Who's “That Girl”: British, South African, and American Women as Africanist Archaeologists in...

P1: VENDOR/GDW/GCZ/GCP/GGN/GEE P2: GCP/GCY

African Archaeological Review [aar] PP085-297576 March 7, 2001 18:5 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

African Archaeological Review, Vol. 18, No. 1, 2001

Who’s “That Girl”: British, South African, andAmerican Women as Africanist Archaeologistsin Colonial Africa (1860s–1960s)1

Kathryn Weedman2

This paper reviews the accomplishments of British, South African, and Americanwomen Africanist archaeologists who worked between the 1860s and the 1960s.Despite their many significant contributions to African archaeological methodand theory, especially those exposing the importance of indigenous populationsto their own cultural development, the work of these women tends to be either ap-propriated or ignored by their contemporaries and by present day archaeologists.A postcolonial feminist analysis draws on the colonial context in which Africanarchaeology developed and the continued Western domination of the discipline toprovide a background for understanding how and why these women are omittedfrom historiographies of African archaeology.

Cetteetude revise les accomplissements des femmes archeologues Africanistesanglaises, sudafricaines et Americaines, qui travaillaient entre les annees 1860et les annees 1960. Malgre leurs plusieurs contributions d’importancea la methodeet la theorie de l’archeologie Africaine, en particulier celles qui exposaientl’importance a leur propre developpement culturel des populations indigenes,leurs travaux tendenta etre ou appropries ou ignores par leurs contemporainsou par les archaeologues d’aujourd’hui. Une analyse feministe post-colonialeutilise le contexte colonial dans lequel l’archeologie Africaine s’est developpee,et la domination occidentale soutenue de cette discipline,a fournir une base pourcomprendre comment et pourquoi ces femmes ontete omises des historiographiesde l’archeologie Africaine.

KEY WORDS: women in archaeology; history and theory of African archaeology; colonialism;feminism.

1“That Girl” was the title of the first American television series (1966) to focus on an unmarriedworking woman as the lead character.

2Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

1

0263-0338/01/0300-0001$19.50/0C© 2001 Plenum Publishing Corporation



2 Weedman

INTRODUCTION

Subsequent to colonization, African history and prehistory have been inter-preted from outside the continent, rendering them both Eurocentric and andro-centric. The rearticulation of gender and social relations not only has led to theabsence of an African voice, but also has omitted women from the role of con-veyors of the past. Beginning in the nineteenth century gender differences, likeracial differences, became the focus of scientific study (Harding, 1998, pp. 78–80;Stepan, 1986). Race and gender traits were used to explain one another in termsof the biological and social inferiority of women and people of non-western cul-tures. Also, nature was associated with “female” and culture with “male” (Lloyd,1993). Analogies drawn between nature, females, and people of other cultures,which were contrasted with knowledge, culture, and European males, resulted insexism becoming intersected with racism and imperialistic scientific agendas. Wecan clearly see this as late as 1963 in Wilcox’sThe Rock Art of South Africa(1963,pp. 12, 13):

The small stature of the Bushman. . . is the emergence of an hereditary tendency (alsoby mutation and selection) for certain juvenile characteristics, including shortness, to beretained after puberty. This theory explains also the beardlessness of the adult Bushmen, theirlarge-headedness in proportion to body size, and many other skeletal features consideredjuvenile. . . .Professor M. R. Drennan has argued this point in a fascinating paper in which healso points out that many of the juvenile traits, e.g. beardlessness and more delicate skeletalstructure, may equally be considered feminine characteristics transferred to the adult male.

Furthermore, ancient European objects were recognized as evidence of pastcultures based on their similarities with the material culture of other cultures (inAfrica and Asia), who were thought to have lost their “technology and civilizedways” because they did not follow Christianity (Trigger, 1989, p. 52). The fieldsof anthropology and archaeology, as the studies of present and past human cultureswould have been profoundly androcentric and deemed unfit for women, who inthe scientific literature of the colonial period were regarded as equivalent to theinferior individuals of other cultures. The context of the development of Africanarchaeology meant that few women participated in the discourse of Africa’s past,and those that did were often ignored or heavily criticized.

Little has been written about women Africanist archaeologists, although re-cently there has been a proliferation of books and articles that outline the con-tributions of women archaeologists working in Europe, Australia, the Americas,and Asia (Babcock and Parezo, 1988; Claassen, 1992, 1994a; Diaz-Andreu andSørensen, 1998a; du Cros and Smith, 1993; Geroet al., 1983; Irwin-Williams,1990; Nelsonet al., 1994; Reyman, 1992a; Walde and Willows, 1991; Williams,1981). Surveys of the history of African archaeology either systematically over-look, ignore, or actively exclude women’s contributions (see for instance Andahand Folorunso, 1992; Camps, 1977; Clark, 1965a,b; Fagan, 1981; Gabel, 1985;Goodwin, 1935; Posnansky, 1982; Robertshaw, 1990b; Shaw, 1976). In addition,



Women as Africanist Archaeologists in Colonial Africa 3

the major journals concerning African archaeology publish the work of femalearchaeologists infrequently. I examined the number of male-authored, female-authored, and male and female coauthored articles in four of the major African-focused archaeological journals from their inception to 1997:South AfricanArchaeological Bulletin(1945–1997),Azania(1966–1997),West African Journalof Archaeology(1971–1997), andAfrican Archaeological Review(1983–1997).Male-authored articles clearly predominate the journals (84.5, 84, 95.7, and 72.4%respectively) with the percentage of coauthored male and female articles (6.3, 2,0.5, and 9.4% respectively) and female-authored articles (9.2, 14, 3.8, and 18.2%respectively) being steadily represented at a very low level. The 1998 conferenceof the Society of Africanist Archaeologists indicated a male–female attendanceratio of approximately 2:1 (DeCorse, personal communication, 1998). If this is anaccurate assessment of the ratio of men to women practicing African archaeology,then women’s contributions are not only seriously overlooked but they also areseverely underrepresented in published literature.

This article will explore how and why women’s archaeological work in Africahas been neglected by their contemporaries and in more recent historiographies.First, I will review the history of British, South African, and American women’s ar-chaeological work in colonial Africa between the 1860s and the 1960s to determine:(1) the nature of their contributions to the field; (2) whether their work mirroredthat of their contemporaries; and (3) how their work was accepted and or incor-porated into mainstream theoretical constructs. Second, I will examine the pastand present context of women archaeologists working in the West to evaluate on aglobal scale why the work of early women Africanist archaeologists continues tobe overlooked, omitted, and ignored. I believe that the absence of the female voice,resulting from the western Eurocentric and androcentric control of the African past,has made for a less complete account of the history of African archaeology andeven has served to mask the origins of some of its important developments.

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF WOMEN AFRICANISTARCHAEOLOGISTS 3

Exploration and Pioneering Studies: 1860–1919

As previously stated, during the colonial era both men and women Africanistarchaeologists were predominately of European descent, so that the context ofAfrica’s past was located outside the continent itself, with its colonizing occupants(Robertshaw, 1990a). The mid nineteenth to the early twentieth century in Europeand America marked dramatic changes for women’s suffrage, access to secondaryand higher education, freedom from marital dependency, and right to own property

3Chronology roughly based on Willey and Sabloff, 1974 and Gowlett, 1990.



4 Weedman

(Kappeli, 1993). However, this was also the period of heightened industrialism,urbanism, and colonialism.

The majority of women who emigrated to Africa were elite and middle-classwives and daughters and lower-class single women, who left either to follow the ca-reer of their husbands (doctors, government employees, etc.) or to escape povertyand the appalling working conditions in factories and households (Swaisland,1993). There was such an imbalance of the sexes that women who arrived seek-ing employment often married before they found domestic employment. Britishsettlers also imported European women to the colonies for wives to avoid “misce-genation,” to protect their status, and to maintain the purity of the “master-race”(Miles, 1989, pp. 163–182). Women were viewed as the sex that would upholdcolonial standards and culture through reproduction and labor. Certainly the writ-ings by Karen Blixen, Beryl Markham, and Flora Shaw upheld colonial ideology(Callaway, 1987, pp. 166, 167; Hansen, 1992). However, these authors were ex-ceptions as they belonged to the elite class. The social role of most colonial womenwas determined by their husbands’ occupation and class. “Your husband is ‘themaster,’ the work is his life. You really are going to a man’s world in which you willbe very much the lesser half of this imperial partnership. . .merely running a houseis presumed to be a full-time job, the be-all and end-all of your feminine existence”(Hansen, 1992, pp. 248, 249). Letters and novels written by middle and lower classcolonial women expound on the hardships they faced, which included disease andthe lack of food, material goods, and social relations (Steveson, 1982, pp. 8, 9).Other early writings by colonial wives, missionaries, and travelers expressed asense of struggle (Bradlow, 1993). Many criticized slavery and British treatmentof indigenous peoples, and in the same breath apologized for their “unlady like”persona.

The notion of the incorporated wife captures the dilemma of European womenas members of a sex considered inferior within a race that held itself to be superior(Hansen, 1992). After the 1870s, the Education Act in South Africa insisted oneducation for European boys and girls. The focus of girls’ education was religiousinstruction and basic domestic training. Education was a means to become part ofthe elite rather than a means to elicit freedom of thought and expression. There werefew schools and education was often home-based (Bradlow, 1993). Furthermore,the colonial system created a division of labor and space such that colonial womenseldom were in contact with indigenous people of Africa other than their householdservants (Hansen, 1992). Lacking in education, excluded from political power, andsegregated in space and labor from indigenous peoples, most colonial women werenot in a position to build cultural bridges or to influence in any way the directionof colonial development.

Speculation about Africa’s past by Westerners began in the mid nineteenthand early twentieth centuries at the height of western European exploration andcolonization of Africa. Imperialists dismissed African history as simple and




insignificant and only of interest to buttress the ideals of European superiority(Curtin et al., 1991, pp. 448–450). Africanist antiquarians believed that Euro-pean and Near-Eastern people stimulated the development of the earliest Africancivilizations including: Aksum (Bent, 1893), Great Zimbabwe (Hall, 1905; Stow,1905), Benin-Ife (Frobenius, 1913), and those of the Nile Valley (Seligman, 1930).Antiquarians used European stone tool terminology to describe African stone tools,and they claimed a movement of tool form and function from the north (Europe)to the south (Africa) (Dale, 1870; Gooch, 1881; Gregory, 1896; Hobley, 1925;Lubbock, 1872). By concentrating on stone tool studies across the continent, an-tiquarians promoted the European ideology of a backward and “primitive” Africathat represented a living example of Europe’s past (Trigger, 1989, p. 52). Thisperiod also marks the beginning of extensive destruction to archaeological sites ofEgypt and West Africa, and the massive collection of stone tools from the surfaceof sites (Kense, 1990, p. 140).

Primarily European military personnel, adventurers, doctors, geologists, andbureaucrats, who in their spare time undertook an interest in African antiquities,conducted the earliest archaeology (Robertshaw, 1990a). Mary Elizabeth Barber,Amelia Edwards, Margaret Murray, and Maria Wilman were among these pioneersof an Africanist archaeology.

Mary Elizabeth Barber (1818–1899)

Mary Barber, the daughter of a Grahamstown settler, had little opportunity fora formal education, as did most women of her time. However, her father and olderbrothers inspired her interest in the natural sciences, especially botany, entomol-ogy, and geology (Cohen, 1999). In 1845, she married a farmer-turned-diamondprospector, Frederick William Barber (Barber, 1871). Some of the earliest publi-cations concerning archaeological remains came about as the result of diamondexploration in South Africa, including Barber’s “In the Claims,” published in 1872(Goodwin, 1935, p. 299). Barber was best known in her community as a writerof short stories and poems that contrasted images of civilized Europeans and un-civilized Africans (see Barber, 1871). Embedded in Barber’s story of prehistoricAfrican peoples (1872) is a description of stone implements, ostrich eggshell,beads, and pottery from an archaeological site at Colesburg Kop. The 1872 articlewas Barber’s first and last article referring to archaeological materials. However,her contacts with European naturalists led to her membership in the South AfricanPhilosophical Society, which in those days generally excluded women (Cohen,1999). In particular, she deserves note as the first woman to publish a work con-cerning African antiquities, and perhaps more importantly for being one of thefirst people in South Africa to recognize the prehistoric significance of stone tools(Cohen, 1999).



6 Weedman

Amelia B. Edwards (1831–1892)

A pioneer in the preservation of archaeological sites, Amelia Edwards was awriter and artist with only an informal education. Edwards was born and raised inLondon as an only child in a middle-class family (Betham Edwards, 1893). Shebegan writing published articles as a child and became a journalist “in days whenwomen journalists were not so common” (Cotton, 1892). During the last years ofher life, she lectured in America and was awarded honorary doctorates by severalAmerican universities (Poole, 1892).

Edwards’ interest in history and early civilization led her to Egypt where,in 1873–1874, she conducted an excavation with Flinders Petrie (Fagan, 1975,p. 309). Upon returning to London, she professed her horror at the vandalism anddestruction of the temples and tombs of ancient Egypt. She gave up writing fic-tion altogether and concentrated on Egyptology, publishingA Thousand Miles ofthe Nile(1877) andPharaohs, Fellahs, and Explorers(1891). Her writings werereceived with public disinterest, although it is clear from her correspondence withleading Egyptologists that she was highly respected and often provided interpreta-tions on new discoveries (Champion, 1998). In March of 1883, she conceived of theidea of an Egypt Exploration Fund to support scientific excavations, and managedto assemble a group of powerful backers. It was the first organization to apply forpermits and to engage in serious excavations and publications as its primary ob-jective, rather than the looting of sites. The fund was the first to enlist the work ofFlinders Petrie. Edwards’ eloquent lectures and writings concerning ancient Egyptalso helped to establish, in 1888, a Society for the Preservation of Monuments forEgypt (Fagan, 1975, p. 345).

Amelia Edwards was the vice-president of the Bristol and West of EnglandNational Society for Women’s Suffrage (Champion, 1998). When she died in 1892,Edwards left her money to endow a professorship of Egyptology at UniversityCollege, London, because it was the only university where women could take de-grees by examination. The College was founded in 1827 and unique in Englandfor its admittance of students without distinction of color, caste, creed, or sex(Murray, 1963, p. 151). Her commitment to feminism also is exposed inPharaohs,Fellahs, and Explorers(1891), where she devoted a whole chapter to the life ofQueen Hatshepsut. Edwards also gave lectures providing analogies between mar-ried women in ancient Egypt and nineteenth-century England and their right toown property (Champion, 1998).

Although Edwards strove to preserve Egyptian antiquities, at the time ofher writings the monumental finds in Egypt were not considered part of Africa’sheritage. Ancient Egypt was viewed as a Near Eastern civilization, which by itscultural supremacy conquered the African hinterland. It is only in retrospect thatEdwards’ efforts are interpreted as a landmark in African archaeology. Perhaps,Edwards’ contributions have been portrayed as minimalistic in histories of thediscipline because she did not excavate and actually discover materials herself




at a time when recoverable field discoveries were highly valued by art collectorsand museums. She provided accessibility of the past to the public and promotedconservation; elements of archaeological practice especially valued in more recenttimes (Champion, 1998).

Margaret Murray (1863–1963)

Margaret Murray was born and raised in Calcutta, India, as the daughter of anaffluent Calcutta business man, John Murray (Murray, 1963, pp. 18, 19). Murray’sfirst career was in nursing, perhaps following the lead of the mother she greatlyadmired, who wished to become a doctor but instead traveled as a missionary toIndia (Murray, 1963, pp. 20, 21). However, in 1887, Murray arrived in England tofind that the training that she received for nursing in Calcutta was inadequate forEnglish standards, and she was unable to find employment. Through the motivationof her sister, Murray began to study Egyptian hieroglyphics at University College,London, with Flinders Petrie (Murray, 1963, p. 93). In 1899, she was appointed asjunior lecturer in Egyptology, in 1909 an assistant lecturer, in 1922 a senior lecturerand fellow, and in 1924 assistant professor of Egyptology. Murray was the firstwoman in Britain to earn a living from teaching archaeology (Champion, 1998).She joined Flinders Petrie’s excavations in 1902 and later taught his courses whilehe was in the field. After the death of her mother, Murray was free to conduct herown long-term excavations at sites in Malta, Stevenage, Minorca, and Petra.

Murray’s first two books (1905, 1911) were about Egyptian languages. How-ever, she later wrote books on Egyptian sculpture (Murray, 1930), temples (Murray,1931), and a general survey book of Egyptian prehistory (Murray, 1949). Murray’sprimary interest concerned Egyptian religion and she believed that “religion is oneof the most important factors in the evolution of the human being” (1963, p. 196).In her works, Murray advocated the presence of a female religion predating thedevelopment of male gods and a patriarchal society in ancient Egypt. At the age of86, she publishedThe Splendour That Was Egypt(Murray, 1949), a book heavilycriticized for its feminist perspective on Egyptian religion:

. . . yet in the whole field of religion one gets the impression that the author has littleunderstanding of the material she is dealing with. The “positivists’ party line” is a ratherbarren dogma for interpreting the great religious documents of Egypt or of any other culture(Brady, 1950).

The author’s deep enthusiasm has produced a book of emotional appeal but not nec-essarily an accurate survey of the splendor that was Egypt (Wilson, 1950).

In 1913, Murray was the first woman to attend a meeting of the British Asso-ciation of Anthropology. In her biography (1963, pp. 96, 97), Murray recalled thatat the meeting the committee advised the training of male diplomats in the localsocial conditions and religion of the countries they lived in. She spoke out in favorof also training the wives of diplomats. After the meeting, she was told by SidneyHartland, a lecturer, that he disapproved of her actions and that “anthropology was



8 Weedman

not a subject for women. Because there were things that a woman ought not toknow” (Murray, 1963, pp. 97, 98). In addition, when she first attempted to pub-lish papers concerning Egyptian religion and social hierarchies, the papers wererejected by Flinders Petrie forAncient Egyptand also by theJournal of EgyptianArchaeology. Although a few months later, theJournal of Egyptian Archaeologypublished a paper on the same subject by a male colleague. Murray stated that atthis point she decided to save her papers on “unpleasant subjects,” such as religion,for the journalMan.

Despite her accomplishments, Murray is usually viewed as a shadow ofFlinders Petrie because of their close collaboration and perhaps because of herinitial focus on hieroglyphics rather than on material culture. But most likely shewas not taken very seriously in scholarly realms because of her unique and feministinterpretations of ancient material culture. Today the idea of Predynastic goddessworship is being revitalized by Hassan (1988, 1992), with no acknowledgment ofMurray’s earlier work.

Maria Wilman (1867–1957)

Maria Wilman became curator of the McGreggor Memorial Museum inKimberley, South Africa, during 1908 (Goodwin, 1957, p. 152). She was educatedat the Good Hope Seminary and took the Natural Sciences tripos from NewnhamCollege, Cambridge, specializing in botany and geology. In 1939, she was giventhe honorary degree of Doctor of Laws by the University of Witwatersrand (Allen,1998). During her career, she was made a Fellow of the Royal Society of SouthAfrica. Wilman was noted “as a keen prehistorian who collected stone implementsnever before equaled in variety” (Goodwin, 1957). She presented a paper at theSouth African Association for the Advancement of Science describing the rockengravings of Loe in the Bechuanaland Protectorate (Botswana) (Juritz, 1918–1919). Wilman (1933) wrote a book concerning theRock Engravings of GriqualandWest. She was also the earliest author to state the need for neutral terminology inrock art.

In 1927, Wilman and Neville Jones initiated the use of the term “MiddleStone Age” and argued for an African rather than a European terminology (Deacon,1990). The term was appropriated and popularized by Goodwin and Van Riet Lowein their article “The Stone Age Cultures of South Africa” (1929) and in 1935, Good-win attributed it solely to Neville Jones. Wilman’s contributions are clearly notonly significant in the present, but were considered important enough during hertime that her contemporaries appropriated them. Coining the term “Middle StoneAge” and arguing that an African or neutral terminology (rather than European) beapplied to describe Africa’s past are certainly important contributions that unfor-tunately until recently have been largely unrecognized except by another womanarchaeologist (Deacon, 1990).




Systematic Studies and the Cultural Descriptive Period: 1920–1949

The 1920s marked the beginning of professionalism in African archaeology,and the presence of the first formally trained female Africanist archaeologists. Dur-ing the 1920s, the harsh economic conditions in Britain strengthened the socialdivisions between indigenous Africans and Africans of European descent in An-glophone colonies (Thompson, 1990, pp. 154–176). In 1930, women of Europeandescent in South Africa gained the right to vote, an event spurred on by the organi-zation of the Women’s Suffrage Movement in 1895 (Walker, 1990, pp. 324–337).However, in countries such as Nigeria, which were occupied but not settled byBritain, expatriate women were discouraged from coming to the country until af-ter the World Wars (Callaway, 1987, pp. 18–22). During and after World Wars Iand II, European women in British colonies began to work outside the domesticsphere as teachers, librarians, social welfare officers, nurses, secretaries, and tofill other government jobs (Callaway, 1987, p. 6; Holden, 1984, p. 5). Womenadministrative assistants often wrote that they felt isolated, claiming the only realcontact they had with Africans was with their servants (Holden, 1984, p. 181).

Universities in Britain began to produce trained archaeologists in the 1920s.The archaeological theoretical research orientation of the period stressed culturaldescriptive studies. The dating of archaeological sites was dependent on the onlymethods available at the time, relative dating techniques such as afossiles directeursmethodology (Leakey, 1936), artifact seriation, and cross dating (Shaw, 1960).Yet archaeologists perpetuated colonialist positions by establishing chronologythrough comparison with Europe or maintaining the perception of Africa as acultural backwater (or both) (Robertshaw, 1990a).

In 1945, Goodwin organized theSouth African Archaeological Bulletin, pro-viding the first interactive format for the discussion of African archaeology. A studyby Deacon (1990) indicated that prior to 1960, amateurs (individuals not fully em-ployed or formally educated as archaeologists) represented 50% of the authors ofpapers written in theSouth African Archaeological Bulletin. There were no womenwho published papers in theSouth African Archaeological Bulletinbefore 1950,even though it was the continent’s only archaeological journal at the time.

Between the 1920s and the 1940s, many women of European descent, includ-ing Peggy Burkitt, Winifred Brunton, Betty Clark, Winnie Goodwin, Hilde Petrie,and Daphne Phillips, aided their husbands in archaeological endeavors (Clark, per-sonal communication, 1994; Hoffman, 1991, pp. 136, 137). Their contributionsare hard to define because they worked closely with their husbands and rarely puttheir own names on publications. Goodwin (1935, p. 339) commented that the il-lustrations provided by Peggy Burkitt for her husband, Miles Burkitt, should serveas a model for archaeological scientific drawing. Winifred Brunton, with her hus-band, spent many years working for Flinders Petrie and his wife. Eventually, theBruntons were sent off to excavate their own concession on the eastern bank of the



10 Weedman

Nile in 1922 (Hoffman, 1991, p. 136). Betty Clark illustrated and often edited herhusband J. Desmond Clark’s, numerous articles and books. Daphne Phillips wasan enthusiastic archaeologist, who accompanied her husband in his explorationsof sites in Klerksdorp, South Africa. She was also interested in obsidian fromthe raised beaches at Mossel Bay (Goodwin, 1950, p. 25). In addition, ConstanceMartin of Penhalonga, Zimbabwe, developed an interest and skill in archaeology.Goodwin (1947, p. 106) commented that her “excavation and other archaeologicalskills were consistently high.” In 1948, E. M. Shaw read a paper to the SouthAfrican Archaeological Society concerning the material culture of the Bushmen(Goodwin, 1948a, p. 10). She pointed out that the Bushmen, although living in adifferent environment, still exemplified Later Stone Age cultures in South Africa,thus maintaining the past and the present as the same. Although Shaw did notpublish her own work, she was appointed as editor in 1959 and also served aspart of the editorial board from 1964 to 1972 of theSouth African ArchaeologicalBulletin. In 1986, Shaw became the first woman to serve as president of the SouthAfrican Archaeological Society.

Margaret Trowell and Dorothea Frances Bleek took up archaeology onlybriefly. Trowell was the curator of the Uganda Museum from 1941 to 1946.She wroteTribal Crafts of Ugandawith Klaus P. Wachsmaann (Trowell andWaschsmaann, 1953) on the material culture of Uganda. Although most of herwork is ethnographic in nature, her stress on material culture is one of the earliestknown in Africa. Her interest in material culture led her to seek the origin of arosette cylinder from Ntusi, which she attributed through comparison to the GreatZimbabwe Period (Trowell, 1946). And Dorothea Frances Bleek, whose work pri-marily focused on a comparative study of Khoisan languages, undertook editingC. W. Stow’s work on Bushmen paintings (Bleek, 1930; Goodwin, 1948b, p. 48).She revisited hundreds of rock art sites to ensure that the copies were faithfulreproductions. As a result, she published a descriptive second volume on SouthAfrican rock paintings, attributing them to the ancestors of the modern Bushmen(Bleek, 1932). In 1945, she gave a lecture arguing for a more recent date for thepaintings (Goodwin, 1945, p. 25). She was a Fellow of the Royal Society of SouthAfrica and the Archaeological Society. Bleek was offered an honorary doctorateby the University of Cape Town, an honor she refused on the grounds that oneDr. Bleek was enough!

As adjuncts to their husbands’ work and as independent archaeologists,women made important contributions as field workers, conservationists, and ininterpretation. Despite the idea that European women were supposedly brought toAfrica to help maintain segregation and uphold the ideology of a superior Europeand a backwater Africa (Miles, 1989), most of the archaeological writings bywomen contradicted this view of colonial women. While the work conducted bymen sought external explanations for cultural change and development in Africa,much of the archaeology conducted by professional (educated) women during thecolonial period sought explanations for Africa’s archaeological record from within




African peoples and cultures. During the 1920s and 1940s, several women, suchas Gertrude Caton-Thompson, Kathleen Kenyon, and Mary Leakey, had eitherdegrees in higher education or attended university courses and pursued careers inarchaeological studies.

Gertrude Caton-Thompson (1888–1986)

One of the most widely discussed women in African archaeology is GertrudeCaton-Thompson, and yet at her death in 1986 only one journal of African archae-ology held a short statement of dedication to her, theSouth African ArchaeologicalBulletin (Deacon, 1986). Caton-Thompson attended University College London,where she was taught by Margaret Murray and Dorthea Bate (Caton-Thompson,1983, p. 82). She was also a joint secretary of the London branch of the Women’sSuffrage movement (Caton-Thompson, 1983, p. 60). Her archaeological careerin Africa began in Egypt while working with Flinders Petrie at Abydos (Caton-Thompson, 1983, p. 83). Caton-Thompson was the first Egyptologist to deal withthe entire spectrum of the prehistoric past from the Palaeolithic through Predynas-tic periods (Caton-Thompson and Gardner, 1934; Caton-Thompson, 1952). At theage of twenty-four she came into an inheritance, which allowed her the freedomto fund her own excavations (Caton-Thompson, 1983, p. 6).

Caton-Thompson’s excavation techniques, extensive regional surveys, andher concern for the natural setting of ancient societies were a generation aheadof her time and paved the way for later environmentally focused archaeologists(Caton-Thompson and Brunton, 1928, pp. 70–74). For example, she carefully ex-cavated at Hemamish in arbitrary six-inch levels and recorded the exact position ofeach artifact. She screened the soil from hearths and rooms, searching for minuteseeds and small artifacts, which would be missed in normal excavations (Caton-Thompson and Brunton, 1928, p. 71). “. . .even the very fact that she conceivedof this method. . . sets her apart from her contemporaries and the majority of hersuccessors” (Hoffman, 1991, pp. 139). Thus, she was the first to conduct inter-disciplinary regional surveys, and also the first to use air surveys in her search ofarchaeological sites.

In Egypt, she collaborated with Elinor Gardner, who was trained as a geolo-gist. Gardner, although not often mentioned, was also a pioneer of the pluvial theory(often attributed to E. J. Wayland). From her studies at Fayum, she determined therewere two well-marked pluvial periods (Caton-Thompson, 1952; Caton-Thompsonand Gardner, 1934). In 1930, Caton-Thompson returned to Egypt to conduct workat Kharga Oasis and to again collaborate with Gardner (Hoffman, 1991, p. 51).

Caton-Thompson’s work in Egypt was interrupted by the Zimbabwe project.In 1928, the Council of the British Academy with support of the Rhodes Trusteesinvited her to investigate, in her words, “the dormant question of the history of theRhodesian Ruins” (Caton-Thompson, 1931, p. b). She took her seriation datingtechniques to Zimbabwe, where she worked with two other women: Kathleen



12 Weedman

Kenyon (discussed later) and D. Noire. Noire had previous architectural experi-ence and was responsible for drawing architectural reconstructions of the site anddirecting the infilling of the excavations (Caton-Thompson, 1931, p. 151). She hasno known publications in the field of archaeology.

At the 1929 British Association Meetings, Caton-Thompson (1983, p. 131)read a paper with the following conclusions concerning Great Zimbabwe:

It is inconceivable to me now that I have studied the ruins how a theory of Semitic civilizedorigin could ever have been foisted on an uncritical world. Instead of a degenerate offshootof a higher Oriental civilization, you have here a native civilization unsuspected by allbut a few students, showing national organization of a high king, originality and amazingindustry.

Her findings were not well-received by all and, despite her highly publi-cized conclusion, her work attracted only limited attention (Hall, 1990). Caton-Thompson (1983, p. 132) collected three volumes of press cuttings concerningher work in Zimbabwe and found that only 24 out of the 80 were in her favor. Asample of some of the articles she kept and quoted in her autobiography (1983,pp. 132–136) state:

He (Professor Dart) spoke in an outburst of curiously unscientific indignation and chargedthe startled Chairman with having called upon none but the supporters of Miss Caton-Thompson’s theory (from the Cape Times, August 3, 1929).

My (L. Frobenius) investigations have proved that the Zimbabwe colony was of the SumerianBabylonian civilization (The African World, Jan. 25, 1930).

Dr. MacIver came to this conclusion (i.e. Native origin) in 1905. Miss Caton-Thompson’sexhaustive study just shows that he was right (The Spectator, December 1929).

In the end, the committee that hired her to work on the site concluded thatshe had accurately and fairly presented her findings and sought to have her extendher work. Caton-Thompson, though, believed that “trained Rhodesians or SouthAfricans. . .would have a better chance of unraveling the ethnological questionof the tribal history responsible for the buildings” (1983, p. 136). In her finalreport on the Great Zimbabwe excavations, Caton-Thompson (1931) made noattempt to appease her adversaries. Actually, she insulted her contemporaries inthe introduction to the book: “Letters of the local experts have been stored in a filemarked insane” (Caton-Thompson, 1931). Although amateur archaeologists suchas J. F. Schofield (1948) and P. W. Laidler (1938) followed her lead in ascribingan indigenous origin at Great Zimbabwe, her interpretations created a “divisionbetween community and scholar that was to persist for many years in southernAfrica” (Hall, 1990, p. 8).

In addition to her work at Great Zimbabwe, in 1929, Caton-Thompson en-gaged in excavations at Fayum, Egypt (during 1925–1928 and 1934), Kharga Oasis,Egypt (during 1930–1932), Borg-en-Nadur, Malta (in 1922), and at Hadhramaut,South Arabia (during 1937–1938) (Caton-Thompson, 1983). She also traveled tonumerous countries in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and India visiting eminentscholars such as Gerald Harding (who discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls), Mary and




Louis Leakey, J. Desmond Clark, and Mortimer Wheeler, engaging in active dis-cussions surrounding new archaeological finds. She was well recognized during hercareer, serving as Vice-President of the Royal Anthropological Institute (1944),as the first woman president of the Prehistoric Society (1940–1946), and as afounding member of British Institute of Archaeology in East Africa (1961). Caton-Thompson was awarded the Cuthbert Peek Award in 1932, the Rivers Medal in1934, the Royal Anthropological Institute’s Huxley Medal in 1946, and the BurtonMedal from the Royal Asiatic Society in 1954. Despite her numerous awards, shenever held a teaching post in a museum or university, although she was an Asso-ciate and then later a Research Fellow at Newnham College, Cambridge (G. Clark,1989, p. 43). Caton-Thompson even turned down the Disney Chair in archaeologyat Cambridge, which suggests that she was not interested in a teaching position(Champion, 1998).

Kathleen Kenyon (1906–1978)

Kathleen Kenyon, daughter of Sir Frederick Kenyon, director of the BritishMuseum, studied history at Oxford and was the first president of the OxfordUniversity Archaeological Society (London Times August 25, 1978). At the ageof 23, having a bachelor’s degree in hand, she completed her first field workwith Caton-Thompson at Great Zimbabwe. Kenyon was responsible for most ofthe field work at Great Zimbabwe, while Caton-Thompson worked at other sites(Caton-Thompson, 1931, p. viii). Kenyon was also responsible for reviewing thehistorical evidence of the region, which clearly indicated Arabs had not reachedthe Zimbabwe area in ancient times. She maintained that there was “. . . strongevidence that Zimbabwe was not built by a foreign race as the center of goldindustry, as there are no ancient gold mines near the ruins even though they arein all other parts of the country” (Kenyon, 1931, p. 260). This was to be her onlyresearch on the continent. After this, Kenyon focused on the excavations of Romantowns and Iron Age hill sites in England and on the sites of Jericho (Kenyon, 1960,1965, 1981, 1982, 1983) and Jerusalem in Israel (Kenyon, 1974). She was a lecturerin Palestinian Archaeology at the University of London Institute of Archaeology(1948–1962). Kenyon also was appointed principal of St Hugh’s College, Oxford,and served as the Honorary Director of the British School in Jerusalem. In 1935,the British Academy made her a fellow and in 1965 she became a trustee of theBritish Museum. She published several monographs, none focusing on Africa.

Mary Leakey (1913–1996)

Mary Douglas Nicole Leakey, one of the most famous figures in the study ofAfrican prehistory, was the only child of Erskine and Celia Nicole, both landscapepainters (Leakey, 1984, p. 14). Mary Leakey’s early life was spent traveling with



14 Weedman

her parents in Switzerland, France, and Italy, where she was exposed to Paleolithicarchaeology. Leakey began attending lectures in archaeology and geology during1930 at University College and the London Museum. She did not formally attenda university, claiming she never had the patience, but in 1981 Oxford bestowed herwith an honorary doctorate (Holloway, 1994; Leakey, 1984, pp. 36–40). In 1967,she also accepted an honorary degree from the University of Witwatersrand inSouth Africa (Leakey, 1984, p. 144). Witwatersrand had decided to give honorarydegrees to both Louis and Mary Leakey. Louis refused because of South Africa’sapartheid policy, but Mary felt that since the University had nominated NelsonMandela as its Chancellor and accepted students regardless of their race, she wouldaccept. Her final comment on the issue in her autobiography was: “Again, insteadof accepting a decision of his (Louis) with unquestioning loyalty, I had opposed itwith a reasoned judgment of my own” (Leakey, 1984, p. 145).

Her first excavations were at the Roman site of St. Albans directed by SirMortimer Wheeler, and then with Dorothy Liddell at Hembury (Leakey, 1984,pp. 37, 38). It is to Liddell that Leakey attributed her knowledge of good fieldtechniques. Her work for Liddell included illustrating, and it was through herillustrations that she became known to Caton-Thompson and Louis Leakey. Leakeydrew the illustrations for Caton-Thompson’s booksThe Desert Fayum(1934) andKharga Oasis(1952) and also for Louis Leakey’sAdam’s Ancestors(1934).

It was her marriage to Louis Leakey which pulled her out of British archae-ology and into paleoanthropology. In 1947, she and Louis organized the first Pan-African Congress of Prehistory and Quaternary Studies. During her career, MaryLeakey was responsible for some remarkable discoveries including: (1)Proconsulafricanusin 1948; (2) Zinanthropus (Australopithecus bosei) in 1959; (3) livingfloors associated withHomo habilis; (4) 3.6 million-year-old hominid footprints atLaetoli in 1978; and (5) Tanzanian rock paintings, among other numerous hominidfossil finds (Leakey, 1979, 1983, 1984).

Perhaps her most important contribution to archaeology was Leakey’s dis-covery and analysis of hominid “living floors” at the Zinj site in Olduvai Gorge,and then at similar sites such as FLK North and DK (1967, 1972, 1975, 1979).Prior to the discovery at the Zinj site, it was generally accepted that any evidenceof early human activities had disappeared a long time ago. Leakey had recovereda distinct oval area consisting of animals bones and associated stone tools in situ.She hypothesized that it was a “living floor,” where hominids gathered to butcheranimals at the same spot for many years. Her discovery was remarkable not onlybecause it provided the first evidence of human social behavior, but because of theevidence that early hominids reoccupied a specific location on a regular basis.

Mary Leakey’s best known find is that of the Laetoli footprints, which revealedthat hominids were fully bipedal over three million years ago. It was at this point inLeakey’s career that a long-standing dispute began. While Leakey was working inLaetoli, Johanson and White were working in Hadar, Ethiopia. The two proclaimeda new species of hominid using the Laetoli Hominid 4 as the type specimen rather




than an Afar specimen (Leakey, 1984, p. 181). Leakey found to her distress thather name was to be added as author to the paper, which she then had removed.Her objections to the Laetoli Hominid 4 as the type specimen grew out of herconcern that it consisted only of a broken mandible with an incomplete set of teeth(Leakey, 1984, pp. 181, 182). She felt that it was too early to placeAustralopithecusafarensisas the ancestor ofHomo. Furthermore, she was furious because at the1978 Stockholm Nobel Symposium on anthropology Johanson not only describedthe new speciesA. afarensisbut also discussed her site in great detail as if it werehis own (Morell, 1995, p. 481).

Despite the spectacular hominid finds for which she was responsible, it wasMary Leakey’s 3-month study recording Tanzanian rock paintings and excavatingshelters during 1951 that she stated “count as one of the highlights of my life andwork in East Africa” (Leakey, 1984, p. 105). The paintings were all traced, as shehad no money to buy a camera. Although Louis was skilled at securing fundingfor their research, they were somehow unable to come up with the funds to publishthe results of the rock art research. The study was not published until her daughter-in-law Meave Leakey found the reproductions in the 1980s (Leakey, 1983).

Leakey’s background in archaeological field methods allowed her to intro-duce unsurpassed methodical field techniques to Pleistocene finds. Beyond herextraordinary excavation techniques and hominid finds, she opened the path forexploring the relationship between early hominids and prehistoric landscapes, pi-oneering activity area research (Clark, 1990). The contributions made by MaryLeakey (1984) are probably some of the best-known discoveries in African ar-chaeology, yet it is still Louis Leakey who is emphasized in historical overviewsof the field (see Gowlett, 1990).

Culture Historic and Initial Ecological Studies: 1950–1969

During the 1950s and 1960s, the study of African history and archaeology wasstill dominated by European researchers, but now included archaeologists from theUnited States. In the 1950s, Britain began moving toward political concessions withher colonies, which eventually gained their independence (Gifford and Louis, 1988,pp. 33, 34). Both colonial and indigenous women made significant contributionsto the independence of African nations. African nationalists, acknowledging theoppression of African women, brought them into the independence movementspromising to liberate them and raise their status in society (Johnson, 1981; Mba,1982; Urdang, 1984).

With the independence of African countries, there was an increased focuson expanding knowledge of the culture history of indigenous African peoples(Robertshaw, 1990a). This meant an increased concentration on the developmentof food production and complex societies. However, the progenitor of complexsocieties and food production remained a diffusion from either Europe or the NearEast to northern Africa, and then a diffusion from northern Africa or west Africa



16 Weedman

into sub-Saharan Africa (Clark, 1955; D. Phillipson, 1977). In the 1950s, radiocar-bon age determination and other chronometric dating methods allowed for moreprecise dating of archaeological sites, and opened up opportunities to explore is-sues other than chronology (Robertshaw, 1990a). In 1959, the British Instituteof History and Archaeology established itself in East Africa (BIEA) to study thelater archaeology and precolonial history (Robertshaw, 1990b). British nationalsand archaeologists Neville Chittick and Thurstan Shaw established two journalsconcentrating on African archaeology:Azaniain 1966 and theWest African Ar-chaeological Journalin 1971. Also, cultural ecology as another archaeologicalparadigm began to take hold in African archaeology (Robertshaw, 1990b). African-ist archaeologists trained in the natural sciences turned toward ecological studiesrather than picking up on the theoretical developments concerning archaeology inother parts of the world, particularly processualism in the United States (Deacon,1990). J. Desmond Clark, who pioneered the use of the ecological paradigm inAfrica, trained many of the new Africanist archaeologists (Clark, 1942, 1951,1959).

During the 1950s and 1960s, many women worked in African archaeologyas assistants, including: Shirley Coryndon, Margaret Tredgold, Courtney Latimer,Margaret Garlake, Margaret Metcalfe, Margaret Shinnie, Florence Anderson,Peggy Tindale, and Lilian Hodges. Shirley Coryndon studied paleontology withDonald MacInnes at the Museum of Nairobi in the 1950s. Later, Coryndon wasthe assistant for the Leakeys at the Centre for Prehistory and Paleontology at theCoryndon Museum (named after her father-in-law) and participated in excava-tions at Olduvai Gorge (Leakey, 1984, pp. 132, 133; Morell, 1995, pp. 229, 230).Margaret Tredgold published two purely descriptive and photographic accounts ofsouthern African rock art at the Cold Bokkeveld shelter (1953, 1955). CourtneyLatimer, an employee of the East London Museum, excavated the Putsplaas farmshelter in Vanrhynsdrop district, South Africa (Goodwin, 1954, p. 1). Latimerlater published an article describing a rock painting near Whittlesea, South Africa(1957). Margaret Garlake, in addition to excavating archaeological sites with herhusband, Peter S. Garlake, published several useful articles concerning artifactconservation and preservation. In particular, she offered insightful ways to restoreceramics with dough paste (Garlake, 1967a) and to clean corroded copper and iron(Garlake, 1967b, 1969). Margaret Metcalfe, the wife of a Malawi farmer, wrote adescriptive survey of the rock paintings in the Dedza Hills and encouraged othersto report rock paintings and other evidence of prehistoric people (Metcalfe, 1956).Metcalfe is credited by J. Desmond Clark with propelling the development of pre-historic studies in Malawi (Clark, 1966). Although published in 1956, Metcalfe’sarticle was the first to report on antiquities in Malawi. Margaret Shinnie, thenthe wife of archaeologist Peter L. Shinnie, publishedAncient African Kingdoms(1965), stating that her ambition for writing the book was to provide for Africanstudents a textbook revealing the state societies of Africa before the arrival of




Europeans. The book reflects the interpretations of her male contemporaries, andeven excludes ancient Egyptian societies as part of Africa. She also coauthoreda book with P. L. Shinnie titledDebeira West(1974), which was a site reportconcerning the historic town excavated in an effort to investigate monuments andantiquities along the Nile before the flooding of the area caused by the building ofthe High Dam at Aswan.

There were also several women who worked at Kalambo Falls with J. DesmondClark in the 1950s and 1960s, including his wife, Betty Clark, and FlorenceAnderson, Peggy Tindale, and Lilian Hodges (Clarket al., 1969, p. 13). Hodgesworked for the National Monuments Departments of Zambia and Zimbabwe andas the Warden of Great Zimbabwe where she also excavated (Clark, personal com-munication, 1998). Florence Anderson, the daughter of a Zambian farmer and wifeof a district commissioner, became interested in archaeology at an early age. Shefound an Iron Age site on her father’s farm, referred to as the Malwa Stream site,the collections from which are now in the Livingston Museum in Zambia. PeggyTindale was a school teacher in Zimbabwe with an interest in prehistory. She alsowrote a school textbook on the prehistory and history of Zimbabwe.

During the Cultural-Descriptive period in African archaeology, there wereincreased numbers of educated women who dedicated themselves to the full-timestudy of African archaeology. Most of them were trained either through the BritishInstitute in East Africa or in the United States (or both).

Joan R. Harding4

Joan R. Harding worked as the curator of the Warwick County Museum inBethlehem, England (prior to 1950), and later at Otago Museum, Dundin, NewZealand (1954–1958), and the George V. Memorial Museum in Dar es Salaam,Tanzania (1959–1964). She finally settled in South Africa, working at the MedicalEcology Centre in Johannesburg (by 1968). Although several of Harding’s paperswere published in theSouth African Archaeological Bulletin, much of her workwas published inMan. It may be that Harding, like Margaret Murray, found thatManwas more receptive to publishing her work than other journals of the time.

In 1949, Harding (1950b, 1968a,b) discovered and excavated SaulspoortShelter, Trekpad, and Cave Sandstone Rock shelter, South Africa. Harding de-scribed in detail her excavation techniques, the paintings, and the archaeolog-ical material, placing them in a cultural historical framework associated withSmithfield C and Bantu ceramic traditions. She suggested that the presence ofthese finds together indicated that Smithfield traditions survived into historicaltimes, a popular theory.

4For some of the women in this paper such as J. R. Harding, and S. Chapman, I was unable to locatethem and/or find any information concerning their education or life history.



18 Weedman

However, Harding’s most controversial work was her rock art analysis. Inher article on robed figures (1950a), Harding re-examined the paintings in theCave of Makhetha of Basutoland, first described by Abbe Breuil (1949). Hardingchallenged Breuil’s interpretation of the art as evidence of Sumerian civilizationin Africa. She looked at diaries of missionaries in 1839 describing the dress ofthe Bechuana tribes and their physical appearance and argued for a “purely nativeorigin” (Harding, 1950a, p. 136). In 1951, James Walton (1951, p. 7) questionedHarding’s qualifications to assert her evidence for an indigenous origin of thepaintings:

There is a large and growing body of evidence which suggests that material cultures weretransmitted from the Mediterranean to southern Africa either by direct migration or bycontact from very early times. The Abbe’s recent theories, although open to doubt on manypoints and still very tentative, are based on wide comparative studies which cannot bedismissed lightly. Statements (here he is quoting Harding) such as “I do suggest. . . thatthese painting are of purely native origin”. . .are valueless unless reasons are given sup-port. I should like to make a plea for a study of South African cave paintings, conductedas scientifically. . .enough of vague interpretations and problematical dates without anysubstantiating evidence.

In spite of the fact that Abbe Breuil was one of the leading prehistorians ofthe time, founding the Archaeological Survey of South Africa and serving as thepresident of the South African Archaeological Society, Harding (1951, p. 52) heldher ground, replying:

Its intent was not to refute or dismiss lightly any interpretation put forward by an authority asdistinguished as the Abbe Breuil, but rather to invite attention to an alternative interpretationwhich, in my own humble opinion seemed to hold a measure of reasonable possibility.

She also challenges Walton:

I also can split hairs and ask Walton if he can give any better reason for the contrary sugges-tions, apart from the fact that it was made by an eminent prehistorian (Harding, 1951, p. 52).

Harding’s conviction that the rock paintings of southern Africa were executedby and represented indigenous African peoples was not made popular until it waspublished by Wilcox (1956, 1963), who did not cite Harding. Although Wilcox(1963, p. 13) attributed southern African rock art to the Bushmen, he also statedthat there was a cultural diffusion of rock art and microliths from the north. It wasnot until the 1970s, that regional distinctiveness and early dates for many rock artdepictions suggested the implausibility of the idea that sub-Saharan rock art wasdirectly or indirectly influenced by European traditions (Davis, 1990, p. 285). In1968, Harding also disputed Breuil’s (1955) interpretation of the White Lady rockpainting of South West Africa (Namibia). Harding (1968a) argued that the paintingdepicts indigenous women. This time she was left unchallenged, probably becausethis view was more acceptable by the late 1960s and early 1970s. She also publishedarticles concerning the Paleolithic “Venus” statuettes of Europe (Harding, 1976),the Late Stone Age and historical archaeology of Tanzania (Harding, 1960, 1961a,




1962a, b, 1963, 1964, 1978), and the ethnographic material culture of New Zealand(Harding, 1957), Nigeria (Harding, 1954), and Tanzania (Harding, 1961b).

Ione Rudner (1926–Present)

Ione Muller Rudner was born in Beaufort West, South Africa, and studiedbookkeeping at Stellenbosch University. In 1950, she married Jalmar Rudner.Ione and Jalmar received private informal training in archaeology by A. J. H.Goodwin, who joined the staff of the University of Cape Town in 1923 as oneof South Africa’s first university-trained archaeologists. Ione spent 1954–1964reorganizing the museum collections and library at the University of Cape Town.In 1964 she became the palaeontological research assistant to the Director of theMuseum. In 1967, the British Museum awarded her a certificate in geology. IoneRudner published her own research (1952, 1953, 1965, 1970) and also wrote withher husband (1955, 1959, 1968) concerning the rock art and the Later Stone Ageof Angola, Botswana, Namibia, and South Africa. She served on the council ofthe South African Archaeological Society during 1969–1970 and 1973–1974, andfrom 1975 to 1983 she was the editor of theAnnals of the South African Museum.In 1981, she received her master’s degree from the University of Natal, based onher study of Khoisan pigments and paints and their relationship to rock painting,which was later published (Rudner, 1982).

Like those of her contemporaries, Ione’s writings on rock art are primarilydescriptive and attempt to place it into a chronological framework based on super-position and style. She strongly associated these works and the remains of ostrichegg-shell beads and stone tools with Khoisan speakers. In her article concerningthe art of Upington, South Africa, Ione Rudner (1953, p. 84) states, “It is interest-ing that these sites are known to have been inhabited by Bushmen. This might befurther proof of the connection between the Smithfield Culture and the Bushmen.”However, she goes further in attributing the impressed comb-stamping ceramics inthe shelters with Khoisan speakers. The latter statement rubbed contrary to the the-ories of her contemporaries and even many later researchers, who cited the concur-rence of ceramics and lithics as trade items or “Bushmen curiosities” (Clark, 1959;Musonda, 1987; D. Phillipson, 1977, p. 266). Ione Rudner was never challenged,however, nor has her statement been acknowledged in any subsequent publications.

TheSouth African Archaeological Bulletinpublished a paper written by Ioneand Jalmar Rudner entitled “End of an Era?–A Discussion” (1973), which elabo-rated on the new laws and regulations that made it difficult, if not impossible, foramateurs (individuals not formally trained in archaeology at university) to con-duct archaeological research. It also discusses the changing format of the paperspublished inSouth African Archaeological Bulletinto one of an increasingly pro-fessional and technical nature. The paper includes remarks by commentators, whoappeared to be unsympathetic to the Rudners’ search to find a venue in which they



20 Weedman

could continue to publish their research. Ione never published another paper in theSouth African Archaeological Bulletin, although her work has been published inother formats (Rudner, 1989) concerning archaeology in South Africa. Recently,Ione and Jalmar Rudner published translations of eighteenth and nineteenth cen-tury Swedish travel diaries in southern Africa (1986, 1998).

Barbara Anthony (1916–Present)

Anthony began her university studies in France at Grenoble with a Certificatin 1947 and at Sorbonne with Diplome, 1948. She then entered Radcliffe Collegeas a sophomore in 1951 receiving her Bachelor of Arts in 1954. Anthony receivedher PhD from Harvard in 1979, but her studies of African archaeology began muchearlier. She first went to Africa in 1959 with J. Desmond Clark, where she partici-pated in the Kalambo Falls excavation. Later, between 1969 and 1975, she taughtwithin the Department of History at the University of Nairobi. During her yearsat Harvard, she worked with Lauriston Ward, creating the COWA Bibliographyand Survey of Old World Archaeology. Anthony also taught at the University ofConnecticut and the University of Western Michigan, but was unable to acquirea full-time permanent position perhaps because of her age (she was 63 years oldwhen she completed her PhD at Harvard).

Anthony has few publications considering the length of her career in Africanarchaeology, which she attributes to the fact that Harvard required term papers ofpublishable quality. Two of her publications are descriptive accounts of excavationsat Peers Cave in Fish Hoek, South Africa (Anthony, 1963, 1967a). Her dissertationThe Prospect Industry–A Definition(1967b, 1972, 1979) is a remarkable workconcerning the Elmenteitan industry in Kenya. The site consists of a combinationof workshop and temporary camping places for groups to exploit nearby obsidiansources. Prospect Farms is considered the main Middle Stone Age (MSA) site inthe Rift Valley because of its thick deposits, representing a long sequence of MSAoccupation in the area.

Sonia Cole (1918–1982)

Sonia Cole is one of the few women to be mentioned in historical overviewsof the field, and she is the only formally educated female archaeologist whoseview of the past resonated with that of her male contemporaries. Cole studiedgeology at University College London and went to Kenya as a farmer’s wife in1945 (Obituary, 1982). Although Cole did not study archaeology, she soon becameinterested while participating in several of the Leakey expeditions and she servedon the governing council of the British Institute in Eastern Africa (Leakey, 1984,p. 171; Robertshaw, 1990b, p. 83). She published two papers in theSouth AfricanArchaeological Bulletin. Her first paper was a report on the 2nd Pan African




Congress (Cole, 1952). In her second paper, Cole (1954a) discusses the relativeand chronometric dating techniques available in 1954. The paper, the first of itskind published in a major journal concerning African archaeology, introducesradiocarbon dating, acetic acid dating, and trace metal studies. Sonia Cole (1954b)wrote the first and, to this day, only synthesis that spans the entire prehistory ofEast Africa. Sutton’s review of her book (1966, p. 43) points out that she heavilyrelies on the work of Louis Leakey and chastises her that “It is too much of acatalogue, conscientiously amassed, but lacking sufficient critical evaluation orinspiration for the reader.” Furthermore, Sutton states that her “precise details ofmeasurements or location are meticulously repeated in a way that is only requiredin an excavation report or an archaeological gazetteer” (1966, p. 43). A reviewby Robertshaw (1990b, pp. 83–84), 23 years later pointedly admonished Cole forher racist ideology and her adherence to the Hamitic hypothesis, which attributedthe origins of agriculture and complex society to immigrations of “Caucasoid”people into North and East Africa: “Therefore, Cole’s prehistory could be seen tojustify the white man’s burden of colonialism and to excuse the servile conditionsof cheap indigenous agricultural labor that was a cornerstone of the white farmer’sprosperity.” However, Robertshaw avoided a direct attack on Seligman (1930),the creator of the latter concept, and subsequent male archaeologists who alsoadhered to the theory, including J. Desmond Clark (1967), one of the most eminentof Africanist archaeologists. In 1968, Cole producedEarly Man in East Africa,which differs little from her earlier book. Her last work was a biography writtenabout Louis Leakey requested by Mary Leakey (Cole, 1975).

Jean Brown (1927–Present)

Jean Brown worked for the Ethnography Department of the British Museumin London (1951–1954). She then spent the next 30 years working in Kenya: asthe assistant to Louis Leakey at the National Museum of Kenya (1954–1958);honorary ethnographer at the National Museum, Kenya (1962–1974); in charge ofthe Material Culture Project at the Institute of African Studies at the Universityof Kenya at Nairobi (1968–1974), and as consultant anthropologist for the UnitedNations in north-western Kenya and south Sudan (1974–1984). Brown completedher doctoral thesis at the University of Edinburgh in 1980.

In her first published paper, Brown questions the definition ascribed to theNeolithic Gumban culture by Louis Leakey (Brown, 1966; Leakey, 1936). Leakeyoriginally defined the Gumban culture in terms of the presence of stone bowls,mortars, and grinding stones (1936, p. 198). Brown points out that settlement sitesascribed to Gumban culture contain pottery with basketry design and no stonevessels, while graves ascribed to the period contain stone bowls but no pottery(Brown, 1966). Furthermore, she points out that the pottery found on the GumbanB type burials has been renamed Lanet ware, and is characteristic of Iron Age



22 Weedman

Sirikwa hollows rather than Neolithic settlement sites (Brown, 1966). Severalyears later, in a restudy of the Stone Bowl culture, Cohen stated that the “bestrecent synthesis of these cultures and their place in African Prehistory is that by(Sonia) Cole. . . Jean Brown has offered a narrower but more critical review of thestone bowl assemblages themselves” (1970, pp. 27, 28). Although Cohen (1970)cautions us against Brown’s hypothesis by defining it as narrow, he does little morein his own paper than reiterate Brown’s original assertions regarding the absenceof Gumban A and B cultures.

Dr. Brown’s later work concentrates on archaeological and ethnoarchaeolog-ical studies of iron working (Brown, 1995) and stone-ax hammers (Brown, 1969,1980) used by pastoralists in Kenya.

Susannah Chapman Pearce4

Susannah Chapman Pearce was a student at Oxford University and the Insti-tute of Archaeology in London. Pearce worked in Uganda and Tanzania at NsongeziRock Shelter, Kansyore Island, and Mount Elgon (Chapman, 1966, 1967; Chapmanand Posnansky, 1963). She tested and confirmed Sutton’s (1965) hypothesis that thehollows found in the foothills of Mount Elgon contained structures of the nineteenthcentury Sirikwa people. Chapman’s excavations at Kansyore Island yielded a newtype of pottery, Kansyore ware, associated with Iron Age ceramics, domesticatedcattle, and iron artifacts (1967). She noted the similarities between Kansyore wareand dotted-wavy line ware from Sudan dating to 3300 BC. However, she believedthat her site dated to circa 1000 AD, and thus claimed that no relationship was pos-sible between the ceramic types. Recently Collett and Robertshaw (1983) reclassi-fied pastoral Neolithic pottery assemblages from Kenya, attributing Kansyore wareto the Oltome tradition. However, the term Kansyore Ware still has widespreaduse among other researchers (Gifford-Gonzalez, 1998; MacLean, 1998).

Patricia Vinnecombe (1932–Present)

Patricia Vinnecombe was born in Kokstad, East Griqualand, South Africa.From 1968 to 1975, Vinnecombe was a Research Fellow at Clare Hall, Cambridge.She then worked as a Fellow and Tutor (moral) at Kings College, Cambridge, be-tween 1975 and 1977. In 1977, she received her PhD at the Department of Archae-ology and Anthropology at Cambridge University. Vinnecombe was a professorat Underberg University in Natal, and recently retired from a post as ResearchOfficer with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in Perth, Australia. Currently,she is an Honorary Research Associate at the Berndt Museum of Anthropology,University of Western Australia.

One of her first papers (Vinnecombe, 1963) called for standardization in re-cording the representation of rock art. Later, she addressed analytical classification




of paintings and put forth a systematic method using objective criteria(Vinnecombe, 1967). Her early work primarily is concerned with placing artwithin an historical framework (Vinnecombe, 1960; Vinnecombe and Seddon,1967). However, Vinnecombe’s later work,People of the Eland(1972), could eas-ily be described as processual in nature. Her main point was that rock paintingscontribute to creating a feeling of cohesion and security in society. Maggs’ re-view of the book (1978) commends Vinnecombe for the impressive sample sizeof the rock art specifically located within a single region. Maggs (1978, p. 97)also states that Vinnecombe “has opened a new anthropological phase in the studyof southern Africa rock-art” through her view of rock art as one expression of asystem of beliefs rather than as a form of simple personal expression. However,her functionalist perspective on rock art has been criticized by Lewis-Williams(1982), who purported that neither the themes in the art nor modern peoples’use of it suggest rock art as a means for social cohesion. Following the lead ofD. F. Bleek and J. R. Harding, Vinnecombe’s ethnographic knowledge of mod-ern African peoples, overlaid on rock art, added texture to its meaning. AlthoughVinnecombe alone (or perhaps with J. R. Harding) should be commended for ini-tiating this type of analysis for rock art, even in the most recent review of Africanrock art (Davis, 1990, pp. 292–294) she shares this accomplishment with her malecolleague Lewis-Williams.

Maxine R. Kleindienst (1933–Present)

Maxine R. Kleindienst received her PhD in 1959 from the University ofChicago, in archaeology with a specialty in geoarchaeology (Kleindienst, 1959).She was the first woman to receive her PhD in sub-Saharan archaeology.Kleindienst was a research associate at the University of Chicago (1961–1963),at the University of California Berkeley (1963–1964), at the Field Museum ofNatural History in Chicago (1971), and at the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto(1971–1996). She also worked as the Senior archaeologist of the Yale UniversityPrehistoric Expedition to Nubia (1963–1964). Kleindienst was Chair of the De-partment of Anthropology (1978–1986) and Chair of the Programme Committeefor Graduate Studies in Archaeology at the University of Toronto (1996–1998).Currently, she is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Anthropology, Univer-sity of Toronto at Mississauga. Her research experience spans the eastern Africancontinent, with work in Tanzania, Kenya, Zambia, and Egypt.

Kleindienst (1961) studied the Olorgesailie and Isimila Acheulian assem-blages. Her work was the first major examination of the complexity of Acheulianassemblages and today her Acheulian terminology is widely used. The variation inthe contemporary assemblages challenged the established assumption of morpho-logical development and change through time (Gowlett, 1990). It was Kleindienstwho, having worked both at Kalambo Falls and at Isimila, attributed seasonality as



24 Weedman

one possibility for these morphological differences. Gowlett (1990) states that heranalysis led to a greater concern with precision and definition in archaeologicalterminology.

Kleindienst worked at Kalambo Falls with J. Desmond Clark as a student andlater as a co-principal investigator. Despite the fact that she was responsible fordeciphering the natural stratigraphic units of Kalambo Falls (Kleindienst, 1969),defining the terminology, typology, and raw material (Clark and Kleindienst, 1974),and the excavations at Site A (Clark and Kleindienst, 1969), she is rarely givencredit. Unfortunately, researchers cite the Kalambo Falls volumes (I and II) withoutnoting that many chapters were authored by researchers other than J. DesmondClark. Recently, Kleindienst has published with Sheppard, an examination of theEarly Stone Age to Middle Stone Age transition at the Kalambo Falls site (Sheppardand Kleindienst, 1996). The authors conclude that there is little change in basictechniques of blank production, but a decline in large cutting tools may indicatethat portability may have been more important for the Acheulian than the MSA.

Furthermore, Kleindienst contributed a number of terms such as “heavy duty”and “light duty” (Clark and Kleindienst, 1974; Kleindienst, 1959, 1961) and a lithicproduction model (Cole and Kleindienst, 1974) that is only now finding accep-tance. Kleindienst (1967) also introduced the term “cultural stratigraphic unit” toentities with definable temporal and spatial boundaries. Kleindienst, as part of theBurg-Wartenstein symposium, criticized the widespread use of terminology suchas Wilton Culture and Stillbay Culture, which are only broadly linked by similar-ities such as the presence of crescents or bifacially worked points and often spanthousands of years and thousands of miles (1967). This is viewed as problematicbecause there can be similar responses to similar problems that may cross culturalboundaries.

Recently Kleindienst has been working at Dakhleh Oasis in Egypt, examiningthe boundaries of the Aterian in North Africa. She suggests that the Aterian hasbeen misassociated with Europe and the Middle Paleolithic because researchers ofthe past and present continue to view Africa as a hinterland of Europe. Kleindienst(1998) proposes, following Caton-Thompson (1946), that the Aterian’s origins liein its similarities to sub-Saharan Africa, and not to Europe or the Near East. Al-though it is clearly an important work, Van Peer (1998) neglected to cite Kleindienstin his recent overview until one of his commentators pointed out his error, demon-strating the ease with which women’s research still is ignored today.

Laurel Lofgren Phillipson (1943–Present)

Laurel Lofgren Phillipson received her PhD from the University of Californiaat Berkeley (1975a). She was an assistant on the Bantu Studies Research Projectat the British Institute of East Africa, and more recently served as coeditor, from1983 to 1994, of theAfrican Archaeological Review.




Phillipson’s first two papers, coauthored with Brian Fagan (Fagan and Lofgren,1966a,b), are attempts to place survey and test excavation materials, of fishing peo-ples along the Nile Chobe Confluence and the Sese Islands, into a cultural sequenceof Middle Stone Age, Later Stone Age, and Iron Age. She then published a paperfocusing on historic structures of South Nyanza, Kenya (Lofgren, 1967). Basedon surface artifacts and oral history, she attributed the structures on the mainlandto the Luo pastoralists and the island constructions to the Basuba fishing peoples.Phillipson’s main body of work focused on reconstructing cultural sequences onthe Upper Zambezi Valley through archaeological survey and excavation. In herstudy of Middle Stone Age artifacts from Katima (Lofgren, 1968), she attemptedto date the lithics based on the presence of abrasion, ferrugination, glazing andpolishing on individual pieces to determine their environment of deposition. In herlater studies (Phillipson, 1975b, 1976a,b, 1977a,b), she examined the archaeologi-cal record of the Zambezi river in terms of variation in the ecological environmentand the subsequent resources available for use to prehistoric people. Phillipsonanalyzed site location not only in terms of the environmental resources availableduring occupation but also the environmental processes that cause differentialpreservation of sites. For many years since her doctoral work, Laurel Phillipsonhas worked and published with her husband, David Phillipson. It is perhaps forthis reason that she has been ignored by the historiographies of the field, leavingher in the shadow of her husband. Currently, Laurel Phillipson is working withlithic materials from archaeological sites in Kariandusi, Kenya (1998) and in thevicinity of Aksum, Ethiopia (2000).

Elizabeth Speed Voigt (1944–Present)

Elizabeth Voigt obtained a bachelor’s and an Honours degree in archaeologyat the University of Cape Town in 1964 and 1965 respectively, and in 1978 shereceived her master’s degree from the University of Pretoria. Voigt worked at theSouth African Museum (1967–1968) at Cape Town and at the Transvaal Museum(1969–1987) in Pretoria (Voigt, 1969, p. 193). In 1975, she was awarded the Pro-fessional Diploma of the Museums Association of London, and was appointed asOfficer in Charge of the Department of Archaeozoology at the Transvaal Museum.Currently, Voigt is the Deputy Director at the McGreggor Museum, Kimberley,South Africa.

Voigt’s first paper, coauthored with Tim Maggs (Maggs and Speed, 1967),demonstrated how the shell contents of the Bonteberg Shelter indicated a changein diet and culture change through time. Voigt advocated that further studies wereneeded to interpret the meaning of what shell residues, in terms of species type, dis-tribution, and quantity (1969). She stated that in addition to excavation, researchersneed to employ complimentary ethnological studies, chemical and physical studiesof the shells, shore surveys, and examination of the historical record.



26 Weedman

Her work with faunal remains was one of the earliest on the continent. In the1970s, Voigt’s repertoire expanded to include faunal analysis from Iron Age sitesin the Northern Transvaal and Natal (1973, 1975, 1977, 1979, 1980, 1983). Hermaster’s thesis, completed in 1978 and published in 1983, concerned the faunalremains from excavations at the Iron Age site of Mapungubwe. Perhaps, she isbest known for her analysis of the Happy Rest site, which demonstrated a dietbased on herded animals (primarily caprines) and provided the earliest evidencefor domesticated goats in southern Africa (Voigt and Plug, 1984).

Sheryl Miller (Birth Year–Present)5

Sheryl Miller is currently a full professor of Anthropology at Pitzer Collegein Claremont, California, where she has taught since 1969, and has served as chairof the Anthropology program for many years. She received her PhD in 1969 fromthe University of California at Berkeley.

In her study of Zambian prehistory, Miller advocated the interaction betweenLate Stone Age and Iron Age populations (Miller, 1969a). She interpreted the pres-ence of Iron Age ceramics and iron objects within Late Stone Age assemblages,and bone points and shell beads in Early Iron Age assemblages, as evidence forpeaceful interaction (Miller, 1969b). Since Miller’s early studies, the topic of inter-action between Iron age and Late Stone Age populations has evolved into a largedebate in southern African studies (Solway and Lee, 1990; Wilmsen and Denbow,1990). Miller subsequently conducted a statistical study of J. Desmond Clark’smaterials excavated in the 1950s from Nachikufu Cave, Bimbe wa MpalabweShelter, and Nsalu Hill Cave, Zambia (Miller, 1971). Nachikufan industries spana period of 16,000 years and the statistical analysis demonstrated that their evo-lution involved both outside influence and internal development. This landmarkstudy not only redated the Nachikufan material but also pushed the developmentof fully developed microlithic industries back to twice the accepted age at that time(12,000–8,000 BP). Despite such contributions, Miller’s work remains ignored inoverviews of African archaeology. Miller also worked on the Sangoan sequencein Zaire and, since her work in Africa, has concentrated on the study of NativeAmerican women’s art (Miller, personal communication, 1998).

Beatrice H. Sandelowsky (Birth Year–Present)5

Beatrice Sandelowsky was born and raised on a Namibian Farm nearSwakopmund. In 1965, she left Namibia for the University of California atBerkeley, where she received her PhD in 1972 working with Later Stone Agematerials from Malawi. Her research examined the Later Stone Age and Iron Ageassemblages over a wider area than previously explored in Malawi (Robinson and

5Birth date not available.




Sandelowsky, 1968). When she returned to Namibia (then South West Africa, amandate of South Africa) she stated, “I fell on hard times. From the end of the60s to the end of the 70s, I didn’t quite fit in. Being Jewish, I didn’t fit in with theGerman community, and being a professional woman, I made the other people inmy field nervous, for this was and is a very chauvinistic society” (Bilger, 1991,p. 19). She lost three positions because of her politics and insistence on teach-ing about racism, using African examples. The last place she taught was at theUniversity of the Western Cape in Cape Town.

As an archaeologist at the State Museum at Windhoek, she published sev-eral papers concerning Namibia’s prehistory, including a description of stone tuy-eres in Africa, the only ones known to date (Sandelowsky and Pendleton, 1969).Sandelowsky believes that the presence of stone rather than clay tuyeres suggestthat ancient Namibians had their own iron technology independent from theirnorthern Bantu neighbors. Several of her subsequent papers are descriptive in na-ture, such as archaeological assemblages recovered from the Erongo Mountains(Sandelowsky and Viereck, 1969), a description of ostrich egg shell caches from theBrandberg Mountains (1971a), and notched pebbles found near Mariental (1971b).In an article with Cagle (Sandelowsky and Cagle 1969), Sandelowsky called for anattempt to enlist interdisciplinary research combining various aspects of the pastenvironment, geology, petrology, and trace analysis studies into archaeology. Thiscall for interdisciplinary research is one of the earliest known in African archae-ology. Sandelowsky (1972, 1977) also initiated a program to reconstruct the pastenvironment of the Namibian Desert and to trace the history of the populations ofthis environment. In this study (Sandelowskyet al., 1979), she revealed the oldestdirect evidence in southern Africa for domesticated animals in the form of sheephair from AD 400. She founded, in 1978, the University Center for Studies inNamibia (TUCSIN), the only college preparatory program in the country. She alsofounded, in 1986, the country’s only museum in a non-White community, devotedsolely to black history and prehistory, the Rehoboth Museum.

DISCUSSION: BRITISH, SOUTH AFRICAN, AND AMERICAN WOMENAFRICANIST ARCHAEOLOGISTS IN THE 1860S TO THE 1960S

From the 1860s to the 1960s, despite attempts by men to ignore, deny thescientific validity of, and/or appropriate the work of women, British, South African,and American women made some remarkable contributions to the field of Africanarchaeology that often preceded or contradicted those of their male colleagues.Mary Barber was the first woman to write about African antiquities, and AmeliaEdwards founded the Egyptian Exploration Fund, which then produced the firstscientific excavations in Africa. Maria Wilman’s creation of a new “neutral,” non-European based terminology for stone tool assemblages, that is, the term “MiddleStone Age,” was well-received, but appropriated by more eminent male scholars.



28 Weedman

Margaret Murray was the first woman to teach archaeology at a university. Murrayalso introduced a new and radical idea advocating the organized and widespreadworship of female goddesses predating male gods in Egypt, a concept which is justnow finding acceptance. Joan Harding, Patricia Vinnecombe, and Gertrude Caton-Thompson attributed rock art and monumental structures to the indigenous peopleof Africa during a period when all achievements, including monuments and stonetools, were considered a diffusion from Europe and the Near East. Sonia Cole wrotethe first and, to this day, the only book that spans the entire prehistory of East Africa.Mary Leakey not only discovered the fossil remains of some significant earlyhominids, but was the first to reveal the presence of Early Stone Age “living floors”and thus the presence of social groups and culture among of early hominids. By herrecognition of culture in the ESA, Mary Leakey essentially recognized Africansas the source for emerging human cultures, giving back to Africans the dignity,intelligence, and complexity that the West had taken away. Sheryl Miller’s study ofthe Nachikufan material pushed the development of microlithic industries back totwice their accepted age. Barbara Anthony greatly contributed to our understandingof the time depth of the Middle Stone Age through her excavations at ProspectFarms, Kenya. Maxine Kleindienst was the first woman to receive a PhD focusingon sub-Saharan archaeology, and her analysis of MSA and LSA assemblages ledto a reevaluation and recreation of the discipline’s terminology. Elizabeth Voigt’sstudies were landmark firsts for serious faunal analysis in African archaeology.Beatrice Sandelowsky was one of the earliest to call for interdisciplinary researchin Africa and her devotion to incorporating Africans into the study of Africanhistory and prehistory is unsurpassed. As stated earlier, Western ideology held thatwomen and people of other cultures were inferior to European men, and it mayhave been their similar standpoint that allowed women Africanist archaeologiststo view more clearly the intelligence of the indigenous peoples of Africa and inturn acknowledge their responsibility for creating complex African civilizations.

Although their contributions were greatly significant and often stressed in-digenous development over external influences, the number of British, SouthAfrican, and American women between 1860 and 1969 who published papersconcerning African archaeology was very small. This is not surprising, consider-ing the social–political context in which these women worked. Initially, few womenwere allowed to travel or live in Africa, and those who did were the wives anddaughters of settlers who were expected to uphold colonial policies of segregation(Miles, 1989). The English Society of Antiquaries did not allow women to becomemembers until 1919 (Champion, 1998). Most of the colonial women who had in-terests in African archaeology were the wives or daughters of settlers. However,some women, such as Amelia Edwards and Gertrude Caton-Thompson, were ofthe upper class and independently wealthy, hence having more freedom to pursuetheir interests. It was common for the upper-middle and upper classes to live andtravel abroad for long periods for financial and health reasons. A similar patternis seen concerning the social position of the first women archaeologists as sisters,




daughters, and wives of male archaeologists, or from the upper class, in Europe(Diaz-Andreu and Sørensen, 1998b), North America (chapters in Claassen, 1994a),and Australia (du Cros, 1993), and it is also reflected in a cross-disciplinary study ofwomen in sciences (Rossiter, 1997). In Britain, women Africanist archaeologistshad to forge their own path and created their own network of support at Uni-versity College London, beginning with Margaret Murray, followed by GertrudeCaton-Thompson, Kathleen Kenyon, and Mary Leakey. However, in the UnitedStates during the 1960s women were encouraged to take up the discipline throughJ. Desmond Clark, who chaired the committees of Laurel Phillipson, Sheryl Miller,and Beatrice Sandelowsky.

Subsequent to the colonization period, westerners have served as heralds ofAfrica’s past to the rest of the world (Robertshaw, 1990a; Schmidt, 1995) and thereis a marked absence of an African voice concerning the reconstruction of Africa’spast. The first black African to publish a paper on African archaeology in one of thefour major journals of African archaeology was Ekpo Eyo in theWest African Jour-nal of Archaeologyin 1974. Until the 1990s, no female black African archaeologistsI know of published in international publications until Alinah Segobye of Botswana(1998). In colonial Africa, race played a strong role in segregation of society. Untilthe 1950s, formal education was only minimally available to indigenous Africanwomen; even by 1960 58% of African women were illiterate (Robertson, 1984).

The rearticulation of gender and social relations by colonization led to theabsence of African female voices as conveyors of the past. Despite their contribu-tions to African archaeology, British, South African, and American women whoworked in the discipline between 1860s and the 1960s were not only ignored bytheir contemporaries but are also omitted from more recent historiographies ofAfrican archaeology (see for instance Andah and Folorunso, 1992; Camps, 1977;Clark, 1965a,b; Fagan, 1981; Gabel, 1985; Goodwin, 1935; Posnansky, 1982;Robertshaw, 1990b; Shaw, 1976). Thus, it is the academic atmosphere in the west-ern world to which we must look for an explanation of the exclusion of thesewomen from our current reconstructions of the history of African archaeology.

WOMEN ARCHAEOLOGISTS: A GLOBAL COMPARISON

The contributions of women Africanist archaeologists of the past continue tobe overlooked today in the western-controlled discipline. The examination of thestatus of western women in archaeology, through their past and current representa-tion in departments of anthropology, salaries and research grants, and publications,offers an avenue for exploring how and why this trend exists.

Employment

Africanist archaeologists represented 7% of the archaeologists listed in theAmerican Anthropological Association Guide (AAA), 1997–1998 (which includes



30 Weedman

departments in Europe, North and Central America, Asia, and Australia). Therewere 26 women and 81 men listed in academic positions specializing in Africanarchaeology (based on faculty listed in AAA Guide and South African Universityinternet listings).

Academic hiring practices concerning women in archaeology vary greatly inthe western world, but in most countries women are not hired in an equal proportionto men. Germany’s Department of Prehistoric Archaeology at Tubingen had nofemale lecturers until 1980, and awarded only seven PhDs to women between 1921and 1971 (Kastneret al., 1998). Denmark’s representation of women in archaeo-logical academia also is very low; for instance, the first woman received her PhD inarchaeology as recently as 1987 (Jørgensen, 1998). In the United States, there hasbeen an increase in the number of women archaeologists hired in academia throughthe last several decades. In 1968, women held only 9.5% of teaching positions, butby 1987, women represented 15–20% of the full-time faculty positions (Hudson,1998; Kramer and Stark, 1994). During 1997, women received 36% of the PhD’sin archaeology (American Anthropological Association Guidebook, 1997). Therewere 1,227 archaeological part-time and full-time faculty positions, and only 27%are occupied by female archaeologists (American Anthropological AssociationGuide, 1997, pp. 67–306). Since 1992, there has been a 6% increase in the numberof women hired. However, a 1994 survey by the Society of American Archaeolo-gists shows that women are more likely to hold nontenure track positions, receivelower pay, and are less likely to receive employment benefits as compared withmen (Zeder, 1997). Similarly, in Australia, 25% of the archaeological positionsare filled by women and 78% of these women are untenured as opposed to 64%of men (Beck, 1994; Goulding and Buckley, 1994; Truscott and Smith, 1993).Canadian and British women fill only 17% of the archaeology faculty positions(Caneet al.1994; Kelley and Hill, 1994). Norway and Spain are exceptions; theratio of men to women in archaeology is balanced in Norway (Dommasneset al.,1988; Engelstadet al., 1994), and in Spain women represent 44% of the employedarchaeologists (Diaz-Andreu, 1998).

Equal opportunity policies seem to have an effect on women’s representationin the archaeological work force. For instance, in Norway, where there is a policyof “positive discrimination,” we see that women share the field equally with men(Diaz-Andreu and Sørensen, 1998b). However, even after two decades of “affir-mative action” legislation in the United States, “employment equity” initiatives inCanada, and the Equal Pay Act and Sex Discrimination Act in Britain, there is stilla consistently low number of women assuming faculty positions compared withthe number who have graduate degrees in archaeology (Caneet al., 1994; Wylie,1994). The lack of a positive discrimination policy has resulted in a slower changein these countries (Diaz-Andreu and Sørensen, 1998b). In Spain, the ratio of em-ployed male and female archaeologists is almost balanced because of the culturalpractices, where patronage rather than gender plays the most important role in




hiring (Diaz-Andreu and Sørensen, 1998b). However, countries such as Denmarkand Germany, that seem to lack any policy or gender-free cultural practices, havetruly the worst ratio of men to women as professional archaeologists.

Salaries and Research Grants

In addition to acquiring fewer academic positions, women also tend to receivelower salaries and fewer research grants than do men. A 1977 survey indicatedthat the average income of women archaeologists in the United States was $19,000per year, and demonstrated that men earned twice as much as women, especiallyin older age groups (Freedet al., 1977). Within British archaeology, the majorityof women earn under £12,000, with more women (76%) than men (24%) earningless than £4,000 (Morris, 1992). Women are least represented in the £20,000 plusincome group. In Australia, a higher proportion of women earn less than A$17,500,and on average women make A$3,000 less per year than men do (Goulding andBuckley, 1994). Women’s compensation is less even when their time since obtain-ing a PhD is the same as their male colleagues (Wildesen, 1994). It is not surpris-ing that, in the face of lower employment rates and lower income compensation,women tend to dominate the nonacademic work force in archaeology (Nelson andNelson, 1994).

Archaeology is a discipline that requires field work to advance through grad-uate programs and through the academic ranks. This is reflected in the distributionof National Science Foundation (NSF) funding in the United States, which duringthe 1960s and 1970s allocated 74.9% of its funding to field research and 25.1% tomaterial analysis and other types of archaeological research (Gero, 1994). Duringthis time, only 6.7 % of NSF Grants were awarded to females (Gero, 1994). Thesituation for women and research funding has improved. During 1989, womensubmitted 26% of the senior archaeological proposals and 54% of the disserta-tion proposals sent to NSF (Yellen, 1994). Thus, at the dissertation level, menand women equally submit proposals, but at the senior level considerably fewerwomen submit proposals. Still, among senior researchers, men (27%) are morelikely than women (19%) to receive NSF funding for field research. The conditionsfor women and research funding become worse when we look at certain subdis-ciplines. A study by Ford and Hundt (1994) concerning women specializing inMesoamerican archaeology indicated that, although men and women submit thesame number of proposals, men are twice as likely as women to receive funding.Women studying Asian archaeology reported that only 37% of women as com-pared with 76% of men were funded by government grants (Nelson, 1994). Gero(1985, 1988) points out that the sexual division of labor in archaeology in onein which female archaeologists mostly fill laboratory analysis jobs, characteriz-ing them as participating in archaeological housework by “cooking” the data. Incontrast, the “Man-the-Hunter” archaeologist dominates the collection of raw data



32 Weedman

through fieldwork. Gero concludes that we actually learn more about the past byanalyzing than by digging holes in the ground, and as museum collections begin tooutnumber the remaining sites to be excavated, women may be in the best positionto guide the future of archaeology.

Exclusion From Publications

A career in scientific archaeology is built on academic writing not only to ob-tain degrees in the discipline but also to ensure academic employment and promo-tion. Between 1945 and 1960, female archaeologists published only seven papersor notes or both, compared with the 111 papers written by men, in the continent’sonly archaeological journal at the time, theSouth African Archaeological Bulletin.The percentage of female-authored papers concerning archaeology in other partsof the world was slightly higher than the 11% of papers written by women in thefour major African archaeological journals:South African Archaeological Bul-letin, Azania, West African Journal of Archaeology, andAfrican ArchaeologicalReview. Women are represented in Britain’s twelve major archaeological journals(1976–1987) at 20–25% (Caneet al., 1994); Australia’sArchaeology in Oceania(1981–1990) at 26% (Beck, 1994); Spain’sCongresos Nacionales de Arqueologia(1945–1987) at 11% andZephyrus(1950–1991) at 8% (Diaz-Andreu and Gallego,1994); and North America’sHistorical Archaeology(1967–1990) andAmericanAntiquity (1967–1991) at 29% and 11% respectively (Beaudry and White, 1994;Victor and Beaudry, 1992). Some studies concerning women’s publishing rates inarchaeology (Beaudry and White, 1994; Ford and Hundt, 1994) and in the sciencesin general (Cole and Zuckerman, 1987) reported that women overall submit fewerpapers for publication than do men. It has been documented in the sciences thatmen tend to publish the smallest publishable units, resulting in higher and fasterpublishing rates, while women tend to publish larger overview papers (Cole andZuckerman, 1984). Perhaps this is a result of the “chilly” environment women ex-perience when they present their research results. For example, in a recent survey(Ford and Hundt, 1994), female Mesoamerican archaeologists felt that their workwas disputed, while none of their male colleagues felt this way.

Women Africanist archaeologists, as in other disciplines (Russ, 1983; Lutz,1990), have been denied presence in writing and the academy through prohibitionssuch as denying of education (Hartland’s advice to Murray that anthropologywas not a topic for women); denying that they know enough about a subject towrite about it well (the Harding versus Walton and Breuil controversy); labelingthe work as insignificant (Caton-Thompson’s work at Great Zimbabwe); placingthe work in the wrong category (the renaming of Mary Leakey’s Laetoli Hominid 4specimen asAustralopithecus afarensis); attributing the work to a male scholar(Maria Wilman’s research appropriated by Goodwin and Van Riet Lowe); andcreating a myth of isolated achievements (for example the work of Sonia Cole).




These prohibitions are not restricted to female Africanist archaeologists. Forinstance, ceramicist Anna O. Shepard withdrew from graduate studies in 1926 atthe University of New Mexico in the United States because her advisors would notapprove of her thesis topic (Thompson, 1991, p. 14). The American School of Clas-sical Studies in Athens denied the eminent Harriet Ann Boyd Hawes permission toassist in the school’s fieldwork during 1901 (Irwin-Williams, 1990). American ar-chaeologist Florence Hawley Ellis was asked by a faculty member at the Universityof Arizona to publish her thesis jointly with him even though he had done none ofthe work (Irwin-Williams, 1990, p. 25). Hannah Rydh, the first women to receivea doctoral degree in Swedish archaeology in 1919, was criticized concerning herthesis with remarks such as “the subject was limited and the material collectionrather scanty” (Arwill-Nordbladh, 1998, p. 165). Moser (1996) points out thatthe systematic regional survey research of Isabel McBryde is often dismissed orignored in light of the stratigraphic excavations by John Mulvaney who, althoughMcBryde’s contemporary, is regarded as responsible for establishing Australianarchaeology in the 1950s. Furthermore, men tend to cite male authors more thanfemale authors as is evident from studies of theHistorical Archaeology Journal(Beaudry and White, 1994), American archaeology textbooks, American archaeol-ogy historiographies, and articles (Reyman, 1992b). It is expected that women willnot be cited as frequently as men until the year 2041 AD, based on the extrapolationof historical trends inAmerican Antiquity(Victor and Beaudry, 1992).

Feminist Theories

The theories applied by feminist archaeologists to account for the low num-ber of female archaeologists, the low number of their publications, and the failureof their colleagues to recognize their contributions, mirror those outlined in an-thropology (di Leonard, 1991), as well as in other disciplines such as biology andpolitical science (Jaggar, 1983; Rosser, 1992). It is not surprising that many NorthAmerican female archaeologists express a liberal feminist perspective concerninga search for equity in a democratic context. For example, liberal feminist AlisonWylie (1991a,b) convincingly argues that science serves to disguise other perspec-tives by claiming an objectivity that perpetuates the absence of a female voicein both the past and the present. Liberal feminists believe that society suppresseswomen and demand that each individual should receive equal consideration with-out discrimination on the basis of sex (Rosser, 1992, p. 90). Women archaeologistsare suppressed by stereotyping them out of leadership and field work positions, bydevaluing their achievements, and by alienating them in academic settings (Gero,1985, 1988; Wylie 1994). Equity is sought in terms of participation in field archae-ology and funding (Gero, 1994, 1985, 1988), allocation of academic positions(Levine, 1994), and salaries (Wildesen, 1994). Creating an atmosphere free ofsex bias requires us to bring to the forefront further documentation of women’s



34 Weedman

status in archaeology (Wylie, 1994). In addition, women need to build networksof support among themselves and among supportive male colleagues.

Existentialist feminism suggests that women’s otherness is based on socialconstructions that are rooted in recognized biological differences (de Beauvoir,1974). It is the value that society places on women that assigns them to a positionof the “other.” As such, women would be expected to create a different kindof science, and it is impossible to achieve a gender-free or positivist science.Sociolinguistics has pointed out that women’s conversational styles and languagepatterns emphasize cooperation and sustaining the conversation, while men’s stylestend to be competitive (Fisherman, 1990). If women are indeed socialized to prefera cooperative mode in conversation then, by extension, it also will appear in writing.Differences in the use of language were given as one explanation for the exclusionof women from archaeological field work. Bender (1991) quoted one field director,J. P. Droop (1915, p. 212) as stating:

. . .all the strains of excavation, and there are many, the further strain of politeness andself-restraint in moments of stress, moments that will occur on the best regulated dig, whenyou want to say just what you think without translation, which before ladies, whatever theirfeelings about it, cannot be done.

Women have been seen as a constraint in archaeology because they are social-ized (in terms of language) differently than males. Beaudry and White’s (1994)review of the literature published inHistorical Archaeologyindicated that menmore frequently publish field site reports and theoretical papers, while womentend to publish less controversial papers related to artifact analysis and description.Furthermore, Liv Dommasnes (1990) states that men and women create differentinterpretations of the past because they perceive the world in very different waysas a result of different experiences and upbringing.

Alice Kehoe (1992) argues through a socialist philosophy that women ar-chaeologists are subordinated to the dominant class of western European men.Citation cliques serve to control discussion and reproduce asymmetries of powerand influence in European archaeology. Only alternative discourses and rejec-tion of this dominance hierarchy will bring forth a feminist consciousness. Socialfeminists view all knowledge as socially constructed, and therefore it can not beobjective and value-free because it is shaped by values (Fee, 1982; Flax, 1976).Values are determined by the prevailing mode of production capitalism and theinterest of the dominant class. Women’s views are thought to be more reliablethan that of men from the same class or race. The dominant race and class havean interest in concealing, and thus women, as subordinates, have a clearer view ofreality. Charlotte Damm (1986) points to the androcentrism present in English andDanish academia (in archaeology), and suggests that women are inherently bettersuited at perceiving androcentrism and constructing a balanced view of the pastthrough an investigation of men’s and women’s socio-economic roles, division oflabor, and reproductive roles. In addition, it has been noted that the first women in




European archaeology were of the elite or upper-middle class social standing, thatis, those who could afford an education and the travel that was thought to be essen-tial to education (Diaz-Andreu and Sørensen, 1998b). The purpose of the recentpublicationExcavating Women: A History of Women In European archaeology(Diaz-Andreu and Sørensen, 1998a) was to make visible the accomplishments ofwomen in the field in an effort to raise consciousness and to bring to the forefrontissues of gender, power, and control in European archaeology.

Lastly, several female archaeologists suggest that life experiences influenceone’s choices and at all stages of the scientific experience (Claassen, 1994b;Dincauze, 1992; Kelley, 1992). These essentialist feminists suggest that because ofthe forces of the female life cycle (such as bearing children, which men often viewas a choice rather than as a biological fact needed to maintain future generations)that males are not subject to, women (1) progress through academic ranks moreslowly; (2) are more likely to hold part-time jobs; (3) conduct laboratory work;and (4) have a lower success rate for obtaining grants. They argue that women arenot valued for their biological role in society, and this is reflected in the treatmentof women in the academic community. Essentialist feminists state that women aredifferent from men in terms of their visio-spatial ability, verbal ability, and mentaltraits as a result of their different secondary sex characteristics and reproductionsystem (Kirsch, 1993; Rosser, 1992). This view initially held that women werethus inferior to men. Irwin-Williams (1990) suggests that one explanation givenby men for the exclusion of women in archaeology is that field archaeology was as-sociated with physical hardships and thus manliness. More recent studies use thesedifferences to imply superiority and power for women. Ultimately they suggestthat women ask different questions and approach problems differently because oftheir biology. This view allows for a positive reassessment of women’s attributesand contributions to society. Dincauze (1992) suggests that women may be moreinherently curious, which accounts for their having published on a wider range oftopics than did men.

CONCLUSION

Most feminist theories utilize either a race, class, or gender approach. How-ever, some argue that focusing on only one of these issues is limiting and devaluesone aspect of life experience for another (Preucel and Chesson, 1994; Wylie,1991a; Zinnet al., 1990). My own approach is one that incorporates context, race,and gender, termed postcolonial feminism. I believe that female Africanist ar-chaeologists are ignored and slighted because archaeologists who work in Africaare for the most part Westerners or Western-trained. Although this paper onlydiscusses British, American, and South African women Africanist archaeologistswho worked during the colonial period, certainly there were others. For example,French archaeologist Marie-Henrietta Alimen (1957) was the author of the first



36 Weedman

comprehensive overview of African archaeology and she is rarely, if ever, notedor referenced in historical overviews. Historical reviews of the contributions ofwomen archaeologists in other parts of the western world demonstrate that womenin the past as well as the present have been written out of the history of archaeol-ogy, with their ideas often appropriated as a consequence of androcentrism presentwithin the discipline (see chapters in Claassen, 1994a; Diaz-Andreu and Sørensen,1998a; du Cros and Smith, 1993). Although there have been improvements, thewestern academic context that has dominated the field of African archaeology inthe past and in the present reflects an atmosphere in which women for the mostpart still receive fewer academic positions, with lower salaries and benefits, andfewer grants and publications. The result has been an exclusion of women fromthe history of archaeology, which in turn has led to a less textured and integralunderstanding of the discipline. Part of the problem lies in the dearth of femaleprofessors in PhD-producing institutions. To produce better archaeology on theAfrican continent that includes women, PhD-granting departments specializing inthe African continent should seek out and hire Africanist female archaeologists.Perhaps, most detrimental to both women and to African prehistory is the failureto cite or seriously consider women’s theories and interpretations, as is evidencedby the lack of citations attributed to female archaeologists or their work. Whilenot solely limited to Africa, Africanist archaeologists and archaeology can makea contribution to all archaeology by changing hiring, funding, publication, andcitation practices, particularly pertaining to topics not directly tied to laboratoryand gender studies, that no longer marginalize or ignore women’s contributions tothe prehistory of the continent.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am very grateful to Dr. Barbara Anthony, Dr. Jean Brown, Dr. MaxineKleindienst, Dr. Sheryl Miller, Ione Rudner, Dr. Beatrice Sandelowsky, Dr. PatriciaVinnecombe, and Elizabeth Voigt, who were all extremely patient with my numer-ous questions and helpful with reflections concerning their own careers. Dr. J. D.Clark was instrumental in identifying women authors of articles and locating manyof the women discussed; I am grateful for the time he spent aiding my research.I also thank Dr. Christopher DeCorse for providing me with the statistics con-cerning the 1998 SAfA attendees. Dr. Steven Brandt, Dr. Sue Rosser, Dr. SusanKent, Matt Curtis, and John Arthur read numerous earlier versions of the paperand were helpful with comments, although all conclusions and errors are my own.

REFERENCES CITED

Alimen, H. (1957).The Prehistory of Africa, London, Hutchinson.Allen, V. (1998). Biography: Maria Wilman.South African Bibliography of Biographies at the

McGregor Museum, Unpublished.




American Anthropologial Association. (1997).American Anthropological Association Guide,Washington DC.

Andah, B. W., and Folorunso, C. A. (1992). Pioneers of archaeological work in West Africa.WestAfrican Journal of Archaeology22: 12–24.

Anthony, B. (1963). Peers Cave radiocarbon dates.Journal of African History12: 58–59.Anthony, B. (1967a). Excavations at Peers Cave, Fish Hoek, South Africa.Palaeoecology of Africa2:

58–59.Anthony, B. (1967b). Excavation near Elmenteita.Palaeoecology of Africa2: 47–48.Anthony, B. (1972). The Stillbay Question. InActes du 6 Congres Panafrican Prehistory, Reunies de

Chambery, Chambery, pp. 80–82.Anthony, B. (1979).The Prospect Industry—A Definition, PhD Dissertation, Harvard.Arwill-Nordbladh, E. (1998). Archaeology, Gender and Emancipation: The Paradox of Hanna Rydh.

In Diaz-Andreu, M., and Sørensen, M. L. S. (eds.),Excavating Women: A History of Women inEuropean Archaeology, Routledge, London, pp. 155–174.

Babcock, B. A., and Parezo, N. J. (1988).Daughters of the Desert: Women Anthropologists and theAmerican Southwest, 1880–1980, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Barber, M. E. (1871). Night at Du Tiot’s Pan. In Robinson, L. A. M. (ed.),Selected Articles from theCape Monthly Magazine (1870–1876), Van Riebeeck Society, Cape Town, pp. 159–163.

Barber, M. E. (1872). In the Claims.Cape MonthlyIV (19): 39–45.Beaudry, M., and White, J. (1994). Cowgirls with the blues? A study of women’s publications and the

citation of women’s work in historical archaeology. In Claassen, C. (ed.),Women in Archaeology,University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 139–158.

Beck, W. (1994). Women in archaeology: Australia and the United States. In Nelson, M. C., Nelson, S.M., and Wylie, A. (eds.),Equity Issues for Women in Archaeology, Archaeological Papers, No. 5,American Anthropological Association, Washington DC, pp. 99–104.

Bender, S. J. (1991). Towards a history of women in northeastern US archaeology. In Walde, D., andWillows, N. D. (eds.),The Archaeology of Gender, The University of Calgary Press, Calgary, pp.211–219.

Bent, T. (1893).The Sacred City of the Ethiopians, Longman, London.Betham Edwards, M. (1893). Amelia Edwards: Her Childhood and Early Life.New England Magazine

7(5): 548–564.Bilger, B. (1991). After apartheid: Namibians dig for their African identity.EarthwatchApril : 16–

23.Bleek, D. F. (1930).Rock Paintings of South Africa, Methuen, London.Bleek, D. F. (1932). A survey of our present knowledge of rock-paintings in South Africa.South African

Journal of Science29: 72–83.Bradlow, E. (1993). Women and education in nineteenth century South Africa: The attitude and expe-

riences of middle-class English speaking females at the Cape.South African Historical Journal28: 119–150.

Brady, T. A. (1950). Book review: The splendour that was Egypt.American History Review55: 879.Breuil, H. (1949). Some foreigners in the frescoes on rocks in southern Africa.South African Archae-

ological Bulletin4: 39–50.Breuil, H. (1955).The White Lady of Brandberg, Tianon Press, Paris.Brown, J. (1966). The excavation of a group of burial mounds at Ilkek near Gilgil, Kenya.AzaniaI :

59–78.Brown, J. (1969). Some polished axes from East Africa.AzaniaIV : 160–166.Brown, J. (1980). Horn-shaping ground-stone axe-hammers.AzaniaXXV : 59–67.Brown, J. (1995).Traditional Metalworking in Kenya, Oxbow Books, Oxford.Callaway, H. (1987).Gender, Culture and Empire, University of Illinois Press, Chicago.Camps, G. (1977). Ten years of archaeological research in the Sahara: 1965–1975.West African Journal

of Archaeology7: 1–16.Cane, C., Gilchrest, R., and O’ Sullivan, D. (1994). Women in archaeology in Britain: Three papers.

In Nelson, M. C., Nelson, S. M., and Wylie, A. (eds.),Equity Issues for Women in Archaeology,Archaeological Papers, No. 5, American Anthropological Association, Washington DC, pp. 91–98.

Caton-Thompson, G. (1931).Zimbabwe Culture, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Caton-Thompson, G. (1934).The Desert Fayum, Royal Anthropological Institute, London.



38 Weedman

Caton-Thompson, G. (1946). The Levalloisian industries of Egypt.Proceedings of the PrehistoricSocietyXII : 57–120.

Caton-Thompson, G. (1952).Kharga. Oasis in Prehistory, Athlone Press, London.Caton-Thompson, G. (1983).Mixed Memoirs, Paradigm Press, Gateshead.Caton-Thompson, G., and Brunton, G. (1928).The Badarian Civilisation, The British School of Ar-

chaeology, London.Caton-Thompson, G., and Gardner E. W. (1934).The Desert Fayum, Royal Anthropological Institute,

London.Champion, S. (1998). Women in British Archaeology. In Diaz-Andreu, M., and Sørensen, M. L. S.

(eds.),Excavating Women: A History of Women in European Archaeology, Routledge, London,pp. 175–198.

Chapman, S. (1966). A Sirkwa Hole on Mount Elgon.AzaniaI : 139–148.Chapman, S. (1967). Kantsyore Island.AzaniaII : 165–194.Chapman, S., and Posnansky, M. (1963). Re-excavation of Nsongezi Rock Shelter, of the Upper

Zambezi Valley.The Uganda Journal27(1): 85–94.Claassen, C. (ed.) (1992).Exploring Gender Through Archaeology: Selected Papers From the 1991

Boone Conference, Prehistory Press, Madison Wisconsin.Claassen, C. (ed.) (1994a).Women in Archaeology, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.Claassen, C. (1994b). Introduction. In Claassen, C. (ed.),Women in Archaeology, University of Penn-

sylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 1–8.Clark, G. (1989).Prehistory at Cambridge and Beyond, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Clark, J. D. (1942). Further excavations at the Mumbwa Caves, Northern Rhodesia.Transactions of

the Royal Society of South Africa29: 133–201.Clark, J. D. (1951). The Bushman hunters of the Barotse forests.Northern Rhodesia Journal3: 56–

65.Clark, J. D. (1955). Africa south of the Sahara. In Braidwood, R. J., and Willey, G. R. (eds.),Courses

Toward Urban Life, Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago, pp. 1–33.Clark, J. D. (1959).The Prehistory of Southern Africa. Penguins, Harmondsworth.Clark J. D. (1965a). Prehistory. In Lystad, R. A. (ed.),The African World, Praeger, New York, pp.

11–39.Clark, J. D. (1965b). Changing trends and developing values in African prehistory.African Affairs

Spring: 76–95.Clark, J. D. (1966). Archaeology in Malawi.The Society of Malawi Journal19(2): 15–25.Clark, J. D. (1967). The problem of Neolithic culture in Sub-Saharan Africa. In Bishop, W. W., and

Clark, J. D. (eds.),Background to Evolution in Africa, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp.601–621.

Clark, J. D. (1990). A personal memoir. In Robertshaw, P. (ed.),A History of African Archaeology,James Currey, London, pp. 189–205.

Clark, J. D., and Kleindienst, M. R. (1969). The excavations: Site A. In Cole, G. H., Haldemann, E.G., Kleindienst, M. R., and Van Zinderen Bakker, E. M. (eds.),Kalambo Falls Prehistoric Site I,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 85–152.

Clark, J. D. and Kleindienst, M. R. (1974). The Stone Age cultural sequence: Terminology, typology,and raw material. In Clark, J. D., Fagan, M., Kleindienst, M. R., and Van Noten, F. (eds.),KalamboFalls Prehistoric Site II, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 71–106.

Clark, J. D., Cole, G. H., Haldemann, E. G., Kleindienst, M. R., and Van Zinderen Bakker, E. M.(1969).Kalambo Falls Prehistoric Site I, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Cohen, A. (1999). Mary Elizabeth Barber. The Bowkers and South African Prehistory.South AfricanArchaeological Bulletin54: 120–127.

Cohen, M. (1970). A reassessment of the stone bowl cultures of the Rift Valley, Kenya.AzaniaV:27–38.

Cole, S. (1952). Second Pan African Congress on prehistory.South African Archaeological Bulletin7:150–152.

Cole, S. (1954a). Modern methods of dating.South African Archaeological Bulletin9: 19–24.Cole, S. (1954b).The Prehistory of East Africa, Pelican Books, London.Cole, S. (1968).Early Man in East Africa, MacMillan and Co, London.Cole, S. (1975).Leakey’s Luck, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York.




Cole, G., and Kleindienst, M. R. (1974). Further reflections on the Isimla Acheulian.QuaternaryResearch4: 346–355.

Cole J. R., and Zuckerman, H. (1984). The productivity puzzle. In Maehr, M. L., and Steincamp,M. W. (eds.),Advances in Motivation and Achievement: Women in Science, JAI Press, Greenwich,Conneticut, pp. 217–258.

Cole, J. R., and Zuckerman, H. (1987). Marriage, motherhood and research performance in science.Scientific AmericanFebruary: 119–125.

Collett, D. P., and Robertshaw P. T. (1983). Pottery traditions of early pastoral communities in Kenya.AzaniaXVIII : 107–125.

Cotton, J. S. (1892, April 23). Obituary for Amelia Edwards.The Academy: p. 398.Curtin, P., Feierman, S., Thompson, L., and Vansina, J. (1991).African History, Longman, London.Dale, L. (1870). Stone implements of South Africa.Cape MonthlyI : 236–239.Damm, C. (1986). An Appeal for women in archaeology.Archaeological Review from Cambridge5:

215–218.Davis, W. (1990). The study of rock art in Africa. In Robertshaw, P. (ed.),A History of African

Archaeology, James Currey, London, pp. 271–295.Deacon, J. (ed.) (1986). Obituary.South African Archaeological Bulletin41: 45.Deacon, J. (1990). Weaving the fabric of Stone Age research in southern Africa. In Robertshaw, P.

(ed.),A History of African Archaeology, James Currey, London, pp. 39–58.de Beauvoir, S. (1974).The Second Sex, New York, Vintage Books.Diaz-Andreu, M. (1998). Spanish women in a changing world. In Diaz-Andreu, M., and Sørensen,

M. L. S. (eds.),Excavating Women: A History of Women in European Archaeology, Routledge,London, pp. 105–124.

Diaz-Andreu, M., and Gallego, N. (1994). Women in Spanish archaeology. In Nelson, M. C., Nelson,S. M., and Wylie, A. (eds.),Equity Issues for Women in Archaeology, Archaeological Papers, No.5, American Anthropological Association, Washington DC, pp. 121–130.

Diaz-Andreu, M., and Sørensen, M. L. S. (eds.) (1998a).Excavating Women: A History of Women inEuropean Archaeology, Routledge, London.

Diaz-Andreu, M., and Sørensen, M. L. S. (1998b). Excavating Women: Toward an Engendered Historyof Archaeology. In Diaz-Andreu, M., and Sørensen, M. L. S. (eds.),Excavating Women: A Historyof Women in European Archaeology, Routledge, London, pp. 1–30.

di Leonard, M. (1991). Introduction: Gender, culture, and political economy. In di Leonard, M. (ed.),Gender at the Crossroads of Knowledge: Feminists Anthropology in the Postmodern Era, Univer-sity of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 3–45.

Dincauze, D. F. (1992). Exploring career styles in archaeology. In Reyman, J. E. (ed.),RediscoveringOur Past: Essays on the History of American Archaeology, Avebury, Aldershot, pp. 131–136.

Dommasnes, L. H. (1990). Feminist Archaeology: Critique or Theory Building. In Baker, F., andThomas, J. (ed.),Writing About the Past in the Present, St. David’s University College Press,Lampeter, pp. 24–31.

Dommasnes, L. H., Kleppe E. J., Mandt, G., and Næss, J. R. (1998). Women archaeologists in retrospect:The Norwegian case. In Diaz-Andreu, M., and Sørensen, M. L. S. (eds.),Excavating Women: AHistory of Women in European Archaeology, Routledge, London, pp. 105–124.

Droop, J. P. (1915).Archaeological Excavation, The University Press, Cambridge.du Cros, H. (1993). Female skeletons in the closet: An historical look at women in Australian archae-

ology. In du Cros, H., and Smith, L. (eds.),Women in Archaeology: A Feminist Critique, TheAustralian National University Press, Canberra Australia, pp. 239–244.

du Cros, H., and Smith, L. (eds.) (1993).Women in Archaeology: A Feminist Critique, The AustralianNational University Press, Canberra Australia.

Edwards, A. (1877).A Thousand Miles Up the Nile, A. L. Burt, New York.Edwards, A. (1891).Pharaohs, Fellahs, and Explorers, Harper and Brothers, New York.Engelstad, E., Mandt, G., and Næss, J. (1994). Equity issues in Norwegian archaeology. In Nelson,

M. C., Nelson, S. M., and Wylie, A. (eds.),Equity Issues for Women in Archaeology, Archaeo-logical Papers, No. 5, American Anthropological Association, Washington DC, pp. 139–146.

Eyo, E. (1974). Excavations at Odo-Ogbe Street and Lafogido, Ife, Nigeria.West African Journal ofArchaeology4: 99–110.

Fagan, B. M. (1975).The Rape of the Nile, Macdonald and Jane, London.



40 Weedman

Fagan, B. M. (1981). Two hundred and four years of African archaeology. In Evans, J. D. (ed.),Antiquityand Man: Essays in Honor of Glyn Daniel, Thames and Hudson, London, pp. 42–51.

Fagan, B. M., and Lofgren, L. (1966a). An archaeological note on a survey of the Sese Islands.TheUganda Journal30: 81–86.

Fagan, B. M., and Lofgren, L. (1966b). Archaeological sites on the Nile Chobe confluence.The UgandaJournal30: 201–206.

Fee, E. (1982). A feminist critique of scientific objectivity.Science for the People14(4): 8.Fisherman, P. (1990). Conversational insecurity. In D. Cameron (ed.),The Feminist Critique of Lan-

guage, London, Routledge, pp. 234–241.Flax, J. (1976). Do feminists need Marxism?QUEST: A Feminist QuarterlyIII (1): 46–58.Ford, A., and Hundt, A. (1994). Equity in academia—why the best men still win: An examination

of women and men in Mesoamerican archaeology. In Nelson, M. C., Nelson, S. M., and Wylie,A. (eds.),Equity Issues for Women in Archaeology, Archaeological Papers, No. 5, AmericanAnthropological Association, Washington DC, pp. 147–156.

Freed, R. S., Freed, S. A., and Clark, S. A. (1977). Male and Female Anthropologists,Annals of theNew York Academy of Sciences293: 25–50.

Frobenius, L. (1913).The Voice of Africa, Hutchinson and Co., LondonGabel, C. (1985). Archaeology in Sub-Saharan Africa.International Journal of African Historical

Studies18: 241–265.Garlake, M. (1967a). Kitchen conservation: Cleaning corroded iron.South African Archaeological

Bulletin22: 155.Garlake, M. (1967b). A new method for restoring pottery.South African Archaeological Bulletin22:

156.Garlake, M. (1969). Cleaning corroded copper.South African Archaeological Bulletin24: 30.Gero, J. M. (1985). Socio-politics of archaeology and the woman-at-home ideology.American Antiquity

50: 342–350.Gero, J. M. (1988). Gender bias in archaeology: Here, then and now. In Rosser, S. V. (ed.),Femi-

nism Within the Science and Health Care Professions: Overcoming Resistance, Pergamon Press,Oxford, pp. 33–43.

Gero, J. M. (1994). Excavation Bias and the woman-at-home ideology. In Nelson, M. C., Nelson,S. M., and Wylie, A. (eds.),Equity Issues for Women in Archaeology, Archaeological Papers, No.5, American Anthropological Association, Washington DC, pp. 37–42.

Gero, J. M., Lacey, D., and Blakey, M. (eds.) (1983).The Socio-Politics of Archaeology, University ofMassachusetts, Amherst.

Gifford, P., and Louis W. R. (1988).Decolonization and African Independence, Yale University Press,New Haven.

Gifford-Gonzalez, D. (1998). Gender and early pastoralists in East Africa. In Kent, S. (ed.),Gender inAfrican Prehistory, Walnut Creek, London, pp. 115–138.

Gooch, W. D. (1881). The Stone Age of South Africa.Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute11: 124–182.

Goodwin, A. J. H. (1935). A Commentary on the history and present position of South African prehis-tory. Bantu Studies9: 291–417.

Goodwin, A. J. H. (ed.) (1945). Editorial.South African Archaeological Bulletin1: 25.Goodwin, A. J. H. (ed.) (1947). Obituary.South African Archaeological Bulletin2: 106.Goodwin, A. J. H. (ed.) (1948a). Editorial.South African Archaeological Bulletin3: 10.Goodwin, A. J. H. (ed.) (1948b). Obituary.South African Archaeological Bulletin3: 48Goodwin, A. J. H. (ed.) (1950). Obituary.South African Archaeological Bulletin5: 25.Goodwin, A. J. H. (ed.) (1954). Editorial.South African Archaeological Bulletin9: 1.Goodwin, A. J. H. (ed.) (1957). Obituary.South African Archaeological Bulletin12: 152.Goodwin, A. J. H., and Van Reit Lowe, C. (1929). The Stone Age cultures of South Africa.Annals of

the South African Museum27: 1–289.Goulding, M., and Buckley, K. (1994). Training and working environments for women and men in ar-

chaeology: Victoria, Australia. In Nelson, M. C., Nelson, S. M., and Wylie, A. (eds.),Equity Issuesfor Women in Archaeology, Archaeological Papers, No. 5, American Anthropological Association,Washington DC, pp. 43–46.

Gowlett, J. A. J. (1990). Archaeological studies of human origins and early prehistory in Africa. InRobertshaw, P. (ed.),A History of African Archaeology, James Currey, London, pp. 13–38.




Gregory, J. W. (1896).The Great Rift Valley, Frank Cass, London.Hall, M. (1990).Farmers, Kings, and Traders: The People of Southern Africa, 200–1860, University

of Chicago Press, Chicago.Hall, R. N. (1905).Great Zimbabwe, Methuen, London.Hansen, K. T. (1992). White women in a changing world. In Chaudhuri, N., and Stobel, M. (eds.),

Western Women and Imperialism, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, pp. 247–268.Harding, J. R. (1950a). Paintings of robed figures in Basutoland.South African Archaeological Bulletin

5: 133–136Harding, J. R. (1950b). A remarkable rock painting in the Bethlehem District, OFS.South African

Archaeological Bulletin5: 51–54.Harding, J. R. (1951). The Makhetah cave paintings.South African Archaeological Bulletin6: 52.Harding, J. R. (1954). A golden ram head from Ashanti.ManLIV : 132.Harding, J. R. (1957). A carved pumice head from New Zealand.ManLVII : 99.Harding, J. R. (1960). Two Frankish beads from the coast of Tanganyika.Medieval Archaeology4:

126–127.Harding, J. R. (1961a). Late Stone Age sites on the Tanganyika Coast.ManLXI : 192.Harding, J. R. (1961b). Mwali dolls of Wozaro. Man LXI: 72.Harding, J. R. (1962a). On some crucibles and associated finds from the coast of Tanganyika.Man

LXII : 180.Harding, J. R. (1962b). Nineteenth century trade beads in Tanganyika.ManLXII : 104.Harding, J. R. (1963). A note on holed stones and rain stones in the Lake Rukwa District of Tanganyika.

ManLXIII : 194.Harding, J. R. (1964). A note on conus shell disc ornaments in Swaziland.ManLXIV : 185.Harding, J. R. (1968a). Interpreting the White Lady rock painting of South West Africa.South African

Archaeological Bulletin23: 31–34.Harding, J. R. (1968b). Note on a rock painting near Leribe in Lesotho.South African Archaeological

Bulletin23: 150.Harding, J. R. (1976). Certain Upper Paleolithic Venus: Statuettes considered in relation to the patho-

logical condition known as massive hypertrophy of the breasts.Man II : 271–272.Harding, J. R. (1978). Glass beads and early trading posts on the east coast of Africa.South African

Archaeological Bulletin33: 3–4.Harding, S. (1998).Is Science Multicultural? Postcolonialism, Feminisms, and Epistemologies, Indiana

University Press, Bloomington.Hassan, F. (1988). The predynastic of Egypt.Journal of World Archaeology2(2): 135–185.Hassan, F. (1992). Primeval goddess to divine king: The mythogenesis of power in the early Egyptian

state. In Friedman, R., and Adams, B. (eds.),The Followers of Horus: Studies Dedicated to MichaelAllen Hoffman 1944–1990, Egyptian Studies Association Publication No. 2, Oxbow Monograph20, Oxford, pp. 307–322.

Hobley, C. W. (1925). The Kariandduss deposits of the Rift Valley.Journal of East African NaturalHistory Society1: 52–56.

Hoffman, M. A. (1991).Egypt Before the Pharaohs, The University of Texas Press, Austin.Holden, P. (1984).Women Administrative Officers in Colonial Africa 1944–1960, Oxford Development

Records, Oxford.Holloway, M. (1994). Unearthing history: Profile: Mary Leakey.Scientific American271(4): 7–38.Hudson, S. (1998). Institutional and gender effects on academic hiring practices.Society for American

Archaeology Bulletin16(4): 19–21, 26.Irwin-Williams, C. (1990). Women in the field. In Kass-Simon, G., and Farnes, P (eds.),Women of

Science, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, pp. 1–41.Jaggar, A. M. (1983).Feminist Politics and Human Nature, Rowman and Allanheld, Totowa, NJ.Johnson, C. (1981). Madam Alimotu Pelewura and the Lagos market women.Tarikh25: 1–10.Jørgensen, L. B. (1998). The State of Denmark. In Diaz-Andreu, M., and Sørensen, M. L. S. (eds.),

Excavating Women: A History of Women in European Archaeology, Routledge, London, pp. 214–234.

Juritz, C. F. (1918–1919). Science and progress in South Africa.Journal of the African Society18:88–101.

Kappeli, A. (1993). Feminists Scenes. In Fraisse, G., and Perrot, M. (eds.),A History of Women, HarvardUniversity Press, London, pp. 428–514.



42 Weedman

Kastner, S., Maier, V., and Sch¨ulke, A. (1998). From pictures to stories: Traces of female Ph.D.graduates from the Department of Prehistoric Archaeology, University of T¨ubingen, Germany.In Diaz-Andreu, M., and Sørensen, M. L. S. (eds.),Excavating Women: A History of Women inEuropean Archaeology, Routledge, London, pp. 266–294.

Kehoe, A. (1992). The muted class: Unshackling tradition. In Claassen, C. (ed.),Exploring GenderThrough Archaeology, Prehistory Press, Madison, pp. 23–32.

Kelley, J. (1992). Being and becoming. In Reyman, J. E. (ed.),Rediscovering Our Past: Essays on theHistory of American Archaeology, Avebury, Aldershot, pp. 81–90.

Kelley, J., and Hill, W. (1994). Relationships between graduate training and placement in Canadianarchaeology. In Nelson, M. C., Nelson, S. M., and Wylie, A. (eds.),Equity Issues for Women inArchaeology, Archaeological Papers No. 5, American Anthropological Association, WashingtonDC, pp. 47–52.

Kense, F. J. (1990). Archaeology in anglophone West Africa. In Robertshaw, P. (ed.),A History ofAfrican Archaeology, James Currey, London, pp. 135–154.

Kenyon, K. (1931). Sketch of the exploration and settlement of the east coast of Africa. In Caton-Thompson, G. (ed.),Zimbabwe Culture, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 260–288.

Kenyon, K. (1960).Excavations at Jericho, Vol. I, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, London.Kenyon, K. (1965).Excavations at Jericho, Vol. II, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem,

London.Kenyon, K. (1974).Digging up Jerusalem, Ernest Benn Limited, London.Kenyon, K. (1981).Excavations at Jericho, Vol. III, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem,

London.Kenyon, K. (1982).Excavations at Jericho, Vol. IV, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem,

London.Kenyon, K. (1983).Excavations at Jericho, Vol. V, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, London.Kirsch, G. E. (1993).Women Writing the Academy, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Kleindienst, M. R. (1959).Composition and Significance of a Late Acheulian Assemblage, Based on

an Analysis of East African Occupation Sites, PhD Dissertation, University of Chicago.Kleindienst, M. R. (1961). Variability within the late Acheulian assemblage in Eastern Africa.South

African Archaeological Bulletin16: 35–52.Kleindienst, M. R. (1967). Questions of terminology in regard to the study of Stone Age industries in

eastern Africa: “Cultural Stratigraphic Units.” In Bishop, W. W., and Clark, J. D. (eds.),Back-ground to Evolution in Africa, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 821–860.

Kleindienst, M. R. (1969). Part II: Formal nomenclature applied to rock stratigraphic units recognizedin the quaternary sediments of the Kalambo Falls prehistoric site. In Clark, J. D., Cole, G. H.,Haldemann, E. G., Kleindienst, M. R., and Van Zinderen Bakker, E. M. (eds.),Kalambo FallsPrehistoric Site I, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 46–56.

Kleindienst, M. R. (1998). What is the Aterian? The view from Dakhleh Oasis and the western Desert,Egypt. In Marlow, M. (ed.),The Oasis Papers: Proceedings of the First Dakhleh Oasis ProjectSeminar, Department of Anthropology, Durham University, Oxbow Press, Oxford, pp. 1–50.

Kramer, C. and Stark, M. (1994). The status of women in archaeology. In Nelson, M. C., Nelson, S. M.,and Wylie, A. (eds.),Equity Issues for Women in Archaeology, Archaeological Papers, No. 5,American Anthropological Association, Washington DC, pp. 17–22.

Laidler, P. W. (1938). South African native ceramics: Their characteristics and classification.Transac-tions of the Royal Society of South Africa26: 93–172.

Latimer, C. (1957). A method of prehistoric art excavation.South African Archaeological Bulletin12:116.

Leakey, L. (1934).Adam’s Ancestors, Methuen, London.Leakey, L. (1936).Stone Age Africa, Oxford University Press, London.Leakey, M. (1967). Preliminary survey of the cultural material from Beds I and II, Olduvai Gorge,

Tanzania. In Bishop, W. W., and Clark, J. D. (eds.),Background to Evolution in Africa, Universityof Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 417–446.

Leakey, M. (1972).Excavations in Beds I and II Olduvai Gorge, Vol. III. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Leakey, M. (1975). Cultural patterns in the Olduvai sequence. In Butzer, K. W., and Isaac, G. L. L.(eds.)After the Australopithicines, Mouton, The Hague, pp. 477–493.




Leakey, M. (1979).Olduvai Gorge: My Search for Early Man, Collins, London.Leakey, M. (1983).Africa’s Vanishing Art, Doubleday, New York.Leakey, M. (1984).Disclosing the Past, Doubleday, New York.Levine, M. A. (1994). Presenting the past: A review of research on women in archaeology. In Nelson,

M. C., Nelson, S. M., and Wylie, A. (eds.),Equity Issues for Women in Archaeology, Archaeo-logical Papers, No. 5, American Anthropological Association, Washington DC, pp. 23–36.

Lewis-Williams, J. D. (1982). The economic and social context of Southern San Rock Art.CurrentAnthropology23: 429–449.

Lloyd, G. (1993).The Man of Reason, London, Routledge.Lofgren, L. (1967). Stone structures of South Nyanza, Kenya.AzaniaII : 75–88.Lofgren, L. (1968). Middle Stone Age material from Sites near Katima Mulilo on the Upper Zambezi.

South African Archaeological Bulletin23: 90–102Lubbock, J. (1872). Note on stone implements from Africa and Syria.Proceedings of the Royal

Anthropological InstituteI : xcv–xcvii.Lutz, C. (1990). The erasure of women’s writing in sociocultural anthropology.American Ethnologists

17: 611–627.MacLean, R. (1998). Gendered technologies and gendered activities in the interlacustrine Early

Iron Age. In Kent, S. (ed.),Gender in African Prehistory, Walnut Creek, London, pp. 163–178.

Maggs, T. M. (1978). Review of people of the Eland: Rock-paintings of the Drakensberg Bushmen asa reflection of their Life and Thought.South African Archaeological Bulletin33: 97–98.

Maggs, T. M., and Speed, E. (1967). Bonteberg shelter.South African Archaeological Bulletin22:80–93.

Mba, N. (1982).Nigerian Women Mobilized: Women’s Political Activity in Southern Nigeria, 1900–1965, University of California, Berkeley.

Metcalfe, M. (1956). Some rock paintings in Nyasaland.The Journal of Nyasaland9(1): 58–73.Miles, R. (1989).The Women’s History of the World, Salem House, Topsfield.Miller, S. (1969a).The Nachikufan Industry of the Later Stone Age in Zambia, PhD Dissertation,.

University of California Berkeley.Miller, S. (1969b). Contacts between the Later Stone Age and the Early Iron Age in Southern Central

Africa. AzaniaIV : 81–90.Miller, S. (1971). The age of Nachikufan industries in Zambia.South African Archaeological Bulletin

26: 143–146.Morell, V. (1995).Ancestral Passions: The Leakey Family and the Quest for Humankind’s Beginnings,

Simon and Schuster, New York.Morris, E. L. (1992).Women in British Archaeology, Institute of Field Archaeologists, London.Moser, S. (1996). Science, stratigraphy and the deep sequence: Excavation vs regional survey and the

question of gendered practice in archaeology.Antiquity70: 813–23.Murray, M. (1905).Elementary Egyptian Grammar, S. Low Marston & Co., London.Murray, M. (1911).Elementary Coptic Grammar, S. Low Marston & Co., London.Murray, M. (1930).Egyptian Sculpture, S. Low Marston & Co., London.Murray, M. (1931).Egyptian Temples, S. Low Marston & Co., London.Murray, M. (1949).The Splendour That Was Egypt, Sidgwick and Jackson, London.Murray, M. (1963).My First Hundred Years, William Kimber, London.Musonda, F. B. (1987). The significance of pottery in Zambian Later Stone Age contexts.African

Archaeological Review5: 147–158.Nelson, M. C., Nelson, S. M., and Wylie, A. (eds.). (1994).Equity Issues for Women in Archaeology,

Archaeological Papers, No. 5, American Anthropological Association Washington DC.Nelson, S. M. (1994). Women archaeologists in Asia/Pacific: An update. In Nelson, M. C., Nelson,

S. M., and Wylie, A. (eds.),Equity Issues for Women in Archaeology, Archaeological Papers,No. 5, American Anthropological Association, Washington DC, pp. 183–188.

Nelson, S. M., and Nelson, M. C. (1994). Conclusion. In Nelson, M. C., Nelson, S. M., and Wylie,A. (eds.),Equity Issues for Women in Archaeology, Archaeological Papers, No. 5 AmericanAnthropological Association, Washington DC, pp. 229–235.

Obituary (1982, May 28). Sonia Cole.London Times.Phillipson, D. (1977).The Later Prehistory of Eastern and Southern Africa, Heinemann, London.



44 Weedman

Phillipson, L. (1975a).A Survey of Upper Pleistocene and Holocene Industries in the Upper ZambeziValley Zambia, PhD Dissertation, University of California Berkeley.

Phillipson, L. (1975b). Survey of the Stone Age archaeology of the Upper Zambezi Valley I: thenorthern part of the valley.AzaniaX: 1–48.

Phillipson, L. (1976a). Survey of the Stone Age archaeology of the Upper Zambezi Valley II: theNorthern part of the Valley.AzaniaXI : 49–82.

Phillipson, L. (1976b). Mode three artifact occurrences at Bagasa in the Middle Zambezi Valley.SouthAfrican Archaeological Bulletin31: 112–127

Phillipson, L. (1977a). Stone Age of the Upper Zambezi III.AzaniaXII : 83–111.Phillipson, L. (1977b). Stone Age sites near Chirundu in the Middle Zambezi Valley.South African

Archaeological Bulletin32: 28–63.Phillipson, L. (1998). Edge modification as an indicator of function and handedness of Acheulian

handaxes from Kariandusi, Kenya.Lithic Technology22(2): 171–184.Phillipson, L. (2000). Aksumite Lithic Industries.African Archaeological Review17(2): 49–63.Poole, R. S. (1892, April 23). Obituary. Amelia B. Edwards.The Academy: pp. 397–398.Posnansky, M. (1982). African archaeology comes of age.World Archaeology13: 345–358.Preucel, R. W., and Chesson, M. S. (1994). Blue corn girls: A herstory of three early women archae-

ologists at Tecolote, New Mexico. In Claassen, C. (ed.),Women in Archaeology, University ofPennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 67–84.

Reyman, J. E. (ed.) (1992a).Rediscovering Our Past: Essays on the History of American Archaeology,Avebury, Brookfield USA.

Reyman, J. E. (1992b). Women in American archaeology: Some Historical Notes and Comments. InReyman, J. E. (ed.),Rediscovering Our Past: Essays on the History of American Archaeology,Avebury, Brookfield USA, pp. 69–80.

Robertshaw, P. (1990a). A history of African archaeology: An introduction. In Robertshaw, P. (ed.),AHistory of African Archaeology, James Currey, London, pp. 78–94.

Robertshaw, P. (1990b). The development of archaeology in East Africa. In Robertshaw, P. (ed.),AHistory of African Archaeology, James Currey, London, pp. 78–94.

Robertson, C. (1984). Women in the urban economy. In Hay, J., and Stichter, S. (eds.),African WomenSouth of the Sahara, Longman, London, pp. 33–53.

Robinson, K. R., and Sandelowsky, B. H. (1968). The Iron Age of northern Malawi: Recent work.AzaniaIII : 107–146.

Rosser, S. V. (1992).Biology and Feminism, Twayne Publishers, New York.Rossiter, M. W. (1997). Which science? Which women?OSIRIS12: 169–185Rudner, I. (1952). Pendant from theSouth Coast. South African Archaeological Bulletin7: 163–165.Rudner, I. (1953). Decorated ostrich egg-shell, and stone implements Upington Area.South African

Archaeological Bulletin8: 82–84.Rudner, I. (1965). Archaeological report on the Tsodilo Hills, Bechuanaland.South African Archaeo-

logical Bulletin20: 51–70.Rudner, I. (1970). Nineteenth century Bushman drawings.South African Archaeological Bulletin25:

147.Rudner, I. (1982). Khoisan pigments and paints and their relationship to rock paintings.Annuals of the

South African Museum87: 1–281.Rudner, I. (1989).The Conservation of Rock Art in South Africa, National Monuments Council, Cape

Town.Rudner, J. (1982). The legal protection of prehistoric and historic relics in South Africa.South African

Archaeological Bulletin37: 5–6.Rudner, I., and Rudner, J. (1955). Archaeology of coastal dune.South African Archaeological Bulletin

10: 86–90.Rudner, I., and Rudner, J. (1959). Who were the artists?South African Archaeological Bulletin14:

104–106.Rudner, I., and Rudner, J. (trans.) (1998).The Journal of Gustaf De Vylder, Naturalist In South-Western

Africa 1873–1875, The Van Riebeeck Society, Cape Town.Rudner, J., and Rudner, I. (1968). Art in the Thirstland areas.South African Archaeological Bulletin

23: 63–74.Rudner, J., and Rudner, I. (1973). Review article: End of an era? — a discussion.South African

Archaeological Bulletin28: 13–26.




Rudner, J., and Rudner, I. (trans.) (1986). In C. P. Thunberg (ed.),Travels at the Cape of Good Hope1772–1775, The Van Riebeeck Society, Cape Town.

Russ, J. (1983).How to Suppress Women’s Writing, University of Texas Press, Austin.Sandelowsky, B. H. (1971a). Ostrich egg shell caches from south west Africa.South African Archae-

ological Bulletin26: 153.Sandelowsky, B. H. (1971b). Notched pebbles from south west Africa.South African Archaeological

Bulletin26: 154.Sandelowsky, B. H. (1972).Later Stone Age Assemblages from Malawi and their Technology, PhD

Dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.Sandelowsky, B. H. (1977). Mirabib, an archaeological study in the Namib.Madoqua10: 221–283.Sandelowsky, B. H., and Cagle, F. R. (1969). Archaeology and allied interdisciplinary research in

southwest Africa.South African Archaeological Bulletin24: 197–200.Sandelowsky, B. H., and Pendleton, W. C. (1969). Stone tuyeres from Southwest Africa.South African

Archaeological Bulletin24: 14–20.Sandelowsky, B. H., Van Rooyen, J. H., and Vogel, J. C. (1979). Early evidence for herders in Namibia,

Africa. South African Archaeological Bulletin34: 50–51.Sandelowsky, B. H., and Viereck, A. (1969). Supplementary report on the archaeological expedition

of 1962 to the Erongo Mountains of south west Africa.Cimbebasia1(1): 1–17.Schmidt, P. R. (1995).Iron Technology in East Africa: Symbolism, Science and Archaeology, Indiana

University Press, Bloomington.Schofield, J. F. (1948).Primitive Pottery, South African Archaeological Society, Cape Town.Segobye, A. (1998). Daughters of cattle: The significance of herding in the growth of complex societies

in southern Africa Between the 10th and 15th Centuries AD. In Kent, S. (ed.),Gender in AfricanPrehistory, AltaMira Press, London, pp. 227–234.

Seligman, C. G. (1930).Races of Africa, Claredon Press, Oxford.Shaw, T. (1960). Early smoking pipes in Africa, Europe, and America.Journal of the Royal Anthropo-

logical Institute90: 272–305.Shaw, T. (1976). Changes in African archaeology in the last forty years. In Fyfe, C. (ed.),African

Studies Since 1945, Longman, London, pp. 158–168.Sheppard, P. J. and Kleindienst, M. R. (1996). Technological change in the earlier and Middle Stone

Age of Kalambo Falls (Zambia).African Archaeological Review13(3): 171–196.Shinnie, M. (1965).Ancient African Kingdoms, Edward Arnold, London.Shinnie, P. L., and Shinnie, M. (1974). Debeira West:A Mediaeval Nubian Town, Aris and Phillips,

Warminister.Solway, J. S., and Lee, R. B. (1990). Foragers, genuine or spurious? Situating the Kalahari San in

history. In Grinker, R. R., and Stiener, C. B. (eds.),Perspectives on Africa: A Reader in Culture,History and Representation, Blackwell, Cambridge.

Stepan, N. L. (1986). Race and gender: The role of analogy in science.ISIS77: 261–277Steveson, C. B. (1982).Victorian Women Travel Writers in Africa, Twuane Publishers, Boston.Stow, G. W. (1905).The Native Races of South Africa, Swan Sonneschien, London.Sutton, J. E. G. (1965). Sirikwa holes, stone houses and their makers in the western highlands of Kenya.

Man65: 101.Sutton, J. E. G. (1966). The archaeology and early peoples of the highlands of Kenya and Northern

Tanzania.AzaniaI : 37–57.Swaisland, C. (1993). Female migration and social mobility: British female domestic servants to South

Africa—1860—1914. In Buijs, G. (ed.),Migrant Women: Crossing Boundaries and ChangingIdentities, Berg Press, Oxford, pp. 161–178.

Thompson, L. (1990).A History of South Africa, Yale University Press, New Haven.Thompson, R. H. (1991). Shepard, Kidder and Carnegie. In Bishop, R. L., and Lange, F. W. (eds.),The

Ceramic Legacy of Anna O. Shepard, University Press of Colorado, Niwot, pp. 11–41.Tredgold, M. A. (1953). Paintings in the Cold Bokkevelt.South African Archaeological Bulletin8: 55.Tredgold, M. A. (1955). Bushman paintings, Citrusdal, and Cold Bokkeveld.South African Archaeo-

logical Bulletin10: 124–125.Trigger, B. G. (1989).A History of Archaeological Thought, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Trowell, M. (1946). The rosette cylinder from Ntusi.Uganda Journal31: 151–152.Trowell, M., and Wachsmaann, K. P. (1953).Tribal Crafts of Uganda, Oxford University Press, London.Truscott, M. C., and Smith, L. (1993). Women’s roles in the archaeological workforce. In du Cros,



46 Weedman

H., and Smith, L. (eds.),Women in Archaeology: A Feminist Critique, The Australian NationalUniversity, Canberra Australia, pp. 217–221.

Urdang, S. (1984). Women in contemporary National Liberation Movements. In Hay, M. J., and Stichter,S. (eds.),African Women South of the Sahara, Longman, London, pp. 156–170.

Van Peer, P. (1998). The Nile Corridor and the Out-of-Africa Model.Current Anthropology39(2):115–140.

Victor, K. L., and Beaudry, M. C. (1992). Women’s participation in American prehistoric and historicarchaeology: A comparative look at the journals American Antiquity and Historical Archaeology.In Claassen, C. (ed.),Exploring Gender Through Archaeology: Selected Papers From the 1991Boone Conference, Prehistory Press, Madison, pp. 11–22.

Vinnecombe, P. (1960). A fishing scene from the Tsoelike River, south-eastern Basutoland.SouthAfrican Archaeological Bulletin15: 15.

Vinnecombe, P. (1963). Proposed scheme for standard representation of color in black and whiteillustrations for publication.South African Archaeological Bulletin18: 49–51.

Vinnecombe, P. (1967). Rock painting analysis.South African Archaeological Bulletin22: 127–141.

Vinnecombe, P. (1972).People of the Eland: Rock Paintings of the Darkensberg Bushmen as a Reflectionof Their Life and Thought, University of Natal Press, Pietermaritzburg.

Vinnecombe, P., and Seddon, J. D. (1967). Domestic Animals, Rock Art and Dating.South AfricanArchaeological Bulletin22: 112–114.

Voigt, E. A. (1969). Prehistoric shell collectors.South African Archaeological Bulletin24: 193–197.Voigt, E. A. (1973). Faunal remains from the Iron Age sites of Matope Coutr, Namichimba and

Chikumba Southern Malawi. In Robinson, K. R. (ed.),The Iron Age of The Upper And LowerShire, Malawi, Department of Antiquities Publication No. 13, pp. 1–167.

Voigt. E. A. (1975). Studies of marine mollusca from archaeological sites. In Clason, A. T. (ed.),Archaeozoological Studies, North Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, pp. 87–98.

Voigt, E. A. (1977). A burial on Groot Hagelkraal, Bredasdorp District, Cape.South African Archaeo-logical Bulletin32: 87–107.

Voigt, E. A. (1979). The faunal remains from Icon.South African Archaeological Society, GoodwinSeries3: 80–85.

Voigt, E. A. (1980). Reconstructing Iron Age economies of the northern Transvaal.South AfricanArchaeological Bulletin35: 39–45.

Voigt, E. A. (1983).Mapungubwe, Transvaal Press, Pretoria.Voigt, E. A., and Plug, I. (1984). Happy Rest.South African Journal of Science80: 221–227.Walde, D., and Willows, N. D. (eds.) (1991).The Archaeology of Gender: Proceedings of the Twenty-

Second Annual Conference of the Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, TheUniversity of Calgary, Calgary.

Walker, C. (1990). The Women’s Suffrage Movement: The politics of gender, race, and class. In Walker,C. (ed.),Women and Gender in Southern Africa to 1945, Clyson Press, Maitland, pp. 313–345.

Walton, J. (1951). Occupied rock shelters in Basutoland.South African Archaeological Bulletin6: 5–8.Wilcox, A. R. (1956).Rock Paintings of the Drakensberg, Max Parrish, London.Wilcox, A. R. (1963).The Rock Art of South Africa, Nelson, London.Wildesen, L. E. (1994). The status of women in archaeology: Results of a preliminary survey. In Nelson,

M. C., Nelson, S. M., and Wylie, A. (eds.) (1994).Equity Issues for Women in Archaeology,Archaeological Papers, No. 5, American Anthropological Association, Washington DC.

Willey, G. R., and Sabloff, J. A. (1974).A History of American Archaeology, W. H. Freeman andCompany, San Francisco.

Williams, B. (1981).Breakthrough: Women in Archaeology, Walker and Company, New York.Wilman, M. (1933).The Rock Engravings of Griqualand West and Bechuanaland, Deighton Bell,

Cambridge.Wilmsen, E., and Denbow, J. (1990). Paradigmatic history of Khoisan speaking peoples and current

attempts at reconstruction.Current Anthropology31: 489–524.Wilson, J. A. (1950). Book review: The splendour that was Egypt.Journal of Religion30: 278.Wylie, A. (1991a). Beyond objectivism and relativism: Feminist critiques and archaeological chal-

lenges. In Walde, D., and Willows, N. D. (eds.),The Archaeology of Gender, The University ofCalgary, Calgary, pp. 17–33.




Wylie, A. (1991b). Gender theory and the archaeological record: Why is there no archaeology ofgender? In Gero, J. M., and Conkey, M. W. (eds.),Engendering Archaeology, Blackwell, Oxford,pp. 31–56.

Wylie, A. (1994). The trouble with numbers: Workplace climate issues in archaeology. In Nelson, M.C., Nelson, S. M., and Wylie, A. (eds.),Equity Issues for Women in Archaeology, ArchaeologicalPapers, No. 5, American Anthropological Association, Washington DC, pp. 65–72.

Yellen, J. (1994). Women, archaeology, and the National Science Foundation: An analysis of fiscalyear 1989 data. In Nelson, M. C., Nelson, S. M., and Wylie, A. (eds.),Equity Issues for Women inArchaeology, Archaeological Papers, No. 5, American Anthropological Association, WashingtonDC, pp. 53–58.

Zeder, M. (1997).The American Archaeologist: A Profile, AltaMira, Walnut Creek.Zinn, M. B., Cannon, L. W., Higginbotham, E., and Dill, B. T. (1990). The cost of exclusionary practices

in women’s studies. In Anzaldua, G. (ed.),Hacideno Caras: Making Face, Making Soul, AuntLute Foundation, San Francisco, pp. 29–41.

Who's “That Girl”: British, South African, and American Women as Africanist Archaeologists in...

Documents

Transcript of Who's “That Girl”: British, South African, and American Women as Africanist Archaeologists in...