff, Tatiana Ave- 154, 213 nirovna, 212–13 Pierce, Sarah “Sallie” Louise public archaeology, 181, 258 (Brewer) (Van Valkenburgh) publication: cost of, for dis- (Harris), 196–98 sertation, 117; dissertation Pima Indian culture, 81, 235 requirement, 26–27, 107, 144, Pinart, Alphonse Louis, 43–44 152, 256; marginalization of Pinart, Zelia. See Nuttall, Zelia women and, 4, 47 Maria Magdalena (Pinart) Pueblo Bonito (NM), 53 Pinkley, Martha Jean. See McWhirt, pueblos: Globe (AZ), 122; Hattie and Martha Jean (Pinkley) Burt Cosgrove, 79; Lucy Wilson, Piscataway National Park, 160 78; Puye (NM), 83; San Cris- Plaquemine-Caddoan sites, 102 tobal (NM), 83; Scorpion Hill, Platt, Erminnie Adelle/Adele 128; Tunque (NM), 124. See also (Smith), 38, 67–68 Chaco Canyon (NM,) field school

Index | 345 Puno (Peru) site, 215–16 Reeder, Courtney (Jones), 236–37 Putnam, Alice Edmands, 58 Reh, Emma L. (Stevenson), 25, 33, Putnam, Charles Edwin, 57 120–21 Putnam, Elizabeth Duncan, 57–58 Reiter, Paul David, 178, 184 Putnam, Frederic Ward: Alice E. Reiter, Winifred. See Stamm, Win- Palmer (Henderson) and, 56; ifred (Reiter) Alice Fletcher and, 37–40, 39, Renaud, Etienne B., 191, 193–94 40; Alice Le Plongeon and, reporters. See journalists 46; Cordelia Studley and, 40; research associate positions, 27–28, Elizabeth Putnam and, 58; 222, 263 Erminnie Smith and, 67–68; research specialization. See funding sources, 70–71; Har- specialization vard’s anthropology program Reyman, Jonathan, 2–3, 23, 53, 264 and, 17, 22; Little Falls quartz Rhoads, Frances Louella (Morley), tools, 43; Radcliffe Anthropolog- 129, 130 ical Club and, 73; as supporter of Ricketson, Edith. See Bayles, Edith women, 15; Zelia Nuttall and, Hill (Ricketson) 44 Ricketson, Mary (Bullard), 133 Putnam, J. Duncan, 57 Ricketson, Oliver Garrison, Jr., 133 Putnam, Mary. See Duncan, Mary Riley, Carroll, 47 Louisa (Putnam) Rio de los Frijoles (NM) site, 89–90 Puye (NM) excavations, 89, 91 Rito de los Frijoles (NM) site, 92 Ritter, Fanny (Bandelier), 47–48 Quapaw culture, 105 Roberts, Frank H. H., 112 Quinn, Theodora. See Kracaw, Roberts, Helen Heffron, 84–85 Theodora (Brown) (Kroeber) Roberts, Linda. See Butchart, Linda (Quinn) (Roberts) Radcliffe Anthropological Club, Robinson, Alice. See Hendrick, 17, 73 Alice Stuart (Robinson) Radcliffe College: in the 1920s, 22, Robinson, Grace Hester (Fisher), 95–96, 131; in the 1930s, 153–54; 242 Annex variant and, 9–12; dress Rogers, Malcolm J., 125 code standards at, 240; female Ross, Virginia Louise (Geller), 214–15 graduate students at, 3 Rossiter, Margaret Walsh, 3, 21, Raynolds, Ruth (McNary), 86–88 27–28, 252, 264, 270–74 Redfield, Olive.See Eggan, Olive S. Roswell Archaeological Society, 237 (Redfield) Rubens, Violet, 93

346 | Index Russell, Frances. See Peer, Frances Schenck, William Egbert, 125–26 Theresa (Russell) scholarship discrimination, 97 Russell, Frank, 81 scholarships, 32, 141 School for American Research SAA. See Society for American (SAR), 23, 141, 200 Archaeology (SAA) School for the Collegiate Instruc- Sabloff, Jeremy, 2–3 tion of Women. See Harvard Sage, Edith. See Conrad, Edith Annex (Sage) School of American Archaeology salary. See financial discrimination (Santa Fe), 40, 64, 92 salvage archaeology, 72, 101, 142, School of American Research 208 (SAR), 87, 93, 182. See also School salvage ethnography, 38, 71–72 of American Archaeology San Cristobal (NM) pueblo, 83 Schulte, Dorothy L., 227–28 Sandia (NM) excavations, 239 Schumaker, Lyn, 15–16, 26, 152–53 San Dieguito culture sites, 125 science librarianship, 196, 215, 249 Sanford, Mary Elizabeth, 242 sciences: marginalization of San Gabriel de Yunque (NM), 116 women in, 3–4; professional- San Juan (CO) Archaeological Soci- ization of, 270–71; women in, ety, 194 270–74; women in fieldwork Santa Barbara Museum of Natural and, 253 History, 230–31 Science Service, 120, 121 Santa Clara (NM), 87–88, 89 Scorpion Hill (NV) pueblo, 128 Santa Fe Archaeological Society, 91 Sears, Ruth (Chute), 121–22 SAR. See School for American Second World War, 1–2, 259–60 Research (SAR) Section H (AAAS), 41, 67, 68 Satterthwaite, Linton, 154, 213 Selene, Edith Gertrude (Evans), Saunders, Marion. See Hollenbach, 98–99 Marion Grace (Saunders) Seler, Eduard, 131 Sawtell, Ruth Otis (Wallis), 30, 96 Seneca tribe, 69 Scanlan, Mary (Lehmer), 26, 187–88 Senter, Donovan, 115 Schaps, Jane. See McCreery, Jane Senter, Florence. See Hawley, Flor- Honour (Schaps) ence May (Senter) (Ellis) Schatz, Julia Dorothea (Kelly), Serpent Mound (OH), 38 200–201 Serrem, Catherine Lucile (Pater- Schenck, Sara. See Moffatt, Sara son), 226 (Schenck) Sewall, May Wright, 8–9

Index | 347 Sewee tribe, 76 (SAA), 28–29; female members Shaeffer, Margaret.See Murry, Mar- of, 150–51; first female president garet Whiting (Shaeffer) (Dowd) of, 192; founders of, 84, 108, 120, Sharp, Gretchen. See Cutter, 132, 199–200, 227; Harriet New- Gretchen Froehlich (Sharp) ell Wardle and, 85; and meeting shell mounds, 38, 41 presentations by women, 162, Shepard, Anna Osler, 137–39 219; research of, 117; women fel- Shepperson, Gay, 166 lows of, 115, 127 “Sherds and Points” (Daniels), 195 sociocultural anthropology, 16 Shipek, Florence. See Connolly, sociology departments, 178 Florence McKeever (Shipek) Solomon, Barbara Miller, 240 Shreveport (LA) Society for Nature South American archaeology, Study, 101 47–48. See also Peruvian Siegrist, Elizabeth (Willis), 229 archaeology Silliman, Harriet Lovejoy (Cos- South Dakota archaeology, 177 grove), 78–81, 109–10 Southeast archaeology: during the Singer, Ernestine. See Wieder, 1920s, 99–102, 145–46; during Ernestine Henrietta (Singer) the 1930s, 161–69; invisible Singleton, Irene (Vickrey), 203–4 women in, 34 single women in archaeology, 74, Southwest archaeology: in the 93, 118, 127, 268 1920s, 108–24, 145–46; in the Sitio Conte (Panama), 131 1930s, 177–208, 232–45; by Alice Skirboll, Esther Reidbord, 178 Eastwood, 54; by Alice E. Palmer Smith, Erminnie. See Platt, Ermin- (Henderson), 56–57; by Ethelyn nie Adelle/Adele (Smith) and Nels Nelson, 83; financial Smith, Gertrude. See Windsor, supporters of, 86–89; by Frances Gertrude Mabel (Smith) Russell, 81; by Hattie and Burt Smith, Harriet Minola, 170–72 Cosgrove, 79–82; by Helen Smith, Marian Wesley, 208–9 Roberts, 84–85; by Madeleine Smithsonian Institution (SI), 160, Kidder, 82; by Margaret Magill, 261–62 51–52; by Marietta Palmer Snaketown (AZ), 123 Wetherill, 52–53; by Matilda Ste- Snead, James, 61 venson, 48–50; public interest Snyder, Flora (Black), 161 in, 16; supporters of, 91–92; by social contexts. See cultural contexts Virginia McClurg, 60–63 social-cultural anthropology, 144 Southwest Museum (Los Angeles), Society for American Archaeology 124–25, 128–29, 142

348 | Index Southwest Society, 89, 92 Stone, Doris. See Zemurray, Doris Sowers, Cecelia. See Evans, Cecelia (Stone) Maria (Sowers) stratigraphic excavation tech- Sowers, Theodore Carl, Jr., 193–94 niques, 70, 82, 83, 179–80 Spear, Julia Matilda (Boyd), 145 Strong, W. Duncan, 175, 177 specialization, 110–11, 268–69, Strouse, Dorothy Louise (Keur), 31, 272–73; in areas men dislike, 116–17 24–25, 247, 251–53; as entry into student anthropology clubs, 73 archaeology, 115, 146; textiles, Studley, Cordelia Adelaide, 40–41 214, 249 A Study of Classic Maya Sculpture Spenser, Arthur Coe, 138 (Proskouriakoff), 213 Spier, Anna. See Gayton, Anna Had- Sunderland, Florence. See wick (Spier) Erford, Florence “Flossy” D. Spinden, Ellen. See Collier, Ellen (Sunderland) Sewall (Spinden) supervisory positions, 32, 33, 170. Spinden, Herbert Joseph, 131–32 See also leadership roles Spiro Mound (OK) site, 175 support, financial.See financial Sprague, Charles, 270 supporters Stamm, Winifred (Reiter), 23, 96, support of women: between 1865 183–84 and 1900, 60–71; in the 1920s, Steinmacher, Dorothea Elsean, 137–41; Frederic Ward Putnam 222–23 by, 15; by women colleagues, Stellman, Jean, 170 161. See also cohort effect stelae, 213 surnames, vii–viii Sterns, Frederick Henderson, surveys, 86, 124–25, 166, 175 17–18, 73–74 Swanton, John Reed, 100–101 Stevenson, Emma. See Reh, Emma Swarts Ruin (NM), 79 L. (Stevenson) Stevenson, James, 48–50 Talus (NM), 144–45 Stevenson, Matilda. See Evans, Tanner, Clara. See Fraps, Clara Lee Matilda “Tilly” Coxe (Stevenson) (Tanner) Stevenson, Robert L., 160 Tanquist, Mamie Ruth Eunice Stevenson, Sara. See Yorke, Sara (Miller), 168–69 (Stevenson) Tapajos culture, 222 Stewart, T. Dale, 160 teaching assignments, 4, 256, 264. Stoddard, Dorothy A. (Knipe), See also academic employment 242–43 opportunities

Index | 349 Tecolote (NM) field school, 23–24, Towle, Gerald, 100 32, 105, 110 Towle, Margaret. See Ashley, Mar- Tello, Julio C., 136 garet Elizabeth (Towle) Tenampua (Honduras), 134 Tozzer, Alfred M., 30, 96, 131, 134, Tennessee archaeology, 162–63 244, 265 tenured positions, 28, 150 Tozzer library, 65. See also Peabody Teotihuacan (Mexico), 44 Museum Texas archaeology, 80, 167–68 training: between 1900 and 1920, textile research and analyses: 73; during the 1920s, 95–96, Andean, 135–36; Paracas, 221; 143–44; during the 1930s, at Peabody Museum, 221; in the 149–50; equal access to, 95–97. Southwest, 214, 225; as special- See also advanced degrees ization area, 251–52 training discrimination, 97, 106, Thaw, Mary. See Copley, Mary Sib- 146–47, 178, 211–12, 246, 249–50 bet (Thaw) translation work, 187 Third Denver-New Mexico Expedi- Treasure Hill (NM), 79 tion (1938), 194 Trenton gravel “glacial man,” Thomas, Dorothy, 24 68–69 Thompson, Ellen. See Powell, Ellen Trowbridge, Lydia. See Jones, Lydia Louella (Thompson) Hayes (Trowbridge) Three Rivers (NM), 109 Tschopik, Harry, 215–16 Throw Me a Bone (Lothrop), 131, Tschopik, Marion. See Hutchinson, 266–68 Marion (Tschopik) Thuner, Edna Belle (Woodbury), Tseh So (NM) excavations, 87. See 119–20 Thurston, Bertha. See Parker, also Chaco Canyon (NM) Bertha A. (Pallan) (Thurston) Tucker, Carobeth (Harrington) (Cody) (Laird), 75 Thurston, James E., 128 Tucker, Sara. See Jones, Sara Julia Tichy, George, 179 (Tucker) Tichy, Marjorie. See Ferguson, Tunque (NM) pueblo, 124 Marjorie Elizabeth (Tichy) Turkey Hill (AZ) pueblo, 121 (Lambert) Tutt, Vesta. See Wood, Vesta Hal- Tileston, Mary Porter (Hemenway), liday (Tutt) 64–65 Tuzigoot (AZ) field school, 196 Tolchaco (AZ) gravels site, 118 Tyree, Mary Eugenia “Jean” (Ham- Totonac culture, 132 ilton), 174–75

350 | Index Uaxactun (Guatemala), 133 of, 231; field schools (1920s), undergraduate anthropology clubs, 96–97; field schools of (1930s), 17 179, 180–81. See also Chaco Can- University Archaeological Associa- yon (NM) field school; Chetro tion, 59 Ketl (NM) field school University of Arizona: anthropol- University of New Mexico ogy program, 114; field schools, Museum, 223–24 195, 196, 198, 201, 223, 243; first University of Pennsylvania, 155; master’s students, 113 anthropology program, start of, University of California–Berkeley: 73–74; doctoral degrees, 247; development of anthropology Phoebe Hearst, 66 at, 45; doctoral degrees, 247; University of Pennsylvania museum, establishment of / Museum, 59, 85, 199, 213, 219, Alice Fletcher and, 39; Phoebe 222, 228 Hearst and, 66–67 University of South Carolina, 76 University of Chicago: and anthro- University of Tennessee, 163 pology program start, 73; University of Texas museum, dissertation publication require- 167–68 ment at, 152; doctoral degrees unpaid positions, 8, 59, 138, 180, awarded by, 114–15, 247; and 222, 263. See also research field school requirement, 103, associate positions; volunteer 169–70; field schools of, 155, positions 169–70; graduate fellowships untenured positions, 108, 150 at, 173; hiring and promotion of urban archaeology, 269 women at, 19–20; WPA projects U. S. Bureau of Education, 19 at, 172 Utah archaeology, 54–55 University of Denver, 191 Ute tribe, 61 University of Hawaii, 189–90 Uxmal (Mexico), 45–46 University of Illinois, 231 University of Minnesota, 242 Vaillant, George, 228 University of Nebraska Museum, Van Valkenburgh, Sallie. See Pierce, 209–10 Sarah “Sallie” Louise (Brewer) University of New Mexico: (Van Valkenburgh) (Harris) advanced degrees at, 247, 249; Van Woy, Maud. See Woy, Maud M. discriminatory practices at, 115, (a.k.a. Van Woy) 264; faculty members of, 64, Vassar College, 154 168–69; field school requirement Venezualan archaeology, 219

Index | 351 Vickrey, Irene. See Singleton, Irene Wells, Carolyn. See Healey, Caro- (Vickrey) line Wells (Dall) Vickrey, Parke Edwin, 203–4 Wellwood, Gail Jeanette (Bailey) Viking archaeology, 41–42 (Kellum) (Curtis), 243–44 Vivian, Gordon, 178 Weltfish, Regina “Gene” (Lesser), vocational archaeologists. See pro- 26–27, 106–8, 146–47, 152 fessional archaeologists West Coast archaeology: in the Volk, Marie. See Wormington, Han- 1920s, 124–29, 145–46; in the nah Marie (Volk) 1930s, 208–10 volunteer positions, 100, 213 West Virginia archaeology, 154 Vonnegut, Pauline (Eck), 243 Wetherill, John, 235 Wetherill, Louisa, 235 Wagner, Sarah “Sallie” R. (Lippin- Wetherill, Marietta. See Palmer, cott), 199–200 Marietta (Wetherill) Walker, George Clarke, 88 Wetherill, Richard, 52–54 Wallin, Madeleine, 19 Wheeler Basin (AL), 164, 165 Wallis, Ruth. See Sawtell, Ruth Otis White, Nancy, 31, 34, 207 (Wallis) Whitford, Cora E., 90 war, 1–2, 7, 20, 257, 259–60 Whitney Fellowship, 131 Wardle, Harriet Newell, 85–86 Whittemore, Mary (McEvoy), 244 Ware, Edith Williams, 228 widows, ix. See also financial Ware (NJ) site, 159 supporters Warmoth, Murel M. (Hanna), Wieder, Ernestine Henrietta 202–3 (Singer), 85, 219 Warren, Mary, 228 Willey, Gordon, 2–3 Warren, Rachel (Lothrop) (Barton), Williams, Alice Gallinger (Morley) 83–84 (Espe), 129–30 WASA. See Women’s Anthropologi- Williams, Jeannette Webster, 52 cal Society of America (WASA) Williams, Lucy Langdon (Wilson), Watkins, Frances Emma, 23–24, 78 110–11, 189 Willis, Elizabeth. See Siegrist, Eliza- Watts, Ruth, 252 beth (Willis) Wedel, Mildred. See Mott, Mildred Willis, Roger W., 229 Ingram (Wedel) Wilson, Lucy. See Williams, Lucy Wedel, Waldo Rudolph, 173–74 Langdon (Wilson) Weeminuche Ute tribe, 61 Wilson, Martha. See McNary, Mar- Wellesley College, 8 tha (Wilson) (Chilcote)

352 | Index Wilson, Trava, 172 Women Scientists in America (Ros- Wimberly, Julia. See Adcock, Julia siter), 252 Christine (Wimberly) women’s colleges, 8, 10–14 Wimberly, Steve Boynton, 165 “women’s work” bias, 251–53, 259, Winchell, Newton H., 42 272 Windsor, Eileen Emily (Alves), Wood, Donizetta. See Jones, 108–10 Donizetta Adelaide (Wood) Windsor, Gertrude Mabel (Smith), (Hewett) 108–10 Wood, Vesta Halliday (Tutt), Wirt, Julia Judson (MacPherson), 144–45 54–55 Woodbury, Edna. See Thuner, Edna Wissler, Clark, 31 Belle (Woodbury) Withers, Allison. See Clement, Woodman, Jean. See Cady, Jean M. Catherine Allison (Withers) (Bopst) (Woodman) (Paulsen) Woods, Janet McCleery (Dickey), Withers, Arnold Moore, 216 205, 275 wives, types of, 25, 131, 266–68. Woods, Margaret Soutter (Keith), See also husband-wife teams; 205–6, 275 marriage Woodward, Albert Arthur, 217 Woman’s Journal, 10–12 Woodward, Barbara. See Loomis, Woman’s Work in America (Sewall), Barbara H. L. (Woodward) 8–9 Woody, Thomas, 19, 20, 262–63 women advocates. See supporters Wooton, Doris. See Harvey, Doris of women Louise (Wooton) women archaeologists: in demean- Works Progress Administration ing situations, 26, 31, 97, 113, 116; (WPA), 32–33, 155–56, 158–59, discouraged from fieldwork, 75; 165, 171, 172 and discrimination against other World’s Columbian Exposition women, 33; name changes and (1893), 44, 50, 56, 59 invisibility of, 36–37. See also field World War I. See First World War archaeology World War II. See Second World Women in Science (Watts), 252 War “Women of Scientific Expeditions” Worman, Eugene C., 207 (Sterns), 17–18, 73–74 Worman, Penny. See Davis, Doro- Women’s Anthropological Society thy Penrose “Penny” (Worman) of America (WASA), 18, 38–39, Wormington, Hannah Marie (Volk), 49, 55, 68, 261 190, 191–92

Index | 353 Woy, Maud M. (a.k.a. Van Woy), Young, Margaret. See Lane, Marga- 89–90 ret Eleanor (Young) WPA (Works Progress Adminis- Young, Mayme Linda (Guenther), tration). See Works Progress 244–45 Youngman, Mary (Ayer), 198–99 Administration (WPA) Yucatan archaeology, 45–46, 77–78, Wylie, Alison, 251 112 Yale University, 247 Yuma projectile points, 190 Yelm, Mary Elizabeth “Betty” Yurok-Karok culture, 136 (Kingman), 192–93 Zeder, Melinda, 34 Yorke, Sara (Stevenson), 58–59, 66 Zemurray, Doris (Stone), 22, 30, 95, Young, Katherine Burks (Hearn), 96, 210–11 244 Zuni culture, 51–52

354 | Index IN THE CRITICAL STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY SERIES

Invisible Genealogies: A History Irregular Connections: A History of Americanist Anthropology of Anthropology and Sexuality Regna Darnell Andrew P. Lyons and Harriet D. Lyons

The Shaping of American Ephraim George Squier Ethnography: The Wilkes and the Development of Exploring Expedition, 1838–1842 American Anthropology Barry Alan Joyce Terry A. Barnhart

Ruth Landes: A Life in Anthropology Ruth Benedict: Beyond Sally Cole Relativity, Beyond Pattern Virginia Heyer Young Melville J. Herskovits and the Racial Politics of Knowledge Looking through Taiwan: American Jerry Gershenhorn Anthropologists’ Collusion with Ethnic Domination Leslie A. White: Evolution and Keelung Hong and Stephen O. Murray Revolution in Anthropology William J. Peace Visionary Observers: Anthropological Inquiry and Education Rolling in Ditches with Jill B. R. Cherneff and Eve Hochwald Shamans: Jaime de Angulo and the Professionalization Anthropology Goes to the Fair: The 1904 of American Anthropology Louisiana Purchase Exposition Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz Nancy J. Parezo and Don D. Fowler The Meskwaki and Anthropologists: Cultural Negotiations: The Role Action Anthropology Reconsidered of Women in the Founding of Judith M. Daubenmier Americanist Archaeology David L. Browman The 1904 Anthropology Days and Olympic Games: Sport, Race, Homo Imperii: A History of and American Imperialism Physical Anthropology in Russia Edited by Susan Brownell Marina Mogilner English translation by the author Lev Shternberg: Anthropologist, Russian Socialist, Jewish Activist American Anthropology and Sergei Kan Company: Historical Explorations Stephen O. Murray Contributions to Ojibwe Studies: Essays, 1934–1972 Racial Science in Hitler’s A. Irving Hallowell New Europe, 1938–1945 Edited and with introductions Edited by Anton Weiss- by Jennifer S. H. Brown Wendt and Rory Yeomans and Susan Elaine Gray

Excavating Nauvoo: The Mormons and the Rise of Historical Archaeology in America Benjamin C. Pykles Foreword by Robert L. Schuyler