Margaret Conkey's Has Feminism Changed Archaeology

Since feminist archaeology and gender archaeology have been adopted as theories for archaeological work, the lenses through which archaeologists pose questions and examine gender-based inequalities have shifted significantly. When studying archaeological sites, many current archaeologists are expected to address how gender structures affected their site in some way, and receive serious criticism if it is not a partial aspect of their research. And, while these subfields have lent themselves to the work of many, a large number of archaeologists do not place their sites in context of a larger picture. In 2003, Margaret Conkey wrote a book titled Has Feminism Changed Archaeology? Seeing as she was one of the two writers of the previously mentioned 1984 paper, this publication offers an interesting account of how she has seen progress in the discipline. On the positive side, she writes that a shift in archaeology to illuminate the stories of women in the past has “has enormous success,” and that archaeologists have “come to see the highly androcentric accounts of the human past that prevail,” referencing her famous 1984 as a catalyst for this change.

As a feminist archaeologist, her views reveal that the structural and systemic oppression the subfields of feminist and gender archaeology wish to defeat is greatly weakened in the archaeological discipline.
However, not everything she says is positive; she does explain that there are issues with this shift and that it has come “at some cost.” She criticises that the vast majority of the literature up until 2003 has been focused on “recovering and ‘finding’ women and gender relations,” and she states that there are significant issues with not seeing these ‘findings’ in a constructed and greater context. She writes that a fuller account would have to address “wider social science-related discussions of how gender came to take the center stage, what kind of concept it is,” and further issues propagated by this limited analysis in contemporary feminist and gender archaeology. She also asserts that there is a problem with separating gender archaeology entirely from feminist archaeology, largely because they are so intersectional. However, this complete separation is largely a result of the unfortunate negative connotation of the word ‘feminist.’ It has been misinterpreted to represent misandry and delusion, when in reality, it seeks to break down barriers limiting gender roles, gender expression, and the overall gender binary construct, similar to gender archaeology. This is why the past few years have been significant for the light remarriage between feminist, gender, and queer archaeology.
While it appears that archaeology has been affected deeply by the social progress around it, there are obviously still issues with the ways theories are interpreted and used. However, this current generation of archaeologists is mostly made up of young women, a sure sign that social progress in this discipline is far from over. Things are changing with time, but it is important to realise that different researchers will always have different priorities. While this can seem discriminatory, archaeology is a field that must benefit from a multitude of perspectives.