Women in the River Basin Survey Program (2014)

American women experienced a lot of changes from the 1940s through the 1960s, and this is reflected in their participation in the River Basin Surveys (RBS) and the Interagency Archeological Salvage Program (IASP). Women were consulting experts, field crew members, and occasionally even crew chiefs, laboratory managers and technicians, editors, office staff, and unsalaried working wives in the field and laboratory, as well as at their typewriters. Using a conservative ratio of 1:5 for field to laboratory work hours on a mid-1900s archaeological project, I estimate that women completed at least 75 percent of the RBS, rASP, and related archaeological work across the United States, most of which was in the laboratory: washing, labeling, describing, and reporting on the artifacts, site layout, and archaeological patterns. Despite this, there is still a public (and even scholarly?) perception that only those bronzed, lean, and usually shirtless male field surveyors and excavators were RBS archaeologists.

Archeological Papers of The American Anthropological Association, 1994

1991

Includes some articles exploring the history of the profession and other exploring gender in the past.

In, Equity Issues for Women in Archaeology, edited by M. Nelson, S. Nelson and A. Wylie. American Anthropological Asso. Archaeological Papers No. 5., 1994

Anthropology News, 1988

Reprinted from the Anthropology Newsletter 29(9): 1, 11-12. 1988.

Archeological Papers of The American Anthropological Association, 2008

Women in Archaeology: Intersectionalities in Practice Worldwide, 2023

Women in Archaeology joins The Springer Women in Engineering and Science series at the invitation of Jill S. Tietjen, editor of the series. The series aims to raise awareness of the fundamental contributions of women in science and engineering, going deep into their experiences in practicing in an unusual combination of the personal and professional. Women in Archaeology extends the series to the social sciences and the humanities with the support of 43 remarkable female archaeologists working in different socio-economic and political environments in six world regions at all levels of their professional careers. The 29 chapters in this volume introduce their research and experiences in practicing archaeology in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Australia. In uniting this group of dedicated archaeologists, I made sure to represent the concerns and experiences of those women from less privileged areas in the world. Together, they tell the stories of many women worldwide who dedicate themselves to advancing knowledge and human understanding in academia and the private and public sectors. The authors in this volume celebrate women who are no longer with us, reminding us of their contributions to archaeology at a time when women had almost no voice, nor were they credited for their work by their brothers, fathers, husbands, and male colleagues. Thus, this volume demonstrates that women have always been present in the development of archaeology as a profession.

Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, 2008

This brief outline of the accomplishments of the Historical Archaeology Women's Caucus and the SHA Committee on Gender Issues was constructed from interviews with a number of people. Anne Yentsch, who founded the caucus in 1988, provided reports and correspondence on activities of the Women's Caucus, mostly unpublished, and the report published in the newsletter (Yentsch 1991). Carmen Weber provided information about the 1990 Women's Caucus meeting and has ensured that we had a meeting-room at each SHA conference. Diana DiZerega Wall provided information on the SHA membership survey by Chester, Wall, and Rothschild (1992). Mary Beaudry provided information about the 1993 Women's Caucus meeting, and her and White's survey of women's representation in the SHA journal, membership, and leadership. Julia Costello provided her report of membership counts 1987-1990, and information as a member both of the SHA board and the Committee on Gender Issues. In trying to write what remains largely an oral history, I found that each person I talked to only knew part of what had happened. Further, sometimes people had different points of view and memories about what had happened. I don't have space here to detail all these differences. I can only briefly outline what has been accomplished despite obstacles, and some of the major issues we have worked through that may stimulate further discussion. The Historical Archaeology Women's Caucus developed in an environment of increasing numbers of publications in feminist anthropology, including studies on equity for women in anthropology, and feminist critiques of archeology (cf. Gero 1985; Conkey and Spector 1984). Some of us in historical archeology experienced or became aware of a variety of inequities for women in our field, and some of us began feminist research in historical archeology, presenting and publishing papers in the mid-1980s (cf.

American Antiquity, 2019

Equity and the dissemination of knowledge remain major challenges in science. Peer-reviewed journal publications are generally the most cited, yet certain groups dominate in archaeology. Such uniformity of voice profoundly limits not only who conveys the past but also what parts of the material record are narrated and/or go untold. This study examines multiple participation metrics in archaeology and explores the intersections of gender and occupational affiliation in peer-reviewed (high time cost) and non-peer-reviewed (reduced time cost) journals. We find that although women and compliance archaeologists remain poorly represented in regional and national peer-reviewed journals, they are much more active in unre-fereed publications. We review feminist and theoretical explanations for inequities in science and argue that (1) the persistent underrepresentation of women and of compliance professionals in archaeological publishing are structurally linked processes and (2) such trends can be best understood in light of the existing structure of American archaeology and the cost-benefit realities of publishing for people in various sectors of the discipline. We suggest that nonrefereed venues offer a pathway to multivocality and help to address epistemic injustices, and we discuss methods for widening the current narrow demographic of men and academics who persist in dominating discourses.

Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, 2008