It is additionally concerned with increasing the representation of women in the discipline of archaeology, and reducing androcentric bias[citation needed] within the field.
Margaret Conkey and Janet Spector's 1984 paper Archaeology and the Study of Gender summed up the feminist critique of the discipline at that time: that archaeologists were unproblematically overlaying modern-day, Western gender norms onto past societies, for example in the sexual division of labor; that contexts and artifacts attributed to the activities of men, such as projectile point production and butchering at kill sites, were prioritized in research time and funding; and that the very character of the discipline was constructed around masculine values and norms.
For example, women were generally encouraged to pursue laboratory studies instead of fieldwork (although there were exceptions throughout the history of the discipline)[1] and the image of the archaeologist was centered on the rugged, masculine, “cowboy of science”.
An assumption behind this model is that women were constrained from certain activities due to decreased mobility resulting from pregnancy and their role in raising young children.
This model has been critiqued by feminist anthropologists, as underplaying the evolutionary importance of women in favor of portraying them strictly as passive objects of reproduction and nothing more.
Adrienne Zihlman, tracing the evolutionary achievements ascribed to males as hunters, pointed out that female gathering activities could just as easily account for such adaptations.
First, the common assumption that tool-making was almost exclusively associated with men was almost certainly false; at the least, women were far more likely to produce their own tools as needed in domestic contexts rather than wait for a man to come along and do it for them.
Many archaeologists engaged in gender research avoid the label of “feminist,” largely due to the perceived negative connotations of the word.
They argue for the incorporation of alternative forms of knowledge and representation; for example, black and Indigenous epistemologies have been employed by feminist archaeologists.
[17] One important realm of research for feminist archaeologists, along with some non-feminists, is de-centering Westernized forms of history in favor of privileging alternative conceptions and interpretations of the past, and exploring non-traditional ways of conveying knowledge.
The public demand for allowing descendant communities a voice in the African Burial Ground controversy highlighted the importance of this kind of work.
Another example is seen in Laurie Wilkie’s fictional worker involved in the Federal Writers' Project, interjected in her archaeological study of an African-American midwife in the post-emancipation South.
[22] The use of storytelling “demonstrate[s] how narrative is a powerful tool for bringing texture, nuance, and humanity to women’s experiences as evidenced through archaeology”[23]).
[24] Intersectional analysis has not been limited to feminist archaeology, as illustrated by the prevalent use of gender-race-class as a means of exploring identity by historical archaeologists.
[29] The use of black feminist work, which calls to attention the inherent connectivity between gender and class in the U.S. has been an important step in advancing the use of intersectional analysis in archaeology.
[30] The intersectional approach faced a lot of “oppositional consciousness” that intervened in the flow of hegemonic feminist theory” and challenges in crossing the boundaries and negotiating with the terms of belonging in the community.
[32] It focuses on the intersection between race, gender, and class in the interpretation of the American archaeological record, and rejects the separation or prioritization of one or another form of oppression.
Though exact dates are contested and variable, it can be said that anatomically modern humans (AMH) and Neanderthals interacted and lived among one another for a sustained amount of time.
[32] This interaction of cultural transmission is thought to be seen through the Châtelperronian tool tradition, as well as the presence of worked ivory in Upper Paleolithic sites, both of which are assumed to be diffused from AMHs.
[32] Still, competition does not explain the probabilities of infanticide, abortion, and abandonment of the children born from Neanderthal and AMH interaction, which again ignore the agency of women in these populations, Sterling claims.
According to Battle-Baptiste, BFA focuses on "the intersectionality of race, gender, and class" and the doubled or tripled form of oppression due to one's multiple identities.
BFA seeks to combine traditional archaeology's strict material analysis with nearby historical and contemporary communities' cultural landscapes.
Du Bois' boyhood homesite in Massachusetts are examples Battle-Baptiste used to demonstrate the Black Feminist Archaeological approach to historical sites.
In her research, Battle-Baptiste not only examines the physical landscape of the Hermitage but also delves into the cultural meanings, socialization processes, and Black agency within the space.
It extends into larger environment to incorporate the yard, and it is a place for people "to regroup, to learn strategies of survival, find strength, and create thoughts of resistance.
She suggests that, like many other African American women did at the time, Lucy likely continued to work service jobs and other kinds of manual labor, like cooking, laundry, and sewing, evidenced by the number of needles, thimbles, and buttons found in her material assemblage.
In terms of Lucy’s material record, she had a wide array of items, including pearlware, Chinese porcelain, red ware, whitewall, and more, totaling 113 vessels, suggesting that ideas of poverty are variable throughout time.
Due to her isolation, it is possible that her positioning was advantageous to night travelers, and that this could be evidence of her role in the anti-slavery movement and contribution to the Underground Railroad.