This article was downloaded by: [Tallinn University]
On: 26 March 2012, At: 04:46
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK
Reviews in Anthropology
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/grva20
Twelve Timely Tales: On
Biographies of Pioneering
Women Archaeologists
ELISABETH ARWILL-NORDBLADH
Available online: 22 May 2008
To cite this article: ELISABETH ARWILL-NORDBLADH (2008): Twelve Timely Tales: On
Biographies of Pioneering Women Archaeologists, Reviews in Anthropology, 37:2-3,
136-168
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00938150802038984
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any
representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to
date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be
independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable
for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection
with or arising out of the use of this material.
TWELVE TIMELY TALES: ON BIOGRAPHIES
OF PIONEERING WOMEN ARCHAEOLOGISTS
Elisabeth Arwill-Nordbladh
Cohen, Getzel M. and Martha Sharp Joukowsky, eds. Breaking Ground:
Pioneering Women Archaeologists. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press,
2004. viii þ 571 pp.
Breaking Ground, edited by Cohen and Joukowsky, presents biographies
of twelve female American and European archaeologists who pursued
fieldwork in the Old World in the late 19th and 20th centuries. Though
accurately grounded in archival sources and careful citation, readers
would need guidelines to theoretical and methodological issues to better
understand the type of scholarly products that the various biographies
represent. As explicit historiographic and gender discussions are
avoided, focus is placed on these pioneers’ individual experiences. The
anthology provides a wide-ranging but somewhat fragmented
understanding of the gendered character of the archaeological discipline.
Keywords: Archaeological historiography, early female archaeologists,
gendered profession, scientific biography
PROLOGUE
On the occasion of his 75th birthday, the Swedish archaeologist
Oscar Montelius (1843–1921) gave a unique interview for a daily
ELISABETH ARWILL-NORDBLADH is lecturer at the Department of
Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Gothenburg. Her research
interests focus on gender studies, the Scandinavian Viking Age, and the history
of archaeology. Recent publications include articles on memory and material
culture and historiography of archaeology. She is currently working on a
biography of the feminist and archaeologist Hanna Rydh.
Address correspondence to Elisabeth Arwill-Nordbladh, Department of Archaeology and
Ancient History, Go¨teborg University, Box 200, SE 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden. E-mail:
E.Nordbladh@archaeology.gu.se
Reviews in Anthropology, 37: 136–168, 2008
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0093-8157 print=1556-3014 online
DOI: 10.1080/00938150802038984
Downloadedby[TallinnUniversity]at04:4626March2012
newspaper. Sharing glimpses from his life, Montelius mentioned an
episode as he was participating in the Archaeological World Congress
in Athens in 1905. At a reception he was introduced to:
. . . a young lady, Miss Harriet Boyd, who was the subject of much
attention, as she on her own had conducted the excavation of Gournia.
When I wondered how a young, tender woman had been able to pursue
such a hard task, I got the answer that she was—American. And when
I expressed my astonishment that she dared to do such a thing in an
environment as insecure as eastern Crete, I was eased by the following
explanation: Miss Boyd, who for several years had stayed in Greece to
study antiquities, had during the Greek-Turkish war at the end of the
1890s worked as a nurse in the Greek army, and for this reason the
Greeks were so grateful that she in their eyes was sacred. Without any
risk she could move around in the Greek world wherever she wanted.
[Aftonbladet 1919, April 27:8, my translation]
This quote raises some reflections. An archaeological excavation
was far from the common notion of the proper domain of a woman.
The laconic answer that Miss Boyd was an American shows that both
Montelius and his company were fully aware of the fact that issues
which were allowed for women, the gendered norm, were socially and
culturally situated and thereby negotiable and possible to change.
Things that were difficult or impossible for a European women to
pursue, were quite conceivable for an American, well educated lady,
maybe because of perceptions of the New World’s modern flair, or its
emphasis of purposefulness, boldness, and individuality.
The quote also tells us that Boyd had been working as a nurse.
That, on the other hand, suited the traditional gender role very well.
Maybe Boyd herself considered it useful, that she as a nurse had an
unquestionable tie to the traditional gender role when she, through
her archaeological enterprise, was challenging the same role
(Allsebrook 1992:95). It must have been a great advantage that she
as a nurse at the front was identified as a Greek national hero
(Allsebrook 1992:76–79).
The episode with Boyd also raises the question why Montelius
recollects this particular memory in an interview which otherwise
concerns his family background, childhood and some important
personal and professional events. The simple answer can be related to
the fact that Montelius seems to have been a strong supporter of
women’s emancipation (Arwill-Nordbladh 1987), and that he here
wanted to show a remarkable example of its progress.
Bios of Pioneering Women Archaeologists 137
Downloadedby[TallinnUniversity]at04:4626March2012
Finally, the quote also shows us an example of historiographic and
biographical sources, which sometimes appear due to sheer serendipity.
In this case an interview in a newspaper gives us information
about past generations’ archaeology and archaeological personalities.
Sources such as letters, diaries, written memories, interviews, stories,
and even material objects, with their various prospects to survive over
time, have different interpretative potential and methodological
approaches—factors which form biographical work (Gillberg 2003;
So¨derqvist 2006:100–102).
Such questions are the focus of Breaking Ground: Pioneering
Women Archaeologists. The book, edited by Gezel M. Cohen and
Martha Sharp Joukowsky (2004) with an introduction by Margaret
Cool Root, is an anthology of biographies of twelve early female
archaeologists. The title is well chosen: we are shown the life of
women who are walking un-trodden paths and are formulating their
own agendas. Light is shed not only on different individuals’ personal
choices, but we also see how striving and purposeful actions in
societies shaped by strong gender norms and clear notions of female
and male practices played a role during the formative years of
archaeology.
Before I discuss each chapter, I will draw attention to some aspects
concerning biographical writing in general, scientific biography in
particular, and scientific biography about women specifically.
ON SCIENTIFIC BIOGRAPHIES AND SCIENTIFIC
BIOGRAPHIES OF WOMEN ARCHAEOLOGISTS
The biographical genre can be characterized as the life-writing of an
individual, where life is interpreted against the subject’s personality,
her work and achievements, and her time and cultural context
(Possing 2007:46). A branch within biographical writing is the
‘‘scientific biography’’ (Shortland and Yeo 1996; Yeo 1996). As for
all biographical writings, the biographer plays a crucial role as an
interpreting and editing agent. Scientific biographies are often written
by researchers working within the same or a related discipline, but the
genre has also been explored by scholars within theory and history of
science (i.e., Keller 1983, 1985:158–176; So¨derqvist 2003, 2006).
Many researchers emphasize the scientific biography’s potential to
increase the insights of academic disciplines (Shortland and Yeo
1996:6). Through the history of the individual, conclusions can be
drawn about the historiography of the discipline. This can contribute
to a positive disciplinary critique. Within archaeology this has been
138 E. Arwill-Nordbladh
Downloadedby[TallinnUniversity]at04:4626March2012
stated by Givens (1992) and Murray (1999); see also Dı´az-Andreu
and Sørensen (1998a, 1998b), Sørensen 1998, and Gillberg’s overview
2001:52, 60, 63). So¨derqvist points to the multiple aims of a scientific
biography. From a historiographic point of view, the scientific
biography can be seen ‘‘as a method for writing the contextual history
of science’’ (So¨derqvist 2006:106). It can enlighten the process of how
science is fabricated, how scientific knowledge is established, and the
character of that knowledge. Another reason, deeply rooted in the
biographical tradition, is to pay ones respects to an admired scientific
personality or achievement: a eulogy (2006:114–116). However,
So¨derqvist (2006:118–121) especially endorses the ethical aspect—
within the approach of value ethics the complexity of the specific
person is acknowledged. By focusing on the choices of the complex
individual and the consequences of these choices, So¨derqvist
(2006:120) claims ‘‘a virtue ethical theory, where moral reasoning also
involves reflection about the way one lives, carves out a life course,
builds a personality and character, and cultivates or wastes one’s
talents.’’ The ethical aspect is also applicable to the biographer, as he
or she is writing the life of another person, who is not able to reply.
There are, consequently, several reasons for highlighting individuals
and scientific biographies as a research theme. However,
reading the more influential archaeological historiographies (i.e.,
Daniel 1981; Hudson 1981; Trigger 1989) and biographical collections
(Murray 1999), it appears that a majority of the sub-discipline’s
professionals have been male. Women’s access to the genealogy
of archaeology is very limited (Champion 1998; Sørensen 1998:31;
Root 2004:5). Nevertheless, new research shows that women have
participated in the discipline from its earliest days (i.e., Claessen 1994;
Dı´az-Andreu and Sørensen 1998a; Koch and Mertens 2002;
Hjørungdal 2005).
Why, then, is it important to draw attention to female professionals
and their work? Apart from concerns for equality, the
acknowledgment of marginalized individuals and their work, and the
identification of role models, arguments for writing such biographies
can also be found within feminist anthropology and gender studies
(for archaeology see i.e., Wylie 1996; Conkey and Gero 1997:225–
228). Researchers like Harding (1991) and Haraway (1991) claim that
knowledge is not neutral and hegemonic, but situated, local and
plural. Therefore it is important to ask who it is that is working with
the production of knowledge. This is a question of significance
whenever masculinity and femininity are conceptualized as normative,
opposing, of different value and status—and when research
problems are defined and strategies for solutions are presented in a
Bios of Pioneering Women Archaeologists 139
Downloadedby[TallinnUniversity]at04:4626March2012
one-gendered research context. If, moreover, this one-gendered
context, with its experiences and priorities to localize and formulate
the researchable, is part of an unproblematized, androcentric norm—
which has characterized much of our research society—then the
uneven gender division constitutes both a democratic and contentrelated
problem (Conkey and Gero 1997:427) and is also a legitimate
topic, to study the work of the underrepresented gender of research-
society.
The standpoint that knowledge is not neutral but situated within
time, place, linguistic and cultural contexts should imply that gender
and feminist discussions should be of particular importance within
the genre of research biography—and vice versa, as the individual’s
encounter with (research) society is literally situated in the gendered
body. If research society includes matters that are connected to the
organization and financing of its different milieus as well as to the
archaeological craft, its mechanization and technological changes,
then a gendered biographical perspective should bring broad, new
knowledge to the history of archaeology and to the individuals
working within the discipline (Nordbladh 1995:10).
THE ORGANIZATION OF THE BOOK
The above are just a few of the reasons that make Breaking Ground
such a welcome book. In the volume’s 550 pages, fifteen authors
present twelve women archaeologists, who belonged to the generations
of pioneers both as archaeologists and as female professionals.
The chapters are organized in chronological sequence based on
the year of birth of the biographical subject, which has the advantage
of clarity, even if a thematic organization might have been more
creative.
The texts are framed by a short preface and conclusion (pp. v–viii,
554–559). These pages are unsigned, but are most likely the product
of the editors. The editors are made even more invisible as they are
missing in the authors’ biographical statements—even if they are
presented on the inner leaflet of the jacket. That is a pity, as they
deserve to be made visible in this well thought-out and carefully
edited volume.
The reader is guided into the text by maps over the main sites
mentioned, and by a glossary of the most important scholars that
appear in the chapters (pp. 561–563); the fact that about forty names
are listed and only five belong to women is illustrative of the research
milieu in which our twelve pioneers were to meet.
140 E. Arwill-Nordbladh
Downloadedby[TallinnUniversity]at04:4626March2012
On the whole, the twelve biographies are designed in a similar way.
After a short introduction to each subject—which includes family
background, childhood, upbringing and course of study—follows a
presentation and discussion of the subject with an emphasis on
professional rather than private life. Most of the authors do this by
combining chronology and theme. In general, the biographical
subject is referred to by her surname, which suggests professional
respect and distance rather than intimacy. A final section of each
chapter contains a selected bibliography of the subject, a selection of
suggested further reading, endnotes and references, and information
of where the most important archival material is kept—one of the
book’s great strengths. The often-lengthy list of notes is proof of the
authors’ firsthand knowledge of the archival sources. This explicitly
documentary endeavor (Root 2004:3) has been successful and it
enhances the book’s scientific and historical value. It will help those
readers who want to go further, as much archival material is difficult
to find or is subject to access restrictions. About 50 photos are
included in the volume. They give the reader a face to relate to, as
well as adding a feeling for time and place.
One of our twelve pioneers is French, the others are British or
American. Geographically, their research concerns Egypt, the
Mediterranean area, Turkey, East Africa, and Southwest Asia to
Persia. Geopolitically this means areas that are situated in some of
the most contested parts of the world during recent centuries,
characterized by a struggle for dominance between different colonial
powers, between colonizers and colonized, and between local and
regional conflicting interests (Trolle-Larsen 1996; Root 2004:17;
Meskell 2004). Chronologically the research ranges from the
Paleolithic in eastern Mediterranean to the medieval monuments of
Great Zimbabwe.
The book covers a span of 134 years, between 1851, when the
oldest of the twelve, Jean Dieulafoy was born, and 1985, when
Gertrude Caton-Thompson and Theresa Goell passed away. This
may seem a long time period to be considered groundbreaking. But
bearing in mind that the youngest, Kathleen Kenyon, was ten years
old when Dieulafouy died in 1916, the biographical subjects are
brought closer to each other. These women, characterized as the first
and second generation of women archaeologists (Dı´az-Andreu and
Sørensen 1998:11, 15; Root 2004:22), first appeared when archaeology
still was a nascent discipline and went forward when it was in
an optimistic process towards a professional identity. They all took
part in archaeology’s formation under conditions that were fundamentally
different from those of their male colleagues.
Bios of Pioneering Women Archaeologists 141
Downloadedby[TallinnUniversity]at04:4626March2012
The Chapters
The prelude of the volume is set by Margaret Cool Root (2004),
‘‘Introduction: Women of the Field, Defining the Gendered Experience.’’
Root informs the reader of some of the guidelines forming the
volume, explicit stating that the point of departure was the available
sources. The various biographies do not represent any particular
theoretical approach. It seems to have been the individual author’s
own preference and choice to apply the kind of intellectual perspective
towards the biographical project. Root (2004:3) characterizes
this as a ‘‘documentary goal.’’ However, reading the subtext, it seems
that Root was invited into the project at a relatively late stage. This
explicitly stated non-feminist background might have been a bit
uncomfortable as Root (2004:3) suggests that ‘‘any interpretative
biography of any female’’ must, at least in a broad sense, have a
political (read feminist) stance. Root, moreover, explains that she,
being affiliated to the same university as some of the women who are
presented in the volume, is for historical and personal reasons unable
to take the role of a neutral discussant.
The tension between the neutral material-based descriptive
project design and the inevitable feminist emancipatory stance a
project like per se this means can leave the reader with an insecure
and double message. Root solves this contradiction by choosing a
social-historical approach for her discussion. In this she connects
well to the diverse biographies. However, in spite of the subtitle of
her chapter, ‘‘Defining the Gendered Experience,’’ Root confines
the explicit gender-discussions to a descriptive approach in line
with ‘‘the documentary goal’’ and avoids deeper gender analyses.
She also leaves it to future researchers to draw conclusions for a
gendered historiography (2004:29), even as she praises the volume’s
potential.
A volume like this, with an openness toward the individual author
and her scientific approach—an attitude which is inclusive and
welcoming—needs some kind of commentary toward the disciplinary
work of the research which is involved in the writing of scientific
biographies. Regrettably, both Root and the editors avoid such a
discussion. Biographical writing is not performed in a theoretical or
methodological vacuum. Consequently, in line with the open guidelines
to the authors, the biographies vary from chronicle narrative to
focused presentation of specific aspects of archaeology in a life.
Neither of these approaches can be considered more ‘‘right’’ or
‘‘wrong’’ than the other (e.g., So¨derqvist 2006), but the reader is left
without guidance in attempts to evaluate the biographies as scholarly
142 E. Arwill-Nordbladh
Downloadedby[TallinnUniversity]at04:4626March2012
products. In my opinion, this explicit avoidance of theoretical and
methodological issues is astonishing and the volume’s weak point.
Jean Dieulafoy
The earliest of the twelve pioneers is Jean Dieulafoy (1851–1916),
presented by Eve Gran-Aymerich (2004), who together with J. GranAymerich
has published a biographical monograph on the subject
(1991). The research is based on archival material mainly kept in
the Library of the Institute of France. The author has also made a
close study of Dieulafoy’s writings, which consist of archaeological
documentation, travel reports, and historical novels.
Dieulafoy was born to a merchant family in Toulouse, southern
France. She was brought up partly in a convent, learning classical
and modern languages, painting, and drawing. This emphasis on
languages and humanistic ideals was shared by other early female
archaeologists (cf. regarding Johanna Mestorf: Mertens 2002:32;
Unverhau 2002:116–117, 121; Hjørungdal 2005; regarding Amelia
Edwards: Champion 1998:180; Gertrude Caton-Thompson: Drower
2004 b:352). Both male and female archaeologists working during the
years when antiquarianism turned into archaeology had to shape an
educational agenda of their own, in order to acquire the education,
experience and practice which were to create the discipline. For
female archaeologists, it might have been crucial that some of the
ingredients of traditional Victorian education that were considered as
parts of the conventional cultivated private sphere were well suited to
development towards an archaeological scientific approach.
Dieulafoy is one of the few of the biographical subjects who
married. All her life she worked with her husband, a railway engineer
and a specialist in art and prehistoric architecture. The marriage was
childless. In the 1880s they explored parts of Persia, investigating
the ancient cities of Persepolis and Susa. Their cooperation was
fundamental in their archaeological excavations, mapping, and
photographical documentation (Gran-Aymerich 2004:43, 59–60, 62).
During and after the late 19th century, marriage was often an obstacle
to a woman’s pursuit of professional work. If a married woman
entered a profession together with her husband, her contributions
were often hidden within the work of her husband (Dı´az-Andreu and
Sørensen 1998 b:14–15, Root 2004:9–10, but see Hudson 1981:1,
pp. 106–107). Anick Coudart (1998:62) has sketched a different situation
within the French culture. Here, from the last decades of the
19th century, the official ideology supported a married couple having
a shared profession. Gender differences were a reason to ‘‘justify,
Bios of Pioneering Women Archaeologists 143
Downloadedby[TallinnUniversity]at04:4626March2012
rather than reject a similarity of career path’’ (Coudart 1998:65).
However, as Gran-Aymerich (2004:41) demonstrates, Dieulafoy did
not want to accept the traditional female norm. Instead, she clearly
stated that she wanted to take part in archaeology as her husband’s
collaborateur, with the masculine ending of the word.
For scholars who study complexities within the historical constructions
of gender, Gran-Aymerich’s presentation of Dieulafoy
offers interesting empirical observations about her ambiguous gender
identity, pursuing masculine fieldwork with her hair cut short, her
masculine clothing and weaponry (pp. 37–38, 43, 49). Personal
appearance seems to have been important to Dieulafoy’s perception
and demonstration of her gender identity. Back in Paris, she followed
the example of the author Georges Sand and the artist Rosa Bonheur
and always wore men’s city style clothing (pp. 52, 56 n. 4). The elusive
gender-appearance is well demonstrated by the four illustrations,
which express the young girl’s Victorian femininity, the resolute
explorer of Persepolis, the androgynous figure in leisurely circumstances
and, possibly, a trans-gendered person gazing steadily at the
viewer (Figures 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4).
One of the most interesting perspectives in Gran-Aymerich’s article
is her demonstration of how the Dieulafouys’s archaeological
enterprise became a pawn within the colonial project. Even if Jane
Dieulafouy was an attentive and curious observer and interpreter of
past worlds, she nevertheless embraced the national prestige linked to
the archaeological enterprise (pp. 40–41, 45, 49, 59–60; cf. So¨derqvist
2006:118). The chapter gives substantial information for those who
wish to explore early archaeology’s embeddedness in nationalistic
and colonial projects of ideological and economic value.
Ester Van Deman
The biography of Ester Van Deman (1862–1937) is written by
Katherine Welch (2004). Van Deman’s main archaeological enterprise
was the exploration of Roman brickwork buildings in order to
establish chronologies. Welch’s sources are Van Deman’s own texts,
archival material from several American colleges, universities, and
the American School of Classical Studies in Rome, and the enormous
number of photographs by Van Deman herself, which are kept in the
Photographic Archive of the American Academy in Rome.
Rooted in a Midwest American pioneer farming community,
where the independence of strong women was praised, Van Deman
is presented as a forceful, willful, and probably rather uncompromising
personality (Welch 2004:69, 75). She got a ‘‘solid education’’
144 E. Arwill-Nordbladh
Downloadedby[TallinnUniversity]at04:4626March2012
(Welch 2004:70) and in 1898, as the first woman obtaining a doctoral
degree in Latin at the University of Chicago, she presented her thesis
about the cult of Vesta Publica.
In her biography of Barbara McClintock, Evelyn Fox Keller has
shown that women who had obtained a Ph.D. commonly held the
position of teacher at a women’s college. McClintock chose another,
less steady way, working in a laboratory as an experimental
researcher (Keller 1983). Van Deman seems to have been similarly
disinterested in a secure teaching position. After a few years as a
teacher at Mount Holyoke College, a scholarship to the American
School of Classical Studies in Rome in 1901 made it possible for her
to pursue fieldwork. In Rome she was able to obtain scholarships and
fellowships so that, with some U.S. interludes, she managed to
remain in Rome for the rest of her life.
At the time of Van Deman’s arrival in Rome, the city had been
capital of Italy for thirty years and was rapidly expanding and
teeming with life. Restorations and archaeological enterprises were
in full swing, concentrated on the Forum Romanum, which also
comprised the Atrium Vesta, the core of the Vestan cult. Welch
(2004:71–73) emphasizes the extraordinary fact that Van Deman, as a
foreigner and a woman, obtained permission to utilize this important
material for her research. Welch also notes that Van Deman’s
approach to research differed from that of her female colleagues
Euge´nie Strong, Gisela Richter and Margrete Biber, who focused
more on art (2004:74, see also Wehrgartner 2002). Others have taken
this idea even further by suggesting that Van Deman, through
her studies of ‘‘prosaic’’ technical aspects of Roman architecture,
not only broke with a female norm but ‘‘with the entire intellectual
tradition in classical studies’’ (Einaudi 1991b:17). In a thorough
discussion, Welch (2004:87–83) demonstrates Van Deman’s importance
for future research.
While doing fieldwork in Rome and the surrounding countryside,
Van Deman developed the use of photography for documentation
and more than 3000 of her photographs have been preserved (Einaudi
1991a, 1991b; Geffken 1991). Welch (2004:91–95, 100) emphasizes
the enormous historical value of these photos and she offers an
interesting discussion about the motifs both from a gender perspective
and in the context of Van Deman’s life.
Margaret Murray
Margaret S. Drower (2004a) is the biographer of the British
Egyptologist Margaret Murray (1863–1963). Like Murray, Drower
Bios of Pioneering Women Archaeologists 145
Downloadedby[TallinnUniversity]at04:4626March2012
has worked at University College, London and she has personal
memories of her subject, which come across very well (Drower
2004a:132–133). Archival material is sparse, but Drower makes use
of Murray’s autobiography (Murray 1963). It is interesting to note
the weighting that Murray gave to certain events of her life at the
expense of others that she chose to omit (Drower 2004a:115).
These are about gendered responsibilities that might have rendered
Murray’s participation in the scholarly world more difficult.
Did Murray want to repress such obstacles? As Drower
contextualizes Murray’s scientific production in relation to the
contemporary research society she is able to demonstrate how
Murray’s scientific endeavors are marked by her position as the
only woman in a masculine academy.
Growing up in India, educated in India, England, and Germany,
Murray began her Egyptian studies at University College in London.
Her teacher, Sir Flinders Petrie (Drower 1999), soon realized her
pedagogical abilities, and in 1896 she was offered a position to teach
the first year classes in hieroglyphs. Two years later, she became the
first woman to be appointed junior lecturer, ‘‘on a salary of forty
pounds a year’’ (Drower 2004 a:115). Murray remained in the employ
of the university until her retirement in 1935.
Drower demonstrates how Murray was given a heavy responsibility,
as she was teaching while Petrie every year spent several
months doing fieldwork in Egypt. To her disappointment, Murray
herself was allowed to join him only one season. Murray
documented much of the material that Petrie brought back (cf. Gero
1985). In spite of this she managed to pursue research of her own,
including fieldwork. However, Drower emphasizes her ‘‘slow
promotion’’ as she was not appointed lecturer until 1921, senior
lecturer the year after, and finally in 1924, at the age of 62, assistant
professor (Drower 2004a:115). Even if Drower does not state it
clearly, her text implies that Murray’s knowledge and capacity was
exploited by the academic world. Her economic reward was
meager. Murray herself seems to have been surprised and honored
when she in the early 1930s was awarded an honorary doctorate
and made an honorary fellow of the college. In spite of these
late acknowledgements it seems that Murray in her professional life
had to fight for her position in the academic world. Within its
patriarchal hegemony, her currency of negotiation was a deep
scientific knowledge, an ability to work hard, and a determination
to maintain her female gendered integrity. No wonder that
Murray throughout her life was ‘‘a passionate feminist’’ (Drower
2004a:117).
146 E. Arwill-Nordbladh
Downloadedby[TallinnUniversity]at04:4626March2012
Gertrude L. Bell
The complex life of Gertrude L. Bell (1868–1926) is the subject of
Julia M. Asher-Greve’s chapter (2004). There has been great interest
in Bell’s life, and the sources are rich. Asher-Greve mentions ‘‘eleven
full biographies; three dissertations; scores of biographical articles’’
apart from entries in dictionaries, notifications in innumerable
autobiographies, and Bell’s own letters and diaries (Asher-Greve
2004:180–181, n. 1, 2, 4–9). The presence of 260 footnotes shows that
Asher-Greve really uses these sources to the full. In spite of the
interest in Bell’s life, so far only limited attention has been given to
her archaeological achievements (p. 142).
Asher-Greve succeeds well in describing Bell’s personality. She
belonged to a wealthy family that supported intellectual ambitions.
She was intelligent, beautiful, self-confident, adventure-loving,
and ‘‘in constant search of challenges’’ (p. 152). She followed a
non-curriculum educational path which included reading literature,
writing, and studies under professional specialists—Samuel Reinach
in Paris was her archaeology teacher for several years. She traveled
widely and learned to speak eight languages.
In contrast to most of the biographies in the Breaking Ground
volume, the structure of Ashers-Grave’s chapter does not follow the
time- or theme-based life chronicle. After Bell’s unusual life is
presented, paying attention also to her ambiguous gender identity,
Asher-Grave turns to the most dramatic and tragic event in Bell’s life:
her suicide three days before her 58th birthday (see also Root
2004:19–20, 27). This gives a tension to the following presentation
of Bell’s archaeological pursuit, as the reader knows that in spite of
her much-loved archaeological work, which Bell describes as an
‘‘absorbing occupation’’ (p. 163) her scholarly endeavors were
pursued against a disharmonic background.
Bell’s archaeological achievements were many. Her expeditions in
Asia Minor and Syria resulted in documentation and recordings of
ancient, often previously unknown architecture and texts. She published
several scientific reports and included descriptions of ancient
ruins and sites in her travel accounts (pp. 156–157). During World
War I Bell worked for British military intelligence in Cairo; after the
war she followed the military to the new headquarters in Baghdad.
There she got a position as honorary director of the Department of
Antiquities. She was instrumental in preparing the new Laws of
Antiquities, which she saw enacted in 1924. Bell also ‘‘worked
relentlessly’’ (p. 175) with collections in the museum of Baghdad, and
Bios of Pioneering Women Archaeologists 147
Downloadedby[TallinnUniversity]at04:4626March2012
in June 1926, a few weeks before Bell took her own life, a new
building for the National Museum of Iraq was inaugurated.
Harriet Boyd Hawes and Edith Hayward Hall Dohan
The two archaeologists Harriet Boyd Hawes (1871–1945) and Edith
Hayward Hall Dohan (1879–1943) followed a similar path of
research. Both got scholarships to study at the American School of
Classical Studies in Athens, and while working in Crete, and Harriet
Boyd, eight years Edith Hall’s senior, supported Hall in her early
carrier. Both left fieldwork after marrying and raising a family, and
both returned to archaeology, but in different ways, when their
children grew older.
Vasso Fotou and Ann Brown (2004) are the authors of Boyd’s
biography. The rich number of sources available consists of archival
material in the United States and Greece, a biography by Boyd’s
daughter (Allsebrook 1992) and interviews. This material is well
used. The 327 endnotes are the most numerous in the whole
volume. This means that first-hand information around fieldwork
material is raised, but with so much information it is almost
inevitable that some of it is anecdotal. The biography of Hall is
written by Katherine Dohan Morrow (2004), an archaeologist and
Hall’s granddaughter. Morrow uses the same type of archival
material as Fotou and Brown, and as Hall’s near relative she is in a
unique position of proximity to her subject, something Morrow uses
as an asset.
In Boyd’s biography, the authors emphasize her personality, with
an independent, curious, active, and sympathetic mind. They also
demonstrate Boyd’s ability to create supportive networks, such as
those from her college years, where she made friends in disciplines as
diverse as botany and art, who could contribute their skills to the
expeditions in Crete. She made others in Greece, where she could
benefit from the support of Heinrich Schliemann’s widow and even
the country’s queen, as well as the backup from influential archaeologists.
But just as important for the success of Boyd’s project in
Gournia was the fact that she arrived at a politically favorable time.
Her support of the Greek nation during the Turkish war meant a lot.
Another fact was that Crete, autonomous from the Ottoman
government since 1898 and boasting a new Antiquities Law,
welcomed foreign archaeological expeditions. When Boyd arrived in
Crete, the English and Germans were already established, but there
were no Americans. That lacuna incited the American opinion, and
the endorsement from the Archaeological Institute of America, and
148 E. Arwill-Nordbladh
Downloadedby[TallinnUniversity]at04:4626March2012
later the American Exploration Society was decisive (Fotou and
Brown 2004:206–208, 225; Morrow 2004: 282, 295 n. 29).
The authors show how Boyd negotiated a successful archaeological
enterprise. In her own strategic way she was able to travel and
conduct field-surveys, and as a foreign woman she could use her
diplomatic skills to make contact with the local people and receive
information about antiquities. The authors do not, however, pick up
the observation that Boyd, while doing fieldwork, followed a type of
cooperation that was modeled as an idealized form of the democratic
government of the ancient Greek polis (Picazo 1998:204). This might
be interpreted as indicating that Boyd explicitly wanted to distance
herself from general fieldwork organization, designed after military
campaigns.
In spite of Boyd’s many achievements Fotou and Brown demonstrate
that the research society did not fully recognize her achievements
for many years. Documents in both Boyd’s and Arthur Evans’s
archives show that Boyd’s scheme of classification was of greater
importance for Evans in establishing his Minoan chronology than
has previously been recognized. Furthermore, it is implied by Evans’s
unorthodox way to present his results at the annual meeting of the
British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1904, that he
was very eager to be the first to present a ceramic chronology (Fotou
and Brown 2004:231, 267–268, n. 267, 268.). Moreover, in two major
publications, one by Evans himself, not Boyd but her male collaborator
was given credit of the discovery of Gournia (Foutou and
Brown 2004:245). Do we here see how Boyd reached her glass ceiling?
In 1904 Edith Hall joined Boyd’s excavation team. Morrow
focuses her account on Hall’s work in Gournia, but also gives some
attention to Hall’s further investigations in Greece till 1912 and her
later museum work in the United States. In her description of the
time in Gournia, Morrow’s main sources are Hall’s letters to her
family. By taking direct quotes from the letters and presenting them
in mostly chronological order, we are able to follow the course of the
work, camp life, and relations with nearby villagers. When Hall
recounts the toils and results of the excavation it gives us an
impression of Hall’s character: patient, balanced and diplomatic. As
these attributes seem to be much needed, it indirectly implies some
contrasting features in Boyd’s character. Hall’s analyses of part of the
Gournia pottery rendered a chronological scheme, which Hall was
invited to present at the International Archaeological Congress in
Athens in 1905, the same congress that is referred to in the beginning
of this article. This was considered a great honor (Morrow 2004:287).
The same attention which, according to Montelius, encompassed
Bios of Pioneering Women Archaeologists 149
Downloadedby[TallinnUniversity]at04:4626March2012
Boyd, seems not to have surrounded Hall and suggests that Hall kept
a low-profile attitude.
Morrow (2004:282) concludes that Boyd’s and Hall’s different
personalities apparently complemented each other in a positive way.
These differences have also been observed by Diane L. Bolger (1994).
Her conclusion is that it is important to notice how two such different
characters, each in their own personal way, could contribute to the
formation of the discipline and ‘‘fulfill their peculiar goals and
interests’’ (Bolger 1994:49). Such a conclusion can be linked to the
discussion by So¨derqvist (2006:110) on the interaction of the personal
life and science-in-the-making. (An illuminative example is bell
hooks’ 1990:135–143 analysis of the anthropologist Zora Neale
Hurton as anthropologist and writer).
Morrow’s biography, with its short, concentrated form expresses
precisely the things that seem to have characterized Hall: no exaggerations,
clarity and focus combined with personal strength of
feeling. Biographical subject and biographical text meet in a sophisticated
way.
Hetty Goldman and Theresa Goell
Hetty Goldman (1881–1972) and Theresa Goell (1901–1985) also
spent part of their careers working together; Goell was a fielddirector
at Goldman’s last field season in the 1940s, and Goldman
supported Goell in her Turkish project.
Goldman’s biography is written by Matcheld J. Mellink and
Kathleen M. Quinn (2004). As a participant in Goldman’s Tarsusexpedition
in 1948, Mellink has firsthand knowledge of Goldman.
The sources for the biography are archival material from her
education and workplaces, sponsors, Goldman’s writings, and interviews
with family and friends. The text is organized as a chronological
narrative, covering a professional life of over 60 years. Goldman’s
archaeological achievements during her many years of surveying and
excavating in Greece, Turkey, and the former Yugoslavia are given
detailed presentations, and her scholarly results concerning chronology
and ancient trade routes are highlighted.
Born in an intellectual and wealthy family with classical scholarly
ideals, Goldman received after college graduation a prestigious
Harvard fellowship to study at the American School of Classical
Studies in Athens. Mellink and Quinn clearly demonstrate the difficulties
that met the women who wanted to take part in the School’s
fieldwork, even a decade after Boyd’s and Hall’s pioneering work
(p. 303; for a discussion of the gender-political landscape of
150 E. Arwill-Nordbladh
Downloadedby[TallinnUniversity]at04:4626March2012
contemporary Greek women archaeologists, see Nikolaidou and
Kokkinidou 1998). Goldman and her female student-colleague had to
organize the excavation mainly at their own expense. These economic
restrictions, which Goldman understood to result from gender
prejudices, seem to have followed her over time. Her desire to pursue
fieldwork for a living, almost impossible for a woman, was for a long
time enabled through support from her family, and particularly her
father (Mellink and Quinn 2004:303, 328–329). These conditions
remained even when Goldman had clear affiliations with a university
and a museum in the United States. Accordingly, Goldman seems to
have taken special care to support other women within archaeology.
Among the Breaking Ground chapters, the biography of Hetty
Goldman is one of the clearest examples of life writing as a
chronological narrative. This structure brings well-organized information,
and it broadens our empirical knowledge. However, as the
various sources are added into a harmonizing chronicle it gives the
life-course a less dynamic and complex character than most human
lives indicate. Direct quotes from Goldman herself (pp. 305–306)
clearly illustrate the observation that those women who were integrated
in the early archaeology had to negotiate within ‘‘a system
which was not designed for them’’ (Sørensen 1998:47); most likely
Goldman’s position, as that of other contemporary female archaeologists,
was more complex than this biography shows.
The biography of Theresa Goell is written by Donald H. Sanders
and David W. J. Gill (2004). Their material consists of documents
from archives in libraries and museums in the United States including
unpublished articles, Goell’s publications, and interviews with Goell
herself and members of her family.
Goell was born in New York. She gained her BA at Radcliffe in
1923, but during her studies was stricken by hearing loss, and
consequently she learned to lip read and used a hearing aid (p. 483).
In 1926, together with her husband and son, she moved to
Cambridge, England where Goell joined classes in archaeology and
architecture at Newnham College. Goell worked at the American
School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem for two years. After her
return to the United States she did not pursue fieldwork until her son
had grown up. She returned to archaeology, with the double disadvantage
of her gender and her disability (p. 485), yet managed to
pursue an extremely difficult enterprise: the exploration of the
Nemrud Dagi monument in the remote Kurdish mountains of
Turkey. Encouraged by her archaeological contacts in the United
States and Jerusalem, she spent 25 years pursuing this laborious task,
raising funds, organizing campaigns, spending seasons in the field,
Bios of Pioneering Women Archaeologists 151
Downloadedby[TallinnUniversity]at04:4626March2012
surveying, mapping, excavating, and reporting the results. In the
early 1960s Goell extended her research by introducing remote
sensing methods by using seismic, gravity and magnetometric surveys
(pp. 509–511).
While describing the work at Nemrud Dagi, a considerable
proportion of Sanders and Gill’s chapter consists of quotations from
letters by Goell to her archaeological colleagues. This can be seen as a
rhetorical device, which gives the text an authenticity and a feeling of
closeness to the subject, but more importantly, it is an intertextual
narrative method, for which these particular letters seem to be well
suited (Hesjedal 1998:105). Written to colleagues in serious scholarly
communications, Goell’s personal voice in combination with her
scientific information show us examples of archaeological practice
during difficult circumstances. This research biography helps us to
explore how science can be fabricated.
Gertrude Caton-Thompson, Dorothy Garrod, and Winifred Lamb
Three biographical subjects, Gertrude Caton-Thompson (1888–
1985), Dorothy Garrod (1892–1986), and Winifred Lamb (1894–
1963) come from a similar British intellectual milieu and can thus be
discussed together.
Margaret S. Drower, the biographer of Murray, also writes about
Caton-Thompson (Drower 2004b). The archival material about
Caton-Thompson is sparse, and Drower uses obituaries, other
memorial texts and Caton-Thompson’s writings, especially her
memoirs. Drower organizes her presentation as a chronological
narrative, following Caton-Thompson’s life from youth to old
age. The author succeeds in explaining the contributions CatonThompson
has made to archaeology. As she was of independent
means she could create her personal educational path. After studies in
Egyptology, paleontology, surveying, and Arabic, she joined Petri’s
Egyptian fieldwork. Over almost two decades she got the opportunity
to excavate at different sites in Egypt, in various parts of the
Mediterranean area, and in the Middle East. She developed a method
of excavation with a careful stratigraphic registration, including
geological analyses. Thus she redefined the prehistoric chronology in
most of the areas where she worked (pp. 356, 358, 370–372). Her
most important undertaking was the commission she was given by
the British Association of the Advancement of Science, exploring the
origin of the ruins of Great Zimbabwe in former Rhodesia (see also
Trigger 1989:133). She was able to show that the ruins were of
African origin and dated mainly to the 16th and 17th centuries.
152 E. Arwill-Nordbladh
Downloadedby[TallinnUniversity]at04:4626March2012
However, Drower’s biography of Caton-Thompson is not as
analytical as her biography of Murray. The reason for this perhaps
lies in the availability of sources—even if the archives are sparse for
both biographical subjects, Murray seems to be somewhat better
represented. In both cases the author draws on her subjects’ own
scholarly texts. Here too, Murray’s material is more abundant, and
her texts show a wider thematic variation. Maybe the autobiographies
of the two subjects are of such different character, that
they can give rise to narratives of different sorts. The autobiography
as an active tool to form ones own picture of the ego for posterity,
‘‘the autobiographical reflection’’ (Kranz 1997:53; cf. Root 2004:
26–27) requires specific methodological considerations (Gillberg
2005). In this case the titles, My First Hundred Years and Mixed
Memoirs might express such variations. When Murray’s title, and in
part also the content, shows a reflexive attitude toward her own life
(Root 2004:27), Caton-Thompson’s title points towards the eventfocused
narrative of the memoir-genre. Moreover, Caton-Thompson’s
biography seems to have an ambiguous background. The autobiography
was privately printed, accessible to a chosen few as it was
circulated only among friends and distributed to a small number of
libraries (Drower 2004b :376). Trigger (1989:414) characterizes the
work as both ‘‘perceptive intellectual’’ and personal, which indicates
a diffuse focus in relation to a target group. That might explain this
biography’s partially descriptive and anecdotal form.
Ofer Bar-Yosef and Jane Callander (2004) are the authors of the
biography of Dorothy Garrod. They obtained access to a recently
discovered archive in Saint Germain-en-Laye, Paris (Smith et al.
1997) and material in the Pitt-Rivers Museum, Oxford, as well as other
correspondence, memorial texts, and interviews with people who knew
Garrod. They also use Garrod’s own writings.
In 1939, Dorothy Garrod was the first woman to be appointed
Disney Professor in Archaeology at Cambridge University. When
Garrod 26 years earlier began her studies at Cambridge’s Newnham
College, women were not even allowed to take degrees there
(Bar-Yosef and Callander 2004:381–382).
When Garrod was awarded her diploma with distinction in 1921,
she received a two-year scholarship to study with Abbe´ Breuil.
France led the world in Paleolithic research, and Garrod’s studies of
museum collections in combination with fieldwork offered her a
profound knowledge, which she used and developed in other
territories throughout her life. Garrod’s main contribution was
connected to fieldwork in Gibraltar, Palestine, Kurdistan, Lebanon,
and France, her second home country. In her research, by careful
Bios of Pioneering Women Archaeologists 153
Downloadedby[TallinnUniversity]at04:4626March2012
stratigraphic analysis, often including skeletal remains, she was able
to bring clarity to chronology and cultural influences according to the
so-called phylogenetic model of interpretation (Clark 1999). Thereby
both great contact areas and specific local developments were
considered. Her field of research stretched from Europe to Southwest
Asia, covering periods from the early Paleolithic Tayacien to the
epipaleolithic Natufien.
It is Bar-Yosef’s and Callander’s explicit goal to relate Garrod’s
life and research to its contemporary social-historical context
(Bar-Yosef and Callander 2004:381). In my opinion this is done very
well. One reason for this is the way they use the varied source
material. They contextualize letters, interviews, field notes, and the
like, creating a dynamic text. Through using Garrod’s own words as
much as they do, her voice comes across very clearly. The authors’
basically positive presentation does not, however, prevent them from
observing less flattering characteristics of the biographical subject
(p. 406), but this is done with an analytical understanding. They
connect their subject’s achievements to today’s research, especially
the implications of new dating methods. This makes the article
interesting not only for readers in biographical studies but also for
those interested in Paleolithic research in general.
David W. Gill, one of Goell’s biographers, is also the biographer
of Winifred Lamb, who for many years conducted fieldwork in
Greece and Anatolia (Gill 2004). Lamb was for more than 40 years
associated to the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge. The author has
used archives from this museum, from the British School of Classical
Studies in Athens, and letters from Lamb. Gill uses the sources
profoundly, with about 300 footnotes.
Like many of her British female colleagues, Lamb studied classics
at Newnham. During the war she was engaged by the Naval
Intelligence Department, where she worked decoding messages. Gill
suggests that the methodology used might have influenced her
post-war analyses of ceramics and bronzes, for example when she
identified specific artists or workshops (p. 427). From 1920 Lamb was
affiliated to the British School in Athens, and she pursued fieldwork,
particularly in the Greek Isles and in Turkey. As a result of her
knowledge in ancient artwork, Lamb was commissioned to search for
objets d’art for British museums, to fill gaps in their collections,
particularly for the Fitzwilliam Museum where she was Honorary
Keeper (pp. 454–455).
Gill’s presentation is mostly descriptive and chronologically
organized. However, such a perspective gives less foundation for an
analytic discussion of life and work. In spite of this remark, the article
154 E. Arwill-Nordbladh
Downloadedby[TallinnUniversity]at04:4626March2012
brings us much interesting information. In my opinion, the most
interesting theme is related to the politics of keeping and expanding
museum collections and the antiquities trade. This is an ethical
question in current debate, and in order to get an historical
perspective, it is valuable to see how the profession dealt with this
issue in times past (p. 454). The arguments to search for and fill
‘‘gaps’’ in the collections (e.g., pp. 451–452), the efforts to raise
money to buy or donate specific objects (e.g., pp. 431–432, 454), the
presence of a convincing forgery (e.g., pp. 447–448, 453), and the
problematic situation that arose when exhibited objects had left their
Mediterranean origin in an inappropriate way (p. 454); such issues,
which have implications for character of museum collections today,
were handled by Lamb. Because of the thorough empirical research,
the chapter can also be of interest to scholars working in general
anthropology and museum studies.
Reading the biographies of these three pioneers, their lives might
appear personal and unique. However, by comparing experiences and
attitudes, we see that the individual is involved in a creative, active,
and responsible relationship between herself and the world (So¨derqvist
2006:118–121). In their concluding remarks, Bar-Yosef and
Callander (2004: 413–414) make such a comparative discussion in
relation to their biographical subject. Through this, their chapter
stands out for its acknowledgement that biographical understanding
can be deepened.
Kathleen Kenyon
William G. Dever is the author of the biography of the British
archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon (1906–1978), who with her excavations
in Jericho and Jerusalem, became a well-known figure in the
exploration of Biblical Palestine (Dever 2004). Dever himself is a
prominent person within this field, and he has participated in the
same research process as Kenyon. With personal memories of
Kenyon (pp. 527–528, 533) and his own scholarly presence—the
footnotes show that Dever’s first contribution to the debate was
published in 1973—Dever’s biography of Kenyon turns to a mixture
of life history and an archaeological scientific discussion.
As the daughter of Sir Fredrik Kenyon, director of the British
Museum and a student of the influential Mortimer Wheeler,
Kenyon’s inheritance was both privileged and burdensome. The
surrounding research society had difficulties in recognizing her search
for a personal identity (p. 526) and her independent development of
archaeological methods (pp. 527–529). She worked in an unstable
Bios of Pioneering Women Archaeologists 155
Downloadedby[TallinnUniversity]at04:4626March2012
research-political landscape, and Dever makes an elegant sketch of
the never-ending complications where British, American, Israeli, and
Palestinian interests had to be considered. Such matters could be the
reason for some of the intradisciplinary controversies which Dever
approaches, but he poses that the fundamental reason for the
disputes is to be found in Kenyon’s field methodology. ‘‘Careful
observation of stratification in section drawing and the recordings of
the raw data’’ (p. 527), methods that were useful in study of the
British-Roman remains of Verulanium, where Kenyon got
her introductory field training, could possibly be applicable in a
Southwest Asian tell like Jericho, which had been excavated by others
earlier, but hardly in Jerusalem and other places with complex
architectural remains. Moreover, the meticulous field documentation
caused problems for the analyses and publication of data (p. 535; for
a less critical presentation see Holland 1999).
Acknowledging both the honor and the challenge to write about
Kenyon (p. 525) Dever seems to have mixed feelings toward his
biographical subject. However, he frequently emphasizes Kenyon’s
skill as a field archaeologist. Her Marshalltown trowel (p. 528),
visible in her hand in three of the four photos (Figures 12.1, 12.2,
12.4), seems to be emblematic for Kenyon.
This biography differs from the others in Breaking Ground because
Dever was directly involved in Kenyon’s research. It is difficult to
avoid the impression that Dever, in his discussion of Kenyon’s
archaeological legacy mainly as an opponent, takes the opportunity
to evaluate Kenyon’s Palestinian research. His arguments are
convincing and Kenyon is no longer alive to answer them: a clear
illustration of the biographer’s advantage over his biographical subject.
BIOGRAPHIES AS SCHOLARLY PRODUCTS
The Breaking Ground volume inspires reflection concerning theoretical
and methodological approaches in the genre of scientific
biography. Some sentences in the preface and conclusion can be
taken as a point of departure. In the beginning of the volume it is
stated that the purpose of the project is to ‘‘examine the lives of these
pioneers. . ., tracing their path from education in the classics to travel
and exploration and ultimately recognition in the field’’ (Cohen and
Sharp Joukowski 2004:vii). And in the conclusion it is stated that,
‘‘Now their stories have been told’’ (p. 554). But the writing of
biographies can neither be seen as a definite nor as a finished story of
a person’s life—an illuminating example is the multivocal,
posthumous life of V. Gordon Childe. With the perspective presented
156 E. Arwill-Nordbladh
Downloadedby[TallinnUniversity]at04:4626March2012
above, the scholarly task of the biographer will be simplified, and the
theoretical and methodological considerations will be made invisible.
The Danish historian Birgitte Possing sees such ‘‘non-discussions as a
result of a myth, that biography is just a story that starts in the cradle
and ends at the edge of the grave’’ (my translation). Such an ‘‘evolutionary
unilinearity’’ disregards the importance of asking questions
about matter, theoretical approaches and historiography (Possing
2007:42). The collection itself is a proof of the thesis that biographers
with different stances and material produce very different kinds of
stories. This is also pointed out by Root (2004:2–3) in her introduction,
but neither Root nor the editors address this question in a
deeper way. By this I am not saying that any one of the various
biographical approaches are qualitatively better than the others
(So¨derquist 2006:105), but they do result in different kinds of
scholarly products.
Evidently none of the biographies is an absolute example of one
specific genre. However, some categorizations can be made. One
genre, that of a chronicle which describes a scientific life, can be
represented by the biographies of Boyd Hawes (Fotou and Brown
2004), Goldman (Mellink and Quinn 2004), Caton-Thompson
(Drower 2004b), and Lamb (Gill 2004). A different stance is
presented in Garrod’s biography, in which a disciplinary historiography
is combined with a discussion of gender (Bar-Yosuf and
Callander 2004). The biographies of Dieulafoy (Gran-Aymerich
2004) and Bell (Asher-Grave 2004) show clear inspiration from
psychological methodology (cf. So¨derqvist 2006:114–116). The
authors of the biographies of Hall Dohan (Morrow 2004) and Goell
(Sanders and Gill 2004) have focused on specific sources, rendering
the authors’ arrangements and interpretations more obvious. The
biographies of Van Deman (Welch 2004), Murray (Drower 2004a),
and Garrod (Bar-Yosuf and Callander 2004) present a scholarly
lifework drawing on a range of sources, while acknowledging the
sources’ differing potential for interpretation. Dever’s (2004)
biography of Kenyon can be understood as a statement in a scholarly
discussion, something which in turn can be of interest for future
historiography of the discipline. In all cases, the biographers express
admiration for the biographical subject. According to So¨derqvist
(2006:114–116), this is most usual within the process of biographical
production, but a theoretical awareness of the phenomena of eulogy
is only touched upon by Morrow (2004:291).
Characteristics like these have not been pointed to in the introductory
chapters or in the conclusion. To illustrate my thesis, I will
point to an example of such ‘‘non-discussion’’ with joint theoretical
Bios of Pioneering Women Archaeologists 157
Downloadedby[TallinnUniversity]at04:4626March2012
implications. With the exception of the Goell biography, the
biographers have chosen to pay attention to the subject’s childhood
and upbringing. Whether a conscious feature or not, this can be
attached to a traditional notion within the genre of biography that
the formative years of youth were of fundamental significance for the
life of the adult (So¨rlin 1997:221). This perception turns the methodological
approach towards the biographical-psychological field.
Such features could be clarified, as they might have implications for
how one builds up one’s interpretation.
Still, a discussion of biographical methodologies does appear in
Root’s introduction (2004:26–28). She raises this question from the
perspective of feminist life-writing. Feminist theorists have challenged
the idea that biographical writing is consistent with scientific
demands on objectivity, as biographical writing consists of complex
and variable layers of subjectivity (p. 26). The biographical subject
incarnates both the object of research and a person, whose individuality
is supposed to be understood as veraciously as possible. In
this process the biographer needs ‘‘to engage in kind of disciplined
subjectivity’’ where ‘‘idealisation, ego distortion and transference’’
should be recognized (Shortland and Yeo 1996:34). Some biographers
practice a research method of establishing a relationship
toward the biographical subject which integrates as much empathy as
possible together with a scholarly and reflexive stance (Nilsson
1997:204–206). This means that the subjectivity of the researcher is
acknowledged as a scholarly method. Such contradictions might seem
to challenge the objectivity of science. Root refers to the way
feminists have treated such issues while developing the topic of
life-writing, regrettably without connecting the discussion to any of
the biographies in the Breaking Ground volume.
Without objecting to her overview, in this discussion I would like to
highlight the significance of the biographical sources. There is a complex
‘‘triangular’’ relation between the biographical subject and the biographer
together with her interpretation of the plural source material. This
makes the traditional dual focus on the subjectivity-objectivity distinction
less crucial. This is also something that Root implies, but does not
discuss further (Root 2004:2, 26). However, within this ‘‘triangle’’ an
analysis and understanding of the sources is of greatest significance. The
types of sources, their variations, original context(s), archival arrangements
and rearrangements, material properties—even their nonpresence
as erased lines or torn page—all require analysis of various
levels within this corpus. This is of fundamental importance for the
credibility of the result (Larsson 2001). An emphatic interpretation and
organization of the sources would make it possible to situate the data
158 E. Arwill-Nordbladh
Downloadedby[TallinnUniversity]at04:4626March2012
within the biographical narrative (e.g., Joyce 1994). An explicit
discussion of such situating makes the subjective features of the research
process more transparent, and the narrative thereby more credible
(cf. Larsson 2001; Wetterberg 2007:135).
Breaking Ground offers an instructive example of an epistemological
and methodological dilemma in current biographical writing.
On the one hand ‘‘the explicit documentary endeavour’’ (Root
2004:3) and the efforts to trace and publish the lives of the archaeological
pioneers is connected to a wealth of data. The data are
primarily grounded in archival material, which is presented in a
careful and informative way. The footnotes inform us of hosting
archives, files, senders or receivers of letters, and the like. This is all
sound and necessary and it is considered as a guarantee for the
scientific quality, as it makes the data possible to retrieve, check, and
accessible for other researchers to develop and reanalyze. This wealth
of well-cited data inscribes the biographical narratives in the realm of
objective science.
If, however, the biographer wants to interpret the biographical
subject’s life as veraciously as possible, the data also will be situated
within the narratives, not only as sources with objectively
accounted references, but as plural voices with acknowledged and
contested wishes, strivings, and desires. In relation to specific
questions the biographer opens up the ‘‘interpreting process, where
the task of the biographer is to value and organize her material in
order to get a pattern as credible as possible’’ (Wetterberg 2007:135,
my translation). Instead of harmonizing the data into a homogenous
and cumulative chronicle, a more dynamic life-writing will appear,
which integrates a more transparent research process. Then, the
traditional subjectivity versus objectivity controversy looses some of
its significance.
BIOGRAPHIES AND GENDERED HISTORIOGRAPHY,
HISTORIOGRAPHY AND GENDERED BIOGRAPHIES
The subtitle of Root’s chapter is ‘‘Defining the Gendered Experience,’’
but in the biographies explicit gender theories have been
played down (p. 4). This is perhaps understandable. It might at first
seem as if a contradiction exists between biographical writing and
gender-analysis: biographies focus on life from the perspective of the
individual; one of the aims of gender research is to focus on features
of structural character, to illuminate for example gender orders
and hierarchic and normative perceptions of gender. However, it is
possible to connect personal history with the conclusions of an
Bios of Pioneering Women Archaeologists 159
Downloadedby[TallinnUniversity]at04:4626March2012
historical and a contextual character that a gender-perspective evokes
(Sørensen 1998:47–54). And I agree with Root’s statement (2004:16),
that the traditional biographies of the ‘‘Great Men’’ of science
represent an unquestioned gendered narrative in favor of an
androcentric norm. A gender-critical analysis of such ‘‘normal
science’’ life-stories would encourage deeper insight into the gendered
relation between life and work.
In this anthology, fascinating empirical wealth is brought to our
attention. It is stated that it is outside the scope of the book to emphasize
a gendered archaeological historiography (p. 16); however, for me it is a
pity not to use the rich and sometimes provocative empirical data for
drawing conclusions in relation to the historiography of archaeology.
A biographical collection evokes comparisons and raises theoretical
questions. The abundance of empirical material can be applied to
gender-sensitive observations in a discipline’s historiography. I will just
give one example related to economy and the organization of fieldwork.
The economic funding of fieldwork was often a complicated matter,
in which different sponsors, such as learned societies, museums,
universities or private persons could be involved. The driving forces
behind the contributions may have varied, but through their support the
sponsors became involved in a public production of knowledge.
Breaking Ground documents several examples when the family of
the biographical subject paid for parts of a fieldwork project. For
example, Winifred Lamb’s parents donated a substantial part of the
costs for excavations pursued by the British School at Athens,
in which Lamb participated (Gill 2004:466 n. 43). Should this be
interpreted as an example of parents who are negotiating their
daughter from the private sphere of the family, into the public
sphere? Or is the position in the public sphere only a fiction, the
economic power and decisions of the family determining this position?
Or is this ambiguous position an indication that the conceptual
distinction between the private and the public spheres has lost its
analytical capability in this case?
The comparative stance can also help us to formulate new themes for
research. I will give an example that might be well suited to the
biographical genre. Many authors in the collection give some attention
to the teams’ residence in campsites or villages during fieldwork. The
temporary home established in professional circumstances seems to have
been of significance for extension of personal identity. Maybe here is an
opportunity to investigate a theme of home and homemaking as a basis
for individualization, sociability and emancipation (hooks 1990:41–49;
Young 1997; for archaeology see Cornell and Hjørungdal 2006;
Hjørungdal 2006). An observation by Root serves as a background to
160 E. Arwill-Nordbladh
Downloadedby[TallinnUniversity]at04:4626March2012
this discussion. She highlights an episode in the Egyptian desert, when
Margaret Murray, Hilda Petrie, and Lina Eckenstein expressed personal
and creative feelings linked to the excavation and the campsite (Root
2004:21–22). Root explains this as a situation in which they were
temporarily loosed from the patriarchal structures and confines of the
society at home (p. 22). Being related to a professional enterprise that is
inclusive toward female emancipation, the process of homemaking at
an archaeological campsite might be a rewarding theme for feminist
biographical studies.
The richness of sources in Breaking Ground opens the door to
developments within biographical methodology to widen the scope of
evidence. This can be linked to ongoing explorations of relations between
individuals and material objects (i.e., Strathern 2004). Welch has focused
on this in relation to Van Deman’s photographic equipment (Welch
2004:95, 107 n. 103, 104; see also Einaudi 1991b:19–21). This can inspire
reflection about the bonds that an individual may establish to material
objects, bonds that sometimes are deeply personal and emotional. Such
significant details or shards have been used by the French biographer
Pierre Assoulin (2006; cf. Ginsberg 1980 on clues; So¨rlin 1997:225;
Wetterberg 2007:135). In fictional form, and with the creative privilege of
a literary author, Pulitzer-prize winner A. S. Byatt (2000) has explored
the biographical potential of material objects. Archaeology, with its
acquaintance in material studies, can develop the inclusion of material
objects within biographical methodology, thereby extending the
evidence for the writing of scientific biography (Josefson 2005).
Perhaps the most intimate biographical source is the experience of the
physical body (So¨derqvist 2006:109). The fact that Goell was introducing
remote sensing technologies can lead to a comment that might seem
a bit farfetched, but which is nevertheless appropriate: maybe we here
can see a deeply personal connection between life and work through
Goell’s own experiences of how technical aids can strengthen bodily
sensibilities (cf. Hamilakis, Pluciennik and Tarlow 2002; Merleau-Ponty
2004). This might have made her realize, how a personally experienced
physical and technological principle—of waves’ reactions against
resistance—could expand the sensibilities of archaeological practice. In
order to develop the methodology of biographical writing, unconventional
ideas such as these, can be studied. Breaking Ground offers much
inspiration for such explorations.
CONCLUSION
Breaking Ground’s greatest value lies in demonstrating, through
highlighting the contributions of neglected and marginalized female
Bios of Pioneering Women Archaeologists 161
Downloadedby[TallinnUniversity]at04:4626March2012
archaeologists, that archaeology is not, and was not even in its
earliest days, exclusively a masculine enterprise. The volume achieves
this with grounding in archival sources, carefully cited and thereby
put at the disposition of the scholarly community. In accordance with
the proposed goals, the project was successful. However, as the
collection of biographies is rooted in various theoretical and methodological
stances, a coherent product is lacking. To counterbalance
this, the reader would have needed some guidelines around theoretical
and methodological issues to better understand the type of
scholarly product that the biographies represent. Otherwise, the
interpretative research process by the biographer is hidden, and there
is a risk of the biographical narrative being read as an unarguable
fact. But just as human life is complex, the biographer as well as the
reader has to recognize the complexities of the various levels within
the scientific process, while pursuing the delicate and somewhat
presumptuous task of interpreting the life of another human being.
In spite of these critical remarks, this volume gives an important
contribution to the field of biographical writing in anthropology, of
particular interest to those pursuing archaeological, feminist, and
gender studies. A number of fascinating and admirable persons are
brought to our attention, and thus revitalized, they can re-enter the
anthropological arena in new discussions.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am most grateful for constructive comments and suggestions from
the reviewers and the editor-in-chief of Reviews in Anthropology. I
wish to thank Ericka Engelstad, who brought Byatt’s novel to my
attention. My warm thanks also to Anna So¨derblom, who skillfully
and with a gentle hand has improved my English. The research on
which this article is based was undertaken at University of Gothenburg,
Department of Archaeology and Ancient History in the
framework of the AREA network, with the support of the Culture
2000 Programme of the European Commission.
REFERENCES CITED
Aftonbladet
1919 Med Oscar Montelius genom tre kvarts sekel. April 27:8.
Allsebrook, Mary
1992 Born to Rebel: The Life of Harriet Boyd Hawes. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
162 E. Arwill-Nordbladh
Downloadedby[TallinnUniversity]at04:4626March2012
Arwill-Nordbladh, Elisabeth
1987 Oscar Montelius and the Liberation of Women: An example of
Archaeology, Ideology and the Early Swedish Women’s Movement. In
Approaches to Swedish Prehistory: A Spectrum of Perspectives in
Contemporary Research, Tomas B. Larsson and Hans Lundmark, eds.
Pp. 131–142. Oxford: BAR International Series.
Asher-Greve, Julia M.
2004 Gertrude L. Bell, 1868–1926. In Cohen and Joukowsky, eds.
Pp. 142–197.
Assouline, Pierre
2006 Rosebud. Eclats de biographies. Paris: Gallimard
Bar-Yosef, Ofer and Jane Callander
2004 Dorothy Annie Elizabeth Garrod, 1892–1968. In Cohen and Joukowsky,
eds. Pp. 380–424.
Bolger, Diane L.
1994 Ladies of the Expedition: Harriet Boyd Hawes and Edith Hall at Work in
Mediterranean Archaeology. In Women in Archaeology, Cheryl Claassen, ed.
Pp. 41–50. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Byatt, Antonia Susan
2000 The Biographer’s Tale. London: Chatto and Windus.
Champion, Sara
1998 Women in British Archaeology, Visible and Invisible. In Dı´az-Andreu and
Sørensen, eds. Pp. 175–197.
Claassen, Cheryl ed.
1994 Women in Archaeology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Clark, Grahame
1999 Dorothy Garrod 1892–1968. In Encyclopedia of Archaeology: The Great
Archaeologists, T. Murray, ed. Vol. I. Pp. 401–412. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.
Cohen, Getzel M. and Martha Sharp Joukowsky, eds.
2004 Breaking Ground: Pioneering Women Archaeologists. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
Conkey, Margaret and Gero, Joan
1997 Programme to Practice: Gender and Feminism in Archaeology. Annual
Review in Anthropology 26:411–437.
Cornell, Per and Hjørungdal, Tove
2006 The Materialities of Home. In Abstracts of the 12th Annual Meeting,
EAA, Krakow, Poland, September 19–24, 2006. Pp. 92–93.
Coudart, Anick
1998 Archaeology of French Women and French Women in Archaeology. In
Dı´az-Andreu and Sørensen, eds. Pp. 61–85.
Daniel, Glyn, ed.
1981 Towards a History of Archaeology. London: Thames and Hudson.
Dever, William. G.
2004 Kathleen Kenyon (1906–1978). In Cohen and Joukowsky, eds.
Pp. 525–553.
Bios of Pioneering Women Archaeologists 163
Downloadedby[TallinnUniversity]at04:4626March2012
Dı´az-Andreu, Margarita and Marie Louise Stig Sørensen, eds.
1998a Excavating Women. A History of Women in European Archaeology.
London: Routledge.
Dı´az-Andreu, Margarita and Marie Louise Stig Sørensen
1998b Excavating Women: Towards an Engendered History of Archaeology. In
Dı´az-Andreu and Sørensen, eds. Pp. 1–28. London: Routledge.
Drower, Margaret S.
1999 Sir William Matthews Flinders Petrie 1853–1942. In Encyclopedia of
Archaeology. The Great Archaeologists, Tim Murray, ed. Vol. I. Pp. 221–232.
Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.
2004a Margaret Alice Murray, 1863–1963. In Cohen and Joukowsky, eds.
Pp. 169–141.
2004b Gertude Caton-Thompson, 1888–1985. In Cohen and Joukowsky, eds.
Pp. 351–379.
Einaudi, Karen Bull S. ed.
1991a Ester B. Van Deman: Images from the Archive of an American
Archaeologist in Italy at the Turn of the Century. Rome: American Academy in
Rome.
Einaudi, Karen Bull S.
1991b An Archaeologist’s Archive. In Ester B. Van Deman: Images from the
Archive of an American Archaeologist in Italy at the Turn of the Century,
Karen Bull S. Einaudi, ed. Pp. 14–23. Rome: American Academy in Rome.
Fotou, Vasso and Brown, Ann
2004 Harriet Boyd Hawes, 1871–1945. In Cohen and Joukowsky, eds.
Pp. 198–273.
Geffcken, Katherine A.
1991 Ester Van Deman—A Profile. In Ester B. Van Deman: Images from
the Archive of an American Archaeologist in Italy at the Turn of the Century,
Karen Bull S. Einaudi, ed. Pp. 7–13. Rome: American Academy in Rome.
Gero, Joan
1985 Socio-Politics of Archaeology and the Women-at-Home Ideology.
American Antiquity 50:342–350.
Gill, David W. J.
2004 Winifred Lamb, 1894–1963. In Cohen and Joukowsky, eds. Pp. 425–481.
Gillberg, A˚ sa
2001 En plats i historien. Nils Niklassons liv och arbete. GOTARC Serie B
Gothenburg Archaeological Theses no 18. Go¨teborg.
2003 Archives and Biography. In Scandinavian Archaeological Practice—In
Theory. Proceedings of the 6th Nordic TAG, Oslo 2001. Jostein Bergstøl, ed.
Pp. 292–298. Oslo: Archaeological Series Nr. 1.
2005 Arkeologers sja¨lvbiografiska texter. In Fra˚n Worm till Welinder, Joakim
Goldhahn, ed. Pp. 163–195. GOTARC Serie C Arkeologiska Skrifter no 60.
Go¨teborg.
Ginsburg, Carlo
1980 Morelli, Freud and Sherlock Holmes—Clues and Scientific Method.
History Workshop 9:5–36.
164 E. Arwill-Nordbladh
Downloadedby[TallinnUniversity]at04:4626March2012
Givens, Douglas R.
1992 The Role of Biography in Writing the History of Archaeology. In
Rediscovering Our Past: Essays on the History of American Archaeology,
Jonathan E. Reyman, ed. Pp. 51–66. Aldershot: Avebury.
Gran-Aymerich, Eve
2004 Jane Dieulafoy, 1851–1916. In Cohen and Joukowsky, eds. Pp. 34–67.
Gran-Aymerich, Eve and J. M. Jean Gran-Aymerich
1991 Jane Dieulafoy. Une vie d’homme. Paris: Perrin.
Hamilakis, Yannis, Mark Pluciennik, Mark and Sarah Tarlow
2002 Thinking through the Body: Archaeologies of Corporeality. New York:
Kluwer Academic=Plenum Publishers.
Haraway, Donna
1991 Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege
of Partial Perspective. In Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of
Nature, D. Haraway, ed. Pp. 183–201. New York: Routledge.
Harding Sandra
1991 Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women’s Lives.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Hesjedal, Anders
1998 Comments on the Problem-Oriented Scientific Biography as a Research
Method. Norwegian Archaeological Review 31(2):103–108.
Hjørungdal, Tove
2005 Instead of a Review: Outline and Discussion of a Book on Johanna
Mestorf, a Lady Amongst 500 Gentlemen. Meta 2005(4):18–37.
2006 What Is in a Home? Issues of Home and Materiality in Archaeology. In
Samfunn, symboler og identitet –Festskrift til Gro Mandt pa˚ 70-a˚rsdagen,
Randi Barndon, Sonja M. Innselsett, Kari K. Kristoffersen, and Trond K.
Lødøen, eds. Pp. 321–332. UBAS—Universitet i Bergen Arkeologiske Skrifter.
Nordisk 3. Bergen: Universitetet i Bergen.
Holland, Thomas
1999 Kathleen Mary Kenyon 1906–1978. In T. Murray, ed. Vol. II. Pp. 481–493.
hooks, bell
1990 Yearning: Race, Gender, and Cultural Politics. Boston: South End Press.
Hudson, Kenneth
1981 A Social History of Archaeology. The British Experience. London: The
Macmillan Press Ltd.
Josefson, Kristina
2005 So¨kandet efter en tidsanda. I spa˚ren efter Absalon. Lund Studies in
Medieval Archaeology nr 38. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.
Joyce, Rosemary A.
1994 Dorothy Hughes Popenoe: Eve in an Archaeological Garden. In Women in
Archaeology, Cheryl Claassen, ed. Pp. 51–66. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Keller, Evelyn Fox
1983 A Feeling for the Organism: The Life and Work of Barbara McClintock.
New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Bios of Pioneering Women Archaeologists 165
Downloadedby[TallinnUniversity]at04:4626March2012
1985 Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Koch, Julia K. and Eva-Maria Mertens, eds.
2002 Eine Dame zwischen 500 Herren. Johanna Mestorf—Werk und Wirkung.
Frauen—Forschung—Archa¨ologie Band 4. Mu¨nster: Waxmann Verlag GmbH.
Krantz, Kjell
1997 Livshistoria—biografi—livso¨de. In Att skriva ma¨nniskan. Essa¨er om
biografin som livshistoria och vetenskaplig genre, Sune A˚ kerman, Ronny
Ambjo¨rnsson and Pa¨r Rinby, eds. Pp. 43–60. Stockholm: Carlsson Bokfo¨rlag.
Larsson, Lisbeth
2001 Sanning och konsekvens. Marika Stiernstedt, Ludvig Nordstro¨m och de
biografiska bera¨ttelserna. Stockholm: Norstedts fo¨rlag.
Mellink, Machteld J. and Kathleen M. Quinn
2004 Hetty Goldman, 1881–1972. In Cohen and Joukowsky, eds.
Pp. 298–350.
Meskell, Lynn ed.
2004 Archaeology under Fire: Nationalism, Politics and Heritage in the Eastern
Mediterranean and Middle East. London: Routledge.
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice
2004 Basic Writings. Thomas Baldwin, ed. London: Routledge.
Morrow, Katherine Dohan
2004 Edith Hayward Hall Dohan, 1879–1943. In Cohen and Joukowsky, eds.
Pp. 274–297.
Murray, Margaret
1963 My First Hundred Years. London: William Kimber & Co., Limited.
Murray, Tim ed.
1999 Encyclopedia of Archaeology. The Great Archaeologists, Vol I, II. Santa
Barbara: ABC-CLIO.
Nikolaidou, Marianna and Dimitra Kokkinidou
1998 Greek Women in Archaeology. An Untold Story. In Dı´az-Andreu and
Sørensen, eds. Pp. 235–265.
Nilsson, Ingemar
1997 Att skriva biografi: Biografins hermeneutik. In Att skriva ma¨nniskan.
Essa¨er om biografin som livshistoria och vetenskaplig genre, Sune A˚ kerman,
Ronny Ambjo¨rnsson and Pa¨r Rinby, eds. Pp. 201–212 Stockholm: Carlsson
Bokfo¨rlag.
Nordbladh, Jarl
1995 Individen i arkeologihistorien. In Arkeologiska liv Jarl Nordbladh, ed.
Pp. 9–13. GOTARC. Serie C. Arkeologiska Skrifter No 10. Go¨teborg:
Institutionen fo¨r arkeologi, Go¨teborgs universitet.
Picazo, Marina
1998 Fieldwork Is Not the Proper Place Of A Lady: The first women
archaeologists in Crete. In Dı´az-Andreu and Sørensen, eds. Pp. 198–213.
Possing, Birgitte
2007 Et kritisk blik pa˚ biografien. Genren med de mange liv. In Med livet som
insats. Biografin som humanistisk genre, Henrik Rosengren and Johan O¨ stling,
eds. Pp. 33–50. Lund: Sekel bokfo¨rlag.
166 E. Arwill-Nordbladh
Downloadedby[TallinnUniversity]at04:4626March2012
Root, Margaret Cool
2004 Women of the Field, Defining the Gendered Experience. In Cohen and
Joukowsky, eds. Pp. 1–33.
Sanders, Donald H. and David W. J. Gill
2004 Theresa B. Goell (1901–1985). In Cohen and Joukowsky, eds.
Pp. 482–524.
Shortland, Michael and Richard R. Yeo
1996 Introduction. In Telling Lives in Science: Essays on Scientific Biography.
Michael, Shortland and R. Yeo, eds. Pp. 1–44. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Smith, Pamela Jane, Jane Callander, Paul G. Bahn, and Genevie`ve Pinc¸on
1997 Dorothy Garrod in Words and Pictures. Antiquity 71:265–270.
So¨derqvist, Thomas
2003 Science as Autobiography: The Troubled Life of Niels Jerne. New Haven:
Yale University Press.
2006 What Is the Use of Writing Lives of Recent Scientists? In The
Historiography of Contemporary Science, Technology, and Medicine: Writing
Recent Science, Ronald E. Doel and Thomas So¨derqvist, eds. Pp. 99–127.
London: Routledge.
Sørensen, Marie Louise Stig
1998 Rescue and Recovery: On Historiographies of Female Archaeologists. In
Dı´az-Andreu and Sørensen, eds. Pp. 31–60.
So¨rlin, Sverker
1997 Spa¨d barndom—mogen vetenskap? Kontinuitet och kausalitet i den
intellektuella biografin. In Att skriva ma¨nniskan. Essa¨er om biografin som
livshistoria och vetenskaplig genre, Sune A˚ kerman, Ronny Ambjo¨rnsson and
Pa¨r Rinby, eds. Pp. 213–232 Stockholm: Carlsson Bokfo¨rlag.
Strathern, Marilyn
2004 The Whole Person and Its Artifacts. Annual Review of Anthropology
33:1–19.
Trigger, Bruce
1989 A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Trolle-Larsen, Mogens
1996 The Conquest of Assyria. Excavations in Antique Land. London:
Routledge.
Unverhau, Dagmar
2002 Johanna Mestorf—Lebensabschnitte statt einer Biographie: Fru¨he Jahre
und der Weg nach Kiel als Kustodin am Museum vaterla¨ndischer Alterthu¨mer.
In Eine Dame zwischen 500 Herren. Johanna Mestorf—Werk und Wirkung.
Frauen—Forschung—Archa¨ologie Band 4, Julia K. Koch and Eva-Maria
Mertens, eds. Pp. 103 –145. Mu¨nster: Waxmann Verlag GmbH.
Wehrgartner, Irma
2002 Spurensuche: Frauen in der Klassischen Archa¨oligie vor dem 1. Weltkrieg.
In Eine Dame zwischen 500 Herren. Johanna Mestorf—Werk und Wirkung.
Bios of Pioneering Women Archaeologists 167
Downloadedby[TallinnUniversity]at04:4626March2012
Frauen—Forschung—Archa¨ologie Band 4, Julia K. Koch and Eva-Maria
Mertens, eds. Pp. 267–279. Mu¨nster: Waxmann Verlag GmbH.
Welch, Katherine
2004 Ester B. Van Deman, 1862–1937. In Cohen and Joukowsky, eds. Pp. 68–108.
Wetterberg, Christina Carlsson
2007 Att biografera en kvinnlig intellektuell. In Med livet som insats. Biografin
som humanistiska genre, Henrik Rosengren and Johan O¨ stling, eds. Pp. 127–140.
Lund: Sekel bokfo¨rlag.
Wylie, Alison
1996 The Constitution of Archaeological Evidence: Gender Politics and
Science. In The Disunity of Science. Boundaries, Contexts and Power, Peter
Galiston and David J. Stump, eds. Pp. 311–343. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Yeo, Richard R.
1996 Alphabetical Lives: Scientific Biography in Historical Dictionaries and
Encyclopaedias. In Telling Lives in Science: Essays on Scientific Biography,
Michael Shortland and Richard R. Yeo, eds. Pp. 139–169. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Young, Iris Marion
1997 House and Home: Feminist Variations on a Theme. In Intersecting Voices.
Dilemmas on Gender, Political Philosophy and Policy, Iris Marion Young, ed.
Pp. 321–332. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
168 E. Arwill-Nordbladh
Downloadedby[TallinnUniversity]at04:4626March2012