http://www.jstor.org/stable/280492 .
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Antiquity.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 212.175.18.234 on Mon, 20 Oct 2014 05:49:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SOCIO-POLITICS AND THE WOMAN-AT-HOME IDEOLOGY
Joan M. Gero
Archaeologists, as explorers and discoverers, have maintained the myth of objective research far
longer than have researchers in other social science disciplines. Focused on action, the "cowboys
of science" (Alaskan bumper sticker 1981) have dabbled little in self-reflective criticism.
Now at 50, however, the discipline is becoming aware that our notions of the past, our epistemologies, our research emphases, the methods we employ in our research, and the interpretations
we bring to and distill from our investigations, are far from value-neutral. Historical insights such
as Ford's (1973:84), that the development of prehistory coincides with and reinforces the development of nationalism, Leone's (1973:129) that nations would spend millions of dollars annually
on archaeology only for an important purpose: to obtain "an empirical substantiation of national
mythology," or Clarke's (1973:6) reflective comments on "the transitions from consciousness through
self-consciousness to critical self-consciousness," indicate an awareness that archaeology is fundamentally tied to and conditioned by the larger society that supports it.
Suddenly we are witnessing the appearance of several new critical approaches to the articulation
between archaeological undertakings and the social conditions in which they are achieved. We see
a critical philosophy of archaeology (Hanen and Kelley 1983; Kelley and Hanen 1985; Wylie 1981,
1983a, 1983b), a critical historiography of archaeology (Fahnestock 1984; Kristiansen 1981; Meltzer
1983a, 1983b; Trigger 1980), critical appraisals of methodology (Moore and Keene 1983), an applied
archaeology (Claassen 1982; Kendall 1982; McCartney 1982), and, finally, a reflective sociology of
archaeology, the focus of this paper, which has been called the socio-politics of archaeology (Gero
et al. 1983).
The emphasis is on archaeology as more than a socially-embedded activity. Because of its focus
on the value-laden past, and because it is supported and validated by dominant social and political
interests, archaeology must also serve the ideology of the state that supports it. Researchers in the
socio-politics of archaeology ask how the objects of our studies and the methods that we use, our
starting assumptions and our observational categories, our explanatory theories and our interpretations, are all structured and constrained by the state society that underwrites archaeological endeavor.
RESEARCH IN SOCIO-POLITICS
Archaeology is fundamentally and uniquely an institution of state-level society. It is only the state
that can support, and that requires the services of, elite specialists to produce and control the past.
The archaeologist, particularly the prehistoric archaeologist, can produce for the state either a
geographically-focused past (a prehistory of land-use relevant to a bounded nation or region), or a
cultural past, tracing back the purportedly single line of cultural traditions. In North America, for
instance,Blakey(1983:6-7) has used the Fifth International Directory ofAnthropologists (Tax 1975)
to show first, that North American archaeologists work primarily on their own continent, providing
a geographically-bounded past for contemporary North Americans, and second, that outside these
boundaries, research sites are not determined by geographical proximity to North America but
rather by proximity to our Judeo-Christian, Eurocentric value system, concentrating on European
Joan M. Gero, Department of Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208
AmericanAntiquity,50(2), 1985, pp. 342-350.
Copyright( 1985 by the Society for AmericanArchaeology
342
This content downloaded from 212.175.18.234 on Mon, 20 Oct 2014 05:49:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Gero]
SOCIO-POLITICS IN ARCHAEOLOGY
343
and Middle Eastern data over African and Asian data as a reflection of the ethnic roots of the
majority of North Americans (see also Kelley and Hanen 1985:chapter 4).
Perhaps this seems self-evident. But allowing that archaeology serves the interest, or the dominant
interests, of the state (Gero 1983b) is really only a point of departure for the socio-politics of
archaeology. We can go further and specify a specific bias that the state requires of archaeologists,
and that indeed may not be escapable: that of making the past appear like the present, overlaying
a "paradigm of the present" (Conkey 1982:5) on archaeological interpretation and reconstruction.
Archaeology consistently misrepresents the past by making it seem a logical precedent for the present;
indeed, archaeology suggests the present is an ineluctible and therefore legitimate outcome of the
past (Leone 1984a).
But we have still only set the stage for self-reflective inquiry. In order to move past contemplation
and toward change, we must be aware of exactly how present-day values, prejudices, norms, and
politics come to be embedded in our work, and how we, perhaps unwittingly, participate in the
process of imposing present on past: in selecting geographic research areas (Blakey 1983), in specifying
topics of research (Klejn 1977; Wobst and Keene 1983), in isolating observational categories (Conkey
and Spector 1984; Leone 1982, 1984a), in applying and misapplying specific research methods (Kus
1983; Paynter 1983; Wobst 1983), in assigning causation and motivation in prehistory (Trigger
1981; Wilk 1983), in depicting patterns of social relationships in the past (Handsman 1983; Leone
1973, 1982, 1984a, 1984b), and in representing the past directly to the public (Blakey 1983; Leone
1981, 1984b; Meltzer 1981; Schuyler 1976).
A socio-political approach can expose the various means by which the present affects the archaeological past. For instance, identifying the present as a narrow band of contemporaneity allows
short-lived intellectual fashions and pivotal political events to be traced directly into archaeological
explanations and reconstructions (see Trigger's [1981:151] views of catastrophe theory in these
terms, and Wilk's 1983 treatment of how the Vietnam war and the ecology movement affected
Mayan archaeology). Alternatively, studies of the "structure of rewards" and "matrix of constraints"
that characterize the political economy of archaeology (Wobst and Keene 1983) depend on a broad
definition of a conditioning present, one that spans the 40-50 years in which archaeology has been
practiced more or less as it is today. Socio-political analyses on this level reveal more general
structural constraints on our work. Finally, the active present can be equated with participation in
the maintenance of state-level society, upholding the fundamental asymmetries encompassed by
the state. At this level, socio-political research can expose archaeologists' contributions to justifying
the economic hierarchy and social distinctions, allowing the policy-makers of today and of prehistory
to "take themselves and their position as granted and convince others that the way things are is the
way they always had been and should remain" (Leone 1984b:34; Meltzer 1981).
The development of socio-political consciousness in archaeology is best served by recognizing
how the multi-layered constraints reinforce one another and inadvertently structure our work. Lack
of a uniform approach should not be worrisome at this time; we do better to examine the many
ways that the political context of research is reflected in selected ideological issues. An instructive
example is representations of gender relations and gender ideology in archaeology.
THE SOCIO-POLITICS OF GENDER
The subject of gender is particularly conducive to a socio-political analysis for several reasons.
While very much a belief system and social product (Rubin 1975:165-166), gender also has an
empirical aspect, biological difference, that underlies the social framework and can be extended
back in time, permitting clear distinctions to be made in today's populations and in the skeletal
populations of the past. Moreover, the expectation of roughly 50% male and 50% female representation in all populations enables identification of culturally biased distributions and unequal visibility. In this case study, we look not only at how unexamined assumptions about gender structure
our interpretations of the past, but also at how these assumptions underwrite the gender relations
among archaeologists today to produce in our research conclusions and in our professional lives,
the same society, past and present.
This content downloaded from 212.175.18.234 on Mon, 20 Oct 2014 05:49:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
344
AMERICANANTIQUITY
[Vol. 50, No. 2, 1985
Archaeological Interpretations of Gender
Recent concern with the archaeological study of gender (Conkey 1982; Conkey and Spector 1984;
Moore 1985) was undoubtedly stimulated by publication, in the past decade, of literally hundreds
of books and articles written from a feminist perspective. Archaeologists might have responded
earlier and, like the socio-cultural anthropologists, participated more actively in the climate of
interest in gender had it not been for the profession's traditional structure of concerns and practices,
which offer very low or even negative prestige for engaging in such discourse. Historically conservative, the archaeological enterprise is also dominated by white, middle-class males (Hanen and
Kelley 1983), and among them a stereotypic self-image as "masculine," "strong," and "active"
prevails (Woodall and Perricone 1981). This community was slow to embrace a feminist perspective.
Conkey and Spector (1984), however, have recently offered a significant analysis of how gender
ideology is manifested in archaeological research. As they point out, gender assertions have been
made regularly in reconstructions of the past, although such assertions "are so implicit as to be
excluded from the attempts of archaeologists to confirm and validate them." Drawn in part from
male-centered ethnographies and in part from the personal experiences of most archaeologists as
modern males in a state level society, the implicit gender models reconstruct male and female roles
in the past much as they are stereotyped today. Females, if noted, perform a narrow range of passive,
home-oriented tasks in contrast to their public, productive, and far-ranging male counterparts.
Conkey and Spector (1984:5-14) provide examples of how archaeological interpretations of gender
roles in the past have been skewed by the "presentist" ideology. Not only have grave goods been
interpreted differently when recovered from male versus female burial contexts (pestles found with
female burials are evidence of grinding and food processing, while pestles in male burials suggest
the production of pestles or use as hammer-stones in other productive activities [in Winters 1968:
206]), but the very basis of human existence now rests on reconstructions of a strict sexual division
of labor that is extended back to a proto-human era. In this scenario, food-sharing and an inherited
notion of a common home base insure the increasingly encumbered, restricted, passive, and sedentary
female a primordial place in human evolution (Conkey and Spector 1984:8-9). Even the language
applied to archaeological interpretations of male behaviors differs from that applied to female
behaviors: males perform "activities" while females engage in "tasks," and descriptions of male
activities "are more detailed, and are portrayed more actively and more frequently than femaleassociated activities. There is asymmetry in the visibility, energy levels, accomplishments, and
contributions of the sexes" (Conkey and Spector 1984:10).
It is clear that a set of unexamined assumptions about gender has crept into archaeological
interpretation, while explicit attention to women's roles in the archaeological past has been lacking.
The androcentric interpretation and presentation of the past is both structured by, but also fed into,
the larger ideological and symbolic domain of our contemporary society, as the past duplicates and
legitimates present-day norms and values.
Archaeological Research and Gender
Following this reasoning still further, we can expect archaeologists to conform in their professional
roles to the same ideological constructs they adopt to explain the past. We are alerted to certain
strong parallels between the male who populates the archaeological record-public, visible, physically
active, exploratory, dominant, and rugged, the stereotypic hunter-and the practicing field archaeologist who himself conquers the landscape, brings home the goodies, and takes his data raw! Not
only does the public uphold this image of the archaeologist (Gero 1981, 1983a), but the archaeologist
himself concurs (Woodall and Perricone 1981). Corresponding, then, to the stereotyped male, we
expect to find the female archaeologist secluded in the base-camp laboratory or museum, sorting
and preparing archaeological materials, private, protected, passively receptive, ordering and systematizing, but without recognized contribution to the productive process. The woman-at-home
archaeologist must fulfill her stereotypic feminine role by specializing in the analysis of archaeological
materials, typologizing, seriating, studying wear or paste or iconographic motifs. She will have to
do the archaeological housework.
This content downloaded from 212.175.18.234 on Mon, 20 Oct 2014 05:49:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Gero]
SOCIO-POLITICSIN ARCHAEOLOGY
345
If this sexual division of labor actually exists in archaeological research, then male archaeologists
would be concentrated in field-based research, undertaking projects that include the collection of
primary data from excavations or surveys. Female archaeologists, on the other hand, would be
involved in non-field projects, projects where the investigator analyzes data that she or he did not
collect from an archaeological context, and where data collection is not a significant aspect of the
research.
I have used three means to examine how male and female archaeologists apportion their research
between field-based research projects and non-field-based projects. The first reflects current Mesoamerican research as self-reported in American Antiquity. Despite shortcomings, this data set represents a wide sample of active archaeological personnel predetermined by no other criteria than a
common geographical focus. The second is based on recently completed dissertation research in
archaeology as described in Dissertation Abstracts International. At the expense of not reflecting
discipline-wide activity, these statistics offer a contemporary view of archaeological developments.
The third measure shows the distribution of funded National Science Foundation projects in archaeology as listed in NSF Grants and Awards. Because funding for these projects is probably the
most prestigious available for archaeological research, we can expect the discipline's norms and
values to be exaggerated here, perhaps exhibiting biases germane to our argument.
Table 1 presents the results of all three measures taken on two two-year time periods, 1967-1968
and 1979-1980. Disregarding the dramatic over-representation of males in all these data, a surprisingly homogeneous picture of gender roles can be seen to be operating in archaeological research.
In the earlier samples, males are slightly more heavily represented in field-related research than are
females (except within NSF projects where males and females participate equally in field-related
research). But interpretation of these figures is somewhat shaky given the low female counts.
By 1979-1980, however, all measures demonstrate a significant trend toward a male preoccupation
with field-based research and a female involvement with non-field oriented research. In fact, by all
measures, the proportion of females doing non-field related research is consistently twice as high
as the proportion of males doing non-field research, although males almost completely dominate
the high-technology niche of archeometric (non-field) research. Conversely, close to twice as high
a proportion of male archaeologists do field-related research as female archaeologists, with the
exception of the NSF research.
Looked at another way, in the years 1979-1980, males, who represent 74% of the total sample
of archaeologists counted here, account for 83% of all the current Mesoamerican field research, 81%
of the dissertations based on field research, and 93% of all the NSF field research projects. Females
on the other hand, representing 26% of the total sample here, undertake 45% of the current Mesoamerican non-field research, 46% of the non-field-based dissertations, and 27% of the NSF nonfield research.
A more developmental look at the gender division in archaeology was also attempted. Dissertation
abstracts were selected as the most accessible, most inclusive, and most sensitive data base for
research done in archaeology, and all the abstracts from the last 25 years of dissertations in anthropological archaeology were examined (Table 2). The tiny sample of females receiving doctorates
in archaeology before 1970 makes comparisons unreliable for these years, and the apparent inconsistencies in the two earliest five-year periods, 1960-1964 and 1965-1969, are obviously a function
of sample size. My own hunch is that in 1960-1964, where the research of only three female
archaeologists can be tallied, we are actually seeing an unrepresentative picture of females doing
more non-field research, because I suspect that in those years, males and females were fulfilling very
similar research roles, typically involving a heavy emphasis on fieldwork, as is evident in the slightly
larger sample from the 1965-1969 period.
As soon as women enter the profession in larger numbers, however, after 1970, the trend is
unambiguous: very close to two-thirds of the female archaeologists base their dissertation research
on non-field oriented, analytic projects, while very close to two-thirds of the males undertake fieldrelated research. We can also extrapolate from this sequence that in the last 10 years males have
dropped from conducting between 92% and 95% (in 1960-1974) to only 75-78% of the field-based
dissertation research (in 1975-1984). But this shift is fully accounted for by the swelling of the
This content downloaded from 212.175.18.234 on Mon, 20 Oct 2014 05:49:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
346
CZ
Zt
t:
rq
00
00
00
oo
00
"C
00
00
r-
00
00
00
-F r A
kf)
8-0
'IC
8-0
oo
00
AMERICANANTIQUITY
7;
7;
7;
7;
00
kf)
00
CZ
c,
t:
7;
t:
U ,
44 U
7a
CZ
CZ
CZ
oo
gR
> E
cn
t:
This content downloaded from 212.175.18.234 on Mon, 20 Oct 2014 05:49:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 50, No. 2, 1985
Gero]
SOCIO-POLITICSIN ARCHAEOLOGY
347
Table 2. Males' and Females' Dissertation Research from 25
Years of Dissertation Abstracts International.
Males
Field
1960-1964
1965-1969
1970-1974
1975-1979
1980-1984a
Females
Non-Field
Field
Non-Field
62%
38%
33%
n = 18
n = 11
n= I
n= 2
73%
n = 61
68%
n = 141
61%
n=176
62%
n = 176
27%
n = 22
32%
n = 66
39%
n=112
38%
n = 107
75%
n= 6
29%
n = 13
37%
n=49
34%
n = 60
25%
n= 2
71%
n = 32
63%
n=83
66%
n = 115
67%
a For 1984, only the months of January through July are included in these
counts.
female doctorate ranks, where consistent proportions of field and non-field research are maintained
but larger numbers of females contribute to field research each year.
The question then arises of whether women want to work in the field, and here we return to the
distribution of prestigious NSF funding in archaeology. It was already noted in Table 1 that although
the NSF non-field research done by women jumped significantly in 1979-1980, it never reached
the same level as in the other types of research measured. In fact, what emerges from Table 1 in
regard to 1979-1980 NSF research is a particularly high representation offield-related research, for
both males and females, especially in comparison with dissertation research: 87% of the males
funded by NSF did field research (compared to 63% of the male dissertation writers), and 57% of
the females funded by NSF did field research (compared to 32% of the female dissertation writers).
These figures suggest that archaeological field research, fulfilling a male stereotype and indeed
associated with male archaeologists, is heavily emphasized by the prestigious, state-controlled National Science Foundation, an observation offered independently by M. Conkey (1978:5). Moreover,
John Yellen (1983:61-62) reports that among NSF applicants seeking field-related archaeology funds
in 1979-1980, males were 35% successful while females were only 15% (or less than half as)
successful. On the other hand, females were 28% successful if they followed their stereotyped sex
roles and sought non-field-related research funds. Unlike females, the success rates for males were
unaffected by the nature of the proposed project. The fact that NSF applications by men were also
significantly more successful overall than applications by women, and that this was uniquely true
for archaeology and not for either social or biological anthropology (Yellen 1983:60), puts these
findings in further perspective.
It may be that archaeologists are bound and constrained by social and political ideology in ways
that are different from other scholarly areas, and that this is so precisely because archaeologists are
charged with reproducing and legitimating the present in the past, providing roots and constructing
sequences that lead to contemporary values and practices. Because the construction of the past is
so socially useful (even more useful, perhaps, than many other areas of anthropological inquiry),
and because unambiguous data are so scarce, it may be inevitable that our research conclusions
mirror current social ideology (Gould 1981:22). The archaeologist partakes of, contributes to, is
validated by, and dutifully records present-day social and political structures in the identification
of research problems and in the interpretation of findings. It remains for reflective, socio-political
research in archaeology to decipher the present while we unearth the past, and to distinguish the
two whenever possible.
This content downloaded from 212.175.18.234 on Mon, 20 Oct 2014 05:49:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
348
AMERICANANTIQUITY
[Vol. 50, No. 2, 1985
Acknowledgments. My warmest appreciation to Patty Jo Watson, a woman who does not stay home, for her
encouragement to continue with this research. Thanks, too, to Dena Dincauze for forcing me to think of different
ways of putting my arguments, and to Meg Conkey and Martin Wobst for their timely help and support. Stephen
Loring and Kimberly Grimes cheerfully helped compile dissertation abstract data, and Pam Spurrier of the
University of South Carolina Statistical Laboratory provided helpful consultations, for which I am grateful. The
faults and fervor are my own.
REFERENCES
CITED
Blakey, Michael L.
1983 Socio-Political Bias and Ideological Production in Historical Archaeology. In The Socio-Politics of
Archaeology, edited by Joan Gero, David Lacy, and Michael L. Blakey, pp. 5-16. Anthropology Research
Report No. 23, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Clarke, David
1973 Archaeology: The Loss of Innocence. Antiquity 47:6-18.
Claassen, Cheryl P.
1982 The Study of Modem Materials for Policy Advising. Paper presented at the 81st annual meeting of
the American Anthropological Association, Washington D.C.
Conkey, Margaret W.
1978 Participation in the Research Process: Getting Grants. Paper presented at the 77th annual meeting of
the American Anthropological Association, Los Angeles.
1982 Archaeological Research, Gender Paradigms, and Invisible Behavior. Paper presented at the 81st annual
meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C.
Conkey, Margaret W., and Janet D. Spector
1984 Archaeology and the Study of Gender. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 7,
edited by Michael Schiffer, pp. 1-38. Academic Press, New York.
Fahnestock, Polly J.
1984 History and Theoretical Development: The Importance of a Critical Historiography of Archaeology.
Archaeological Review from Cambridge 3:7-18.
Ford, Richard I.
1973 Archaeology Serving Humanity. In Research and Theory in Current Archaeology, edited by Charles
Redman, pp. 83-93. Wiley and Sons, New York.
Gero, Joan M.
1981 Excavation Bias and the Woman-at-Home Ideology. Paper presented at the 21st annual meeting of
the Northeastern Anthropological Association, Saratoga Springs, New York.
1983a Gender Bias in Archaeology: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. In The Socio-Politics of Archaeology,
edited by Joan Gero, David Lacy, and Michael L. Blakey, pp. 51-57. Anthropology Research Report No.
23, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
1983b Producing Prehistory, Controlling the Past: The Case of the New England Beehives. Paper presented
at the XIth International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, Vancouver.
Gero, Joan, David Lacy, and Michael L. Blakey (editors)
1983 The Socio-Politics ofArchaeology. Anthropological Research Report No. 23, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Gould, Stephen Jay
1981 The Mismeasure of Man. W. W. Norton, New York.
Handsman, Russell G.
1983 Social Inequality and Alienation: The Construction of Value through Time. Paper presented at the
48th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Pittsburgh.
Hanen, Marsha P., and Jane H. Kelley
1983 Social and Philosophical Frameworks for Archaeology. In The Socio-Politics of Archaeology, edited
by Joan Gero, David Lacy, and Michael L. Blakey, pp. 107-117. Anthropology Research Report No. 23,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Kelley, Jane H., and Marsha P. Hanen
1985 Archaeology and the Methodology of Science. Academic Press, New York, in press.
Kendall, Ann
1982 Rehabilitation as Part of an Archaeological Project. Paper presented at the 81st annual meeting of the
American Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C.
Klejn, Leo S.
1977 A Panorama of Theoretical Archaeology. Current Anthropology 18:1-42.
Kristiansen, Kristian
1981 A Social History of Danish Archaeology (1805-1975). In Towards a History of Archaeology, edited
by Glyn Daniel, pp. 20-44. Thames and Hudson, London.
Kus, Susan M.
1983 The Social Representation of Space: Dimensioning the Cosmological and the Quotidian. In Archae-
This content downloaded from 212.175.18.234 on Mon, 20 Oct 2014 05:49:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Gero]
SOCIO-POLITICSIN ARCHAEOLOGY
349
ological Hammers and Theories, edited by James Moore and Arthur Keene, pp. 277-298. Academic Press,
New York.
Leone, Mark P.
1973 Archaeology as the Science of Technology: Mormon Town Plans and Fences. In Research and Theory
in Current Archaeology, edited by Charles Redman, pp. 125-150. Wiley and Sons, New York.
1981 Archaeology's Relationship to the Present and the Past. In Modern Material Culture: The Archaeology
of Us, edited by Richard Gould and Michael Schiffer, pp. 5-14. Academic Press, New York.
1982 Opinions about Recovering Mind. American Antiquity 47:742-760.
1984a Critical Theory in Archaeology. Paper presented in the Department of Anthropology, S.U.N.Y. Binghamton, March 31.
1984b Interpreting Ideology in Historical Archaeology: Using the Rules of Perspective in the William Paca
Garden in Annapolis, Maryland. In Ideology, Power and Prehistory, edited by Daniel Miller and Christopher
Tillev, pp. 25-35. Cambridge University Press, London.
McCartney, Allen
1982 Recycling Prehistoric Whale Bone: A Canadian Example. Paper presented at the 81st annual meeting
of the American Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C.
Meltzer, David J.
1981 Ideology and Material Culture. In Modern Material Culture, the Archaeology of Us, edited by Richard
Gould and Michael Schiffer, pp. 113-125. Academic Press, New York.
1983a The Antiquity of Man and the Development of American Archaeology. In Advances in Archaeological
Method and Theory, vol. 6, edited by Michael Schiffer, pp. 1-51. Academic Press, New York.
1983b Prehistory, Power and Politics in the Bureau of America Ethnology, 1879-1906. In The Socio-Politics
ofArchaeology, edited by Joan Gero, David Lacy, and Michael L. Blakey, pp. 67-77. Anthropology Research
Report No. 23, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Moore, Henrietta (editor)
1985 Women, Archaeology and Material Culture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, in press.
Moore, James, and Arthur Keene (editors)
1983 Archaeological Hammers and Theories. Academic Press, New York.
National Science Foundation
1967, 1968, 1979, 1980 National Science Foundation Grants andAwards. United States Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C.
Paynter, Robert W.
1983 Expanding the Scope of Settlement Analysis. In Archaeological Hammers and Theories, edited by
James Moore and Arthur Keene, pp. 233-275. Academic Press, New York.
Rubin, Gayle
1975 The Traffic in Women: Notes on the 'Political Economy' of Sex. In Toward anAnthropologyof Women,
edited by Rayna Reiter, pp. 157-210. Monthly Review Press, New York.
Schuyler, Robert
1976 Images of America: The Contribution of Historical Archaeology to National Identity. Southwestern
Lore 42:27-39.
Tax, Sol
1975 Fifth International Directory of Anthropologists. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Trigger, Bruce G.
1980 Archaeology and the Image of the American Indian. American Antiquity 45:662-676.
1981 Anglo-American Archaeology. World Archaeology 13:138-155.
University Microfilms
1960-1984
Dissertation Abstracts International. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
Wilk, Richard
1983 VernacularSources of Anthropological Theory: A Case from Archaeology. Paper presented at the 82nd
annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Chicago.
Winters, Howard D.
1968 Value Systems and Trade Cycles of the Late Archaic in the Midwest. In New Perspectives in Archaeology,
edited by Sally Binford and Lewis Binford, pp. 175-222. Aldine Publishers, Chicago.
Wobst, H. Martin
1983 We Can't See the Forest for the Trees: Sampling and the Shapes of Archaeological Distributions. In
Archaeological Hammers and Theories, edited by James Moore and Arthur Keene, pp. 37-85. Academic
Press, New York.
Wobst, H. Martin, and Arthur S. Keene
1983 Archaeological Explanation as Political Economy. In The Socio-Politics ofArchaeology, edited by Joan
Gero, David Lacy, and Michael L. Blakey, pp. 78-89. Anthropology Research Report No. 23, University
of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Woodall, J. Ned, and Philip J. Perricone
1981 The Archaeologist As Cowboy: The Consequence of Professional Stereotype. Journal of Field Archaeology 8:506-508.
This content downloaded from 212.175.18.234 on Mon, 20 Oct 2014 05:49:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AMERICANANTIQUITY
350
[Vol. 50, No. 2, 1985
Wylie, M. Alison
1981 Positivism and the New Archaeology. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Philosophy,
State University of New York, Binghamton.
1983a Comments on the "Socio-Politics of Archaeology": The De-Mystification of the Profession. In The
Socio-Politics of Archaeology, edited by Joan Gero, David Lacy, and Michael L. Blakey, pp. 119-130.
Anthropology Research Report No. 23, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
1983b The Dilemma of Interpretation: Inuit Ethnography and the Archaeological Record. Paper presented
at the 48th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Pittsburgh.
Yellen, John E.
1983 Women, Archaeology, and the National Science Foundation. In The Socio-Politics of Archaeology,
edited by Joan Gero, David Lacy, and Michael L. Blakey, pp. 59-65. Anthropology Research Report No.
23, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
*~~~~A
Julian Martinez (husband of potter Maria Martinez) at work for School of American Research, reconstructing
kiva in Ceremonial Cave at Bandelier National Monument, New Mexico ca. 1912. Jesse L. Nussbaum photographer. (Museum of New Mexico collection, Neg. No. 61828.)
This content downloaded from 212.175.18.234 on Mon, 20 Oct 2014 05:49:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
