FEMINISM AND GREEK ARCHAEOLOGY: AN ENCOUNTER LONG OVER-DUE* Archaeology, feminism, and innovation The second wave of feminism in the 1970s had an important impact on the academic community in North America and Western Europe, resulting in new research avenues and more professional opportunities for women. Archaeology was, however, late to embrace feminist interests. This reluctance can be explained in terms of the following developments: • dominance of processualism in anthropological archaeology, since the 1960s, which promoted normative explanations of human behaviour as a mere reflection of environmental adaptation and socio-economic structure1 • a strong historical-philological tradition in classical archaeology, which often placed uncritical faith on textual evidence without considering the prejudices of ancient writers2 • under-representation of women in the profession, especially in the higher ranks.3 Since the 1980s, many archaeologists became dissatisfied with the ways the past was portrayed in previous approaches. A broader intellectual climate of critical awareness has favoured the development of post-processual archaeologies which shifted emphasis to human agency and historical contingency; acknowledged archaeology’s relations to political authority and the impact of modern experience on scholarly constructs about the past; exposed the ways in which the past is perceived differentially by individuals and/or social groups; and recognised the needs and experiences of the recipients of archaeological knowledge, who may eventually also become producers of new interpretations. Shaking the previous confidence in “testable objectivity,” these new perspectives strive to understand the culturally- specific manifestations of identity and “otherness,” and explore new possibilities of rethinking about the past and present. A growing validation of pluralism has encouraged feminist responsiveness in archaeology in many international contexts (USA, Britain, Norway, Germany, Spain, Australia, and elsewhere). The last two decades have witnessed an explosion of related publications, the incorporation of the subject into academic curricula, and an increase of female representation at all levels of the profession.4 Despite these advances, summarised * We would like to thank the organisers of this Conference and, in particular, Katerina Kopaka for inviting us to participate and for their warm hospitality in Rethymno. For constructive comments, we are grateful to Katerina Kopaka, Ernestine Elster, and Tracey Cullen. Any omissions or errors remain our responsibility. 1 “Gender theory.” 2 “Feminist research in archaeology”; S. BROWN, “‘Ways of seeing’ women in antiquity: an introduction to feminism in classical archaeology and ancient history,” in Naked Truths 12-42; S.M. SPENCER-WOOD, “Feminist gender research in classical archaeology,” in S.M. NELSON (ed.), Handbook of Gender in Archaeology (2006) 295-329. 3 M.C. NELSON, S.M. NELSON and A. WYLIE (eds), Equity Issues for Women in Archaeology, Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 5 (1994); Excavating Women; T. CULLEN, “A profile of Aegean prehistorians, 1984-2003,” in Prehistorians Round the Pond 43-72. 4 For references, see e.g: M.W. CONKEY and J.M. GERO, “Programme to practice: gender and feminism in archaeology,” Annual Review of Anthropology 26 (1997) 411-37; Reader in Gender Archaeology; K. HAYS- GILPIN and S.C. ROBERTS (eds), Gender Archaeology: A Bibliography, Northern Arizona University (2001) <http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/gender2000/ biblio/bibintro2.htm>; M.W. CONKEY, “Has feminism changed archaeology?” Signs 28.3 (2003) 867-80; Arqueología y género; Arqueología de las mujeres 163-282; A. WYLIE (ed.), “Doing archaeology as a feminist,” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory Special Issue 14.3 (2007); NELSON (supra n. 2). This literature originally appeared, in large part, in conference proceedings. According to Cheryl Claassen’s estimates, over 500 conference papers authored by over 400 individuals had been presented on gender between 1988 and 1997, and over 10 conferences on gender and 26 Dimitra KOKKINIDOU and Marianna NIKOLAIDOU perhaps too optimistically in Lauren Talalay’s statement that “Gender is now generally regarded as a legitimate conceptual and analytical category of archaeology,”5 there still remain major challenges to be met. In her 2003 review of what had by then been accomplished and what still needed to be done, Margaret Conkey resents the fact that gender research remains a woman’s affair, confined to a balancing or remedial effect against androcentrism. Indeed, it yet has to develop a solid theoretical framework for exploring gender, social class, and ethnicity beyond the experiences of mainstream academic feminism, that is, of white, middle class, heterosexual scholars.6 In another recent review, Ericka Engelstad has argued that “the relationship between feminism and gender archaeology is now being pushed even further into the background. Much feminist critique has given way to an emphasis on gender as an interesting analytic category; this is simply a cosmetic change in relation to traditional archaeology and very much still a process of adding women, and to a certain extent children, to our interpretations of past societies. In the process, gender archaeology appears to have become a sub-discipline comparable to other sub-disciplines such as ecological-, evolutionary-, symbolic-, behavioural-, processual-, post-processual archaeologies. Despite the significant gains in engendering research and practice, gender archaeology is at risk of becoming a narrow specialty with little left of its initial critical feminist and theoretical edge. Why? The answer to this simple question is complex but this tendency can be attributed to a dwindling understanding of what it is to do archaeology as a feminist as well as to institutional contexts and a discipline that ‘still rewards androcentrism in so many ways’”.7 Bias will be pending as long as gender remains a “special interest” topic in the margins of “hard” archaeology, added or omitted optionally, as if it were a trendy seasoning touch.8 Only when gender is recognised as a major structuring principle of social life, including the very practice of the archaeological profession, can feminist research have a widely constructive impact. It goes without saying that the above broad directions acquire different validity across countries, especially those in the periphery of the dominant (Anglo-American) archaeological discourse. In this paper, we present the case study of Greek archaeology as an indigenous archaeology had been held in the same period (cited in CONKEY and GERO op.cit. 414). At the same time, most major English language archaeological and anthropological journals published at least one article on the archaeology of gender (ibid. 413-14; cf. also R. WHITEHOUSE, “Gender archaeology in Europe,” in NELSON op. cit. 734-35). Monographs devoted to the subject include: J.D. SPECTOR, with contributions by C.C. CAVENDER, D.M. STOLEN, M.K. WHELAN and R.M. WITHDROW, What This Awl Means: Feminist Archaeology at a Wahpeton Dakota Village (1993); Archaeology of Religious Women; R. GILCHRIST, Gender and Archaeology: Contesting the Past (1999); Gender Archaeology; M.E. SANAHUJA YLL, Cuerpos sexuados, objetos y prehistoria (2002); R. FALCÓ MARTÍ, La Arqueología del Género: Espacios de Mujeres, Mujeres con Espacio, Cuadernos de Trabajos de Investigación del Centro de Estudios sobre la Mujer de la Universidad de Alicante 6 (2003) <http://www.ua.es/cem/publicaciones/trabajo6.pdf>; Gender in Archaeology. 5 “Gendered sea” 130. 6 CONKEY (supra n. 4) 869, 875-76. See, however, some recent archaeological contributions to a broader understanding of sexuality and ethnicity: T.A. DOWSON, “Homosexualitat, teoria queer i arqueologia,” Cota Zero 14 (1998) 81-7; ID., “Homosexuality, queer theory, and archaeology,” in J. THOMAS (ed.), Interpretative Archaeology: A Reader (2001) 283-89; ID., “Queer theory and feminist theory: towards a sociology of sexual politics in rock art research,” in K. HELSKOG (ed.), Theoretical Perspectives in Rock Art Research (2001) 312-29; ID. (ed.), “Queer Archaeologies,” World Archaeology Special Issue 32.2 (2000); ID. (ed.), “Debates in World Archaeology,” World Archaeology Special Issue 37.4 (2005); ID., “Archaeologists, feminists, and queers: sexual politics in the construction of the past,” in P.L. GELLER and M.K. STOCKERT (eds), Feminist Anthropology: Past, Present, and Future (2007) 89-101; R.A. SCHMIDT and B.L. VOSS (eds), Archaeologies of Sexuality (2000); Among Women; M. FRANKLIN, “A black feminist-inspired archaeology?” JSA 1.1 (2001) 108-25; M.W. CONKEY, “Dwelling at the margins, action at the intersection? Feminist and indigenous archaeologies,” Archaeologies 1.1 (2005) 9-59; NELSON (supra n. 2) part II. 7 E. ENGELSTAD, “Much more than gender,” in WYLIE (supra n. 4) 219. 8 For example, there is no chapter devoted to gender in a recent edited volume on Mediterranean archaeology; even contributors with a record of related scholarship chose to report on other subjects (J.K. PAPADOPOULOS and R.M. LEVENTHAL [eds], Theory and Practice in Mediterranean Archaeology: Old World and New World Perspectives, Cotsen Advanced Seminars 1 [2003]). On the contrary, a review of gender research has been included in another recent book on Mediterranean prehistory (“Gendered sea” 130-55). FEMINISM AND GREEK ARCHAEOLOGY 27 enterprise, practiced by state-employed professionals. Our aim is