Probing the Gendered History of Aegean Survey Archaeology

Abstract

It is probably safe to say that at one time or another, most Aegean survey archaeologists have sketched out genealogical relationships “on the back of an envelope.” It was an interesting exercise but never seemed to quite capture reality as relationships became more complex and alternative factors had to be considered. Michael Loy has made a serious attempt to reconstruct the networks that form among colleagues, as well as advisors and their students, in order to demonstrate that such networks have guided the idiosyncratic evolution of survey methods in the Aegean. Loy focuses on collection strategy, and a few other parameters presented in an accompanying table, as representative of the transmission of practice through these networks. Grace Erny and Melanie Godsey, two experienced female survey archaeologists, take this analysis in a different direction, joining Loy’s networks with data on the gender of survey directors to show the deleterious consequences of these mostly male “familial” relationships for women aspiring to work in this field.It is perhaps appropriate to offer a few brief comments on Loy’s model to place the response by Erny and Godsey in sharper perspective. Given that models are simplified representations of complex realities, Loy acknowledges that many other factors besides “descent with modification” are at play and that genealogy doesn’t explain everything about field methods. Like many a broad-brush approach, there is a fair amount of truth to Loy’s model. Indisputably, there have been powerful groups that, through their proliferation on the ground and advocacy in print, have strongly influenced the shape of survey archaeology in the Aegean. Just as surely, however, much complexity and nuance are missed when the focus is placed exclusively on directors, even within the limited scope of field methods. More importantly, Erny and Godsey remind us that there is much more at stake than field methods alone.One need not probe too deeply to reveal that the networks of survey practitioners, even if only considering the level of director, are far more numerous and complex than represented in Loy’s model. Loy would not disagree with this, but I believe his analysis misses the key point that survey methods are often substantially shaped by reading outside of one’s networks, within the Aegean tradition and beyond. Reflecting on my own experience, I might say that I am a product of both a “Jameson-Southern Argolid” network through Curtis Runnels and Daniel Pullen and a “Sydney-Cyprus” network through Tim Gregory. But throughout the process of learning and subsequently designing survey projects,1 my theoretical and methodological approaches were profoundly influenced by published results and think pieces. Although I never worked within the Cherry-Davis or Bintliff-Snodgrass networks, I adopted many elements of their survey practice. Simultaneously, the Americanist survey literature offered alternative ways of addressing the surface record. This “out of network” input adds a further layer of complexity to the replication of methods in peer-to-peer and mentor-mentee networks.Erny and Godsey rightly question the extreme top-down nature of Loy’s “descent with modification” model, most cogently because it minimizes the role of non-director collaborators in shaping field methods and disregards their fundamental contributions to the narratives a project produces. In a recent blog post, experienced survey hand William Caraher writes: “A more subtle reading of survey projects (which would involve more complex genealogies that extended well below the level of project director) would reveal a more dynamic space for the foment and transmission of ideas.”2 In the same post, Caraher recalls conversations I (as field director of the Eastern Korinthia Archaeological Survey) had with him, David Pettegrew, and Dimitri Nakassis about survey methods. Although he characterizes them facetiously as “long, undoubtedly annoying,” these three brilliant young archaeologists, all of whom have gone on to direct surveys of their own, pushed me to justify my thinking, contributed their own ideas and solutions, and influenced the course of the project. Thus, apart from what the project directors (Tim Gregory and Daniel Pullen) brought from their work in Greece and Cyprus, negotiation effectively flowed across multiple hierarchical levels. The authors describe a similar experience on the Western Argolid Regional Project, which I regard to be widespread if not universal among Aegean surveys, but it should not escape our notice that all of the individuals in my anecdote are male.The authors implicitly accept the validity of Loy’s genealogical model insofar as it describes semi-closed networks that control the discourse and practice of survey archaeology in the Aegean, and they show that data on survey directors offer a legitimate window onto the predominance of males in these positions of power and influence. They assert that these networks have implications far beyond field methods—they have perpetuated the exclusion of women from directorships of survey projects, with the result that women appear nearly invisible in the history of field survey practice in the Aegean. To support this contention, they compile statistics from the last half-century on many aspects of leadership and publication in American, Canadian, and British archaeological projects.The data are unequivocal in demonstrating poor representation of women. As Erny and Godsey unpack them, however, it becomes clear that genealogical networks are just one of many potential explanations for this state of affairs, and that they are symptoms of larger trends in academic archaeology. Whether one looks at directors of surveys and excavations; publications in final reports, Festschriften, and memorial volumes; or even submission of manuscripts and permit applications, women appear in significantly smaller numbers. The authors tap into the growing research on women in the field of archaeology to attempt to identify underlying causes that result in survey networks being so heavily male. Some of these can be accepted without objection, while on others I remain ambivalent (for example, I don’t think survey directors are shackled with cultural evolutionary paradigms anymore, and I am not sure how that is a gendered perspective anyway). There is plenty of evidence that women have experienced gender-based discrimination in academia generally that has inhibited their advancement, including tenure decisions, family-based choices, and sexual harassment. More specific to archaeology, Erny and Godsey find that there is little statistical difference between (American, Canadian, and British) surveys and excavations in the gender imbalance among directors, or the way women have typically been encouraged to take on “female-gendered” roles studying art and artifacts for final publications. Is there something else about Aegean survey that makes the leadership networks so persistently male?Erny and Godsey observe that field methodology has been preferentially valorized in Aegean survey. I believe the reason is fairly clear: Greek surveys of the 1970s and 1980s were essentially creating a new archaeological practice—systematic surface survey—which required an extended gestation period to be constructed, debated, implemented, and refined. This situation created a high-profile cottage industry deliberating on what later became known as “best practices.” The fact that we are still debating fundamental elements of surface archaeology, including sampling and collection strategies, the epistemological status of “sites,” and the relationship between surface and subsurface assemblages, just to name a few, demonstrates that these discussions remain relevant a half-century on. The theoretical and methodological orientation of a project has a direct effect on the narrative each project produces; in that sense, the stakes are relatively high and directors have typically played the role of apologist for the chosen methods and controlled the narrative through to implementation and interpretation. The authors are right that the other components and specialists are equally indispensable, but in this environment they are rarely awarded equal billing. On the positive side, although we understand that there can never be a universal survey methodology, there is sufficient convergence that the need for dogmatic statements is receding, and we can turn our attention to urgent issues of data comparability, dissemination, and synthesis.The prominence of methodological discourse does not explain why survey networks have been so pervasively male, however. The emergence of systematic survey occurred when men held a monopoly on senior positions, often at elite institutions, and were better situated to compete for limited permits. Biases against women in archaeological fieldwork were still firmly in place, and early Aegean surveys seem to have channeled a spirit of machismo with precedents in Americanist survey archaeology. The heroic figure of the rugged, trailblazing individualist mastering the privations of hostile environments, bad food, and various kinds of discomfort inhabited a male fantasy-world. The attitude that the field is no place for a woman is thankfully a relic, and I do not believe that survey directors deliberately exclude females these days, but we should not discount the power of momentum when we see that the second and third generation of directors are mostly men.If the gender imbalance is not a matter of malicious intent or collusion, how can we best address it? The authors assert that, “it will require a rethinking of the hierarchical structure of archaeological projects and a commitment to the ethos of collaboration.” It is hard to know what this vague aspirational statement would look like in practice. I think most surveys are less hierarchical than they may seem and that a healthy ethos of collaboration already exists, but these positives sit uncomfortably alongside inequities in the distribution of professional rewards. While it is obvious that we need many more female survey directors to drive new research, we must simultaneously populate the survey ranks at all levels with female graduate students who will one day take the reins. Daniel Pullen and I were co-directors of the Saronic Harbors Archaeological Research Project (SHARP), but we incorporated many female graduate students, at least two of whom have gone on to direct projects of their own. Our first, long field report featured four male and two female co-authors. These are small steps that portend greater change.This opinion piece by Erny and Godsey is a timely and welcome addition to the discussion about the state of Aegean survey archaeology today, constructively calling attention to a glaring disparity that goes beyond the gender of survey directors alone. In their concluding section, the authors contend that “the pronounced gender disparities in the directorship of Aegean surveys are a surface manifestation of some troubling trends in archaeology and academia at large.” No doubt, but there is reason for optimism. Even if the field has not achieved gender parity, the data are trending up in the last decade, and there is reason to believe that the upward trajectory will be a long-lasting one. Archaeology cannot be insulated from the winds of change roiling our society. The Great Reckoning brought on by the #MeToo movement, Black Lives Matter, and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion has captured the attention of academic institutions and fundamentally shifted business as usual. Though it may still take some time, we can expect more women to be well positioned to take on these leadership roles, and more sensitivity to gender equity and other measures of inclusivity across the archaeological spectrum. Apart from colleges and universities, organizations like the Archaeological Institute of America and the American School of Classical Studies at Athens are taking proactive measures to advocate for the advancement of women and underrepresented minorities. Erny and Godsey contribute to this cause by taking an innocuous, if interesting, exercise in prosopography and transforming it into a call to action.