DwellingattheMargins,ActionattheIntersection?

FeministandIndigenousArchaeologies,2005

MargaretW.Conkey1
2004

Voyager,therearenobridges,onebuildsthemasonewalks(Anzalda1983)

Thispaperisafledglingattempttoexploretheintersectionsbetweenfeminist
archaeologiesandIndigenousarchaeologies.Archaeology,especiallythatpracticedin
AngloAmericancontexts,hasnotoftenexplicitlyconsideredthewaysinwhichdifferent
approachesandpracticesmightinflectuponeachotherandmightconstitutesomeshared
spacesformutuallyinformedwork.Rather,archaeologyhasmoreoftenpreferredan
either/orstandwhenitcomestoonesintellectualandscholarlystandpoints:areyoua
processualorpostprocessualist?AreyouaMarxistorafeminist?Areyouacultural
ecologistorasymbolist?Bytakingalookatnotjusttwodifferentarchaeologiesbutat
theirhistoriesandpossiblecommongroundswemightnotonlylearnsomethingwe
mightnothavepreviouslyconsidered,butperhapsinterveneintotheimplicitandyet
stillpervasivestructuresofpowerintheproductionofarchaeologicalknowledge.
Certainlybothofthesearchaeologieswouldbeconsideredmoremarginalthannot.But
whilewemightthinkatandfromthemargins,wecantrulyactattheintersections.
Iamwritingfromaparticularposition:Iamcommittedtothefeministpracticeof
archaeology,amsecurelyemployedinwhatisconsideredtobeaprestigiousresearch
UniversityintheUnitedStates,anddomyfieldarchaeologyinsouthwesternEurope
whereitmayseemthatrelationswithcolonizedindigenouspeoplesisnotapressing
concern.However,workingwiththelocalcommunityandthefarmerswhosefieldswe
surveyandtesttrench,obtainingpermissions,anddealingwithissuesofpatrimonyand
heritageare,nonetheless,centraltooureverydayarchaeologicalpractice.Iamwhite,
married,andfromamiddleclassbackground.Ashasbeenpointedoutformanyyears,
theseattributescarrywiththemarangeofprobablebiasesandblinders(e.g.,Alarcn
1990,Anzalda1990,Bannerji1992,Mihesuah2003:7),especiallywhenitcomesto
engagingwiththesituations,positionsandperspectivesofpeopleofcolor,colonizedand
Indigenouspeoples.However,Idonotclaimtospeakforanyotherarchaeologistsor
otherpeoples,andmanymayobjecttowhatIamdoinghere.Nonetheless,todiscussthe
intersectionsseemsworththepossiblereverberations.
Globally,archaeologyisatsomethingofaturningpoint;transformationsare
necessarilyemerging,andthereisbothhopeandsubstanceintheverywaysinwhich
dimensionsoffeministandindigenousconcernsandagendasoughttoconfigurethis
transformationalprocess.Iwillnotarguethatthisintersectionalitywouldbemerelya
happymarriagenorwouldprimarilyproducesomeacceptableandbenignhybrid

DepartmentofAnthropologyandArchaeologicalResearchFacility,Universityof
1

California,Berkeley;Berkeley,California9470203710Email:mconkey@mac.com

1
vigor,becausethereareandshouldbeenoughdifferencesbetweenthem(andeven
withineach)toassurethereisalwaysatension.Itismyhopethatallarchaeologistsnot
justoneswhofindthemselvesincreasinglyworkingwithindigenouspeoplesand/or
interestedintakingfeministpracticesmoreseriouslywillfindsomethingofvaluein
justtheideaofwhere,how,andwhysomethingcouldbegainedfromprobingthe
intersectionalityofcurrentfeministandindigenousarchaeologies.
Thispaperisintendedtobeawaystation,wherewemightpauseandconsider
wherewearelocatedincontemporaryarchaeology.Itisbasedonthepremisethatall
archaeologistscannotseekrelationsorconnectionsbetweeneachotherandeachothers
projectsunlessweallremainvigilantaboutthemultiplewayseachofusisconstituted.
Inbroachingthistopic,inreadingasomewhatnewliterature(especiallyonNative
Americanwomensstudies,Indigenousarchaeologies,andondecolonizing
methodologies),Imyselfhavehadtotrytoconfronttheextenttowhichweare
implicatedintheverysystemsweseektochallenge,andhowwetendtoprivilegeour
ownnarratives,especiallywhenwethinkofthemasemancipatory;theymaynotbe
emancipatoryforsomeoftheverypeoplewethinkwearereaching.
Thepaperwilladdressseveralissuesbeforeturningtotheintersectionalnexus.
Yes,IndigenousandNativewomenscholarshavebeenindialogueanddebatewith
feminisms(e.g.,L.T.Smith1999:165168;Mihesuah2000)and(some)nonNative
archaeologistshavebeenindialogueandoftenverymuchworkingtogetherwith
(some)indigenousgroupsandindigenousarchaeologists,(e.g.,Davidson,etal.1995;
NicholasandAndrews1997;Swidleretal.1997;Dongoske,etal.2000;Nicholas2001).
Andyes,aboriginalinvolvement(e.g.,Birckheadetal.1992),aboriginal
perspectives(e.g.,Roberts2002),andtheproductionofalternativehistories(e.g.,
SchmidtandPatterson1995)havecharacterizedthelastdecadeofthetwentiethcentury
inwaysthathadpreviouslynotevenbeenimagined(seealsoFerguson1996;Pecketal.
2003;C.SmithandWobst2005).Buttherearemoreconnectionstomake.
First,Iwillconsiderwhatistobegainedfromintersectionalities,aswellaswhat
ismeant,anyway,byintersectionalities.IwilltrytocharacterizewhatIthink
constitutesindigenousarchaeologiesandfeministarchaeologies,atleastatthispoint
intheirhistories.Iwilltrytospeaktosomeoftheintersections(andtensions)alreadyat
playbetweenIndigenouswomensstudies,Indigenouspeoplesandfeminisms.Iwantto
considerwhatanintersectiontodaymightlooklikebetweenthesedifferent
archaeologicalapproaches,andwhatmightbegainedfromthedialogue.Cantherebean
intersectionwithoutnecessarilyprivilegingoneapproachovertheother,sacrificingthe
goalsofonetothoseoftheother?

Infact,justwhatdowemeanbyintersectionality?
Inachapterthatexplicitlyaddressesintersectionalityandscientificknowledge,
Collins(1999)suggeststhattheconceptofintersectionalityreferencesseveraltypesof
relationships,whicharenotmutuallyexclusive:
1) thatideasandthesocialstructureswithinwhichtheyoccurareinter
connected;
2) withinadiscipline,withitsownideasandsocialstructures,howdoourown

2
 subsetsandperspectivesintersect?
3) thatthehierarchiesofgender,race,economicclass,sexuality,nationality,
ethnicity,etc.areintersected;thereisanintersectednessofthesehierarchies.

Theprimarythrustofthispaperistofocusonthesecondrelationshipshowdo
differentsocalledarchaeologiesintersect,relatetoeachother?Withregardtotheextant
anddifferentkindsofarchaeology(e.g.,evolutionary,processual,feminist,marxist,
social,Indigenous)therearemultiplerelationsofdominationthathavestructuredand
informedtheproductionofarchaeologicalknowledge.Feministcritiquesofsciencehave
shownthewaysinwhichWesternscienceischaracterizedbynotonlyacertainworld
viewonethatishighlygenderedandbasedoncertainrelationalassumptionsabout
males/females,nature/culture,etcbutalsobywhatDorothySmith(1990)calls
conceptualimperialism.Archaeologyisnolessimmunetoitsownhistoryof
conceptualimperialisms.
Butboththeothertwodimensionsofintersectionality(numbers1and3,above)
arealsoimplicated.Itisnoteasytoseparatethem,especiallywhenthedisciplinary
subsetsofconcernherefeministandIndigenousarethemselvesverymuch
concernedwithboththewidersocialandculturalsettingswithinwhichtheyhave
evolved(suchaspatriarchyandcolonialism)andarepracticed(relationshipnumber1).
And,perhapsevenmoreinfluential,bothIndigenousandfeministarchaeologieshavea
focusonthethirdsetofrelationshipstheveryintersectionalitiesofrace,ethnicity,and
gender,amongotherhierarchies.Forexample,inreferencetotheconceptofgender,
whichmaybetakenasonebottomlineforfeministconcerns(Longino1994),an
intersectionalapproachwould,byviewinggenderwithinalogicofintersectionality
redefinegendertobeaconstellationofideasandsocialpracticesthatarehistorically
situatedwithinandthatmutuallyconstructmultiplesystemsofoppression(Collins
1999:263).
Thethemeorconceptofintersectionalityemergedmostnotablyoutof1980sand
1990sdevelopmentsespeciallyinBlackWomensStudies,whichfocusedonexploring
theinterconnectionsamongsystemsofoppression[seeLorde(1984)andespeciallyHull,
ScottandSmith(1982);foroneofthefirstusesofthetermintersectionalitysee
Crenshaw(1991)].Theoutcomeofengagingwiththeintersectionalitiesamongvectors
ofpowerandidentityhasbeentherecognitionofthemultiplerelationsofdomination
thathavestructuredandinformedtheproductionofknowledge.
Thefeministscholarshipofthe1980sand1990sorthirdwavefeminism
hasbeenconsistent,pointed,anduncompromisinginitscritiqueofmanydimensionsof
extant(predominantlywhiteacademic,middleclass)feministscholarshipandeven
activism:asessentialist,classist,andracist(e.g.,MoragaandAnzalda1981;Hull,Scott
andSmith1982;LugonesandSpelman1983;Spelman1988;Mohanty,RussoandTorres
1991,especiallyMohanty1991;Suleri1992,andmanyothers).Someofthetitlesalone
areenoughtomakeanyonesitboltupright:Sister,outsider,Inessentialwoman,
Whitewomen,listen!,Havewegotatheoryforyou!.Mostofthesecritiquesare
centrallyaboutpowerrelationsandarecallsforradicalreconceptualizationsofnotjust
womanandwomen,butofgender,whichcannotbedecoupledfromthevery

3
intersectionalitiesamongmultipledimensionsthroughwhichidentitiesareconstituted,
produced,reproducedandarecontrolled.AsstatedsosuccinctlybyAlarcn(1990:364):
Thereareotherrelationstobeaccountedfor(thanjustgender).Therearemanywebs
ofdomination.
Althoughthereisamuchlongerstorytobetoldhere,the1990ssawnotonly
continuedcritiquesalongtheselines,butalsoafloweringofconcernandengagement
withthepoliticsofdifference.Buthere,too,thereareproblematicissues.Forsome,
publicationssuchasThisBridgeCalledMyBack(MoragaandAnzalda1981)have
fosteredaveritableshiftinfeministconsciousness(deLauretis1987:10)andprovided
apathwayforthedevelopmentofalternatefeministtheoriesanddiscourses.Butothers
(e.g.,Alarcn1990,Lm1994,Oyewumi1999)remainunconvincedthatthechanges
havebeenmorethanskindeep(e.g.,Suleri1992)ortransformative.Theverydiscussion
anddebate,thedynamicandpassionatelyengagedvoicesgrapplingwiththedeeper
implicationsofintersectionalitieshavereframednotjustfeministscholarshipbutthe
entireprojectofsocialanalysis.Thatthefeminismsofthepasttwodecadeshavebeen
contentiousandconflicted,expansiveandchallengingisnotsurprising.AsDevon
Mihesuahwrites,inregardtoananthologyofessays(Mihesuah1998a)aboutthe
methodologiesforresearchaboutIndiansfromandbyIndians:anothergoalofthis
bookistooffersuggestionsscholarsmightusetoproducemorecritical,creative,and
wellroundedinterpretationsofIndianhistoriesandcultures.Weare,incidentally,trying
totakeourownadviceandarethefirsttoadmitthatitisnoteasy(1998b:xi,emphasis
added).

Whyconsideranothervantageorstandpointinconjunctionwithoneyoualready
hold?Whatistobegainedfromintersectionalities?
Thenotionofintersectionalitiesthenisintegraltothedevelopmentofasocial
analysisthatisrelationalandconcernedwiththepoliticsofrepresentation,whichiswhat
archaeologyisabout.Tothinkintersectionally,atthisparticularmomentinscholarship
andpolitics,istopromoteaconsciouscritiqueofhowembeddedourassumptionsand
verycategoriesofanalysisarewithinspecifichistoricalcontexts:tobeginthetheoretical
formulationsofthedisciplineandtoconstruetheactualitiesofpeoplesactivitiesas
expressionsofthealreadygivenistogenerateideology,notknowledge(D.Smith1990:
48;seealsoNicholson1990).Eventhougharchaeologycamelatetothestudyofgender
andthedoingofarchaeologywithinfeministparameters,therehasbeenincreasing
attentiontointersectionalapproaches(e.g.,Franklin2001,Meskell2002).Inarelatively
rarediscussionofthepossibleintersectionofBlackfeministinsightswitharchaeological
practice,Franklin(2001;seealsoSterling2003,2004),pragmaticallyarticulateshow
Blackfeministscholarshipprovidespotentialmodelsforframingquestionsofdifference
andinequality,andforcritiquingthesociopoliticsofarchaeology,particularlywhere
racedandgenderedrepresentationsofthepastareconcerned(Franklin2001:108).
Althoughnotusuallydefinedassuch,thereareintersectionalapproachesofthe
thirdsortwithinarchaeology;thatis,intersectionsofhierarchiesandaspectsofidentity
thattakeintoaccounttheconvergencesofseveraldimensionsofdifference(e.g.,
Spector1993,Wilkie1996,Mullins1999,Wall1999,Delleetal.2000,Wilkie2003),

4
especiallyamonghistoricalarchaeologicalstudies.Inarelativelyrarediscussionofthe
possibleintersectionofBlackfeministinsightswitharchaeologicalpractice,Franklin
(2001;seealsoSterling2003,2004),pragmaticallyarticulateshowBlackfeminist
scholarshipprovidespotentialmodelsforframingquestionsofdifferenceand
inequality,andforcritiquingthesociopoliticsofarchaeology,particularlywhereraced
andgenderedrepresentationsofthepastareconcerned(Franklin2001:108).And
althoughmanystatementsofdoingarchaeologyadvocateanintersectionalapproach
(e.g.,Brumfiel1992;Meskell2001,2002),oftenitisjustoneaxisofdifferenceor
oppressionthattendstobeforegrounded,asFranklin(2001)pointsoutforNorth
Americanhistoricalarchaeology.Thiswasoneofthemajorconcernsofthosewhosaw
anunhappymarriagebetweenMarxismandfeminism:Themarriagehasbeenlike
themarriageofhusbandandwifedepictedinEnglishcommonlaw,Marxismand
feminismareone,andthatoneisMarxism(Hartman1981:2;butODonovanetal.2001
attempttorecuperatetherelationshipofMarxismandfeminisminarchaeology).
AnexplicitengagementwithintersectionsbetweenIndigenousandfeminist
concerns,inarchaeologyandbeyond,hasthepotentialofcontributingtobuilding
somewhatcommongrounds,evenifthecentersofeachapproacharenotthesame.
Totheextentthatacorefocusoffeministarchaeologyis,asBrumfieloftenpointsout,to
understandhowsocialinequalityworksinourownlivesandintheculturalpast(Wylie
andConkeyn.d.b),thereappearstobecommongroundwithIndigenousarchaeologies,
andwithIndigenousfeminismsandwomensstudies.Allsharethecommitmenttothe
survivalofusall(Russo1991:310).[S]urvivalwritesLorde,isnotanacademic
skill.Itislearningtostandalone,unpopularandsometimesreviled,andhowtomake
commoncausewiththoseothersidentifiedasoutsidethestructures,inordertodefine
andseekaworldinwhichwecanallflourish(1981:99).
WhilewemightthinkoffeministandIndigenousarchaeologiesaspartofthe
politicsofdifferencewithinbotharchaeologyandsocietyandasoccupyingdifferent
partsoftheacademic/research/archaeologicaltopography,itisyetcriticalthatwe
recognizeandengagewiththewholepictureofwhatarchaeologyis,andhowitisthat
whatispowerforsomeispreciselysomeoneelsespowerlessness.Intersectionalitiescan
besaidtoencourageakindofrelationalclarification;thatis,thereismuchtobegained
inaccomplishingselfclarificationthatcanperhapsonlybeaccomplishedrelationally:
[thereis]nosuchthingasstrictselfclarificationbutonlyclarificationin
relationtosomethingthatisnotexactlytheselfbutthatisatthesametimenotso
farremovedfromtheselfastoprovidenopossiblebasisfordiscussionand
illumination(Lm1994:881).
Notsurprisingly,ithasbeentheestablishmentandworkingoutofrelations
between
IndiansandarchaeologistsinNorthAmericathathasbeencentraltotheemergenceof
Indigenousarchaeologies(Watkins2000).

WhatdowemeanbyIndigenousarchaeology(archaeologies)?
Thisisnotahomogeneousapproachtothepracticeofarchaeology,norshould
itbe.TherearemanydifferentIndigenousgroupsandsettingsinwhichanIndigenous
archaeologycomesintoplay,andeachhasitsownhistoryandemergentneedsandgoals,

5
manyofwhicharethemselvesshiftingandevolving.Thewidercontextforthe
emergenceofanincreasinglywellformulatedconceptandpracticeofIndigenous
archaeologiesincludessomemajorseachangesintheclimateforarchaeological
practice;forexample,repatriationlawsintheUnitedStates(e.g.,,Bray2001),theendof
apartheidinSouthAfrica,andtheMaboDecisionandNativeTitleinAustralia(e.g.
Lilley2000).Ingeneral,thepastdecadehaswitnessedtheemergenceofthesocalled
postcolonialtimes,withpostcolonialtheoryand,perhapsmostsignificantly,
decolonizingmethodologies.
Thesearenotjustconcernsforarchaeologistsofculturecontactorhistorical
archaeologies;allarchaeologytodayispostcolonial(Gosden2001:241)atleastin
thechronologicalsense.Moreimportantly,archaeologistsneedtounderstandpost
colonialityintheintellectualandpoliticalsenses;wemaybeespeciallywellpositioned
toinsistonthehistoricalspecificitiesofpostcolonialisms.Butmanyespecially
Indigenouspeopleswouldhastentopointoutthatthisverytermandframingreference
ofpostcolonialityshouldbecontestedasaconvenientconventionofWestern
intellectualswhichreinscribestheirpowertodefinetheworld(L.T.Smith1999:14).It
hasbeenrightlynotedthatarchaeologyitselfwillnotmovebeyondbeingacolonialist
enterpriseunlessitactivelyseekstounderstandtheunderlyingissuesofownershipand
controlofmaterialandintellectualpropertyasrelatedtoculturalknowledgeand
heritage(NicholasandBannister2004:329).
Theterm,Indigenous,isatermthathasappearedinawidespreadmanner
relativelyrecently,andmayhaveparticularlyemerged,Smithsuggests(1999:7)inthe
1970sinNorthAmericawiththeAmericanIndianMovementandtheCanadianIndian
Brotherhood(AgaKhanandbinTalal1987;Wilmer1993).Butdespitethesemany
decadesandthelongstandingresearchonIndigenouspeoples,thereareeventoday
fewcriticaltextsonresearchmethodologieswhichmentionthewordindigenousorits
localizedsynonyms(L.T.Smith1999:5).Noonewouldclaimthatthereisa
homogeneousentityknownasIndigenouspeople,buttheplural(Indigenouspeoples)
canbedeployedstrategicallyincertaincontexts,aswellasprovideanetworkof
connectionsandmutualencouragement,information,possiblepractices,andinspiration.
Smith(1999:7)citesWilmer(1993:5):indigenouspeoplesrepresenttheunfinished
businessofdecolonization.
DespitetheemergentandvariednatureofIndigenousarchaeologies,thereare
somedimensionstothemthatcanperhapscharacterizethesepracticesandconcerns,at
leastasweseethemtoday.Throughoutthispaper,Iwillfollowthecoreideaputforthby
GeorgeNicholas(e.g.,2003)thatanindigenousarchaeologyisonethatisdonewith,for,
andbyIndigenouspeople,andthatitcanbeanarchaeologydonenotonlybyIndigenous
People:oneneednotbeaNativePersontofollowanIndigenousArchaeology
paradigmandthearchaeologyneednotbelocatedonlyonanIndigenouslandbase
(Atalay2004).AnIndigenousarchaeologyrequiresacriticalgaze,genuinecollaboration,
inclusionofIndigenousepistemologiesandNativeconceptionsofthepast,ofhistory,
andtime,anditrequiresaquestioningoftheroleofresearchinthecommunitywhere
oneisworkingoraboutwhichonewantstoknow.Toagreatextent,Indigenous
archaeologieswillfeaturecritiqueanddeconstructionofwesternarchaeologicalpractice.

6
ThiswilllikelybecombinedwithasetofIndigenousconceptsthatmodeltheway
archaeologyshouldbestbepracticed,byallarchaeologists(Atalay2004).
SomeofthemanygoalsofIndigenousarchaeologieswouldincludecentrallya
decolonizinggoal,includingdecolonizingmethodologies(e.g.,L.T.Smith1999;
MihesuahandWilson2004,WilsonandYellowBird2005;foranarchaeological
exampleseeFaulstichetal.,2003,orC.SmithandWard2000:xvi);someoftheseare
discussedlaterinthepaper,buttheoverallimplicationisthattheentireresearchprocess
requirestransformation.Onecoremethodmaybeoneofresearchingback,which
involvesaknowingnessofthecolonizer,andarecoveryofourselves(asindigenous
peoples),ananalysisofcolonialism,andastruggleforselfdetermination(L.T.Smith
1999:7).
Anothergoalistoclaimthepowertosettheagenda,askthequestions,
determinewhatisexcavatedandretainaspectsofcontroloverfinalinterpretationsand
disseminationofknowledge(Atalay2004;seealsoWatkins2000).AfullyIndigenous
archaeologyiswhenIndigenouspopulationscontrolthequantityandqualityof
archaeologyperformedwithintheirhomelands(Watkins2000:177,emphasisadded).
Andthus,Indigenousarchaeologiesrequireanexplicitengagementwithandagreements
aboutintellectualandculturalpropertyrights(seeNicholasandBannister2004),which
areoftenlocal,gnarly,andcontested.Thenotionsofownershipandofprotection
(ofarchaeologicalandculturalresources)willhavetochangeforatrulyIndigenous
archaeology(Watkins2000:178),keepinginmindthateventhesebasictermsmayhave
differentmeaningsatadeepontologicallevel.
Indigeneousarchaeologiesadvocateanethicalandhumancenteredpractice,in
whichalllinesofevidencehaveapotentialplace,includingoraltraditionsandthe
experiential,aswellasthematerialandthecontextual.AsWatkinshassaid(2000:166)
suchexamination,whileperhapsdisconcertingtotheindividualarchaeologist,
strengthensthedisciplinebyallowingthedevelopmentofalternativemeansofviewing
thepast.Indigenousarchaeologywillbringtothedisciplineaviewpointthatrefusesto
beobjectiveandembracestheemotional,onethatpursuesnottruthbutunderstanding,
andonethatincludesallfacetsofwhatitistobehumanonthebrinkofanexciting
adventure(Watkins2000:181;foranexample,seeSpector1993).
OnebottomlineisthatthegrowthanddevelopmentofIndigenousarchaeologies
isnotjustabouttheestablishmentof(more)tribalculturalresourcemanagement
programs,excellentasmanyare.Thedisciplineofpracticingarchaeologistsmustinclude
increasingnumbersofIndigenouspeopleandinseniorandleadershiproles(Watkins
2000:177),whichshouldhelptogeneratetransformationswithinthediscipline(e.g.,
Ferguson2000:3536)(evenif,aswehavelearnedfromtheentryofwomeninto
science,thisisnotnecessarilyenough).Thismeansthatarchaeologistsmustexpandtheir
pedagogies,theirrecruitmentfordegreeprogramsandfieldopportunities,theirtraining
programsandcurricula(e.g.,Riggs2004).Akeyissueisaboutrelationships,
relationshipsbetweenarchaeologistsandIndigenouspeoples.Archaeologyasadiscipline
mustdevelopwiththecontrolandinfluenceofindigenouspopulationsaroundthe
world(Watkins2000:xiii),andthisistobeinstantiatedinviable,collaborativeworking
relationships,infullintegration,whendesired,ofIndigenousarchaeologistsand

7
archaeologicalperspectivesintothepracticesofarchaeology,fromthefieldtothe
classroomandtheadministrationofarchaeologicalprogramsandpractices.Aswith
feminism,Indigenousconcernsaboutarchaeologicalpracticearenotmerelypolitical
andcannotbedismissedassuch.IndigenousarchaeologyinNorthAmerica,for
example,shouldbebasedmoreinAmericanIndianculturalvaluesandinterests(thanin
justpolitics)(Watkins2000).
Thereisnodoubtthatmanyarchaeologistswillbalkattherequest/requirementof
IndigenouspeoplesandIndigenousarchaeologiststoregulateandevencontrolwhatis
saidanddonewiththeirpasts.Yet,whatNicholasandBannister(2004:332)articulate
isthattheultimaterisktobothsidesislossofcontrolofknowledge.Justascontrol
use,appropriation,commodificationofarchaeologicalknowledgehasbeencentralto
nonIndigenousarchaeologistsintheirclaimstoprofessionalintegrity(andrewards),
archaeologicalandculturalknowledgeis,toIndigenouspeoples,bothpartofcultural
propertyandintegraltoculturalidentity(NicholasandBannister2004:332).Oneneed
notbeasocialscientisttounderstandthattheveryculturalintegrityofIndigenous
peoplesisinextricablydependentupontheircontrolofculturalknowledge.
Fortunately,in2005therearenumerousexamplesoftheprogramsandpractices
ofanarchaeologythatisanIndigenousinformedarchaeology;infact,theyaretoo
numeroustolistinareasonablesetofcitations.Tworecentexamplesmightindicatethe
rangeofsuchpossibilities:
1) AnewPhDscholarship(attheAustralianNationalUniversity)tosupporta
graduatestudenttowriteathesisonIndigenouscollectorsandcollections,
whichconsidersIndigenouspeoplescontemporaryrolesinshapingprivate
andpubliccollections,andtheinfluenceofhistoricalcircumstancesandideas
ofcommunalownershipandresponsibility.Itthereforesubvertsthedominant
emphasisuponEuropeansascollectorsandappropriatorsofindigenous
objects.ByconsideringIndigenouspeopleascollectors,curatorsand
presentersofbelovedobjects,thisprojectwilloffermajornewperspectives
onAustralianIndigenoushistoryandmuseology.Byexploringthepowerof
materialobjectsinculturalidentityandhistoricalconsciousness,thisproject
disruptsthestereotypeofIndigenouspeopleaspurelymuseumvictims
(http://www.arc.gov.au/applygrants/linkageprojects.htm,9/27/04).

2) MembersoftheSantaYnezChumashIndianReservationinCaliforniahave
negotiatedanagreementwitharchaeologistMikeGlassowand
bioarchaeologistPhilWalkerattheUniversityofCalifornia,SantaBarbaras
RAEC(RepositoryofAnthropologicalandEthnologicalCollections)that
archaeologicalmaterialsrepatriatedtotheSantaYnezbandwillbehousedat
theRAEC(ontheSantaBarbaracampus).TheSantaYnez,however,will
ownthesecollections,overseetheiruse,andshareintheirmanagementand
curation.WalkerandGlassowarealsoworkingwithotherChumash
descendantstoeducatethepublicaboutChumashheritagethroughloansof
RepositorycollectionsforexhibitionatChumashrunfacilities

8
 (www.anth.ucsb.edu/AGSANEWS/agsa.F95/repos.html,
9/29/04).

Whatdowemeanbyfeministarchaeology(archaeologies)?
Asmanyauthorshavepointedout(e.g.,HanenandKelley1992;Conkeyand
Gero1997;Wylie1997;HaysGilpin2000a;Meskell2000),thereisarichliterature
aboutthearchaeologyofgender,butmuchlessliteraturethatismorefullyengagedwith
feministissues,theoryandapproaches.Wylie(2003)generouslysuggeststhat,by
engagingwiththeconceptofgender,evennonorafeministarchaeologistshave
contributedtoanarchaeologythatbothmakesgendervisibleandraisesimportant
questionsabouttheobjectivityofanarchaeologythathadeitherignoredgenderorwas
genderedinanandrocentricorsexistway.Somefeministsaskifthelabelfeministstill
hasafunction?Despitethemanymeaningsoffeminism,mostwhoconsider
themselvesfeministswouldagreethatitisstillnecessarytoincludegenderbutinmore
expansivesensesofthetermasacategoryofanalysisintheconsiderationofany
culturalproduct(Keller2000:384),orassomepartofthecoproductionofmany
cultural,socialpractices.
So,indeed,thelasttwentyyearshavewitnessedtheproductionofaveryrobust,
diverse,andvibrantliteratureinarchaeologyfrommostpartsoftheworld(e.g.,Bertelsen
etal.,1987;GeroandConkey1991;KstnerandKarlisch1991;DuCrosandSmith
1993;ClaassenandJoyce1997;MooreandScott1997;Wadley1997;Kent1998;among
dozensanddozensmore)thathasnotonlychallengedprevailingandrocentricaccountsof
humanlife;critiquedthegendered(usuallymasculinist)natureofpreferredresearch
questions,ofsubjects,andofprofessionalrewardsystems;butalsocarriedoutresearch
onaspectsofgenderthatearlyadvocatesofanarchaeologythattookgenderseriously
neverimaginedinour/theirwildestdreamsforanengenderedarchaeology.Thereare
archaeologiesofgenderandtrade(Spielmann2000;Seligman2001);genderand
mortuarypractices(ArnoldandWicker2001);genderandpower(Sweely1999);gender
andmaterialculture(DonaldandHurcombe2000);andengenderedconsiderationsof
ritual(HaysGilpin2000b),religion(Gilchrist1994),art(Joyce1998,HaysGilpin
2003),architecture,space,andplace(Lane1998;Tringham1994);genderandhide
working(FrinkandWeedman2005),genderinregionalarchaeologies[e.g.,theU.S
Southwest(Crown2000);China(LinduffandYanSun2004);preHispanicAmerica
(Klein2001a)];archaeologiesofsexuality(SchmidtandVoss2000),ofthebodyand
engenderedsocializationpractices(Joyce1998,2000;MeskellandJoyce2003).There
areevensecondeditionsofsynthetictexts(e.g.,Nelson2004),PhDdissertationsthat
engenderspecificarchaeologies(e.g.,HudecekCuffe1998),andthatusegenderasa
conceptualplatformforreimagininganalyticalframeworksforspecificarchaeological
materialsandtechnologies(Dobres1995,2000),orforreconsideringmajorcultural
transitionsofthehumanpast(e.g,Peterson2002,Pyburn2004).Attemptsarebeing
madetoassesstheimpactoffeminismonarchaeology(e.g.,Conkey2003).Genderand
evensomefeministarchaeologyisincludedinmostmajorNorthAmericanintroductory
archaeologytextbooks.Itisimpossiblenowtoprovideacomprehensivebibliography

9
despiteearlierattempts(e.g.,Bacusetal.1993;ConkeyandGero1997),anda
HandbookofGenderinArchaeologyisinpreparation(Nelson2005).
Aswithsomeotherarchaeologicalapproaches,feministshavebeenconcernedto
extricatearchaeologyfromthetrapofafocusonandfetishizationofthearchaeological
traceasathinginitself(Byrne2003:181)orfromthefamousfallacyofmisplaced
concreteness.Thishasledmanyfeministapproachestoconfront,then,theproblemsof
visibilityinatleasttwosenses:
a)Theapparentinvisibilityofwomen,gender,sexualityandothercontained,
silenced,erasedpeopleandcontexts;and
b)Theopticalillusion(afterBurton2000)ofvisibility,whichallowsthatwhile
theseformerlyinvisiblearenowvisible,theyare,alltoooften,madevisible
inroles,attitudes,andrelationsthataremerelyextensionsofstereotypicaland
problematicroles,attitudesandrelations,usuallythoseofthepresent(e.g.,in
Lovejoy1981).
Evenmoreimportantly,themakingvisibleoftenprecludesanalysisof
theverysystemsofmutingandsuppression,andoftheirhistoricity.Thisresults
inreproducingtheirterms,insteadofcontestingthemasideologicalsystems.
Thus,itisnotonlymakingvisibleorvisibilitythatshouldbeofconcernto
archaeologistsbutalsotheverycontextsandpracticesofinvisibility(Byrne
2003).
Feministarchaeologieshaveconsistentlybeenaboutbothamorereflexive
archaeologyandonethatrecognizesthewaysinwhicharchaeologicalknowledgeis
situatedknowledge(Haraway1988).Despitethedebatesovertheuse(ornot)of
feministtheoryandpracticeinanarchaeologythattakesgenderseriously(Klein2001b
andConkey2001;Srenson2000:411),muchofthisarchaeologyhasrevealedhow
archaeologicalresearchhadbeencompromisedbyitsandrocentricandsexist
assumptions,thelimitsofitscategories(e.g.,Spector1993:3035),orjustbyits
omissions.Feministarchaeologiesareanaudibleadditiontotheexpandingchorusof
voicesofwhichIndigenousarchaeologiesmustbecentralthatmandatewemake
explicitourresponsibilitiesforourethicalandpolitical,aswellastheoreticaland
methodological,standardsofdisciplinarypractice(WylieandConkeyn.d.b).
Therearesomeparallels,perhaps,betweenthehistoryofdoingfeministresearch
inthesocialsciencesandtheissuesanddimensionsofIndigenousresearch.Forexample,
itiswellknownthathighamongtheconcernsoffeministshasbeenthatwomensvoices
areheard,thattheirinsightsandexperiencesarevaluedandincludedasanequalsource
ofknowledgeandinformation;thatwomenswaysofknowingarevalidandvalidated,
evenifthereisdebateastotheveryexistenceofsomethingdistinctivelywomensways
ofknowing.Asearlyresearcherspointedout(e.g.,MacKinnon1982,D.Smith1974),
thisverydimensionmightrequirenewordifferentwaysofworking,differentlanguage
andconcepts,anddifferentanalyticalframeworks,eventhoughthesearenotlikelytobe
amongtheacceptedconventionsfordoingresearchinthesocialsciences.Atfirst,there
wasaparticularengagementwithmorequalitativeresearchmethods,including
drawingonwomensexperiences,andoftencommunicatedthroughstorytelling,
narratives,andoraltraditions.Certainlythesemodesofdiscoursethesewaysof

10
tellingfeatureprominentlyinmanyIndigenousknowledgesystems.Yettheyarenot
mainstreamtosocialscienceresearch;infact,manyhavebeenexplicitlydisdained,
trivializedanddismissed(forsomereviewsofthehistoryofthequestforfeminist
methods,seeforexampleReinharz1992;JayaratneandStewart1991;foragoodrecent
discussionseeNaples2003).Althoughthereisamuchlongerstorytotellhere,theresult
ofthequestforperhapsafeministmethodologyhasbeentoquestionthatthereeven
couldbesuchathing(e.g.,forethnography,seee.g.,AbuLughod1990).
Butherecomestheimportantpoint:ratherthanabandoninganunderstandingof
feministresearchbecausetherecanbenoonewayornosetoffeministmethod(s),the
verymethodologicalpluralisms,and,aswehaveseeninthearchaeologiesofgender,the
profusionofallsortsofpreviouslyunanticipatedandunimaginedquestions,analyses,
andwaystoshedlightonapreviouslyinvisibledomainofhumanculturallife,haveled
insteadtoareframingofthequestion.Itisnotsomuchhowtodofeministsocial
science?orhowtodofeministarchaeology?assumingperhapssomesortof
manifestoorguidebookbutrather,howdoesonedoresearchasafeminist?(see
Longino1994,Wylie1995a,ConkeyandWylie1998,WylieandConkeyn.d.a).Thisre
orientingofthequestion,andallthatfollowsfromit,maybeoneofthosecommon
groundsforfeministandIndigenousarchaeologies.
OnekeyissueamongthosepracticinganIndigenousarchaeologyisbeingexplicit
astowhatitmeanstodoarchaeologyasanIndigenouspersonorfromanIndigenous
perspective.Whatcanbelearnedfromfeministapproaches,andhowmightoneapproach
archaeologyasafeministIndigenousperson?Whatarethedecolonizingmethodologies
athandandtobedevelopedinordertoaccomplishthis?Andwhyarearchaeologistsnow
perhapsmorereadyandabletolistentotheseapproachesthatsomehavebeen
advocatingwithintheprofessionforsometime(e.g.,Zimmerman1979,1989a,b,c;
McGuire1992;Thomas2000)?
Thus,whilethereisstillvibrantandimportantworkinarchaeologythattakesup
issuesofgenderandofgenderintersections,thereissimultaneouslyworkthatbrings
feministprinciplesandpracticestobearonarchaeologicalmaterialsandevidence,work
thatcomplicatestheconceptofgender(e.g.,Joyce2000,2001)andworkthatis
attemptingtoreconceptualizetheentireresearchprocess(Spielmann1994;Gero1996;
JoyceandPreucel2002;WylieandConkeyn.d.a).Asthislatterconcernemergesamong
feministsandothers,thereisnotonlyaspacebutalsoaneedforadialoguewithpeople
whoaredoingIndigenousarchaeology;thosewho,itwouldseem,aresimultaneously
concernedthattheresearchprocessinarchaeologybereconceptualizedforsomeofthe
samereasons:tobringdivergentandmultipleperspectivestobearonouraccountsofthe
past,tomistrustpracticesandinterpretationsthatdonottakegendered/Indigenousvoices
andevidenceintoaccount,andtomistrustinterpretationsthatsimplify,reducethe
complexityofthepasttomonolithic,totalizing,andessentialistnarratives.
Thisconcerntobothchallengeandreconceptualizetheresearchprocessis
almostanecessaryandinevitableoutcomeoftakinggenderseriouslyinarchaeological
workandallthatthathascometoimply,includingnewlyframedandnonessentialist
understandingsofgenderitself(seee.g.,anentirekeywordsbookaboutgender,
Cornelletal.,2004).Feministarchaeologiesholdsomedifferentstartingassumptions,

11
manyofwhichhavebeenconciselydiscussedbyfeministepistemologistsHelenLongino
(1994)andAlisonWylie(1995a):arecognitionthatknowledgeproductionisapluralistic
enterprise,onethatservesdivergentgoals,engagesdissentseriously,andfostersviews
from(notjustanywhere,butfrom)manywheres(Longino1993:113).And,specific
toarchaeologywouldbetherespectfortheverymaterialityofthearchaeologicalrecord
(Wylies1992evidentialconstraints).
Thus,thereareatleasttwoquitecoreimplicationsoffeministresearchforallof
archaeologyandforanarchaeologythatincludesandpromotesIndigenous
archaeologies:
1) Aswithmanyfeministprojectsinepistemologyandhowweknowwhatwe
know,theideal(s)ofbeingobjectivehavehadtobesubstantiallyre
formulated,tosaytheleast.Theveryprocessandresultsofexposingthe
androcentrismsandpreferentialresearchpractices,subjects,andthuswhatwe
haveheldasourunderstandingsofthehumanpasthascalledobjectivityinto
question(Code1991:321;Wylie1992,1997,2003;seealsoLloyd1995,1997).
Butthisisabsolutelynotananythinggoesarchaeology,forfeministshave
insistedonengagementwithevidenceandthelimitsofinterpretation.AsWylie
statessosuccinctlyaboutfeministarchaeologists:[T]heyareclearaboutthe
social,politicalnatureofthearchaeologicalenterprise,andyettheydonot
considertheoutcomesofinquiryorthecriteriaofadequacygoverningpracticeto
bereducibletothesociopoliticsofpractice(1997:8586).

2) Thefeministstandpointinarchaeology(Wylie2000a,2003)is,however,justone
ofanumberofothercriticalstandpointsinarchaeology(Geroetal.1983,Leone
etal.1987;Layton1989,1994;KohlandFawcett1996,amongmany,and
includingIndigenousarchaeologies)thatarechallenging,informing,and
expandingininsightful,significantandpositivewaysthestandardwaysof
doinginarchaeology.

WhataboutFeminismsandIndigenousConcerns?
OfcoursethereisadomainthatinwhichfeminismandIndigenouswomenare
linked.L.Smith(1999:4,9)explicitlynotesthatmanyindigenousresearcherstodayare
informedacademicallybycriticalandoftenfeministapproachestoresearch.Shecharts
someofthewaysinwhichthefeministcritiquehascontributedtothepostpositivistand
emancipatorypossibilitiesforresearchandresearchers,evenifsheisnotconvincedthat
suchemancipationshavetranspired.TheworkofBlackfeminists(e.g.,Collins1986on
theoutsiderwithin)hasbeenofparticularrelevance.Bothapproachesarguethatwe
cannolongercarryonresearchwithinoraboutwomenandIndigenouscommunitiesasif
theyandtheirperspectives,voices,actionsandpracticesdidnotmatter.When
archaeologists,forexample,claimthatwhattheyaredoingisinthepublicinterest,it
hasalltoooftenbeenasifnativepeoplearenotpartofthepublic.AmongSmiths
decolonizingprojectsisgendering,whichrequiresananalysisofcolonialismasa
centraltenetofanindigenousfeminism(L.T.Smith1999:152).Aswithother

12
intersectionalperspectives,indigeneity/ethnicitywillnecessarilycomplicatedivergent
feminisms(Suleri1992:763).
Atarecentconference,IndigeneityintheTwentyFirstCentury(Baureleetal.
2004),oneofsixpanelswasdevotedtohistoricizinganddehistoricizinggenderwith
thefollowinggoals:toexplorecontinuitiesinwomenspowerandauthorityin
Indigenoussocieties,todevelopacriticalperspectiveonanthropologicaland
archaeologicalaccountsofwomenandgenderbyexploringlocalknowledgeofwomens
livesaspasseddownbyelderwomen,tointerrogatetherelevanceofWesternconceptsof
genderandfeminismtoIndigenouscultureandthesignificanceofgendertoIndigenous
nationalism.ForanAugust2005conference(IndigenousWomenandFeminism:Culture,
Activism,Politics2005),theorganizerspointoutthat,despitetheinterventionsofthird
wavefeminismandattentionstointersectionalities,indigenouswomenandfeminism
issuesremainundertheorizedwithincontemporaryfeministtheory.Indigenous
feminismhasitsdifferencesfromthefeminismofwomenofcolorandpostcolonial
feminism(withinwhichitisoftencontained)becauseindigenousfeminismremainsan
importantsiteofgenderstrugglethatalsoengagesthecrucialissuesofculturalidentity,
nationalism,anddecolonization.
InMihesuahsexcellentchapter,Feminists,Tribalists,orActivists?,shesums
upmanyofthedivergentstandpointsfromherperspectiveasaNativeAmerican.Of
course,asshepointsout,manyNativewomengoabouttheirdailybusinesswithlittle
appreciation[orconcern]forwhatscholarsdecidetolabelthem(2003:161;seealso
WilliamsandHarjo1998).Mihesuah(2000;2003:38)expressessomespecificcautions
aboutanintegrationoffeminismwithAmericanIndianWomensStudiesbut,despite
these,thereisatleastadialogue,andquestionsareraisedthataredirectlyrelevanttoan
intersectionbetweenfeministandIndigenousarchaeologies(seealsoL.T.Smith
1999:165168),whichismadequiteclearbythelistofconferencepanelgoalsstated
above.DeeperunderstandingofgenderedIndigenousliveshasagreatdealofcrucial
knowledgetoofferthedialoguesoffeminism(Suleri1992:765).Severaladditional
pointscanbemade:

1) ForbothfeministandIndigenousarchaeologies,weneedtobewaryof
scalingdownbothpostcolonialityandfeministframeworkstoNorth
Americanacademicterms(Suleri1992:765).Noonefeministtheorycould
coverthemultipleculturalideologiesandinterestsofNativepeople.

2) Thereisoftenatendencythatonesideofanintersectionwouldcomefirst,
inwhatSulerihascalledahierarchyofloyalties(1992:763).Nonetheless,
asMihesuahdiscusses(2003:143ff),thereisarangeoffeelingsabouthow
interconnectedIndigenouswomensconcernsarewiththoseoffeminists;for
manyIndigenouswomen,forexample,thereisapriorityfortribalism,for
tribalsurvival,evenifitisacknowledgedthattheaccomplishmentofsuch
maybeprimarilyormostefficaciouslyinthehandsofwomen.

13
 3) Activismtribalismis(understandably)muchmorethanwomensissues.
ForsomeNativeWomen,feminismisrejectedorignored(Mihesuah2003:
143,160),evenifitiswidelyrecognizedthatitistheveryintersectionof
racialandgenderoppressiongenderoppressionofwomenandmenthatis
ofcentralconcernespeciallyinthecontextoftribalrights.Itshouldnotbe
surprisingthatwhatfeminismmeans,andwhatrole(s)itshouldplayintheir
activismsaremultiple,variedandmixed.Aswell,whatdecolonization
meansandhowtoaccomplishitareequallymultipleandvaried(Mihesuah
2003:160).

4) Indigenousresistancestoafeministandgenderarchaeologymaywellbe
motivatedbytherecognitionandbeliefthatemphasizinggenderratherthan
othersourcesofdifferenceandoppressionmayactuallybeatoolofsocial
control(Minow1988:52,footnote26).AnarchaeologistwithanIndigenous
perspectivemightsaytoafeministarchaeologist:Considerforamomentthe
degreetowhichyourownunderstandingofgenderrolesinIndian
[Indigenous]culturesmightbedistortedbythelegacyofwhitepatriarchy
itself(Williams198990:1029).Thisisaseriousandimportantquestion.

Thereareotherproblemsaswell.Forexample,despitetheabundanceofmaterials
nowavailableaboutIndigenouswomen,themajorityofwritingsaredevoidofNative
voices,andaretherebyonlypartialhistories;manyinterpretationsremainincorrectand
underdeveloped;andmostdonotconnectthepasttothepresent,whichiswhywe
shouldbewritinghistoryinthefirstplace(Mihesuah2000:1247).Thisisanimportant
messagetoarchaeologists.Second,ifonedoesinjectthemultifacetedlivesandvaluesof
Nativesandalsodoesjusticetotheheterogeneityamongwomen,thisshould
(appropriately)confuseanyunderstandingofwomensexperience.Mihesuahs
critiqueisthatseekingacertainclarityaboutgenderisoftenattheexpenseofthe
visibility,agencyandidentityofthoserepresented.
Butsomefeministarchaeologistsare,infact,notpurelyseekingclarityabout
gender,genderrolesandrelationsclarityinthesenseofunambiguousandclear
picturesofgenderinthepast.Tomanycritics,thatwecannotattributeagendertoa
specificartifactorfeature,thatwedonothavethesmokinggunofsexidentification
(maleorfemaleinaburialorinart)orcannotsomehowmakevisiblegenderrolesin
someprecisewayisafailingofafeministarchaeology.Butfeministarchaeologistshave
differentaspirations,includingmakingitunderstoodjusthowveryambiguousall
archaeologicaldataare,howuncertainourinterpretationsmustbe,andhowmultiplethe
possibilitiesareforanyrenderingsofsociallife(e.g.,Geron.d.),whethergenderis
involvedornot.
Withinarchaeologythereareincreasingconcernsandpracticesthatappearto
resonatewithbothIndigenousandfeministprinciplesandpractices,betheyexplicit
pedagogiesandteaching(e.g.,ConkeyandTringham1996,Pyburn2002,C.Smith2003,
Hamilakis2004);fieldworkpractices(e.g.,Gero1996,Pyburn2003,Mosern.d.)orthe
languagesofarchaeology(Joyce2002a).Oneexceptionallylucidexampleisa

14
conferenceaboutIndigenousculturesinaninterconnectedworld(heldin1997)in
Darwin(Australia)(C.SmithandWard2000).Heretheverystructureoftheconference,
theactualsetting(heldoutdoors,minimizingcultureboundspatialcontainment
practices),andthecontentthatcenteredontheintegrationofculturalworkshopsand
demonstrationsintotheprogramenabledagroundingofthediscussionsinIndigenous
wisdomandculturalexpertise,andinthestrengthsofIndigenousculturesinperformance
andinteachingroles(C.SmithandWard2000:xvi).

DecolonizingmethodologiesandCounterResearch
Whiletheremaybenoagreementastowhatdecolonizationmeansfor
Indigenousresearchersandresearch,noronwhatconstitutesafeministmethodology,
therearesomedimensionsofresearchthatbotharchaeologiesmightwellshare.Forboth,
thereisastruggletocounterresearchbasedondeeplyproblematicpremisesand
methods,andforboth,thereareeffortstoreframe,reconceptualizeandtransformthe
researchprocesses.Whiletherehasbeensignificantdiscussionanddebateaboutwhat
constitutesfeministresearch,asnotedabove,thereisincreasingdiscussionastowhat
constitutesIndigenousresearch(MihesuahandWilson2004,WilsonandYellowBird
2005).Anexcellentoverviewoftheissuesinvolvedindoingresearchthatinvolvesthe
past,presentorfutureofcolonizedpeoplesisthebookbyLindaTuhiwaiSmith(1999).
InherIntroductionalone(pages118)shemakesclearanumberofcrucialpoints,points
thatarenotunfamiliarorforeigntothefeminist:
1) Thewaysinwhichresearchisasignificantsiteofstrugglebetween
differentwaysofknowinganddifferinginterests/concernsthoseofthe
WestandthoseoftheOther(seealso,Bannerjietal.1992);
2) Thatindigenouspeopleshaveotherstoriestotell,andwouldliketotellthe
historyofWesternresearchthroughtheeyesofthecolonized;
3) ThatIndigeneousperspectivesonresearchneedtobenotonlyacknowledged
butunderstood,astohowtheydevelop,andhowtheyaresignificant;
4) ThatherprojectismorethanadeconstructionofWesternscholarship.Itisan
attempttoofferwaysofdoingIndigenousresearchthatcontributeprimarilyto
theneedforsurvivalofIndigenouscommunitiesandindividuals.Hersample
ofsometwentyfiveprojects(Smith1999:142162)fromwriting,to
representing,toconnecting,restoring,andothersoffersexcellentguidelines
forhowtothinkaboutwhatoneisdoinginanyresearchproject,fromstartto
finish(seealsoMihesuah1993,Craven1996).

HereIwillattempttoexplorejusttwodimensionstointerpretationthathave
been/areintegraltobothfeministandIndigenousarchaeologies:theplaceandroleof
experienceininterpretation,andtheusesoforaltraditionsandstorytelling.

Experience
Howcanwerecognizeanduseexperienceintheinterpretiveprocess?How
doesexperiencefigureinassessingthevalidityandcredibilityofknowledgeclaims?This
isanenormoustopic,andhasbeenmuchdebatedinfeministliteraturefordecades.Ithas

15
oftenbeensuggestedthatonewaytomakethesilencedbeheardistobringforththeir
experiences,tobaseourunderstandingsofsocialandculturalphenomenaonthetelling
ofexperience(seee.g.,D.Smith1987foranexcellentconsiderationofhowexperience
worksinstructuringsocialinquiry).Scott(1992:24)hasnotedhowthisengagement
withwhatWolf(1984)calledthepeopleswithouthistoryhasprecipitatedacrisisfor
orthodoxhistory,ifonlybecausenownotjuststoriesbutsubjectshavemultiplied.Asin
feministandgenderarchaeologies,thesehistorieshaveprovidedevidenceforaworldof
alternativevaluesandpracticeswhoseexistencegivesthelietohegemonicconstructions
ofsocialworlds(Scott1992:24).Theplaceofexperienceinthesenewarchaeologies
andhistoriesisimportantyetcomplicated.
Wearchaeologistsdonotoftenconsiderhowspecificexperienceshave
influencedorinformedarchaeologicalinterpretation(butc.f.,Tringham1991,Spector
1993,Schrire1995,Bradley2002,Kus2002).Thereislittledoubtthatforthose
archaeologistswhoadheretoobjectivistideals,itappearstobeaslipperyslopetobring
in(oropenlyadmit)experienceasasourceofevidenceandpotentialmeaning.And
certainlytherehasbeenskepticismabouthowthecontemporaryworldofexperience
whatatribalelder,forexample,maysayaboutancientrockartcanbebroughtto
bearonactivitiesandpracticesofthepast(e.g.,Woody2000).Yet,mostofusdodraw
onnotonlyourownexperiencesbutalsothoseofotherculturesandsettings,suchasin
muchethnoarchaeologicalwork.Infact,somemightclaimthatwithoutethnographic
andhistoricalexperiencestherecouldbelittlebasisformuchtraditionalarchaeological
interpretation,asthematerialsofarchaeologydonot,infact,everspeakfor
themselves.
ButhowaretheexperiencesofIndigenouspeoplesoftenconsideredby
archaeologists?Whatkindsofexperiencescount,matter,andareconsidered
acceptable?Manywhoarewillingtoengagewiththisasaseriousquestionknowthatit
ismorecomplicated(andinteresting)thanjustaddingtheexperiencesofdifferent
researchersorofdifferent(previouslyunrecognized)voices,socialactors.Werecognize
thattoappealtosomekindofuncontestableevidencesuchasmyexperience
merelyaddsanotherfoundationalpremisetoadisciplinealreadyoverburdenedwith
undiscussed,unproblematizedfoundationalnotions,asJoanScotthassuggestedforthe
fieldofhistory(Scott1992).Shepointsoutthatitsnotindividualswhohaveexperience,
butratherweareallsubjectswhoareconstitutedthroughexperience.Wecannot,she
suggests,justappealtoexperiencetoexplainsomething,nomatterwhoseexperienceit
is.Rather,weneedtoexplainand,infact,historicizeexperience(Scott1992:2526;see
alsoScott1991;foranexcellentexampleofthehistoricizationofexperience,seeCarby
1987).
Whenweengage,asweshould,withexperiencesasadimensionof
interpretation,asintegraltoourownepistemologies,andasofpowerfulpotential,we
beginaninquiryintothewaysinwhichsubjectivityisproduced,andinwhichpolitics
(broadlyspeaking)organizeandinterpretexperience.Thelessonfromfeminist,other
criticalandIndigenousarchaeologiesisthatweshouldbeopenlydiscussingwhatcounts
asexperienceand,furthermore,whogetstomakethatdetermination.Fromhere,wecan
thenperhapsbebettersituatedtohistoricizeexperienceandtoreflectcriticallyonthe

16
historywewriteaboutitratherthantomerelypremiseourarchaeologicalnarrativesupon
itordismissitoutofhand.When,ascitedabove,Williams(198990:1029)posesthe
question,considerforthemomentthedegreetowhichyourownunderstandingof
genderrolesinIndianculturesmightbedistortedbythelegacyofwhitepatriarchy
itself,heisaskingustohistoricizeourexperienceintheserviceofourarchaeology.
Whatdoesexperiencemeanindifferentsettings,amongdifferentsocialactorsandat
differenttimes?WithintheWest,whatexperiencehasmeantandhowithasbeen
usedandtransformedisitselfhighlyvariableandhistorical(Jay2005;seealsoWilliams
1983:126129;Butler1990:2225).
Fromthepasttwodecadesofthirdwavefeminism,fromthegrowthand
expansionofIndigenousrightsactivism,andfromsomeoftheunderstandingsofthe
subjectivenatureofexperience(e.g.,Moore2001),itmaybepossibletobeginour
socialanalysesinarchaeologywithareflexiveandrelationalanalysisthatincludes(or
centerson)atheoryofagencyandrepresentationthatisbasedonexperience,butdoes
notendthere.Rather,andthisiswhatanintersectionalapproachmayoffer,weneedan
explicitunderstandingofexperienceandhistorywithinthebroadersocioculturalframes
thathaveanddostructureourlives(Russo1991).Or,asBannerjiputitsosuccinctly,
Weneedtogobeyondexpressiveselfreferentialityandconnectwithothersintimeand
space(1992:94).
Theremaybesomegoodlessonstobelearnedforbotharchaeologiesfromthe
evolutionandcritique(e.g.Mohanty1987)oftheuseofexperienceinfeministhistory
andanalysis,eveninahistoryintentonahistoryofdifference.Forexample,thishasled
toamoreexplicitrecognitionofthehistorian/archaeologistasanactiveproducerof
knowledge,ashavingasubjectposition.Thisputsintomotionthemandatetoreflect
criticallyonthearchaeologieswewriteinregardstoexperience,ratherthantopremise
ourarchaeologiesuponexperience,eveniftheexperiencesinvokedareonlyimplicit
butnonethelessfoundational.Acriticalperspectiveonexperiencerequiresthatwetake
conceptsandidentitiesashistoricaleventsinneedofexplanation;infact,itrequiresthat
wedenaturalizeexperienceandtakeallcategoriesofanalysisasbeingcontextual,
contestedandcontingent.Inmostarchaeology,wealltoooftenassumeourcategories
(butseeSpector1993;Meskell2001;Snead2002).Infact,itisnotsomuchamatterof
howvisiblewomen,gender,differenceortheIndigenousperspectivemightbe,but
first,whatdoesitmeanforarchaeologiststostudythepastintermsofthesecategories,
forsomeofustothinkofourselves/themselvesnoworinthepastintheseterms?
Whileexperienceisandcanbeapowerfulandimportantconcept,itperhaps
warrantsatleastscrutiny(notunquestionedandfoundationalacceptance),ifnot
redefinition.Sinceexperienceisalwayscontested,asbothfeministsandIndigenous
researchershavefound,itisthereforealwayspolitical.Thus,theroleandplaceof
experienceintheproductionofarchaeologicalknowledgeisnotwhatmightappeartobe
thestraightforwardgenerationandcommunicationofknowledgethatissaidtobearrived
atthoughexperience,butrather,theanalysisoftheproductionofthatknowledgeitself.
ThisiswhyoneofLindaTuhiwaiSmithsgoalsofIndigenousresearchistotellthe
historyofWesternresearchthroughtheeyesofthecolonized(L.T.Smith1999:2).

17
Whatwewanttoexplainistheexperiencethatweinvoke,observeanddrawupon;
experiencecannotstandasthesourceofourexplanationsandaccounts.

OraltraditionsandStorytelling
Inthedevelopmentandexecutionofcounterresearchandinanygeneaologyof
(archaeological)knowledge,theroleandusesoflanguage,terminology,and
writing/speakingarekeyentrypoints.Keller(1985),forexample,hasshownthe
centralityoflanguageinthemasculinistconstructionthatisWesternscience.Alarcn
(1990:363)remindsusthatthesilenceandsilencingofpeoplebeginswiththe
dominatingenforcementoflinguisticconventions,theresistancetorelationaldialogues
aswellasthedisenablementofpeoplesbyoutlawingtheirformsofspeech.For
archaeology,Joyce(2002a)hasexposedconciselyourlanguages.Bothfeministsand
Indigenouspeoplesknowfullwellthespecificsofhowspeaking,listening,andwriting
areregulatedbypowerfulsystemsofdomination.
Thelastfifteenyearshaveindeedwitnessedamorereflexiveconsiderationof
archaeologicalnarratives(e.g.,Terrell1990;ConkeywithWilliams1991;Pluciennik
1999;andespeciallyJoyce2002b).Fromherstandpointasafeministandasocial
archaeologist,Joycehassuccinctlyarticulatedthewaysinwhicharchaeologyisan
openendedcollaborativestorytellingpractice;todoarchaeologyistocreate
narrativesaboutthepastinthepresent,whetherinourprofessionalwritingsand
presentationsorinpopularversions(Joycen.d.a.;alsoin2002a).Joycemakesan
importantlinktoIndigenousresearch:storytellinginarchaeologyreallymattersbecause
whenwetellouraccounts,ourstories,weareconstitutingandbringingintoexistence
relationsbetweenourselvesasnarrativeproducersandtheverypeoplesaboutwhomand
towhomwearetalking.FromJoycesperspective,oneoftheimportantpossibilitiesfor
thefeministpracticeofarchaeologyistorecoverthemultiplicityofvoicesthatare
normallysuppressedinarchaeologicaldiscourse(Joycen.d.a).Thisinvolves,however,
accountabilityandresponsibility,rightdowntothelevelofindividualwordsandtheir
potentialpower(s),somethingthathasbeenofconcerninIndigenousStudies,aswell
(e.g.,Craven1996;L.T.Smith1999;Thomas2000:vii).
Relationaldialoguesofanothersorthavebecomemoreprominentin
archaeologicalwriting;thesearedialoguesbetweenarchaeologists(e.g.,Renfrew2001),
amongimaginedarchaeologists(e.g.,inTringham1991:113115;Conkey2000),
betweenanindigenoushistorian/archaeologistandanotherindigenousscholar(Denetdale
2004,interviewingDeloria);andbetweendifferentarchaeologistsandanimagined
indigenousperson(PreucelandHodder1996).Thesearesometimesinterviews,and
sometimesnarrativestoconveydifferencesofpositionandopinion,standpoints,and
divergentinterpretationsofarchaeologicalphenomena.Theyarealsooftenanattemptto
peoplethepast,tomaketheconcepts,debates,issues,andinterpretivestancesmore
accessible,moreexplicit,morerelational,andthereforemoreopentoscrutinyandtoa
criticalreadingofwhatmightotherwisehavebeenobjectivized,jargonbound,and
abstractedpromulgations.Archaeologistsarenowflatoutwritingexcellentfictional
accountsofthearchaeologicalprocess(e.g.,Praetzellis2000,2003),andembedding
archaeologicalmaterialsinnarrativesand/orfictionalizedbutplausiblygroundedsettings

18
(e.g.,Spector1991,1993;Layton2002;Wilkie2003)inthehopesofbetter
contextualizingandthusunderstanding,atleastinadifferentway,thehistoryandnature
ofarchaeologicalinquiryandinterpretation(Joyce2002b;Spectorn.d.)Theseareoften
verymuchaboutexperienceinthepast(e.g.,Gero1991).
Fromthesedevelopments,itshouldbeaneasiersteptoengagewithoral
traditionsandoralaccountsasaviablelineofevidenceintheinterpretationof
archaeologicalmaterialsandtheculturalpast.Mihesuah(2003:2829)notesthe
problematicsofincludingoralhistories.Shewritesaboutthedifferencesincritiquesby
NativeandnonNativereviewersforarticlestobepublished(ornot)intheAmerican
IndianQuarterly,whichsheedits.Nativereviewersusuallyrecommendrejectionwhen
thewriterhasnotincludedthetribalversionofanevent,but,sheadds,therearestill
thoseprofessorsoftheoldschoolofthoughtthatoralhistoriesarenotviablebecause
theyarenottextualized(2003:29).Elswhere,Mihesuah(1998b:x)identifiestheuse
oforalhistoriesassourcematerialasoneofthethreemostpressingconcernsto
Indigenousscholars.
ThosewhoareworkingoutcollaborationsbetweenarchaeologistsandNative
Americanshavesuggestedthatthisworkingtogetherhasledtoagreaterappreciation
oforalaccountsandtraditions(e.g.Wylie2000b:vii,Fergusonetal.2000;Anyonetal.,
2000),or,moreprecisely,toagreaterappreciationofthehistoricityoforaltraditions
(EchoHawk1993:6,emphasisadded).Suchtraditionsandstorieshavesociallives(e.g.,
Cruikshank1998).Thereareatleasttwoimmediategainsfromaconsiderationoforal
accounts.Theyarenotonlynowrecuperatingapreviouslyneglectedresource,butare
simultaneouslyprovidinguswithdifferent,evendivergenttraditionsforunderstanding
thepast(Wylie2000b:vii).Thislatterpointiscertainlyofcentralrelevancetofeminist
archaeologists,whohavenotonlyshownthatthetraditionswehavedrawnonfor
understandingthepasthavebeenpartial,andmostoftenandrocentricatthat,butalsothat
itistheverymultiplicityofsourcesthatcanepistemologicallybuttresswhatare
otherwiseoftenrathertenuousinterpretations(e.g.,Wylie1992).Inaparticularly
compellingcommentary,Lightfoot(2000)showshownativeoraltraditionscontributeto
amuchstrongeranalysisandinterpretation.Hepointstohowsilencesinthedifferent
sourcesweusemaybeofparticularuse,andonesalientexamplehediscussesisthe
relativesignificanceofinterethnicmarriageforgenderrelationsintheCalifornia
colonizedgroupsunderconsideration.
Bringingforthoraltraditionshasthepotentialtoworkascounterresearchas
thehistoricalrecordsdevelopedandprivilegedinthecolonialcontextandsincehave
beenalmostalwaysrecordscreatedbythecolonizers,almostalwayslinkeddirectlyto
practicesoflegalsubjugation.Thesehavefavoredconceptsandtermssuchas
extermination,disappearance,culturalstasisandprimitiveness,unclearorabsentland
ownership,andabandonment.Theyobscureorignorecompletelysuchculturalfactsas
communalownershipsandotherthanwesternwaysoflinkingpeopletoproperty,land,
andeachother.Whenarchaeologicalpracticebringsinaprivilegingofidentifiable,
usuallybounded,settlementsorsites,oronlyafocusonspatialcontainments,orwhen
thearchaeologicalapproachisoneofgrandtheoriesofabstractculturalevolution,
progress,ecologyandculturaldisappearance(e.g.,Trigger1980,1984;McGuire

19
1992),thisblindsustowhathas,infact,survivedinsomeformsoranotherthatmight
provideanalternativeandequallyvalidandplausiblehistoriography,drawingfroma
historicalconsciousnessthatisverymuchavailableandpowerful(e.g.,Handsmanand
Richmond1995).Somearchaeologists(e.g.,Nassaney2000,2004;Woody2000)have
drawnonoraltraditionsofpresentdayIndigenouspeoplesintheirarchaeological
inquiry,producingricherandmoreopenendedaccounts(seealsoAnyonetal.2000,
Fergusonetal.2000).
Butitisnotmerelyamatterofrecuperatingunderused(orpreviouslydismissed)
sourcesofevidenceandinformation,orevenofaddinganothersourceofinformationto
ourinterpretivetoolkits.Rather,itistheverystructureofthepracticesofresearchthat
mustbechallengedandtransformed;hencetheveryresearchprocessmustbere
conceptualized,andsimilardilemmasthatfeministandIndigenousapproacheshave
facedatleastsincethe1980smustbeconfronted.Centralhereistoengagewithwhat
arenowconsideredtobestandpoints(Harding2004;forarchaeology,seeWylie2000a
or2003)thosethatoneischallengingandthosethatweourselvesoccupy.Among
feministdebatesinthephilosophyofscience,thecoreconcernshavebeenhowto
articulateanaccountofknowledgeproductionthatrecognizesitsowncontingencyand
standpointspecificity(Wylie1995b:270).
Andso,aswiththeconcernforandusesofexperience,theveryappealtoand
proposedusesoforaltraditionsandoralhistoriesraisesimportantissuesofepistemology
andpractice;whocouldhavethoughtotherwise?Ontheonehand,...analyses[in
studiesofNativeAmericans]mustincludeIndiansversionsofevents(e.g.,Hoikkala
1995).ButitisoftenthecasethatIndigenouspeoplewantandneedtocontroltheaccess
anduseoftheseaccounts.Manyareunderstandablyconcernedthat,likeculturalartifacts
andarchaeologicalmaterialsandsites,oraltraditionsandaccountswillbeexploitedand
minedforthegainofthenonIndigenousresearchers(Deloria1969;Anyonetal.,
2000:65).Ontheotherhand,thereismoretobelearnedthanjusttheparticularstory
beingtoldorpassedon.Thereisnow,thankstofeminist,postpositivistandpostcolonial
sciencestudies,anincreasingrecognitionthatthereisnotjustonewaytodoscience;
thereisaworldofsciences(Harding2003):Differentculturesbringdifferent
discursiveresourcestotheirqueriesabouttheirenvironmentsmetaphors,models,and
narrativesmakesensewithindistinctivereligious,nationalandotherkindsofprojectsof
theircultures(Harding2003:5859),anditisthesethatmustbebothrecognizedand,
whenpossible,drawnupontoframeourunderstandingsofthehumanpast.

Whatwouldanintersectionalapproachlooklike?
ThisisaricharenaforexplorationandtherearemanymoreexamplesthanthoseI
canconsiderhere.Iwilljustnotesomeofthemoregeneralpossibilitiesaswellaspoint
totwodomainswherewemightfindfruitfulintersectionalitiesinthestudyofgender
rolesandinarchaeologicalreconsiderationsofspace.Inadvocatinganintersectional
approach,Collins(1999)hasthreerecommendations.First,shesuggeststhatwestress
theparticular,inordertoreversetheprocessofabstractionthathasforsolongprevailed
andresultedinawidespreadlossofhistoricalagency.Thus,weshoulddirectour
attentiontothelivedexperiences,thesmallscaleprocessesanddailypracticesthat,in

20
fact,forarchaeologists,ultimatelyconstitutethearchaeologicalrecordthatwestudy.
Feministsandgenderarchaeologistshavebeenamongthemostactivecontributorsto
household(amicroscale)archaeologyintheory,method,andempiricalanalyses.And
archaeologistscanapproachintimaterelations(e.g.,Meskell1998andotherarticlesin
thisspecialvolume).
Becausefeministsinarchaeologydefinitelyhaveaspaceforamorehumanized
historyandaccountputtingafaceonthefacelessblobs(afterTringham1991)
withpossibilitiesforevokingemotionsandmotivations,thereisapossibleconnection
withthehistoriesofandaccountsbyIndigenousresearchers.Mihesuah(2003:4)notes
thatthehistoriesofNativeWomenshouldincludetheseverydimensions(seealso
Watkins2000:181).Indigenouspeople,andIndigenouswomenamongthem,seektonot
onlyexpressbutalsoendtheiroppression,asdofeminists,andthiscancomefrom
reliableknowledgewhichallowspeopletobeactorsinhistory.
Secondly,Collinsadvocatesthatwegroundtheanalysisitselfintheparticular,
althoughnotsoparticularisticallythatonelosessightofthewiderprocessesofhistory
andculture,orofthewaysinwhichoppressiveanddominantpowerstructureswere
establishedandareperpetuated,andhowthesehavestructuredandcontinuetostructure
theproductionofknowledge.Ourresearchissimultaneouslyaboutthepastandabout
howtheversion(s)ofthepasthavecometobe,aresustainedornot,andwhat
transformativeandevenemancipatorypossibilitiestheyhave.Onecentralissuethatmust
beconfrontedindevelopingoutsider(archaeological)perspectivesishowtherearemany
unstatedreferencepointsthathidefromviewapreferredpositionandshielditfrom
challengebyotherpossiblealternatives(Minow1988).Feministscanprovide
somethingofacountertothisforIndigenousarchaeologies,andindeed,Indigenous
archaeologiescanscrutinizefeministpositions.Aswehavelearnedfromdecadesof
criticalthinking,anygroupthatgeneralizesonlyfromitsownstandpointorlocationis
likelytoprovideapartialperspective(e.g,Haraway1988);inthatsense,weneed
intersections.
Lastly,Collinssuggeststhatwelookattheconnectionsbetweenwhatmay
usuallybetakenasseparatedomains/dimensions.Thisisnotonlyanintersectionalitythat
looksathowdifferentdimensionsofsocialidentitymayintersectandtaketheirforms
fromtheintersections,butalsoonethatconsidersconnectionsnotpreviouslyconsidered.
Mihesuahproposesthatweneedlessworkaboutcommonknowledgeissuesandmore
thatoffercompletestoriesarchivaldatacombinedwiththeoreticalconsideration,
discussionofgenderroles,andNativeperspectives(Mihesuah2003:29).
SeveralrecentPhDdissertationsinarchaeologymayserveasexamples.In
Clementss(2004)studyofa17th18thcenturyPonkapoagPrayingtownin
Massachusetts,sheappliesfeministtheorytoanalyzingethnohistoricdocumentsaswell
asthefewarchaeologicalremainsfromaCulturalResourceManagementexcavationofa
Ponkapoagcemeterywherethepeopleareburiedthatarementionedinthedocuments.
Sheaddressesreburialandrepatriation(NAGPRA)issuesandshowshowherresearchis
relevanttomodernNativeAmericanissuesoftribalrecognition.Sheincludesthe
feministapproachofanarrativetobringoutthearchaeologist'sthinkingandemotional

21
engagementwiththematerial,humanizingtheprocessofdiscussingmultiplepossible
interpretationsofthedata.
Atalay(2003)analyzessomefairlystandardarchaeologicalmaterialsfromthe
importantNeolithicsiteofatalhyk,Turkeyclayballsandthecookingprocesses.
Butsheinterspersesherarchaeologicalworkontheseprehistoricmaterialswithavariety
oflessonplansorcurriculumunitsdesignedforyoungpeopleinherNativeband
(Anishinabe)inMichigan.Atalaysintentistousesomeofherpeopleswaysof
understandingtheworldtoconveyaspectsofthehumanpastinterms,conceptsand
metaphorsthatallowthemtorelatearchaeologicalfindingselsewheretotheirown
worlds,pasts,andculturalunderstandings.
Workingwithcommunitypartnersintheresearchprocesshasemergedasoneof
themostefficaciouswaystogetintothelocalstories,thepreviouslyunanticipated
connectivities,andtounderstandhow,ontheground,weareincreasinglyaccountableto
thespecificcaseathand,includingadeepconsiderationforhowwepresentresearch,
howwerepresentthepast,andhowwerepresentourselvesintheresearchprocess(e.g.,
Loring2001,amongmany).Asfeministarchaeologistscontinuallyaskwhatwehaveto
offertonotjustwiderfeminisms(e.g.,Conkey1993;Brumfieln.d.),butalsotoourown
socialandculturalworlds,theprojectspecificcoalitionsbetweenpreviouslyunconnected
butequallyinterestedpartiesrequireidentificationofandcollaborationonthecommon
grounds.Perhapstheemergenceandarticulationoftheintersectionsbetweenindigenous
andfeministarchaeologieswillpushtheworkingtogetherofthepastdecadetowards
anevenmoretransformativecoalitionalconsciousness.
GenderRoles
Sincegenderroleshavebeenonekeyfocalpointoffeministandgender
archaeologists(e.g.,Crown2000),thismaybeoneresearchareathatmightparticularly
benefitfromanintersectionality,fromcoauthoring.Theverylegacyofwhitepatriarchy
islikelytofunctionquitedifferentlyindifferentculturalcontexts.Weshould,for
example,directourattentiontothepossibilitythatgenderrolesinsomeIndigenous
culturesmightbeunderstooddifferentlyandinwaysunfamiliartowhitepatriarchal
values(Williams198990:1037;Jacobs1999;see,forexample,ChatoandConte1988
concerningthedestructiveaspectsofwhitepatriarchyonNavajoconceptionsofgender
roles).Thesewhitepatriarchalvaluesarenoteasilyorautomaticallyovercome,even
byfeministconvictionsandprinciples(e.g.,Lm1994).
ManyIndigenouswomenandmenforexample,amongIndiansinNorth
Americaarecaughtinthelegacyofasetofgenderrolesandgenderedvaluesthathave
beenhistoricallygeneratedbythewhitepatriarchalsocieties,oftenstereotypingmalesas
lazyandwomenashardworking(e.g.,Young1980;Williams198990),oroverlooking
andignoringIndigenoussystemsofgenderedpowerandinfluence,especiallythoseof
women.Andyet,itisinterestingtonotehow,despitefourorfivecenturiesofthelegacy
ofwhitepatriarchy,manygenderedculturalpatternsofapparentmatriarchalpowerand
influenceinIndiantribesappeartoenjoysomecontinuity(Williams198990:1034;see
alsoDeloriainDenetdale2004:140142).Inanimportantcomparativeapproach,
Rothschild(2003)showshowgenderrolesintwodifferentsituationsofcolonial
encounterswithNativeAmericanswereatworkinwhatareveryvariedexperiencesof

22
colonialism.Mihesuah(2003:20)remarksthatmostwhowritetodayaboutNative
womenarenotawareoforunderstandtheverypowerfullegaciesthatwomenhave
withintribaltraditions,andyethowtheyareverymuchconcernedwithlookingtotheir
pastformotivation.Thisissomethingtowhichfeministarchaeologiescancontribute.
Indigenousviewscanoffertofeministssomeverydifferentlyarticulatedvisions
oftherelationsbetweengenderandpowerinthelifewaysofapeople.Inhiscompelling
articleonoutsiderjurisprudence,WilliamsusestheIroquoisexampletosuggestthata
betterunderstandingofgenderrolesinanIroquoisculturalcontexthasthereal
possibilityofengenderingvaluableinsightsandstrategiesimmediatelyrelevantand
usefultotheoutsiderjurisprudentialprojectofdismantlingwhitepatriarchyinourown
society(Williams198990:1043,emphasisadded).Thisdismantlingprojectis,of
course,onethatfeministswouldshare
TheArchaeologyofSpace
Atasomewhatdifferentanalyticallevel,anarchaeologyinformedbyboth
feministandIndigenousperspectivescouldreconceptualizeandreframehowwe
approach,understand,andinterpretspace.Ontheonehand,thereisanextremelyrich
literaturefromthefeministperspectiveingeography(e.g.,Massey1994;McDowelland
Sharp1997;seealsoMoore1986;CurrieandRothenberg2001).Ontheotherhand,
therehasbeeninnovativeworkinarchaeologythathasquestionedthetakenforgranteds
ofimposingWesternandcolonizersnotionsofspaceontoarchaeologicalmaterialsand
settings(e.g.,inRoseandClarke1997;Byrne2003),whilerecognizing,atthesametime,
thewaysinwhichspatialpracticessuchasthoseofspatialcontainmentinthe
colonizingprocesses(e.g.,Byrne2003,Voss2000,Casella2000)imposeforeign,
disruptive,andalienspatialityonthesubjectsofstudyandinhowwethenrepresent
them.Toacertainextent,onemustquestionthe(usuallyundiscussed)applicationof
ourspatialconceptsontoprehistoricsitesandsettingsaswell,asinactivityarea
research.Archaeologyitselfisapracticeofspatialcontainment,wheremoreorless
boundedsitesarethepreferredobjectofinquiry,evenforverymobilehumansofthe
past,andwhereresearchpracticessuchassiteexcavationaremorehighlyvaluedthan
surveywithitspresumedmessyartifactscatters(e.g.,Moser1996).
Byrne(2003)makestwopowerfulpointstoillustratetheseissues.First,heshows
howtheheritagearchaeologyofthepostcontactperiodinAustraliaandtheplacesit
inventories,privilegeslociofspatialcontainment(missionstations,massacresites,
institutionalhomesforAboriginalchildren).Theseareplaces,hesuggests,where
Indigenouspeoplesrarelywentunlesstheyhadto,andareplacesthatcertainlydonot
representthespacesofeverydayAboriginalexperience.Infact,anentirespectrumof
Aboriginalpostcontactexperiencewithinthelargercoloniallandscapeisnotvisible,and
thesearethelandscapesthatareboththemostinterestingandthemostcrucialinthe
everydaypracticesandthenervousspacesofracerelations(seealsoGill,Patersonand
Kennedy2004).
Thus,thesecondrelevantpointfindsus,onceagain,confrontingthe
epistemologicalandinterpretivechallengesofvisibility.Justasfeministarchaeologists
andthoseengagingwithgendercontinuetobechallengedabouttheveryvisibilityof
sexandgender,so,too,areIndigenousarchaeologicalinquiriesintocontact/postcontact

23
times.Theseweretimesofracialsegregationthatappeartohaverenderedaspecific
invisibility.InNorthAmerica,manysocalledcontactarchaeologystudieshave
privilegedthemoreobviouscolonialimprintand,aspointedoutabove,thevery
historiographyhasrenderedmuchinvisible,andintentionallyso(e.g.,Handsmanand
Richmond1995).
InWyliesintroductiontotheimportantvolumeofWorkingTogether:Native
AmericansandArchaeologists(Dongoske,AldenderferandDoehner2000),she
identifiesthreepersistentthemesforthosecollaborativeprojectsthatseemtowork.
Certainlyherfirstthemehasbeencentraltothefeministprojectaswell,bothin
archaeologyandmorewidely,namely,awillingnesstoconsiderotherwaysof
knowing(Wylie2000b:xviii).Muchoffeministandotherpostpositivistphilosophies
ofsciencehavediscussedanddebatedthis,andWyliehaspointedoutthat,infact,this
attitudeisactuallyintegraltothescientificprocessthatarchaeologistshavethemselves
championedformanydecades.Minimally,wegainamorecriticalappreciationofthe
strengthsandlimitationsofourownsystemsofknowledgebyengagingwiththe
empiricalknowledgesystemsofothercultures(Harding2003:63).Wemustengage
withtherealitythatthereareavarietyofepistemicbasesforresearchingand
understandingthepast,somethingthathascomeonlyslowly(ifatall)tomany
archaeologists.
FromtheperspectiveoftheIndigenousscholarandNativewoman,
feministscholarsmustabandonbeinganexpertonwhatcountsasimportantknowledge
aboutNativewomen.Iffeministscholarscanengageinreciprocal,practicaldialogue
withtheirinformants,thenNativevoices,too,willbecomepartoffeministdiscourse
(Mihesuah2003:8).Thesamegeneralobservationappliestoarchaeologists,and,infact,
Wyliessecondpersistentthemethatsheseesinthesuccessfulcollaborativeprojectsis
notonlyacommitmenttothiscultivationofreciprocitybutalsoofaccountabilityin
bothanintellectualandpoliticalsense(Wylie2000b:ix;seealsoWatkinsetal.,1995).

Whataresomeoftheproblemsandtensions?
WhilebothIndigenousandfeministarchaeologistswouldsharecritiquesof
Westernscience,whattodoaboutthiswillvaryandevendiffer.Bothwillfacedifferent
challengesandpresentdifferentresponsestonegotiatingsomesortofconnection(or
not)betweenfeministandIndigenouscommitments,ontheonehand,andthebroadly
scientificonesthatcontinuetoprevailincontemporaryarchaeology.Therewillbesome
suspicionsabouthowoneperspectivemaybetryingto(evenunconsciously)cooptthe
other;afterall,whatjustificationsdoIhaveinmakingsomeofthestatementsthatIhave
laidouthere,especiallyinregardstoIndigenousscholarship,research,andpeoples?
ItwouldbeunusualifwhatfeministsandwhatIndigenousscholarstookastheir
bottomlineswerethesame,oncewemovebeyondourmutualconcernsforsurvival
andhumanrights.ForIndigenouspeoples,selfdetermination,andreviseddefinitionsand
practicesofprotectionandownershipofculturalresources,heritage,historiesand
integrityarelikelytobebottomline.Theyarenotlikelytoprioritizehowknowledge
oftheirspecificpastsandculturalhistoriescancontributetoanoverarching
understandingofhumanity,ofthehumancareerorwhatitmeanstobehuman.For

24
feminists,ananalysisofgender,butasaverydifferentandconstantlyevolvingconcept,
isperhapsabottomline(Longino1994),atleastuntilwebetterunderstandhowsocial
inequalitieshaveemergedandsocietiestodaycanbetransformed.[F]eminismisnot
simplyastruggletoendmalechauvinismoramovementtoensurethatwomenwillhave
equalrightswithmen;itisacommitmenttoeradicatingtheideologyofdomination.
(Collins1990:3738).
Indigenouspeoplesareunlikelytorespecttheterritorialnotionsthatsome
scholarshaveabouttheirsubjectareawhenitinvolvesIndigenousknowledge,place,
history,andpeople.Infact,intellectualpropertyhasemergedasoneofthemostcritical
fulcrumsofdebate(e.g.,Brown1998,2003,especiallypages299301;Riley2004;
NicholasandBannister2004,andreferencestherein).Themostsensitiveissuesof
concern,forexample,toAmericanIndianshavebeencitedas:theuseoforalhistoriesas
sourcematerial;remunerationtotribesforinformationreceived;andthequestionofwho
benefitsfromresearchonIndians(Mihesuah1998b:x).NicholasandBannister
(2004:330)pointoutthat,despitetheperceptionthatmostoutcomesofarchaeologyhave
limitedpracticalapplication,theseoutcomesincreasinglyhavepotentialapplicationsand
theyverymuchmattertothosewhoaredescendantgroups,groupswhomay
themselvesbecaughtupin21stcenturypolitical,legalandculturalcontestations.Thus,
therewillbe/shouldbetensionsandcontestationsoversuchthingsasownershipof,
copyrightin,ortrademarksrelatedtotheartifacts,designs,ormarksuncoveredduring
archaeologicalresearch,aswellasfiduciarydutiesrelatedtothesecrecyofsacred
sites,whichcouldalsoincludecopyrightinmaps(2004:330).
Theverynatureofanarchaeologyofdifference(butseeTorrenceandClark
2000)islikelytobecontested,especiallyiftheapproachesarebasedonasomewhatneo
liberalpluralisticstanceand/oremphasizestaticidentitiesatthecostofreallyprobingthe
structuraldynamicsofthesocialrelationsofappropriation.Alltoooftentheimpression
isthatthereis/canbeapositivecoexistenceamong(differentsubjectpositions),and
someapproachestodifferenceanddiversitytendtoallowformultiplesubjectivities,
yetenclosethemintostaticidentities(Anzaldua1990:xxixxii).Lackingananalysisof
formsofconsciousnessandsocialrelations,theoriesofdifferencelackthepotentialfor
arevolutionarypolitics(Bannerji1992:86).Thisisapotentialtrapthatfeminists
perhapsoncealreadyfellinto,aswasmuchcritiquedbythirdwavefeministsatrapthat
shouldbeanticipatedbytheintersectionalitiesoffeministandIndigenousarchaeologies.

Archaeologyastransformativepractices/inspirationsfromactivistsources

differencemustnotbemerelytolerated,butseenasafundofnecessary
polaritiesbetweenwhichourcreativitycansparklikeadialectic.Onlythendoes
thenecessityforinterdependencybecomeunthreatening.Onlywithinthat
interdependencyofdifferentstrengths,acknowledgedandequal,canthepowerto
seeknewwaystoactivelybeintheworldgenerate,aswellasthecourageand
sustenancetoactwheretherearenotcharters(Lorde1981:99).

25
 Alittlemorethanadecadeago,JanetSpectorsbook,WhatthisAwlMeans:
FeministArchaeologyataWahpetonVillage(1993)waspublished,inwhichshemade
anexplicitstandnotonlyforadvancingwhatafeministanalysisandinterpretationofan
archaeologicalsiteanditspeoplescouldlooklikebutalsoforagenuineandintegral
inclusionofIndianvoicesandperspectives.In1991,Spectorhadnotedthatthesame
generalproblemthatafflictedarchaeologywithrespecttowomenalsoappliedtothe
situationofIndianpeople(1991:394).Alsomorethanadecadeago,McGuire(1992)
calledforadialoguewithIndigenouspeoples(especiallyinreferencetoIndiansinNorth
America)thatwouldfundamentallyalterthepracticeofarchaeology.Feminist
archaeologistshavealsohopedforandworkedtowardstransformation.Whatwouldsuch
atransformationlooklikeandwhyistheresuchpotentialtoeffectitbymeansofsome
intersectionalitiesbetweenIndigenousandfeministarchaeologies?Transformation,ithas
beennoted,entailstakingon,andengagingandallyingwith,allpartsofsocietyrather
thanfallingbackonourselves(Lm1994:879).
Justassomefeministscallforanarchaeologythatgoesinadditionaldirectionsto
findingthewomen,Indigenousarchaeologistswouldsurelycallforanarchaeologythat
goeswellbeyondworkingtogether(archaeologistsandnativepeoples),andadding
Indigenousvoices,evenifbothofthesearecrucialstartingpoints.Viewsonnotions
suchasownershipandprotection(ofculturalresources)mustchangefortheretobe
atrulyIndigenousarchaeology(Watkins2000:178).Indigenousarchaeologistsenvision
archaeologyasadisciplinethatisdevelopedwiththecontrolandinfluenceof
indigenouspopulationsaroundtheworld(Watkins2000:xiii).Feministsinarchaeology
arecallingforathoroughreconceptualizationoftheresearchprocess,aswellasmore
emphasisonassumingethicalandpoliticalresponsibilitiesforknowledgeproductionand
onaconstantspiritofrevisionandreflexivity.Both,itwouldseem,wouldadvocate
stronglyfornotonlytherecognitionofdifferentpublicsandthecreation,even,of
counterpublics,butalsoknowledgeproductionanddisseminationtomanypublics,
evenifitrequiresasitwillavarietyofmediaandmessages.
BothfeministandIndigenousarchaeologistswouldagreethatresearchis
notinnocent,neutral,dispassionateorobjective,butissomethingthatisembeddedina
setofsocialandpoliticalconditionsandselectivecontexts.Inallresearch,something(s)
is(are)atstake.Indigenousarchaeologistsareconcernedtounderstandandshowthe
complexwaysinwhichthepursuitofarchaeologicalknowledgeis,andcertainlyhas
been,deeplyembeddedinmultiplelayersofimperialandcolonialpractices(L.T.
Smith1999:2).Theywanttotellanalternate,butnolessrealstory.Onealternatestory
totellisastoryaboutresearchitself,which,asfeministswouldagree,isnotjustthe
moreorlesssystematicscientificcollectionofdatabypracticingandprofessional
archaeologists.Itisalsotheothercollectingsandtellingsaboutlivesandhistories,
aboutwomenandmen,aboutcultureandpower.Theverysocialandcontextualfactors
thatcanbeidentifiedtoinfluencescientificresearchare,infact,notjustsourcesof
influencebutareinthemselvesresourcesthatcanbedrawnupontobothcritiqueaswell
astoopenupnewandpreviouslyunimaginedkindsofresearch.
Fromthecritiquesofscienceandfromtheconceptofintersectionality,weresist
andrefusedichotomousthinking,especiallythetendencytopullapartvariouspiecesof

26
socialreality(Collins1999:278).Thepointisnotjusttoaddfeminist/genderconcernsto
Indigenousarchaeologies,nortojustaddIndigenousconcernsandperspectivesto
feministarchaeologies.Rather,wefeminists,forexample,mustrecognizethatourvery
conceptualframeworkisembeddedinthesocialhierarchiesandintellectualhistoriesof
whichgenderisbutonethread.Asarchaeologistsattemptingtoinfersomethingabout
thesocialinequalitiesofthehumanpast,howdifferencemighthaveworked,andthe
waysinwhichsocialidentitiesandideologieswereinproduction,creatingsubjectsas
wellashistories,wehavemuchtolearnfromIndigenousperspectivesandpeopleswho
havealsolivedandbeenthemselvesconstitutedbysuchprocessesandpractices.Both
Indigenousandfeministarchaeologiesarelivedresearch(FonowandCook1991).
Together,wemaybetterunderstandhowtohistoricizeexperience,howtowork
withhistoricizedoraltraditions,reconceptualizetheresearchprocess,complicateour
categoriesandframingconcepts,suchasgender,andscrutinizethevariedandyetoften
intersectingspecificlocationsfromwhichwetrytoenvisionthepast,withitsvisibilities
anditsinvisibilities.Thefeministarchaeologistcannowrecognizenotonlythatan
exclusivelygenderedanalysisofarchaeologyandoftheculturalpasthaslimitations,but
alsohowitcanbelimited.
OnelessonforfeministarchaeologistsfromIndigenousconcerns,andone
lessonforIndigenousarchaeologistsfromfeministconcerns,wouldbethatwecaneach
benefitfromtreatingourownperspectivesasjustoneofmanypossiblepointsofview
affectedbywhitepatriarchalsystemsofracism,colonialism,sexismandhomophobia
(Williams198990:1044).FeministsandIndigenousrightsactivistscouldagreethatwe
needanactive,creative,conscious,fullysubjectivegroundfordirectpoliticalagency
(seeBannerji1992:86,89).Mightweanticipatethattheintersectionalitiescouldprovide
acruciblewithinwhichadoublyrevolutionarysocialprojectcouldemerge?
Togethertherearemoreprecisewaystoexpandarchaeologysoastopushitpast
thecurrentlimitsofitsownpartialities.Bothperspectiveswillproductivelydisrupt
settledassumptionsand,asAlisonWyliehasoftensuggested,wewilllearnentirelynew
thingsaboutourculturalpasts,whilesimultaneouslytakingaccountofandbeing
accountablefortheepistemicandpoliticalcommitmentsthatinformourrespectiveand
intersectedresearchpractices.
Isthis,perhaps,partofareweavingoftheveryfabricofarchaeology,witha
differentwarpandweft,withdifferentrelationsamongthethreads?Inamomentof
optimism,Rowlands(1998)suggeststhattherearemanysignsinarchaeologythatthe
powerlesshavebeentakingbacktheirarchaeologicalandhistoricalpasts,often,ashe
notes,reshapingtheminlocaltermsthatdonotdescribethemasavariantoffood
production,urbanismortheoriginsofthestate(1998:332).Heattributesthistothe
emergentcolonialarchaeologyandarchaeologiesofcolonialism,butheneglectsto
includefeministarchaeologiesthathaveworkedatthisfordecades(ConkeyandSpector
1984;Pyburn2004).Butwhateverthemotivationsandsources,thesearchaeologies,now
furtherpropelledbythemobilizationofIndigenousarchaeologiesand,Iwouldadd,by
theintersectionsamongthem,areenabledtoaclearingoftheterrainthatisrequiredin
ordertocreatenewpaststoallownewfutures(Rowlands1998:332).

27
 Therecanbenoconclusiontothispaper,inthatthereismuchworktobedone,
manyvoicestobeheard,andgenuineengagementtotakeplace.Theideaherewastoput
forthsomemusings,someobservations,andmostlysomeaspirations.Perhapsthestormy
climateofthe1980sbetweenarchaeologistsandIndigeneouspeoples(atleastinNorth
America)hasmovednowtoasituation,asRogerEchoHawkdescribesit,ofakinder,
gentler,rain(EchoHawk2000:7).ReportsfromAustraliasuggestanotableincreasein
workingtogetherespeciallyinregardtodocumentationoflandclaimsandnativetitle.
Thereisrealworkforarchaeologytodointhetroubledcontemporaryworldofculture
andpolitics,butwecannolongerbetheinsulatedteamofscientists;therearemany
publicstowhichwemustberesponsible(Zimmerman,etal.2003).Amostsuitable
metaphorfordescribingthearchaeologicalprocessisthatofachildsstringgame(often
calledcatscradle)inwhichoneneedsseveralparticipantstoplay,witheachone
takingturns,pluckingandpullinguponthestringheldononesfingers,pullingthis
stringandthat,intonewdesignsandpatterns.ToparaphraseLindaTihuwaiSmith
(1999:161),themessageheretocommunitiesofpractionersisthatwehaveissuesthat
matterandmethodologiesthatwillworkforus.

Acknowledgements
ThispaperwaswrittenduringmytenureasaFellowattheCenterforAdvancedStudyin
theBehavioralSciences,Stanford,CaliforniaandIamdeeplygratefulforthetimeand
multiplesourcesofsupportthatmadeitpossible.IamalsothankfultoJoanGeroforthe
originalinvitationtopresentaplenarysessionatthe5thWorldArchaeologicalCongress
inWashingtonDCinJune2003.ThisiswhereIfirsttookonsomeinquirywiththis
topic,andIbenefittedenormouslyfromthelongandengagedforumofmanyparticipants
atthatevent.ClaireSmithandNickShephardaretobethankedfornotjustinvitingmeto
dothispaperbutfortheirencouragementandpatience;thejournalsreviewersadded
manyrefinementsincontentandpresentation.Thisbecameamuchlonger,andlong
termwritingprojectthanoriginallyenvisioned:Ihadtotakemyownadviceanddothe
reading.MyintellectualandcollaborativedebttoAlisonWylieshouldbemanifestby
theabundantcitationstoherimportantwork,andtoourcollectiveprojectwithmany
othersprobingthewaysinwhichwecandoarchaeologyasfeminists.Lastly,Ihavebeen
inspiredtokeepatthistopicbynumerouscolleagues,graduatestudentsandpostdocsat
Berkeley,bothNativeandnonNative,whoaretheonesreallyimplementingnew
versionsofarchaeology.

28
 REFERENCESCITED

AbuLughod,L.(1990)CanThereBeaFeministEthnography?Womenand
Performance5:727.
AgaKhan,S.andH.binTalal(1987)IndigenousPeoples,AGlobalQuestforJustice:A
ReportfortheIndependentCommissiononInternationalHumanitarianAffairs.
London,ZedBooks.
Alarcn,N.(1990)TheTheoreticalSubject(s)ofThisBridgeCalledMyBackand
AngloAmericanFeminism.MakingFace,MakingSoul:HaciendoCaras.
CreativeandCriticalPerspectivesbyFeministsofColor.G.Anzalda,editor.
Pages356369.SanFrancisco,AuntLuteBooks.
Anyon,R.,T.J.Ferguson,L.JacksonandL.Lane(2000)NativeAmericanOral
TraditionsandArchaeology.InWorkingTogether:NativeAmericansand
Archaeologists.K.E.Dongoske,M.Aldenderfer,andK.Doehner,editors.Pages
6166.Washington,DC,SocietyforAmericanArchaeology.
Anzalda,G.(1983)Preface.ThisBridgeCalledMyBack:WritingsbyRadicalWomen
ofColor.C.MoragaandG.Anzalda,editors,Pages.NewYork,KitchenTable:
WomenofColorPress.
Anzalda,G.(1990)HaciendoCaras,UnaEntrada.MakingFace,MakingSoul,
HaciendoCaras.CreativeandCriticalPerspectivesbyWomenofColor.G.
Anzalda,editor.Pagesxvxxvii.SanFrancisco,AuntLuteBooks.
Arnold,B.andN.L.Wicker,Editors(2001)GenderandtheArchaeologyofDeath.
WalnutCreek,CA,AltaMiraPress.
Atalay,S.(2003)DomesticatingClay:Engagingwith'They":TheSocialLifeofClay
Ballsfromatalhyk,Turkey,andPublicArchaeologyforIndigenous
Communities.PhDdissertation,DepartmentofAnthropology.Universityof
California,Berkeley,CA.
Atalay,S.(2004)SitesofPower:MultipleVoicesforManyEarsinIndigenous
ArchaeologicalPractice.PaperpresentedatAnnualMeetingsoftheSocietyfor
AmericanArchaeology,Montreal,Canada.ToappearinEvaluatingMultiple
Narratives:BeyondNationalist,Colonialist,andImperialistArchaeologies.C.
Fawcett,J.MatsunagaandJ.Habu,editors.
Bacus,E.,A.W.Barker,J.D.Bonevich,S.L.Dunavan,J.B.Fitzhugh,Editors.(1993)A
GenderedPast:ACriticalBibliographyofGenderinArchaeology.Technical
Reports.AnnArbor,MI,UniversityofMichiganMuseumofAnthropology.
Bannerji,H.(1992)ButWhoSpeaksforUs?ExperienceandAgencyinConventional
FeministParadigms.UnsettlingRelations:TheUniversityasaSiteofFeminist
Struggles.HimaniBannerji,L.Carty,K.Dehli,S.Heald,K.McKenna,editors.
Pages67108.Boston,MA,SouthEndPress.
Bannerji,H.,L.Carty,K.Dehli,S.Heald,andK.McKenna,Editors(1992)Unsettling
Relations:TheUniversityasaSiteofFeministStuggles.Boston,MA,SouthEnd
Press.
Bauerle,P.,C.Carroll,R.DeLuganandB.R.Middleton(2004)CRGHostsThreeDay

29
 IndigeneityConference(BeyondRaceandCitizenshipintheTwentyFirst
Century.Faultlines:NewsandNotesFromtheCenterforRaceandGender,III,
(1):811,13.Berkeley:UniversityofCalifornia,CenterforRaceandGender.
Bertelsen,R.,A.Lillehammer,andJR.Naess(1987)WereTheyAllMen?
AnExaminationofSexRolesinPrehistoricSociety.Stavanger,Norway,
ArkeologiskmuseumiStavanger.
Birckhead,J.,T.deLacyandL.Smith,Editors(1992)AboriginalInvolvementinParks
andProtectedAreas.AustralianInstituteofAboriginalandTorresStraitIslander
Studies,ReportSeries.Canberra,AboriginalStudiesPress.
Bradley,R.(2002)FieldworkanditsDiscontents:ConfessionsfromtheClaviaCairns.
BetweenMaterialityandInterpretation:ArchaeologicalConfessions,Societyfor
AmericanArchaeology,AnnualMeetings,Denver,CO.
Bray,T.,Editor(2001)TheFutureofthePast:Archaeologists,NativeAmericans,and
Repatriation.NewYork,GarlandPress.
Brown,M.F.(1998)CanCultureBeCopyrighted?CurrentAnthropology39:193222.
Brown,M.F.(2003)WhoOwnsNativeCulture?Cambridge,HarvardUniversityPress.
Brumfiel,E.(1992)BreakingandEnteringtheEcosystem:Gender,Class,andFaction
StealtheShow.AmericanAnthropologist94(3):551567.
Brumfiel,E.(n.d.)ARoleforArchaeologyinFeministandGenderStudies.Toappearin
DoingArchaeologyasaFeminist:TheAprilCollective.A.WylieandM.
Conkey,editors.
Burton,A.(2000)OpticalIllusions.Women'sReviewofBooksXVII(5):2122.
Butler,J.(1990)GenderTrouble:FeminismandtheSubversionofIdentity.NewYork,
Routledge.
Byrne,D.R.(2003)NervousLandscapes:RaceandSpaceinAustralia.JournalofSocial
Archaeology3(2):169193.
Carby,H.(1987)ReconstructingWomanhood:TheEmergenceoftheAfroAmerica
WomanNovelist.NewYork,OxfordUniversityPress.
Casella,E.C.(2000)BulldaggersandGentleLadies:ArchaeologicalApproachesto
FemaleHomosexualityinConvicteraAustralia.ArchaeologiesofSexuality.R.
A.SchmidtandB.L.Voss,editors.Pages143159.London,Routledge.
Chato,G.andC.Conte(1988)TheLegalRightsofAmericanIndianWomen.Western
Women,TheirLand,TheirLives.L.Schlissel,V.RuizandJ.Monk,editors.
Pages229246.
Claassen,C.andR.Joyce,Editors(1997)WomeninPrehistory.NorthAmericaand
Mesoamerica.Philadelphia,UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress.
Clements,J.(2004)AWindingSheetforDeborahGeorge:SearchingfortheWomenof
Ponkapoag.PhDdissertation.PrograminWomen'sStudies.Universityof
Toronto,Toronto,ON.
Code,L.(1991)WhatCanSheKnow?FeministTheoryandtheConstructionof
Knowledge.Ithaca,NY,CornellUniversityPress.
Collins,P.H.(1986)LearningFromtheOutsiderWithin:TheSociologicalSignificance
ofBlackFeministThought.SocialProblems33(6):1432.
Collins,P.H.(1990)BlackFeministThought:Knowledge,Consciousness,andThe

30
 PoliticsofEmpowerment.NewYork,Routledge,ChapmanandHall.
Collins,P.H.(1999)MovingBeyondGender:IntersectionalityandScientific
Knowledge.RevisioningGender.M.M.Ferree,J.LorberandB.B.Hess,editors.
Pages261284.ThousandOaks,CA,Sage.
Conkey,M.W.(1993)Makingtheconnections:FeministtheoryandArchaeologiesof
Gender.WomeninArchaeology:AFeministCritique.H.DuCrosandL.Smith,
editors.Pages315.Canberra,DepartmentofPrehistoryMonographsNo.23.
AustralianNationalUniversity.
Conkey,M.(2000)Meanwhile,BackattheVillage:DebatingtheArchaeologiesof
Sexuality.ArchaeologiesofSexuality.R.A.SchmidtandB.L.Voss,editors.
Pages287294.London,Routledge.
Conkey,M.W.(2001)Epilogue:ThinkingaboutGenderwithTheoryandMethod.
GenderinPreHispanicAmerica.C.Klein,editor.Pages341362.Washington,
DC,DumbartonOaks.
Conkey,M.W.(2003)HasFeminismChangedArchaeology?SIGNS:JournalofWomen
inCultureandSociety28(1):867880.
Conkey,M.andJ.Gero(1997)ProgrammetoPractice:GenderandFeminismin
Archaeology.AnnualReviewsofAnthropology26:411437.
Conkey,M.andJ.Spector(1984)ArchaeologyandtheStudyofGender.Advancesin
ArchaeologicalMethodandTheory,M.B.Schiffer,editor.Volume7:138.New
York,AcademicPress.
Conkey,M.andR.Tringham(1996)CultivatingThinking/ChallengingAuthority:Some
ExperimentsinFeministPedagogyinArchaeology.ArchaeologyandGender,R.
B.Wright,editor.Pages224250.Philadelphia,PA,UniversityofPennsylvania
Press.
Conkey,M.withS.Williams(1991)OriginalNarratives:ThePoliticalEconomyof
GenderinArchaeology.GenderattheCrossroadsofKnowledge:Feminist
AnthropologyinthePostmodernAge.M.diLeonardo,editor.Pages102139.
BerkeleyandLosAngeles,CA.UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Conkey,M.andA.Wylie,Conveners(1998)DoingArchaeologyasaFeminist.School
forAmericanResearchAdvancedSeminar.SantaFe,NM.
Cornell,D.,G.Fraisse,S.Niranjana,RajaBenSlama,L.Waldman,LiXiaoJian(2004)
Keywords:Gender.NewYork,OtherPress.
Craven,R.(1996)UsingtheRightWords.AppropriateTerminologyforIndigenous
AustralianStudies.Sydney:SchoolforTeacherEducation,UniversityofNew
SouthWalesinassociationwiththeCouncilforAboriginalReconciliation.
Crenshaw,K.W.(1991)MappingtheMargins:Intersectionality,IdentityPolitics,and
ViolenceAgainstWomenofColor.StanfordLawReview43:12411299.
Crown,P.L.,Editor.(2000)WomenandMeninthePrehispanicSouthwest.SantaFe,
NM,SchoolofAmericanResearchPress.
Cruikshank,J.(1998)TheSocialLifeofStories:NarrativeandKnowledgeintheYukon
Territory.Lincoln,NE.UniversityofNebraskaPress.
Currie,G.andC.Rothenberg,Editors(2001)Feminist(Re)VisionsoftheSubject.
Landscapes,Ethnoscapes,andTheoryscapes.Lanham,MD,LexingtonBooks.

31
Davidson,I.,C.LovellJones,R.Bancroft,Editors(1995)ArchaeologistsandAborigines
WorkingTogether.Armidale,NSW,Australia,UniversityofNewEnglandPress.
deLauretis,T.(1987)TechnologiesofGender.BlookingtonandIndianaoplis,Indiana
UniversityPress.
Delle,J.,S.A.Mrozowski,andR.Paynter,Editors(2000)HistoricalArchaeologiesof
Race,Class,andGender.Knoxville,UniversityofTennesseePress.
Deloria,V.,Jr.(1969)CusterDiedForYourSins:AnIndianManifesto.London,The
MacMillanCompany
Denetdale,J.N.(2004)PlantingSeedsofIdeasandRaisingDoubtsAboutWhatWe
Believe,AnInterviewwithVineDeloria,Jr.JournalofSocialArchaeology4(2):
131146.
Dobres,MA.(1995)GenderandPrehistoricTechnology:OntheSocialAgencyof
TechnicalStrategies.WorldArchaeology27(1):2549.
Dobres,MA.(2000)TechnologyandSocialAgency.Oxford,BasilBlackwell.
Donald,M.andL.Hurcombe,Editors(2000)GenderandMaterialCulturein
ArchaeologicalPerspective.NewYork,St.Martin's.
Dongoske,K.E.,M.Aldenderfer,andK.Doehner,Editors(2000)WorkingTogether:
NativeAmericansandArchaeologists.Washington,DC,SocietyforAmerican
Archaeology.
DuCros,H.andL.Smith,Editors(1993)WomeninArchaeology:AFeministCritique.
OccasionalPapersinPrehistory.Canberra,DepartmentofPrehistory
MonographsNo.23.AustralianNationalUniversity.
EchoHawk,R.(1993)ExploringAncientWorlds.SAABulletin11(4):56.
EchoHawk,R.(2000)ExploringAncientWorlds.WorkingTogether:NativeAmericans
andArchaeologists.K.E.Dongoske,M.Aldenderfer,andK.Doehner,editors.
Pages37.Washington,DC,SocietyforAmericanArchaeology.
Faulstich,P.,P.S.CTaon,andS.Ouzman(2003)RockartandRelationships:An
Introduction.BeforeFarming1:227237.
Ferguson,T.J.(1996)NativeAmericansandthePracticeofArchaeology.Annual
ReviewofAnthropology25:6379.
Ferguson,T.J.(2000)NHPA:ChangingtheRoleofNativeAmericansinthe
ArchaeologicalStudyofthePast.WorkingTogether:NativeAmericansand
Archaeologists.K.E.Dongoske,M.Aldenderfer,K.Doehner,editors.Pages25
36.Washington,DC,SocietyforAmericanArchaeology.
Ferguson,T.J.,K.E.Dongoske,M.Yeatts,andL.J.Kuwanwisiwma(2000)HopiOral
HistoryandArchaeology.WorkingTogether:NativeAmericansand
Archaeologists,K.E.Dongoske,M.Aldenderfer,andK.Doehner,editors.Pages
4560.Washington,DC,SocietyforAmericanArchaeology.
Fonow,M.M.andJ.A.Cook,Editors(1991)BeyondMethodology:Feminist
ScholarshipasLivedResearch.Bloomington,IN.IndianaUniversityPress.
Franklin,M.(2001)ABlackFeministInspiredArchaeology?JournalofSocial
Archaeology1(1):108125.
Frink,L.andK.Weedman,Editors.(2005)GenderandHideProduction.WalnutCreek,
CA,AltaMiraPress.

32
Gero,J.(1991)WhoExperiencedWhatinPrehistory?ANarrativeExplanationfrom
Queyash,Peru.ProcessualandPostprocessualArchaeologies:MultipleWaysof
KnowingthePast.R.Preucel,editor.Pages126139.Carbondale,IL,Southern
IllinoisUniversityCenterforArchaeologicalExcavation.
Gero,J.(1996)ArchaeologicalPracticeandGenderedEncounterswithFieldData.
GenderandArchaeology.R.B.Wright.editor.Pages251280.Philadelphia,
UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress.
Gero,J.(n.d.)ProblematizingCertitude/HonoringAmbiguity.ToappearinDoing
ArchaeologyasaFeminist:TheAprilCollective.A.WylieandM.Conkey,
editors.
Gero,J.andM.Conkey,Editors(1991)EngenderingArchaeology:Womenand
Prehistory.Oxford,BasilBlackwell.
Gero,J.M.,D.Lacy,andM.Blakey,Editors(1983)TheSocioPoliticsofArchaeology.
DepartmentofAnthropologyResearchReport,No.23.Amherst,MA,University
ofMassachusetts,Amherst.
Gilchrist,R.(1994)GenderandMaterialCulture:TheArchaeologyofReligious
Women.London,Routledge.
Gill,N.,A.Paterson,andM.JapanangkaKennedy(2004)'Murphy,doyouwanttodelete
this?'HiddenHistoriesandHiddenLandscapesintheMurchisonandDavenport
Ranges,NorthernTerritory,Australia.Darwin,NT,Australia,NorthernAustralia
ResearchUnit.
Gosden,C.(2001)PostcolonialArchaeology:IssuesofCulture,IdentityandKnowledge.
ArchaeologicalTheoryToday.I.Hodder,editor.Pages241261.Oxfordand
MaldenMA,PolityPressandBlackwell.
Hamilakis,Y.(2004)ArchaeologyandthePoliticsofPedagogy.WorldArchaeology36
(2):287309.
Handsman,R.and.T.L.Richmond(1995)ConfrontingColonialism:TheMahicanand
SchaghticokePeoplesandUs.MakingAlternateHistories:ThePracticeof
ArchaeologyandHistoryinNonWesternSettings.P.R.SchmidtandT.C.
Patterson,editors.Pages87117.SantaFe,NM,SchoolofAmericanResearch
Press.
Hanen,M.andJ.Kelley(1992)GenderandArchaeologicalKnowledge.Meta
archaeology.L.Embree,editor.Pages195225.TheNetherlands,Kluver
AcademicPublishers.
Haraway,D.(1988)SituatedKnowledges:TheScienceQuestioninFeminismasaSite
ofDiscourseinthePrivilegeofPartialPerspective.FeministStudies14(3):575
600.
Harding,S.(2003)AWorldofSciences.ScienceandOtherCultures.Issuesin
PhilosophiesofScienceandTechnology.R.FigueroaandS.Harding,editors.
Pages4969.NewYorkandLondon,Routledge.
Harding,S.,Editor(2004)TheFeministStandpointTheoryReader:Intellectualand
PoliticalControversies.NewYork,Routledge.
Hartman,H.(1981)TheUnhappyMarriageofMarxismandFeminism:TowardsaMore
ProgressiveUnion.WomenAndRevolution:TheUnhappyMarriageofMarxism

33
 andFeminism.L.Sargent,editor.Pages142.Boston,SouthEndPress.
HaysGilpin,K.(2000a)FeministScholarshipinArchaeology.AnnalsoftheAmerican
AcademyofPoliticalandSocialScience571:89106.
HaysGilpin,K.(2000b)GenderIdeologyandRitualActivities.WomenandMeninthe
PrehispanicSouthwest.P.L.Crown,editor.Pages91136.SantaFe,NM,School
forAmericanResearchPress.
HaysGilpin,K.(2003)AmbiguousImages:GenderandRockArt.WalnutCreek,CA,
AltaMiraPress.
Hoikkala,P.(1995)MothersandCommunityBuilders:SaltRiverPimaandMaricopa
WomeninCommunityAction.NegotiatorsofChange:HistoricalPerspectiveson
NativeAmericanWomen.N.Shoemaker,editor.Pages213234.Londonand
NewYork,Routledge.
HudecekCuffe,C.R.(1998)EngenderingNorthernPlainsPaleoIndianArchaeology.
BARInternationalSeries,699.Oxford,BritishArchaeologicalReports.
Hull,G.T.,P.B.Scott,andB.Smith,Editors(1982)AlltheWomenAre
White,AlltheBlacksAreMen,ButSomeofUsAreBrave.Westbury,NY,
FeministPress.
IndigenousWomenandFeminism:Culture,Activism,Politics(2005)Conferencetobe
heldAugust2005,UniversityofAlberta,Edmonton,Alberta,Canada.
Jacobs,M.D.(1999)EngenderedEncounters.FeminismandPuebloCultures.Lincoln,
NE.UniversityofNebraskaPress.
Jay,M.(2005)SongsofExperience.ModernAmericanandEuropeanVariationsona
UniversalTheme.BerkeleyandLosAngeles,CA,UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Jayaratne,T.E.andA.J.Stewart(1991)QuantitativeandQualitativeMethodsinthe
SocialSciences.BeyondMethodology:FeministScholarshipasLived
Experience.M.M.FonowandJ.A.Cook,editors.Pages85106.Bloomington,
IN,IndianaUniversityPress.
Joyce,R.(1998)PerformingtheBodyinPrehispanicCentralAmerica.Res:
AnthropologyandAesthetics33(spring):147165.
Joyce,R.(2000)GirlingtheGirlandBoyingtheBoy:TheProductionofAdulthoodin
AncientMesoamerica.WorldArchaeology31(3):473483.
Joyce,R.(2001)GenderandPowerinPrehispanicMesoamerica.Austin,TX,University
ofTexasPress.
Joyce,R.(2002a)TheLanguagesofArchaeology.Oxford,BasilBlackwell.
Joyce,R.(2002b)TheReturnoftheFirstVoice.TheLanguagesofArchaeology.R.
Joyce,pages133144.Oxford,BasilBlackwell.
Joyce,R.(n.d.a)WhyArchaeologyShouldBeSeenasStorytelling.ToappearinDoing
ArchaeologyasaFeminist:TheAprilCollective.A.WylieandM.Conkey,
editors.
Joyce,R.(n.d.b)AccountabilityandResponsibilityinStorytelling.ToappearinDoing
ArchaeologyasaFeminist:TheAprilCollective.A.WylieandM.Conkey,
editors.
Joyce,R.andR.Preucel(2002)WritingtheFieldofArchaeology.TheLanguagesof
Archaeology.R.Joyce.Pages1838.Oxford,BasilBlackwell.

34
Kstner,S.andS.M.Karlisch(1991)ReaderzumSymposium:Feminismusund
Archologie?!Symposium:FeminismusundArchologie?!,Tbingen,Germany,
InstitutfrVorundFrhgeschicte.
Keller,E.F.(1985)ReflectionsonGenderandScience.NewHaven,YaleUniversity.
Keller,E.F.(2000)Women,Gender,andScience:SomeParallelsbetweenPrimatology
andDevelopmentalBiology.PrimateEncounters:ModelsofScience,Gender,and
Society.S.C.Strumand.L.M.Fedigan,editors.Pages382397.Chicago,
UniversityofChicagoPress.
Kent,S.,Editor(1998)GenderinAfricanPrehistory.WalnutCreek,CA,AltaMiraPress.
Klein,C.,Editor(2001a)GenderinPrehispanicAmerica.Washington,DC,Dumbarton
Oaks.
Klein,C.(2001b)Conclusions:EnvisioningPreColumbianGenderStudies.Genderin
PreHispanicAmerica.C.Klein,editor.Pages363386.Washington,DC,
DumbartonOaks.
Kohl,P.andC.Fawcett,Editors(1996)Nationalism,Politics,andthePracticeof
Archaeology.Cambridge,UK,CambridgeUniversityPress.
Kus,S.(2002)AnArchaeologist'sImagination:SympatheticMagicofStudiedAudacity?
BetweenMaterialityandInterpretation:ArchaeologicalConfessions,Societyfor
AmericanArchaeologyAnnualMeetings,Denver,CO.
Lm,M.C.(1994)FeelingForeigninFeminism.SIGNS:JournalofWomeninCulture
andSociety19(4):865893.
Lane,P.(1998)EngenderedSpacesandBodilyPracticesintheIronAgeofSouthern
Africa.GenderinAfricanPrehistory.S.Kent,editor.Pages179203.Walnut
Creek,CA,AltaMiraPress:179203.
Layton,R.,Editor(1989)WhoNeedsthePast?IndigenousValuesandArchaeology.One
WorldArchaeology.
Layton,R.,Editor(1994)ConflictintheArchaeologyofLivingTraditions.NewYork,
Routledge.
Layton,T.N.(2002)GiftsFromtheCelestialKingdom:AShipwreckedCargoforGold
Rush,California.Stanford,CA,StanfordUniversityPress.
Leone,M.P.,P.B.Potter,andP.A.Shackel(1987)TowardaCriticalArchaeology.
CurrentAnthropology28(3):283302.
Lilley,I.,Editor(2000)NativeTitleandtheTransformationofArchaeologyinthe
PostcolonialWorld.OceaniaMonographs,50.
Lightfoot,K.(2000)CommentsonPuvungaandPointConception:AComparative
StudyofSouthernIndianTraditionalism,byMatthewA.BoxtandL.Mark
Raab.JournalofCaliforniaandGreatBasinAnthropology22(1):7477.
Linduff,K.andYanSun,Editors(2004)GenderandChineseArchaeology.Walnut
Creek,CA,AltaMiraPress.
Lloyd,E.(1995)ObjectivityandtheDoubleStandardforFeministEpistemologies.
Synthese104:351381.
Lloyd,E.(1997)ScienceandAntiScience:ObjectivityanditsRealEnemies.Feminism,
ScienceandthePhilosophyofScience.L.H.NelsonandJ.Nelson,editors.Pages
7994.Boston,Kluwer.

35
Longino,H.(1993)FeministStandpointTheoryandtheProblemsofKnowledge.
SIGNS:JournalofWomeninCultureandSociety19(1):201212.
Longino,H.(1994)InSearchofFeministEpistemology.TheMonist77(4):472485.
Lorde,A.(1981)TheMaster'sToolsWillNeverDismantletheMaster'sHouse.This
BridgeCalledMyBack.C.MoragaandG.Anzalda,editors.PagesWatertown,
MA,PersephonePress.
Lorde,A.(1984)SisterOutsider:EssaysandSpeeches.Freedom,CA,CrossingPress.
Loring,S.(2001)RepatriationandCommunityAnthropology:TheSmithsonian
Institution'sArcticStudiesCenter.TheFutureofthePast:Archaeologists,Native
Americans,andRepatriation.T.Bray,editor.Pages185200.NewYork,Garland
Press.
Lovejoy,O.(1981)TheOriginsofMan.Science211:341350.
Lugones,M.andE.Spelman(1983)HaveWeGotaTheoryforYou!FeministTheory,
CulturalImperialismandtheDemandforThe'Woman'sVoice'.Women'sStudies
InternationalForum6(6):573581.
MacKinnon,C.(1982)Feminism,Marxism,Method,andtheState:AnAgendafor
Theory.FeministTheory:ACritiqueofIdeology.M.Z.Rosaldo,N.O.Keohane,
andB.C.Gelpi,editors.Pages130.Chicago,UniversityofChicagoPress.
Massey,D.(1994)Space,Place,andGender.Minneapolis,MN,Universityof
MinneapolisPress.
McDowell,L.andJ.P.Sharp,Editors(1997)Space,Gender,Knowledge:Feminist
Readings.London,J.Wiley.
McGuire,R.(1992)ArchaeologyandtheFirstAmericans.AmericanAnthropologist94:
816836.
Meskell,L.(1998)IntimateArchaeologies:TheCaseofKhaandMerit.World
Archaeology29:363379.
Meskell,L.(2000)FeminisminArchaeology.EncyclopediaofFeministTheories.L.
Code,editor.Pages2627.London,Routledge.
Meskell,L.(2001)ArchaeologiesofIdentity.ArchaeologicalTheoryToday.I.Hodder,
editor.Pages187213.OxfordandMaldenMA,PolityPressandBlackwell.
Meskell,L.(2002)TheIntersectionsofIdentityandPolitics.AnnualReviewof
AnthropologyVolume31:279301.
Meskell,L.M.andR.A.Joyce(2003)EmbodiedLives:FiguringAncientMayaand
EgyptianExperience.London,Routledge.
Mihesuah,D.A.(1993)SuggestedGuidelinesforInstitutionswithScholarsWho
ConductResearchonAmericanIndians.AmericanIndianCultureandResearch
Journal17(3):131139.
Mihesuah,D.A.,Editor(1998a)NativesandAcademics:ResearchingandWriting
AboutAmericanIndians.LincolnandLondon,UniversityofNebraskaPress.
Mihesuah,D.A.(1998b)Preface.NativesandAcademics:ResearchingandWriting
aboutAmericanIndians.D.A.Mihesuaheditor.Pagesixxi.Lincolnand
London,UniversityofNebraskaPress.
Mihesuah,D.A.(2000)AFewCautionsattheMilleniumontheMergingofFeminist
StudieswithAmericanIndianWomen'sStudies.SIGNS:JournalofWomenin

36
 CultureandSociety25(4):12471251.
Mihesuah,D.A.(2003)IndigenousAmericanWomen:Decolonization,Empowerment,
Activism.LincolnandLondon,UniversityofNebraskaPress.
Mihesuah,D.A.andA.C.Wilson,Editors(2004)IndigenizingtheAcademy.
TransformingScholarshipandEmpoweringCommunities.Lincoln,NE,
UniversityofNebraskaPress.
Minow,M.(1988)FeministReason:GettingItandLosingIt.JournalofLegalEducation
47.
Mohanty,C.T.(1987)FeministEncounters:LocatingthePoliticsofExperience.
copyright(Fall):
Mohanty,C.T.(1991)UnderWesternEyes:FeministScholarshipandColonial
Discourses.InThirdWorldWomenandthePoliticsofFeminism.C.T.Mohanty,
A.Russo,andL.Torres,editors.Pages5180.BloomingtonandIndianapolis,
IndianaUniversityPress.
Mohanty,C.T.,A.Russo,andL.Torres,Editors.(1991)ThirdWorldWomenandthe
PoliticsofFeminism.BloomingtonandIndianapolis,IndianaUniversityPress.
Moore,H.(1986)Space,Text,andGender:AnAnthropologicalStudyoftheMarakwet
ofKenya.Cambridge,CambridgeUniversityPress.
Moore,H.(2001)Afterword:AMasterclassinSubjectivity.Feminist(Re)Visionsof
theSubject.Landscapes,Ethnoscapes,andTheoryscapes,G.CurrieandC.
Rothenberg,editors.Pages261266.Lanham,MD.:LexingtonBooks.
Moore,J.andE.Scott,Editors(1997)InvisiblePeopleandProcesses:WritingGender
andChildhoodintoEuropeanArchaeology.London,LeicesterUniversityPress.
Moraga,C.andG.Anzalda,Editors(1981)ThisBridgeCalledMyBack:Writingsby
RadicalWomenofColor.Watertown,MA,PersephonePress.
Moser,S.(1996)Science,Stratigraphy,andtheDeepSequence:ExcavationsvsRegional
SurveyandtheQuestionofGenderedPracticeinArchaeology.Antiquity70:813
823.
Moser,S.(n.d.)OnDisciplinaryCulture:ArchaeologyasFieldworkanditsGendered
Associations.ToappearinDoingArchaeologyasaFeminist:TheApril
Collective.A.WylieandM.Conkey,editors.
Mullins,P.R.(1999)RaceandAffluence:AnArchaeologyofAfricanAmericaand
ConsumerCulture.NewYork,Plenum.
Naples,N.A.(2003)FeminismandMethod.London.Routledge.
Nassaney,M.S.(2000)ArchaeologyandOralTraditioninTandem:InterpretingNative
AmericanRitual,IdeologyandgenderrelationsinContactPeriodSoutheastern
NewEngland.InterpretationsofNativeNorthAmericanLife.M.S.Nassaney.
andE.S.Johnson,editors.Pages412431.Gainesville,FL,UniversityofFlorida
Press.
Nassaney,M.S.(2004)NativeAmericanGenderPoliticsandMaterialCulturein
SeventeenthCenturySoutheasternNewEngland.JournalofSocialArchaeology
4(3):334367.
Nelson,S.(2004)GenderinArchaeology.AnalyzingPowerandPrestige.Second
edition.WalnutCreek,CA,AltaMiraPress.

37
Nelson,S.M.,Ed.(2005)HandbookofGenderinArchaeology.WalnutCreek,CA,
AltaMiraPress.
Nicholas,G.(2001)ThePastandFutureofIndigenousArchaeology:GlobalChallenges,
NorthAmericanPerspectives,AustralianProspects.AustralianArchaeology52
(June):2940.
Nicholas,G.(2003)SeekingtheEndofIndigenousArchaeology.Paperpresentedatthe
5thWorldArchaeologyConference,Washington,D.C.
Nicholas,G.andT.D.Andrews(1997)AtaCrossroads:ArchaeologyandFirstPeoples
inCanada.Burnaby,B.C.ArchaeologyPressandSimonFraserUniversity.
Nicholas,G.P.andK.P.Bannister(2004)CopyrightingthePast?EmergingIntellectual
PropertyRightsIssuesinArchaeology.CurrentAnthropology45(3):327350.
Nicholson,L.J.(1990)Introduction.Feminism/Postmodernism.L.J.Nicholson,editor.
Pages116.NewYork,Routledge.
O'Donovan,M.,L.Wurst,andR.McGuire(2001)MarxismandFeminismin
Archaeology:ABriefHistoryofContradictionandConcensus.Paperpresentedat
AnnualMeetings,AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation,Washington,D.C.
Oyewumi,O.(1999)MulticulturalismorMultibodism:OntheImpossibleIntersections
ofRaceandGenderinWhiteFeministandBlackNationalistDiscourses.Western
JournalofBlackStudies,volume23(3):182189.
Peck,T.,E.Siegfried,G.Oetlaar,Editors(2003)IndigenousPeoplesandArchaeology.
Calgary,UniversityofCalgaryArchaeologicalAssociation.
Peterson,J.(2002)SexualRevolutions:GenderandLaborattheDawnofAgriculture.
WalnutCreek,CA,AltaMiraPress.
Pluciennik,M.(1999)ArchaeologicalNarrativesandOtherWaysofTelling.Current
Anthropology40:653678.
Praetzellis,A.(2000)DeathByTheory:ATaleOfMysteryandArchaeologicalTheory.
WalnutCreek,CA,AltaMiraPress.
Praetzellis,A.(2003)DugtoDeath:ATaleofArchaeologicalMethodandMayhem.
WalnutCreek,CA,AltaMiraPress.
Preucel,R.andI.Hodder(1996)PartIXDialogue:TheoreticalArchaeological
Discourse.ContemporaryArchaeologyinTheory.R.PreucelandI.Hodder,
editors.Pages667678.Oxford,BasilBlackwell.
Pyburn,A.(2002)TeachingArchaeologyasaGlobalResource.Symposiumorganized
fortheEuropeanArchaeologicalAssociation,annualconference,Thessaloniki,
Greece.
Pyburn,A.(2003)WhatAreWeReallyTeachinginArchaeologicalFieldschools?
EthicalIssuesinArchaeology,L.Zimmerman,K.Vitelli,J.HollowellZimmer,
editors,pages213224.WalnutCreek,CA,AltaMiraPress.
Pyburn,K.A.,Editor(2004)UngenderingCivilization.London,Routledge.
Reinharz,S.(1992)FeministMethodsinSocialResearch.NewYork,OxfordUniversity
Press.
Renfrew,C.(2001)FromSocialtoCognitiveArchaeology:AnInterviewwithColin
Renfrew.JournalofSocialArchaeology1(1):1333.
Riggs,E.M.(2004)FieldbasedEducationandIndigenousKnowledge:Essential

38
 ComponentsofGeoscienceEducationforNativeAmericanCommunities.
Publishedonline(4August2004)inWileyInterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com).Accessed20October2004.
Riley,M.,Editor,(2004).IndigenousIntellectualPropertyRights.WalnutCreek,CA,
AltaMiraPress.
Rios,T.andK.M.Sands(2000)TellingaGoodOne:TheProcessofaNativeAmerican
CollaborativeBiography.Lincoln,NE,UniversityofNebraskaPress.
Roberts,A.(2002)IndigenousSouthAustralianPerspectivesofArchaeologyProject
Report.Adelaide,Australia,DepartmentofArchaeology,FlindersUniversity.
Rose,D.B.andA.Clarke,Editors(1997)TrackingKnowledgeinNorthAustralian
Landscapes:StudiesinIndigenousandSettlerEcologicalKnowledgeSystems.
Darwin,NT,NorthAustraliaResearchUnit.
Rothschild,N.(2003)ColonialEncountersinaNativeAmericanLandscape:The
SpanishandDutchinNorthAmerica.Washington,D.C.,SmithsonianInstitution
Press.
Rowlands,M.(1998)TheArchaeologyofColonialism.SocialTransformationsin
Archaeology.GlobalandLocalPerspectives.K.KristiansenandM.Rowlands,
editors.Pages327333.LondonandNewYork,Routledge.
Russo,A.(1991)WeCannotLiveWithoutOurLives.ThirdWorldWomenandthe
PoliticsofFeminism.C.T.Mohanty,A.RussoandL.Torres,editors.Pages297
313.BloomingtonandIndianapolis,IndianaUniversityPress.
Schmidt,P.R.andT.C.Patterson,Editors(1995).MakingAlternativeHistories:The
PracticeofArchaeologyandHistoryinNonWesternSettings.Schoolof
AmericanResearchAdvancedSeminarSeries.SantaFe,NM,Schoolof
AmericanResearch.
Schmidt,R.A.andB.L.Voss,Editors(2000)ArchaeologiesofSexuality.London,
Routledge.
Schrire,C.(1995)DiggingThroughDarkness:ChroniclesofanArchaeologist.
Charlottesville,UniversityofVirginiaPress.
Scott,J.W.(1991)TheEvidenceofExperience.CriticalInquiry17:773797.
Scott,J.W.(1992)ExperienceInFeministsTheorizethePolitical.J.ButlerandJ.W.
Scott,editors.Pages2240.NewYorkandLondon,Routledge.
Seligman,L.,Editor.(2001).WomenTradersinCrossCulturalPerspective:Mediating
Identities,MarketingWares.Stanford,CA,StanfordUniversityPress.
Smith,Claire(2003)TeachingArchaeologyForFun.Symposiumorganizedfor5thWorld
ArchaeologicalCongress,Washington,DC.
Smith,ClaireandG.K.Ward(2000)Preface.IndigenousCulturesinanInterconnected
World,pagesxivxvii.VancouverandToronto,UBCPress.
Smith,ClaireandH.M.Wobst,Editors(2005)IndigenousArchaeologies:Decolonizing
TheoryandPractice.London,Routledge.
Smith,Dorothy.E.(1974)Women'sPerspectiveasaRadicalCritiqueofSociology.
SociologicalInquiry44:713.
Smith,DorothyE.(1987)TheEverydayWorldasProblematic:AFeministSociology.
Toronto,UniversityofTorontoPress.

39
Smith,DorothyE.(1990)TheConceptualPracticesofPower:AFeministSociologyof
Knowledge.Toronto,UniversityofTorontoPress.
Smith,LindaTihuwai(1999)DecolonizingMethodologies:ResearchandIndigenous
Peoples.LondonandNewYork,ZedBooks,Ltd.
Snead,J.(2002)TimeandtheTano:Archaeology,HistoryandInterpretationinNew
MexicosGalisteo.BetweenMaterialityandInterpretation:Archaeological
Confessions,SocietyforAmericanArchaeologyAnnualMeetings,Denver,CO.
Srenson,M.L.Stig(2000)TheArchaeologyofGender.Cambridge,UK,Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Spector,J.(1991)WhatThisAwlMeans:TowardAFeministArchaeology.Engendering
Archaeology:WomenandPrehistory.J.GeroandM.Conkey,editors.Pages388
406.Oxford,BasilBlackwell.
Spector,J.(1993)WhatThisAwlMeans:FeministArchaeologyinaDakotaVillage.
Minneapolis,MN,MinnesotaHistoricalSociety.
Spector,J.(n.d.).WritingArchaeologyasaFeministPoliticalActivity.Toappearin
DoingArchaeologyasaFeminist:TheAprilCollective.A.WylieandM.
Conkey,editors.
Spelman,E.V.(1988)TheInessentialWoman:ProblemsofExclusioninFeminist
Thought.Boston,Beacon.
Spielmann,K.(1994)AFeministApproachtoArchaeologicalFieldSchools.Paper
presentedatAnnualMeetings,AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation,Atlanta,
GA.
Spielmann,K.A.(2000)GenderandExchange.WomenandMeninthePrehispanic
Southwest.P.L.Crown,editor.Pages345378.SantaFe,NM,Schoolof
AmericanResearchPress.
Sterling,K.(2003ABlackFeministatHomeandAbroad.Paperpresentedat5thWorld
ArchaeologicalCongress,Washington,DC.
Sterling,K.(2004)BlackFeminismsinArchaeology.PaperpresentedatAnnual
Meetings,SocietyforAmericanArchaeology,Montreal,Quebec.
Suleri,S.(1992)WomanSkinDeep:FeminismandthePostcolonialCondition.Critical
Inquiry18(Summer):756769.
Sweely,T.,Editor(1999)ManifestingPower:GenderandtheIntepretationofPowerin
Archaeology.London,Routledge.
Swidler,N.,K.Dongoske,R.Anyon,andA.S.Downer,Editors(1997)NativeAmericans
andArchaeologists:SteppingStonestoCommonGround.WalnutCreek,CA,
AltaMiraPress.
Terrell,J.(1990)StorytellingandPrehistory.ArchaeologicalMethodandTheory2:129.
Thomas,D.H.(2000)SkullWars:KennewickMan,Archaeology,andtheBattlefor
NativeAmericanIdentity.NewYork:BasicBooks.
Torrence,R.andA.Clarke(2000)TheArchaeologyofDifference.NegotiatingCross
CulturalEngagementsinOceania.London:Routledge.
Trigger,B.(1980)ArchaeologyandtheImageoftheAmericanIndian.American
Antiquity45(4):662676.
Trigger,B.(1984)AlternativeArchaeologies:Nationalist,Colonialist,Imperialist.MAN

40
 (n.s.)19:355370.
Tringham,R.(1991)HouseholdsWithFaces:TheChallengeofGenderinPrehistoric
ArchitecturalRemains.EngenderingArchaeology:WomenandPrehistory.J.
GeroandM.Conkey,editors.Pages93131.Oxford,BasilBlackwell.
Tringham,R.(1994)EngenderedPlacesinPrehistory.Gender,PlaceandCulture1(2):
169203.
Voss,B.L.(2000)ColonialSex:Archaeology,StructuredSpaceandSexualityinAlta
California'sSpanishColonialMissions.ArchaeologiesofSexuality.R.A.
SchmidtandB.L.Voss,editors.Pages3561.London,Routledge.
Wadley,L.,Editor(1997)OurGenderedPast:ArchaeologicalStudiesofGenderin
SouthernAfrica.Johannesburg,UniversityofWitwatersrandPress.
Wall,D.(1999)ExaminingGender,ClassandEthnicityinNineteenthCenturyNew
YorkCity.HistoricalArchaeology33(1):102117.
Watkins,J.,L.Goldstein,K.VitelliandL.Jenkins(1995)Accountability:
ResponsibilitiesofArchaeologiststoOtherInterestGroups.InEthicsin
AmericanArchaeology:Challengesforthe1990's.M.LynottandA.Wylie,
editors.Pages3337.Washington,DC,SocietyforAmericanArchaeology.
Watkins,J.(2000)IndigenousArchaeology.AmericanIndianValuesandScientific
Practice.WalnutCreek,CA,AltaMiraPress.
Wilkie,L.A.(1996)MedicinalTeasandPatentMedicines:AfricanAmericanWomen's
ConsumerChoicesandEthnomedicalTraditionsataLouisianaPlantation.
SoutheasternArchaeology15.
Wilkie,L.A.(2003)TheArchaeologyofMothering:AnAfricanAmericanMidwife's
Tale.LondonandNewYork,Routledge.
Williams,Raymond(1983)Keywords.NewYork,OxfordUniversityPress.
Williams,Robert(19891990)GenderedChecksandBalances:Understandingthe
LegacyofWhitePatriarchyinanAmericanIndianCulturalContext.GeorgiaLaw
Review:10191044.
Williams,S.M.andJ.Harjo(1998)AmericanIndianFeminism.TheReader's
CompaniontoU.S.Women'sHistory.W.Mankiller,G.Mink,M.Navarro,B.
Smith,andG.Steinheim,editors.Pages.Boston,HoughtonMifflin.
Wilmer,F.(1993)TheIndigenousVoiceinWorldPolitics.ThosandOaks,CA,Sage.
Wilson,A.C.andM.YellowBird,Editors(2005)ForIndigenousEyesOnly:A
DecolonizationHandbook.SantaFe.SchoolforAmericanResearchPress.
Wolf,E.(1984)EuropeandThePeopleWithoutHistory.BerkeleyandLosAngeles,CA,
UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Woody,A.(2000)ThePowerofthePastinthePresent:HistoricUsesofRockArtin
Nevada.Paperpresentedatthe64thAnnualMeetingoftheSocietyforAmerican
Archaeology,Philadelphia,PA.
Wylie,A.(1992)TheInterplayofEvidentialConstraintsandPoliticalInterests:Recent
ArchaeologicalResearchonGender.AmericanAntiquity57(1):1535.
Wylie,A.(1995a)DoingPhilosophyasaFeminist:LonginoontheSearchforaFeminist
Epistemology.PhilosophicalTopics23(2):345358.
Wylie,A.(1995b)AlternativeHistories:EpistemicDisunityandPoliticalIntegrity.

41
 MakingAlternativeHistories.ThePracticeofArchaeologyandHistoryinNon
WesternSettings,P.R.SchmidtandT.C.Patterson,editors.SantaFe,NM,
SchoolofAmericanResearchAdvancedSeminarSeries,SchoolofAmerican
Research.
Wylie,A.(1997)TheEngenderingofArchaeology:RefiguringFeministScienceStudies.
Osiris12:8099.
Wylie,A.(2000a)StandpointMattersInArchaeology,forExample.InPrimate
Encounters:ModelsofScience,Gender,andSociety.S.C.StrumandL.M.
Fedigan,editors.Chicago,UniversityofChicagoPress:243260.
Wylie,A.(2000b)Foreword.InWorkingTogether:NativeAmericansand
Archaeologists.K.E.Dongoske,M.Aldenderfer,andK.Doehner,editors.Pages
vx.Washington,DC,SocietyforAmericanArchaeology.
Wylie,A.(2003)WhyStandpointMatters.InPhilosophicalExplorationsofScience,
TechnologyandDiversity.R.FigueroaandS.Harding,editors.Pages2648.
NewYork,Routledge.
Wylie,A.andM.Conkey,Editors(n.d.a)DoingArchaeologyasaFeminist:TheApril
Collective.
Wylie,A.andM.Conkey(n.d.b)Introduction:TheAprilCollectiveProject.Toappear
inDoingArchaeologyasaFeminist:TheAprilCollective.A.WylieandM.
Conkey,editors.
Young,M.E.(1980)Women,CivilizationandtheIndianQuestion.ClioWasaWoman:
StudiesintheHistoryofAmericanWomen.M.E.DeutrichandV.C.Purdy,
editors.Pages98110.Washington,D.C,HowardUniversityPress.
Zimmerman,L.(1979)Indians,Archaeologists,andBones:SpiritualandEthical
ConsiderationsfortheCrowCreekDig.RelationshipsofthePeopletotheLand.
Pages3243.Vermillion,SD,InstituteofIndianStudies.
Zimmerman,L.(1989a)MadeRadicalByMyOwn:AnArchaeologistLearnsto
UnderstandReburial.ConflictintheArchaeologyofLivingTraditions,R.
Layton,editor.Pages667.London:UnwinHyman
Zimmerman,L.(1989b)HumanBonesAsSymbolsofPower:NativeAmericanViewsof
'Graverobbing'Archaeologists.ConflictintheArchaeologyofLivingTraditions.
R.Layton,editor,Pages211216.London,UnwinHyman.
Zimmerman,L.1989cThePresentPast:AnExaminationofArchaeologicalandNative
AmericanThinkingaboutLawandTime.ThinkingAcrossCultures.DonaldM.
Topping,editor.Pages3342.Hillsdale,NJ.LawrenceE.Erlbaum,Publishers.
Zimmerman,L.,K.Vitelli,andJ.HollowellZimmer(f2003)EthicalIssuesin
Archaeology.WalnutCreek,CA:AltaMiraPress,incooperationwithThe
SocietyforAmericanArchaeology.

42