Northeast Historical Archaeology Volume 31 Special Issue: Historic Preservation and the Archaeology of Nineteenth-Century Farmsteads in the Article 14 Northeast 2001 Review Essay: Reading the Reading of Gender in Archaeology Katherine Howlett Follow this and additional works at: http://orb.binghamton.edu/neha Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Howlett, Katherine (2001) "Review Essay: Reading the Reading of Gender in Archaeology," Northeast Historical Archaeology: Vol. 30-31 31, Article 14. https://doi.org/10.22191/neha/vol31/iss1/14 Available at: http://orb.binghamton.edu/neha/vol31/iss1/14 This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB). It has been accepted for inclusion in Northeast Historical Archaeology by an authorized editor of The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB). For more information, please contact [email protected]. Northeast Historical Archaeology/Val. 30-31, 2001-2002 181 Review Essay Reading the Reading of Gender in Archaeology Katherine Howlett IN PURSUIT OF GENDER: WORLDWIDE ARCHAEOLOGICAL APPROACHES edited by Sarah Milledge Nelson and Myriam Rosen-Ayalon 2001, Gender and Archaeology Series 1, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek California. 416 pages, ill., maps, $34.95 (paper); $85.00 (cloth). GENDER AND THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF DEATH edited by Bettina Arnold and Nancy L. Wicker 2001, Gender and Archaeology Series 2, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek California. 198 pages, ill., maps, $26.95 (paper); $69.00 (cloth). When reviewing the literature on gendered tents and select specific articles to read. If you archaeological research, one finds few mono­ are looking for the bigger picture on gender graph-length case studies using gender as a studies, read all of them, because the two vol­ primary or integrated focus. Instead, most of umes represent different ways of "packaging" the studies are found in edited volumes of arti­ or conceptualizing the way to read gender cles or papers, often drawn from thematic con_. archaeologically. ference sessions. As a consequence of the The current status of gender studies is prevalent format, most case studies or critical neatly summed up in Nelson and Rosen­ analyses are either brief, generalized Ayalon's introduction to In Pursuit of Gender as overviews or very narrowly focused interpre­ "experiencing growing pains." There is a sur­ tations of isolated datasets. These formats are prising level of discomfort evident in this very limiting for the treatment of a cultural overview. Ordinarily an editor's job in intro­ concept as large and complex as gender. ducing a published group of papers is to stress This past year, AltaMira has produced not continuity, complementarity, cohesion. Here, one but two books in their Gender and the diversity of methods and frank disagree­ Archaeology series, both edited volumes of ment of interpretation are quite apparent. papers presented at thematic conferences. While initially hard to take, I came to under­ This format is unlikely to draw in those skep­ stand that multiplicity is a characteristic of a tical of the utility of gender studies. For those growing discourse, and the disagreement is, who are already drawn in, the brevity and well, honest. We just do not often see it in contradictory interpretations presented can be print in this fashion. For example, in a section very frustrating. At the same time, these pub­ summary Nelson discusses John Parkington's lications make a positive contribution by interpretation of South African rock art, adding to the corpus of work and existing "While it is somewhat troublesome ... it is not dialog on gender. Furthermore, the two vol­ a requirement of gender archaeology that our umes are enormously informative when read results be politically correct-they do need to from a historiographic perspective. Together consider possible alternative explanations and they provide a good sense for where gender to demonstrate that even given androcentric studies in archaeology originated, how that ethnographies in the past, the proposed expla­ starting point has affected current research tra­ nation is the best available" (p. 13). Ouch. Do jectories, and the strengths and weaknesses of you think she liked his paper? existing approaches. If you are looking for a With eighteen articles and twenty-four single methodological model or a supportive authors from around the world, it is inevitable bit of evidence, go straight to the table of con- that there will be disagreement, although it is 182 Reading the Reading of Gender /Howlett indirectly expressed, as these authors are not lation. I am also a little uneasy with the actually engaging one another. The articles implied hypothesis. If they are testing the cover a fairly wide geographic range, with proposition that women become more visible slightly more Asiail studies, but coverage also in worsening conditions, does this mean that of Europe, the Middle East, Latin America, conversely, under the best of conditions, North America, and one lonely entry from women are invisible? And why are they only South Africa. The authors' origins are less considering the utilization of cash potential to varied with fully half of them from the United be meaningful? I am sure that it was not the States. intention of the authors to suggest such a The disparity among the papers is most model, however it is easy to lose that level of evident in methodology. A fair number of meaning when asking your multivariate statis­ studies rely very heavily on an empirical, sta­ tical analyses to show you the answer. "Even tistical basis, which I started to think of as the efforts to classify 'objectively' by searching for Feminist New Archaeology. Like the New 'natural' clusters of attributes within large Archaeology of the 1960s and 1970s, which data matrices are subjective to the extent that sought to define broad patterns of human the listing of attributes is based on the archae­ behavior (Trigger 1989), these studies would ologists' knowledge and sense of the signifi­ like to find mathematically predictable, formu­ cance of the material they are analyzing" laic means for identifying gender. It is in part (Trigger 1989: 383). Notably, no significant a reactionary response to the criticism that correlations between increased craft produc­ gendered archaeology stems from a political tion and spatially distinct working areas could agenda and as such is not evidence-based be discerned. The distressing conclusion of (Wylie 1992). While it is rather important to the authors is not that they need to revise their assure that these case studies are actually study or questions, but rather that gendered grounded in evidence, often they run into the household production is all but invisible mate­ same difficulties of the broader New rially. Archaeology movement and are decontextual­ In contrast, Gero and Scattolin, "Beyond ized, dehumanized, long on technique and Complementarity and Hierarchy: New short on meaning. For example, Nelson et al., Definitions for Archaeological Gender "The Impact of Women on Household Relations," present their case study of house­ Economies: A Maya Case Study," conducted hold production using a contextualized inter­ statistical analyses of ethnoarchaeological pretive approach. The first section of this observations collected in San Mateo, paper is a critical review of genderedinterpre­ Guatemala, coding contributions to household tations. The authors warn against the use of economy, markers of wealth, wage income, simplistic, nearly Boolean or binary frame­ and evidence of spatially discrete work areas. works, suggesting that the complex construc­ The idea was to assess if any correlations tion of gender at both the level of individual existed between poverty and women's contri­ social identity and broader social interaction butions to household economy through craft cannot be encapsulated under generalized sys­ production and/ or wage labor, and if craft tems of inequality versus complementarity or production in the home by women meant evi­ egalitarianism. Next the authors present a dent separate (read: gendered) workspaces. case summary of features, artifacts, and trace While conceptually the authors are onto some element analyses from several excavated interesting ideas, especially tracking ties of house floors in northern Argentina from the gender to class and material signals of gender, early Formative period. These data show that the execution is overwhelmed. For as many in at least two of the households there is evi­ variables as were collected (an exhaustive dence of copper working occurring in the coded list was included), nothing in the study same space as major food preparation activi­ design spoke to men's economic contributions. ties. Using this evidence as an example, they I think it is difficult to fully interpret gendered discuss the implications for gendered produc­ response to economic conditions when we do tion on material and spatial levels, rejecting not know anything about half the adult popu- dichotomous interpretive strategies including Northeast Historical Archaeology/Vol. 30-31, 2001-2002 183 hierarchy versus complementarity and alternative makes for a fairly weak interpreta­ domestic versus specialized labor. Their argu­ tion. Consider Shoocongdej, "Gender Roles ment is similar to the ideas of hegemonic dis­ Depicted in Rock Art: A Case from Western course used primarily in assessing expressions Thailand," whose method for determining of socioeconomic class (e.g., Beaudry,