Abstract
The term “intersectionality” was coined (Crenshaw 1991) and subsequently developed and used to characterize approaches that explored the interconnections between systems of oppression. In the context of paleoethnobotany, intersectionality raises the issue of how our own subsets of issues and perspectives intersect. Christine Hastorf and other researchers remind us that we do not just “apply” theory nor just “do” methods—there is a creative and interpenetrating relationship that can yield genuinely original insights. In particular, a feminist perspective should not just allow for, and positively enhance, the likelihood that our investigations will “complicate” our all-too-often essentialized grand narratives. Here I discuss what a more fully developed intersectional social/feminist paleoethnobotany can be from a recent generation of researchers who are looking over their field and its potentials. The overarching goals are to make a deeper and often more complex and nuanced sense of people and plants, a better sense of the on-the-ground human activities, and meaning-making that mobilize culture and precipitate the events to which archaeologists have some access. In the end, some might say that the presence of a seed (and its identification) in an archaeological context alone will “speak” to us, but when in dialogue with a revelatory theoretical framework, that seed will actually shout.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
I have recently tried to do this for another archaeology scholar, Olga Soffer, showing how, on the one hand, she moved into a more social and even feminist engagement with her Paleolithic archaeology research and yet how, on the other hand, we could see its roots in her earlier publications and interests (Conkey 2008).
References
Agarwal, S., & Glencross, B. (2011). Social bioarchaeology. New York: Wiley.
Battle-Baptiste, W. (2011). Black feminist archaeology. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Chang, H. (2012). Is water H 2 O? Evidence, realism and pluralism. New York: Springer.
Coil, J., Korstanje, M. A., Archer, S., & Hastorf, C. A. (2003). Laboratory goals and considerations for multiple microfossil extraction in archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Science, 30, 991–1008.
Collins, P. H. (1999). Moving beyond gender: Intersectionality and scientific knowledge. In M. M. Ferree, J. Lorber, & B. B. Hess (Eds.), Re-visioning gender (pp. 261–284). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Conkey, M. (2005). Dwelling at the margins, action at the intersection? Feminist and indigenous archaeologies, 2005. Archaeologies, 1(1), 9–59.
Conkey, M. (2008). One thing leads to another: Gendering research in archaeology. In L. Schiebinger (Ed.), Gendered innovations in science and engineering (pp. 43–64). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Conkey, M., & Wylie, A. (Eds.). (2007). Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. Special Issue: Doing Archaeology as a Feminist 14(3), 209–358.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: intersectionality, identity politics and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241–1299.
Culler, J. (1994). Introduction: What’s the point? In M. Bal & I. Boer (Eds.), The point of theory: practices of cultural analysis (pp. 13–17). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Engelstad, E. (2007). Much more than gender. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, Special Issue: Doing Archaeology as a Feminist, 14(3), 217–234.
Enloe, C. (2004). The curious feminist: Searching for women in the new age of empire. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Franklin, M. (2001). A black feminist-inspired archaeology? Journal of Social Archaeology, 1(1), 108–125.
Fritz, G. J. (1999). Gender and the early cultivation of gourds in Eastern North America. American Antiquity, 64(3), 417–429.
Gell, A. (1998). Art and agency: An anthropological theory. Oxford: Clarendon and Oxford University Press.
Gero, J. (2007). Honoring ambiguity/problematizing certitude. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, Special Issue: Doing Archaeology as a Feminist, 14(3), 311–327.
Gero, J., & Conkey, M. (Eds.). (1991). Engendering archaeology: Women and prehistory. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Hastorf, C. A. (1991). Gender, space and food in prehistory. In J. Gero & M. Conkey (Eds.), Engendering archaeology: Women and prehistory (pp. 132–159). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Hastorf, C. A. (2001). Making the invisible visible: The hidden jewels of archaeology. In P. Drooker (Ed.), Fleeting identities: perishable material culture in archaeological research (pp. 27–42, Center for Archaeological Investigations Occasional Paper 28). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Hastorf, C. A. (2009). Houses, feasts, and distributed people in the later prehistory of the Sausa of the Central Andes. Paper presented at the Household Archaeology Conference, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, February 2009.
Hastorf, C. A., Whitehead, W. T., & Johannessen, S. (2006). Late prehistoric wood use in an Andean Intermontane Valley. Economic Biology, 59, 337–355.
Hastorf, C. A., & Wright, M. (1999). Interpreting seeds contained in dung from archaeological flotation samples: A charring experiment from the Andes. Journal of Ethnobiology, 18(2), 211–227.
Hegmon, M. (2003). Setting theoretical egos aside: Issues and theory in North American Archaeology. American Antiquity, 68(2), 213–243.
Hull, G. T., Scott, P. B., & Smith, P. (1982). All the women are white, all the blacks are men, but some of us are brave. Westbury, NY: Feminist Press.
Leone, M. (2010). Critical historical archaeology. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Longino, H. (1994). In search of feminist epistemology. The Monist, 77(4), 472–485.
Martindale, A., & Jurakic, I. (2004). Northern Tsimshian elderberry use in the late pre-contact to post-contact era. Canadian Journal of Archaeology, 28, 254–280.
Morehart, C., & Helmke, C. G. B. (2008). Situating Power and Locating Knowledge: A Paleoethnobotanical Perspective on Late Classic Maya Gender and Social Relations. In E. Brumfiel, & C. Robin (Eds.), Gender, households and societies: Unraveling the threads of the past and the present. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association (Vol. 18, Issue No: 1, pp. 60–75). New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
Morehart, C., & Morell-Hart, S. (2015). Beyond the ecofact: toward a social paleoethnobotany in Mesoamerica. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 22, 483–511.
Russell, N. (2012). Social zooarchaeology: humans and animals in prehistory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sterling, K. (2015). Black feminist theory in prehistory. Archaeologies, 11(1), 93–120.
VanDerwarker, A., Bardolph, D., Hoppa, K., Thakar, H. B., Martin, L. S., Jaqua, A. L., et al. (2016). New World paleoethnobotany in the new millenium (2000–2013). Journal of Archaeological Research, 24(2), 125–177.
VanDerwarker, A., & Detwiler, K. (2002). Gendered practice in Cherokee foodways: A spatial analysis of plant remains from the Coweeta Creek Site. Southeastern Archaeology, 21(1), 21–28.
Watson, P., & Kennedy, M. (1991). The development of horticulture in the Eastern Woodlands: Women’s role. In J. Gero & M. Conkey (Eds.), Engendering archaeology: Women and prehistory (pp. 255–275). Oxford: Blackwell.
Wylie, A. (1992). The interplay of evidential constraints and political interests: Recent archaeological research on gender. American Antiquity, 57(1), 15–35.
Wylie, A. (1995). Doing philosophy as a feminist: Longino on the search for a feminist epistemology. Philosophical Topics, 23(2), 345–358.
Wylie, A. (2007a). Doing archaeology as a feminist: Introduction. In M. Conkey & A. Wylie (Eds.). Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, Doing Archaeology as a Feminist, 14, 209–216.
Wylie, A. (2007b). The feminism question in science: What does it mean to ‘do social science as a feminist’? In S. Hesse-Biber (Ed.), Handbook of feminist research (pp. 567–578). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Conkey, M.W. (2017). A Compelling Intersectionality: Paleoethnobotany, Social Theory, and Feminist Commitments. In: Sayre, M., Bruno, M. (eds) Social Perspectives on Ancient Lives from Paleoethnobotanical Data. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52849-6_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52849-6_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-52847-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-52849-6
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)