WP1 was based on a literature search using Scopus and Web of Science on HG and gender/feminist related issues to identify the plurality and legacy of (the scarce) feminist perspectives within this area of research. Essential support was provided by two colleagues from UEL and UCL, both experts in the evolutionary origins of ritual, gender, and the Neolithic symbolic revolution. The main results achieved were also discussed during the panel : „Rethinking gender in HG studies: is the connection with feminist perspectives lost?“, held in July 2018 at the CHAGS Conference XII.
Encouraged by the exchanges with organizers of the Conference, major efforts were directed towards adding the contributions of Indigenous feminist scholars (i.e Smith-Tuhiwai 1999; Moreton-Robinson 2000, 2011; Nakata 2007). Their analysis strongly focus on decolonizing knowledges, and offer an original counter-perspective of past hegemonic European linear narratives. A literature review on key notions was fundamental to gain a deeper understanding of what knowledge movements, and paradigm shifts entail. Differences between Archaeology and Anthropology also have been acknowledged, as the integration of feminist critics radically differ between the two.
WP2 was devoted to the analysis of a survey and a qualitative fieldwork (conducted in France) including archaeologists and anthropologists considering gender/feminist related issues differently (positivist vs interpretative approaches). The fieldwork is also informed by the organizational changes occurring in neighbor EU countries, and discussed with partners from the UOC in Barcelona. This collaboration gave rise to an open access publication focusing on the structural obstacles facing feminist research today when confronted with international competition. Analysis draw here on preliminary findings from the research project.
The survey and fieldwork analysis showed three forms of major and interdependent obstacles to employ gender as a critical category of analysis.
1) The first is epistemo-political and stronger in Archaeology. The conceptual problems involved in theorizing, the ongoing confusion between sex and gender, the controversies between “explicit feminism” and “gender archaeology” refusing to consider the political dimension of the discipline but also the dispute over objective science and situated knowledges constitute four epistemo-political aspects preventing the circulation of feminist knowledges.
2) Methodological challenges represent a second form of impediment. Overspecialization in Archaeology (for example the use of one method only such as DNA bones identification, or ceramic analysis), the great emphasis and social value attributed to technical knowledge and instruments over theoretical aspects often perceived as non-scientific, the absence of written data when studying HG past societies limit the adoption of feminist critics.
3) The third barrier relates to organizational aspects. An essential one being the rise of projectification having direct consequences on the division of academic labor. This aspect allowed to consider asymmetrical power structures within academia, and to better understand the neoliberal character of knowledge production. Projectification prevent scholars from dealing with social gendered complexities requiring more time for scientific investigation. In a particular area of research such as the HG and /or Indigenous studies, this implies that less time is available for reflecting data construction, going back to fieldwork when necessary, learning the language of a population, or addressing ethical issues towards the construction of alternative methods (i.e going beyond the use of HG populations as raw data producers). Confronting oneself with social gendered complexities (i.e the rise of prostitution and HIV/AIDS infection among some communities) and discussing the advancements of the scientific literature provided by Indigenous feminist scholars is also avoided.
In conclusion, these three forms of obstacles reinforce the marginalization and depolitization of feminist thinking. More importantly, it tends to reduce the circulation of feminist Indigenous knowledges strongly advocating today for decolonizing academic knowledges, and challenging universal categories embedded in the Enlightenment normative framework.
The project allowed initiating new collaborations (WP4) with other Spanish/Catalan academics and research institutions (UOC, UB, CSIC, URV), which will be further developed beyond the strict time frame of the project. Taking into account the eight dissemination activities, the seminars and conferences visited in Paris (EHESS, Paris 8, CNRS, etc.), the debates generated during the conferences, the achieved and planned publications (one article published, a book proposal accepted, one submitted article, and another in preparation), the overall objectives of the project were achieved.
