| Grit-Tempered: Early Women Archaeologists
In The Southeastern United States.
Edited by Nancy M. White, Lynne P. Sullivan
and Rochelle A. Marrinan. Gainesville:
University Press of Florida, 1999.
392 pages, 79 B&W illustrations/figures,
2 tables. ISBN 0-8130-1686-x (hb)
US$49.95.
Lara Lamb (Australian National University,
Canberra) lamb@usq.edu.au
As the title suggests, this collection
of essays includes nine separate biographical
(and two autobiographical) sketches of early
Southeastern women archaeologists (ch. 2-4
and 6-13). Also contained in the 392
pages are:
·
an introduction to the volume, including
a discussion of gender in Southeastern archaeology,
the research background, and the researchers’
backgrounds (ch. 1, Women in Southeastern
U.S. Archaeology);
·
a discussion of the differing roles that
‘Anglo’ and African-American women archaeologists
occupied in the excavation of the Irene
Mound in Savannah, Georgia between 1937
and 1940, under one of Roosevelt’s New Deal
programs (ch.5, Black and White Women at
Irene Mound);
·
a penultimate essay which explores factors
inherent to the south that shape the discipline
of archaeology and its practitioners (ch.
14, Grit-Tempered Women);
·
and a concluding chapter which attempts
to draw the main threads of this volume
together - that is, gender roles within
the discipline of archaeology, the achievements
of early Southeastern women archaeologists
and engendering the archaeological record
(ch. 15, Reflections and Speculations on
Putting Women into Southeastern Archaeology).
As outlined in chapter 1, Women in Southeastern
U.S. Archaeology by Nancy White, the impetus
for this book was the editors’ desire to
assess the role of women in the history
of southeastern archaeology, and its subsequent
maturation. Coupled with this is the
attempt to examine the link between one’s
gender and how the science of archaeology
is done. To this end nine separate
authors (White, Schnell, Ledbetter, Sullivan,
Classen, Davis, Marrinan, Mason, and Watson)
have contributed to its pages.
Chapter 2, Margaret Ashley: Georgia’s First
Professional Archaeologist, by Frank T.
Schnell, Jr, recounts the professional life
of Margaret Ashley, born Atlanta, Georgia,
in 1902. After graduating from Oglethorp
University with a degree majoring in English
Literature and Journalism, Margaret Ashley
corresponded with Franz Boas and was accepted
into a graduate program in anthropology
at Columbia University. Her dissertation
topic was an archaeological survey of Georgia,
which she commenced in 1926. Having
established her authority in this area,
Margaret Ashley was asked to organise an
archaeology department at Emory University,
and to assist Warren Moorehead on several
projects in northern Georgia. Although
Ashley had clearly gained the respect of
Moorehead, she was frequently portrayed
by the principal investigators as relevant
only in “domestic” contexts (p. 29).
After marrying Gerald Towle, Moorehead’s
principal field assistant in 1930, Margaret
Ashley quit professional archaeology for
14 years. The author of this chapter
speculates that the Great Depression, the
social mores of the time, or her marriage
could have influenced her in this manner.
In 1944, following Gerald Towle’s death,
Ashley returned to Columbia to take up her
doctoral studies once again, this time working
in the field of paleoethnobotany.
Completed in 1958, her doctoral dissertation
was published in 1961 as No. 30 of the Viking
Fund Series. Margaret Ashley worked
at Harvard as an unpaid associate until
her death on November 2, 1985. Schnell
claims that “like so many pioneers, Margaret
Towle did not realize her own importance.
Like so many women she considered her work
inadequate” (p.40).
Chapter 3, Isabel Garrard Patterson: Advocate
for Georgia Archaeology, by R. Jerald Ledbetter,
describes the contributions to archaeology
by Isabel Patterson, born in Columbus
on December 23, 1894. Patterson had
a keen amateur interest in archaeology from
an early age, and was a frequent visitor
to many excavations in Georgia. She
was essentially untrained but made large
contributions to public education and to
the financial support of several prominent
archaeological projects. “Her ability to
be a benefactor, but also to question the
professionals and absorb the wealth of discoveries
during that era put her into a position
of more than a sponsor” (p.55). Patterson’s
influence declined at the beginning of WWII,
but she still remained active in the Georgia
state archaeological society. Best
known for her work on the Bull Creek site,
Patterson also helped with the establishment
of the Columbus Museum which “exhibited
many of her finds” (p54). Isobel Patterson
died in January, 1955.
Chapter 4, Madeline D. Kneberg Lewis: Leading
Lady of Tennessee Archaeology, by Lynne
P. Sullivan, outlines the life and career
of Madeline Kneberg Lewis from “growing
up in Moline” to “being an archaeologist
and life in the 1990s”. This chapter
differs from the first 3, by being written
in an almost conversational style, and as
a result tends to reveal the disparity of
style present throughout the book.
Born in Moline in 1903, Kneberg Lewis had
a varied career until she took a position
as a physical anthropologist in 1938 on
a project funded by the Works Progress Administration
and administered through the University
of Tennessee. She was eventually to
become laboratory director and one of the
first women to hold a full professorship
in archaeology in the southeast. “Madeline
received support from many influential male
colleagues and seems to have been comfortable
in and drawn strength from a professional
world in which men served as her confidants
and mentors” (p58).
Chapter 5, Black and White Women at Irene
Mound, by Cheryl Claassen, is an important
chapter which details the differing experiences
of White and Black women who were employed
on the mound. “Exemplifying that difference…is
the fact that we know the names of the thirty
two white women and their specific contributions
yet we do not know the name of any one of
the black women” (p.93). Irene
Mound, in Savannah, Georgia, was excavated
for about 2½ years by a crew of 117 people
who were supervised successively by Preston
Holder, Vladimir Fewkes, Claude Schaeffer
and Joseph Caldwell. All participants
were employed by the Works Progress Administration
(WPA), which was one of Roosevelt’s New
Deal Programs initiated in the 1930s to
combat rising unemployment. In addition
to such tasks as cleaning, nursing, housekeeping
and cooking, archaeological work was deemed
‘suitable’ for uneducated women of all ‘races’.
However, while many White women had non-manual
jobs such as constructing models, drawing
maps and illustrating artefacts, Black women
tended to work exclusively on the manual
tasks with shovel and bucket. Just
as the latter type of labour was considered
inappropriate by White men and women, for
White women, there was also some objection
to this type of labour from Black quarters.
However, this was voiced only twice in local
media and the racially segregated task regime
remained in place for the duration of the
excavation. Surprisingly, the author
of this chapter concludes that “there is
no certain conclusion to be drawn as to
the malevolence or benevolence of Black
women’s inclusion by the WPA as excavators
on archaeological projects. White
feminists are likely to view the inclusion
of Black women…in a positive light, while
Black feminists are likely to see it as
race and sex relations as usual” (p.105).
I found the pigeonholing of these perspectives
to be slightly simplistic and peremptory
in what otherwise was an enlightening discussion.
Chapter 6, The Life and Times of Bettye
J. Broyles: “I Did a Man’s Work for Thirty
Years”, by Hester Davis, takes us through
a detailed chronological account of Bettye
Broyles’s archaeological career. Born
in 1928, Broyles enrolled in a degree at
the University of Chattanooga in 1950.
She majored first in history and later in
sociology, to graduate in 1955. During
her years of study Broyles participated
in fieldwork at Angel Mounds as a surveyor.
She recalls no gender discrimination.
A skilled illustrator, Broyles was employed
by A. R. Kelly at the University of Georgia
where she developed a methodology for recording
complex designs on ceramics. For 12
years, between 1963 and 1975, Broyles worked
for the West Virginia Geological and Economic
Survey where she did a phenomenal amount
of archaeological work, particularly on
the St Albans Site in Kanawha County, on
the banks of the Kanawha River. Crohn’s
disease finally forced her retirement from
archaeological fieldwork and in 1986 Broyles
was elected the President of the Rhea County
Historical society. In a house that
she built for the two of them in 1985, Broyles
cared for her father until his death in
1989. Of her career, Broyles states
“in 1955, no one bothered to tell me that
this was a man’s field, or that there were
few females doing fieldwork. I just
knew that come hell or highwater this was
something I wanted to do” (p.145).
Chapter 7, Best Supporting Actress? The
Contributions of Adelaide K. Bullen, by
Rochelle Marrinan, details the professional
life of Adelaide Bullen who, in partnership
with her husband Ripley Bullen, had a varied
career in anthropology which spanned almost
50 years. After receiving her degree
from Radcliffe in 1943, Adelaide Bullen
pursued graduate studies in cultural and
physical anthropology at Harvard which she
completed in 1948. By 1949 both Adelaide
and Ripley were involved with the Florida
State Museum, Ripley as department chair
for social sciences, and Adelaide on a volunteer
basis. In the 26 years that followed,
the husband and wife team co-authored 10
papers on Florida archaeological sites and
also became involved in several Caribbean
projects. In the mid 1970s Adelaide
formed her own publishing company, Kendall
Books, which posthumously published the
“Bibliography of Ripley P. Bullen” (p.157-158).
After the death of her husband Adelaide
Bullen became the ‘adjunct curator’ of anthropology
at the museum in 1977, and several years
later married her assistant, Kenneth Bullen
(no relation to Ripley). She died
in Gainesville in 1987.
Chapter 8, Yulee W. Lazarus: From Avocational
to Professional in Northwest Florida, by
Nancy White, details the contributions of
Lazarus who, although not possessing an
archaeology degree, became the director
of the Fort Walton Temple Mound Museum and
a leading figure in Florida Panhandle archaeology.
In 1936 Yulee graduated from Florida State
College for Women with a degree in history,
and almost immediately after that married
Bill Lazarus. The pair became active
in northwest Florida archaeology, particularly
in salvage projects, which generated extensive
local public awareness about sites such
as Buck Mound and Fort Walton Temple Mound.
In a project designed to boost the tourist
trade in the region, a museum was built
near the Fort Waldon Temple Mound in the
early 1960s. Yulee Lazarus was hired
as its director in 1968, and continued her
productive research and maintained her public
profile. While acknowledging that
women can be encouraged into public roles,
when asked Yulee Lazarus states that
she “didn’t really run into any” disadvantages
deriving from being a woman in the field
of archaeology (p.176).
Chapter 9, This Ain’t the English Department:
a Memoir of Becoming an Archaeologist in
the 1950s at Florida State University, by
Carol Mason, is a personal and somewhat
idealistic narrative on “becoming an archaeologist
in the 1950s”. This is followed by
a biographical sketch by Rochelle Marrinan.
For a book which, among other things, seeks
to highlight gender discrimination in archaeology,
the biographical sketch of Mason begins,
rather strangely, with an observation about
Mason’s physical appearance. Mason
attended Florida State University as an
undergraduate, under the tutelage of Hale
Smith and Charles Fairbanks. At FSU
the students were taught to think of themselves
as professionals, and were treated as such
by the wider academic community. They
socialised freely with Faculty and were
exposed to a wide range of ideas at the
hands of guest lecturers, all of which contributed
to a lively and interesting training, in
contrast to the “currently dull state of
anthropology” (p.182). Fieldwork was
a mixture of ethnography on the Plains and
the archaeology of the Florida Panhandle.
Hard physical labour was expected of all
students regardless of gender. Mason’s
graduate work at the University of Michigan
was completed by 1963, and she went on to
teach at the University of Wisconsin.
While resentful of the treatment of women
on the FSU campus generally, Mason had few
complaints about her treatment in the discipline
of archaeology: “I realise that I am supposed
to feel deprived without having had women
to model myself after, but I never felt
in the least disadvantaged. Faculty
were people… And as one of the species,
I felt equally at home among them” (p.196).
Chapter 10, Hester A. Davis: a Legend in
Public Archaeology, by Nancy White, outlines
the archaeological career of Hester Davis,
who is a very prominent figure in public
archaeology in Arkansas, successfully combining
research, advocacy and public education.
Davis received her degree at Rollins College
in Florida, where she majored in history.
During this time, she worked as a volunteer
on the Upper Gila Expedition in New Mexico
in 1950 – 1951. The director of the
project at the time (J.O. Brew) advised
her not to proceed in archaeology unless
she “developed a particular talent such
as her sister had in art” (p.210).
By 1957 she had completed a masters in anthropology
from the University of North Carolina.
The University of Arkansas employed Davis
in 1959 as ‘preparator’ in the university
museum, and she was appointed assistant
director of the museum in 1963. Through
the Northwest Arkansas Archaeological Society,
Davis became pro-active in public education
about site destruction, and when the Arkansas
Archaeology Survey was created in 1967,
Hester was appointed the State Archaeologist.
Together Davis and Bob McGimsey (her colleague
at the Survey) lobbied at the federal level
to implement legislation for the preservation
of historic relics. This resulted
in the Archaeological and Historic Preservation
Act being passed in 1974. Hester still
holds the job of State Archaeologist and
has become increasingly involved in the
Society for American Archaeology (SAA) after
having been elected to the executive in
1975. At the time of publication Davis
held the chair of the SAA Ethics Committee.
Although early in her career Davis encountered
clear cases of discrimination, “she has
always enjoyed being a woman in a field
where there are more men than women.
McGimsey has been a good mentor and her
work environment has been egalitarian” (p.226).
Chapter 11, Martha Ann Rolingson: From
Paleo Points to Platform Mounds, by Nancy
White, describes the life and career of
Martha Rolingson, born in Wichita, Kansas.
Rolingson graduated from the University
of Denver in 1957 with a major in anthropology.
Unable to afford graduate school, she took
a teaching post with the Minneapolis public
schools. In 1958, Rolingson was employed
by the University of Kentucky to a museum
assistantship, where she was the only woman
in the archaeological section. Although
frequently confined to lab work while the
men were in the field, Rolingson “remembers
a fairly supportive environment” (p.234).
A masters was obtained in 1960 on Paleo-Indian
culture and she continued to work at the
U of K museum as curator and occasional
lecturer. Her terminal degree was
completed in 1967. Rolingson was later
promoted from Instructor to Assistant Professor,
but was disillusioned because she was not
considered for the position of museum director
(owing to a de-emphasis on archaeology [p.241]).
In 1968 she successfully applied for a position
with the Arkansas Archaeological Survey,
during which time her research interests
included culture history and settlement
patterns. Still with the Survey, Martha
Rolingson began her long research association
with the Toltec Mounds Archaeological State
Park in 1976, where she has continued her
involvement to the present day. On
gender relations, “Martha thinks a major
advantage [of working for the Survey] has
been pretty equal treatment and absence
of bickering between genders” (p.250).
When asked about gender and archaeological
interpretation she believes that, as a topic,
gender in the archaeological record would
have been ignored decades ago and was not
pursued (implying that, decades ago, gender
differences generated little difference
in archaeological interpretation) (p.250).
Chapter 12, Elizabeth S. Wing: a Patient
but Persistent Vision, by Rochelle Marrinan,
is a review of the professional career of
Liz Wing. Born in Cambridge, Massachusetts
in 1932, Wing’s enthusiasm for animals began
at a very early age. It continued,
and matured, and she went on to obtain a
B.A. in biology from Mount Holyoke College
in 1955. Wing completed her masters
thesis at the University of Florida on animal
biology in 1957. During this time,
she was influenced by John Groggin, who
introduced her to archaeology, and who used
her as a chaperone on his fieldtrips (because
at that stage she was married). Through
an analysis of faunal material from prehistoric
contexts, Wing’s PhD dissertation asked
the question: ‘When did the island
of Trinidad become separated from mainland
South America?’. It was completed
in 1962. During her postgraduate studies
Wing was employed in an assistantship capacity
at the FMNH, and in 1969 became curator
of the zooarchaeology section.
For many years she worked on the improvement
of certain methodologies relating to the
investigation of faunal materials in archaeological
contexts. In doing so, she has “amassed
one of the best institutional collections
available today” (p.264), and her specialist
knowledge is frequently tapped by prominent
researchers.
Chapter 13, From the Hilly Flanks of the
Fertile Crescent to the Eastern Woodlands
of North America, is a brief autobiographical
sketch by Patty Jo Watson pertaining to
her extensive professional career.
At the behest of the Cave Research Foundation
(of which her husband, Red, was a founding
member) Watson initiated archaeological
research on the Mammoth Cave and Salts Cave
systems in Kentucky, in the mid 1950s.
Although still active in Near Eastern Archaeology,
Watson became established in eastern North
American archaeology (particularly archaeobotany)
in the mid 1970s. During the time
that she was a graduate student at the University
of Chicago, and throughout her career in
the Near East, Watson states “it never crossed
my mind…that gender was an issue when it
came to doing archaeology” (p.292).
It was not until the mid 1970s when she
became active in the southeast, that gender
imbalance reared its head. However,
Watson emphasises the ongoing role that
the SAA Committee on the Status of Women
in Archaeology has in the wider discipline,
and its positive impact on the professional
careers of women archaeologists. (Watson
is currently a tenured professor at Washington
University where three out of the four faculty
are women – a fact, she states, that has
likely encouraged more women graduate students
than men to undertake their degrees at WU.)
Chapter 14, Grit-Tempered Women, is a review
by the editors of the biographical and autobiographical
material presented in the book, and a brief
discussion on the contemporary position
of women in the discipline of archaeology.
Chapter 15, Putting Women into Southeastern
Archaeology, by Nancy White, addresses the
question of how one’s gender influences
how one does the science of archaeology.
Then follows a lengthy edited transcript
of a discussion about the interpretation
of the Toltec Mounds Park site. Participants
in this discussion are Rolingson, Davis,
Watson and Ann Early, while “other women
archaeologists stand by” (p.319).
The volume concludes with examples of studies
that have engendered the past, and some
speculation on how women would revise the
prehistory of the southeast.
Overall, the strength of this book is in
its biographical component. It is
a valuable repository of information about
a group of archaeologists, of whom little
of this nature would otherwise have been
known. The research into their past
was clearly extensive, and carried out with
good will and respect on the part of the
numerous authors. Yet there is a wide
variety of styles contained within the book,
and this is a significant weakness, especially
given that the editors are attempting to
address a body of theory on engendering
the archaeological record, and on the archaeologist’s
own gender as a tool for doing this.
A more cohesive style may have helped to
draw this material together, and may have
added to the overall utility of the volume.
Throughout the book there is an assumption
that women bring a unique and different
perspective to archaeological interpretation.
I find this somewhat discomfiting. While
there are undoubtedly links between gender
and the way some archaeologists do science,
the assumption made by the editors that
“one’s gender…cannot help but influence
how one does science” (p.6) is a rather
more sweeping conclusion (or assumption).
Contrary to this, Martha Rolingson (p.318)
notes “that her perspectives reflect what
is current in the field”, a view that must
be shared by many other women in archaeology.
While I acknowledge the vast contributions
of feminist theory in archaeology, I feel
that pigeonholing women into an inherently
unique and different perspective denies
them the right to some other rewarding professional
paths – not a helpful message to young women
contemplating archaeology as a career.
One also gets the distinct impression that
many of the women interviewed were uncomfortable
with the notion of the subjugation of their
gender in archaeological practice.
Many make explicit statements to this effect
(or their biographers do). Despite
this, Chapter 14 emphasises the perceived
negative aspects of each woman’s experiences.
This approach would be tenable only if the
editors embarked on a sustained feminist
critique of historic contexts that shape
how these women feel about their own past
experiences. However, little attempt
is made to do this (see p.22 and p. 310).
As a result, I find this particular mix
of biography and occasional critique an
uncomfortable one.
My lasting impression is that, as a collection
of biographical essays, this volume has
merit. However, I also feel that these
women’s stories have been appropriated into
an agenda that is mismatched with the way
in which many early women archaeologists
view their own experiences. And with
little adequate discussion of historic context
this could distract many readers.
|
World
Archaeological Bulletin