GENDER AND SCIENCE: DEMYSTIFYING

ARGENTINE ARCHEOLOGY
Cristina Bellelli
Consejo Nacwnal de Investigaciones Cientificas y Ttfcnicas
Institute Nacional de Antropologia y Pensamiento Latinoamericano

Vivian Scheinsohn
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Ticnicas

M6riica Ber6n
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Ticnicas
Universidad de Buenos Aires

"... to be a 'realwoman ' is to be nonscientific; to be a 'realscientist' is to be nonferninine" (Fee 1988:45).

science, as much as gender, is a socially and
culturally constructed category. Both science and
gender are conditioned by the historical processes that
are produced in a given society. The relationship
between-science and gender can be studied from two
perspectives: (1) from an epistemologicalpoint of view,
that is to say how the socially-constituted category of
gender is reflected in the construction and production of
knowledge; and (2) from the way in which this same
category. is evident in scientific practice. Even though
these two aspects are interrelated, in methodological
terms it is pertinent to maintain a distihction between
them.
In archeology, the majority of the works addressing
the relation between science and gender are framed
within the first perspective. This approach began in
archeological research about ten years ago as a critique
of the "androcentric vision" which biased all
archeological production. A pioneering study from this
perspective is that of Conkey and Spector (1984)' which
is centered on denouncing this bias and on proposing an
archeological approach to the study of gender. Gender
bias occurs when "man" is taken for the object of study,
and our contemporary social categories are projected
onto past societies. In this way archeological knowledge
legitimates the current state of affairs (see Conkey and
Spector 1984, Gero 1988, among others).
There are very few works that are concerned
exclusively with the second perspective. Generally,
studies of gender in archeology scarcely mention
problems of practice, and even when the topic is
broached, it tends to be treated superficially (Conkey
and Spector 1984, Gero 1991; an exception is Gero
1988).2
Our contribution is framed in the second perspective,
being that which treats gender relations in the practice
of Argentine archeology. Based on our own
participation as agents of arcbaeaological practice and
our positions within the academic environments where
that practice is canied out, we recognize that to reflect
on practice is to submit that practice to constant
epistemological vigilance (Bourdieu et al 1975). This
vigilance allows one to identify and move beyond
commonly committed errors. Thus, we analyze the
sexlgender system by focusing on professional practice
rather than on the production of archeological
knowledge.
SCIENCE AND GENDER:
THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS
We recognize that science is "... the name that we
give to a set of practices and a body of knowledge
delineated by a community, not simply defined by the
exigencies of logical proof and experimental
verification" (Keller 1985: 4). All of society is imbued
with gender relations, and therefore these relations are
reproduced in scientific practice. Recent theoretical
developments ,focusing on the interrelation of the
concepts of gender and science concur in that when one
speaks of science one makes reference to science as it
is produced in the core countries, mostly by middle-
132 Cristina Bellelli, Monica Beron, and Vivian ~cheinsoh;l
class men claiming to be "objective" (Keller 1985, Fee
1988, Gero 1988, Conca 1992, among others). The
formation of scientific knowledge is linked with the
concept of gender primarily through the legitimationof
the masculine gender as the producer of knowledge.
Within this theoretical framework it is possible to
begin looking at how gender works in the practice of a
particular, restricted field -- a field which includes
various levels of marginalization - such as that of
Argentine archeology. Furthermore, it must be
emphasized that the practice of archeologists involves
not only gender relations, but also the relations of core-
periphery which influence scientificpractice in a country
like Argentina. The growing marginalization from
which science on the periphery suffers should not be
overlooked. Thus, Argentine archeology could be
defined according to Said's concept of the "colonized,"
a concept which "... has since expanded considerably to
include women, subjugated and oppressed classes,
national minorities, and even marginalized or
.incorporatedacademic subspecialties" (Said 1989: 207).
The time is ripe to consider such political issues,
beginning with the way our profession is practiced in
Argentina. By focusing on our own specific situation,
we hope to avoid making generalizations which may not
be applicable in other national contexts. Such
generalizations do not take into account the peripheral
location of Argentine scientific production nor the way
in which gender relations are manifested in that
production.
ARCHEOLOGY AND GENDER
It is appropiate, now, to touch upon certain features of
the current achaeological discourse. There exists a more
or less generalized agreement that the object of study in
archeology is the archeological record, understood as
the whole of the material remains recovered through
fieldwork (archeological evidence) and the
complementary information about the natural and
cultural processes that make up this evidence (e.g., site
formation processes) (Yacobaccio 1988).
Disagreements arise as to how this record should be
interpreted. As Wylie (1992) notes, the evidence rarely
warrants a univocal conclusion of either an explanatory
or interpretive type. The paradigm that guides an
interpretation ensures that certain questions will be
posed, the answers to which will lead to specific
"pasts."
In one way or another the archeologist, as a function
of his or her theoretical stance, "creates" a "pastn that,
in turn, can serve (or be used by) distinct political
interests. Since these "pasts" provide explanations of
temporal phenomena, they are easily adapted to the
legitimation of present circumstances. Still, there are
archeologists who maintain that, being a science,
archeology is free of all influence coming from
subjectivity or ideology. But in fact, in certain
countries the creation of a specific past can feed
contemporary independencelterritorial claims or might
well reaffirm a national identity which is in crisis or is
not fully developed.'
As already mentioned, the legitimationof the current
state of affairs also occurs in the field of gender
relations. Feminist theories allow us to recognize that
archeology is a science constructed in a sociopolitical
context. This insight can reinforce the conceptual and
empirical integrity of archeological knowledge since it
reveals to us the biases and limitationsof those to whom
our evidence is submitted (Wylie 1992).
PROPOSALS AND DIAGNOSIS OF ARGENTINE
ARCHEOLOGICAL PRACTICE
We contend that gender restrictions in Argentine
archeological practice are not manifested in the number
of women who participate, but are evident in their
minimal access to funds, to prestigious positions, and to
the academic circles where scientific policy decisions
are made. As Lorandi says, "... one should not fail to
note that despite the great number [of women] who
work in the social sciences they still do not occupy a
fair proportion of the most prestigious positions"
(Lorandi 1992).
According to Ortner and Whitehead, a gender system
is, above all else, a system of privilege (cited by Lamas
1986). That is to say, in our view it is more important
to determine the positions of power and prestige that
women occupy than to focus on their representation as
measured in raw numbers. In our disciplinewomen are
highly represented, but hidden behind this appearance of
feminine dominance is an inequality in the gender
distribution of positions of power and prestige within
academia (Bourdieu 1975). Accordingly, we have
collected data on each of the stages which an
archeologist passes through in the course of a career.
In spite of economic deterioration and the social
devaluation of research activities, research positions
continue to be coveted within the scientific community.
We call attention to data which show the distribution by
sex in the field so that we can address questions about
access to power in an academic discipline such as that
of archeology. Figure 1 represents the proportions of
students enrolled in the ten archeology courses offered
Demystifying Argentine Archeology
by tlie Department of Aritliropology at UBA
(Universidad de Buerios Aires) in 1990. Here we can
see that the tiiajority of students are women.
Arclieology cannot tlien be corisidered as a major
exclusively for men.
Studenls enrolled In archaeological
coursos - Unlvorslty of Buerlos Alres
1990
'X students
100
00
60
40
20
0
Fomale 68.37 72.6 64.20 78-48 71.06 6 6 . 8 6 70.17 70.22 62.08 80.88
Mole , 40.62 27.6 38.71 21.68 28.84 34.14 20.82 20.77 37.93 30.13
FIGURE 1
0Female Mole
N TOTAL: 4 6 6 -'n courses: 1 = 32.2 = 4 0
3 = 28. 4 = 51. 6 = 38.6 = 41.7 = 57.
0 = 77. 0 = 20. 10 = 73.
Once tlie academic degree is obtained, tlie places
wliere arclieological practice is carried out are confined
basically to teacliing at the u~uversit~ and to researcli
(wliicli can be done as niucli in tlie university as in
CONICET-tlie National Council of Scientific and
Technical Research).
Regarding academic practice, Figure 2 represents tlie
distribution by sex strictly anlong tlie arclieology faculty
of the College of Pliilosopl~yand Letters at UBA as of
1991. h Figure 2 the different categories (1 to 4)
represent tlie four liierarcliical steps in a professor's
career (from Assistant to Full/Associate professor). It
reveals tliat woliieti in are the niajority at tlie beginrling
levels of tlie career, while nieri doriiinate tlie liigl~est
level (full/associate professor), tl~ougli by a sniall
margin. That tlie difference is so sniall ~iiiglitbe due to
tlie fact that teaclii~ig is traditionally considered a
fe~iiininejob.
Leaving aside acadetiiicpractice, we will now proceed
to an analysis of research positions in archeology.
University-based research in Argentina was reinitiated
in 1984 by tueans of a systeni of scliolarsl~ipsfor
advanced undergraduates and graduate students. Due to
its sliort liistory arid to the sniall space allocated for
arclieological research conipared to that of otlier fields,
tlie sample wiilli~ithe university is too sniall to be
co~isidered here. (In 1990-1991 tliere were six
researcliers spread out anlong all tlie branclies of
archeology). Tlierefore we lirliit ourselves to the data
133 "
obtained at CONICET, tlie national institutiori wliich
supports scientificresearcli in Argentina. Tliis institution
was founded as an auto~~otiious agency witlii~itlie
presidential brancli of tlie nation according to tlie niodel
i
of France's CNRS (Calderari et al 1992). t
Archaeology professors by level and sex
- Colloge ol Philosophy and Letters - Unl-
verslly of Buenos Alres - 1991
42.0e 60 81.64 88.08
Mole 67.14 60 ' 30.48 11.11
FIGURE 2
[3Femele Mele
N TOTAL: 3 7 - n Colegory 4: 7 -
n Calegory 3: 8 - n Calegory 2: 13 -
n Category 1: 0
Tlirqwgl~outniucl~of its sliort Iiistory, begun in 1958,
CONICET lias suffered from sudden interventions by
tlie cliariging ~nilitarygoverluiients tliat ruled tlie country
between 1966 and 1983 (witli tlie exception of tlie
deniocratic period of 1973-1976). Tliese cuts fostered
tlie erratic nlanagenietit of the policy for awarding
scliolarsliips and grants, as in the appoiritnient of
researcliers. Not surprisingly, CONICET's policies have
co~lsistetitlyreflected tl~echanges wliich 11ave arisen in
the political power center of our nation.
CONICET consists of a system of iritertial grantees
(currently divided illto two categories: beginning arid
fi~usliing),support personnel, arid scientific researchers
(with five categories arranged hierarchically: assistant,
requiring supervision; adjunct, witli or witl~out
supervision; independent; principal; and senior.)
Assessment Co~nmitteesare responsible for reporting
..
to CONICET " . concerning tlie l~iringand proti~otio~i
of scientific researchers, tlie allocation of scholarships,
and the awarding of grants ..." (Calderari et al 1992:
175). Assessnietit~Corilmitteesare divided by subject
area and their suggestions are passed on to a Joint
Conlniittee made up of representatives fro111each of the
tliirteeri Assessn~entCon~mittees. Tlie Joint Conul~ittee
decides wliicli applications to approve and it sends its
recouuiie~idatiotlsto tlie Board of Directors, tlie final
decision making body.'
Tlie passage fro111 one stage to anotlier (beginning
134 Cristina Bellelli, Monica Beron, and Vivian Scheinsoh

grantee to finisliing grantee, firlisliing grantee to Nevertl~eless,when we proceed to an analysis of

professional researclier, etc.) requires a public
presentation, a sununary of previous work, and a
research proposal by tile applicant, evaluatiori by tlie
Assessment Comiiittees, a decision by tlle Joint
Committee, and approval by Uie Board of Directors.
A database co~tiprisedof tlie arclreological grantees
and researchers in CONICET as of mid-1991 was
conipiled. I11 Figure 3, die grantees and researcliers are
broken down by sex. It is observed that wornen niake
up tlie larger group, that being 60%. If one considers
only grantees (Figure 4). tlie proportion of women goes
up to 83%.
Grantees and Researchers
CONICET - 1991
Women
Iiigliest levels of die l~ierarcliy(Figure 5) -- tliat
researcliers - wotiien leave off being tlie largest gr
tliere being a sligElt preference in favor of nien.
can be observed more clearly in Figure 6
represents tlie gender distribution broken down
categories of grantees and researchers. At tlie Iligl
levels of tlie hierarchy, men constitute tlie majority,
to tile category of Se~liorResearclier in wliicl~there a
no wonieri at all. If we consider Figure 7, wliic
represents those researcl~erswlio are not required t
have supervisio~i(and therefore have tilore decision
tnaking power, can supervise grantees, researcliers, a
projects, and can 111anage funds), we see illat in eve
category tlie'majority are men. >
CLOSING COMMENTS

"Woman is an invaluableaid in rigorous excavations

as n~ucli for lier orga~lizatioiialabilities as for tl
patience, wliicl~tlie work requires" (Ferrdndez 1982
This apparent praise does no niore tlian reconfinn
situation and a comn~oti mode of .tIiillking an1011
arclieologists in Argentina. Tlie arcl~eological
tradition recorgs many discriniinatory plirases, ma
by a liun~orousirony.%
Men
40
Researchers
CONICET - 1991
. Women
N Women: 39 - N Men: 26 40.34

FIGURE 3

Granlees
CONICET - 1991

Men
63.66

N Women: 19 - N Men: 22
FIGURE 6
111tlie context of everyday practices, discrimi
attitudes pass unnoticed. Moreover, given tl~eirsu
numbers, fernale Argentine arclieologists wou
undoubtedly deny feeling discrin~inatedagainst.
N Women: 20 - N Mon: 4 would see111as tliougli there were no gender restrictio
FIGURE 4
in our field. Nevertl~eless,Uie results of our wor
demonstrate another reality -- a reality that goes beyon
tlie folklore. Plirases sucli as tliose that began tlli
 Demystifying Argentine Archeology .
section, as well as tlie data presented herein, reveal that
an atidrocentric bias is present, eveti if it is usually well
liidden.
Vie various transitio~ialstages a feniale arclieologist
niust pass tlirougl~ it1 lief professio~ial career at
CONICET, confront lier with situations ripe for abuses
of power -- such as episodes of sexual liarassnie~it-- or
acts of discri~i~inatiou, not explicit, but discernable. For
exaniple, tliere was ari evaluation of an academic report
tliat alluded to "fanlily respo~isibilitieswliicli cawlot be
delegated to anotlier." Tliis conu~~eat was offered as a
judgenielit of tlie scientific production of a fetiiale
grantee with children. Tliese situations cannot be
identified statistically because very few foniial
complaints are filed, perhaps out of fear of reprisals,
because tliere is no proof or cornplai~lts are not
considered important.
Gral~totlsarid rosoorchors. Goridor
rllslrlbnllon by c u l e ~ o r l o s .
. CONICE'T - 1901
%
Oepln. Flnlsh. A73131. Adl8tncl InrJan. Prlnclpel
glnnlan glol~lon teseor. lasnnr. leaeor. reseor.
FIGURE 0
N f3og.Gr.: 16 - N Flnlsh.Gr.: 8 -
N Ass.Res.: 10 - N Adl.Res.: 15 - N l r d
nos.: 11 - N Prlnc.Res.: 4 - N Sr.Ros: I
Taking illto consideratiori tlie CONICET data tliat we
have presented, we see that tliere is a great quaiitity of
wolilen wlio produce luiowledge in tlie junior ranks of
tlie profession. Nevertlieless due to tlie predonii~iariceof
riieri ia tlie upper echelons, it is nleri wlio decide who
does research, what is reseirched, and wlio receives
funds.
Retur~ii~igto tlie idea witl~wliicllwe began, we believe
that it is i~liporta~itto reflect on our professional practice
because it influences -- and is influeliced by -- the
productio~iof knowledge arid its cornmodification.
l
' : "... tlie ways in wliicll gender-based doniinance
relatio~is have bee11 programmed into tlie
I
i .
#
production, scope, and structure of natural
kiiowledge, distorting tlie content, meaning, and
uses of that knowledge" (Fee 1988: 54).
It sliould be iioted tliat in attendi~lgto tlie case of
Argenti~iearclieology, it is very possible that we will
encounter much wliicli can be applied in otlier scientific
colitexts.6
I11 Iiighlighting unequal gender relations in a field as
sniall as Argentine arclieology, we are attempting to
contribute to tlie accutnulatio~iof evidence of gender
discri~iii~~ation worldwide. Paraplirasiug Bourdieu et al
(1975), we ail11 liere to break dow~iappearaaces, to
recogtlize then1 as sucli. Witllin tlie scientific field we
aspire to a scierice with greqter equality, to tlie
elinliriatio~iof one possible bias !- tliat of gender -- as
riiucll in our episte~nology as in our professio~lal
practice, recog~lizi~ig that tlie absence of discrinlination
is an appropriate beginling.
Researchers wlth no supervlslon. ,
Gonder dlstr lbutlon by categories
CONICET - 1991
Senlor
tenner.
reseerctner lesearchor researcher
FIGURE 7
0Female Male
N Adlunct Res.: 10 - N lndep.Res.: 10
N Prlnclpol Hes.: 4 - N Senlor Res.: 1.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Wc tliank all die staff and rncmbcrs of CONICIT and of llic
Departmentof Arilhropology at UDA who have generously facilitated
the collection of data used in this work. To Cheryl Claasscn for
submitting Ilic nianuscripl to the editors. To Marta Savigliano for her
permanent cliwuragemcnl. To Dcbora Kligmann lor hcr cooperation.
'I'o Alison Wylie, Sarah Nelson and I'eggy Nelson for inviting us to
contribute to this volumc. Finally, a great debt of gratitude is owed to
Jeff Tobin. Without his cxtrerncly generous and crcalivc help with the
tratisiation, tlic English vcrsion would liavc never bccn possible.
NOTES
I.Translated by JeK Tobin.
136 . .
2. This sort of approach is generally located within the "post-
processual" branch of archeology. It employs social and symbolic
theories in archeological analysis (Gero and Conkey 1991).
3. In Argentina, archeology has not been utilized in order to legitimate
a national past. One of the reasons is the devalorization of the-Indian
that occured in the past century in order to justify the genocide of the
indigenous people as part of the imposition of a European model of
thennation." This genocide began with the Spanish conquest and was
continued at the time of the .creation and consolidation of the
Argentine state. Political and intellectual powers were harnessed at the
end of the last century to complete the devalorization of the Indian in
Argentina (i.e., by the "Generation of'80n). The prehistoric peoples
of Argentina, mostly nomads and semi-nomads, are not appreciated by
the general population. Argentine Indians are unfavorably compared
with what are called the "high culturesn of America. Phrases such as
"Here the Indians didn't do anything" are heard frequently, even
among intellectuals, as an allusion to the lack of spectacular
architedurq and technology in h e n t i n a ' s archeological record.
Accordingly, the Argentine past is usually limited to the short history
of the "crillos" and immigrants instead of the w a v e thousand year
prehistory of human occupation in this part of America. Thus, the past
as it is created in Argentina derives more from history than from
archeology.
4. It should be noted that recently; in 1981, a woman made it to the
Board of Directors (Calderari et a1 1992).
5. A small collection includes the following phrases pronounced by
some Argentine male archeologisls: "To an excavation one.should
bring only women who are asexual"; "So-and-so doesn't seem like a
woman because she doesn't talk much"; "Yes, I believe that women
are very important in archeology, but the most appropriate places for
them.are museums. archives, the lab..."; "If you came to this college
looking for husbands, I advise you that you are mistaken...forthat you
go to the College of Engineering" (spoken by a professor to female
students on the first day of class). Sometimes such comments are even
written: "When a hunter goes into the wood with a woman, do not
expect him to come back with a deer; on the contrary, if one wants to
hunt deer, it is betier not lo have the assistance of women and
children" (Crivelli 1992: 75).
6. See Caselet 1992 and Dosne Pasqualini 1989190, even though we
disagree with them in the interpretation of the data.
REFERENCFS
Bourdieu, Pierre, Jean-Claude Chamboredon and JeanClaude
Passeron
1975 El oficio de soci6logo. Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI Editores.
Calderari, Maria, M6nica Casalet, Eduardo Ferninda and Enrique
Oteiza
1992 Institucionesde promocidn y gobierno de las actividades de
investigacibn. In La politica de invesrigacibn cienrijica y
recnolbgica argenrina. Hisrorias y perspecrivar, ed. E.
Oteiza, pp. 168-193. Buenos Aires: Centro Editor de
Ambrica Latina.
~asalet,M6nica . .
1992 Recursos humanos de investigaci6n en el Complejo
'
Cientifico y Tecnol6gico: evoluci6n del empleo y politicas
Cristina Bellelli, Monica Beron, and Vivian Schei
de recursos humanos del CONICET. In La po
investigaci6n cienrijica y recnolbgica en Arg
Hisrorias y perspecrivas, ed. E. Oteiza, pp. 168-1
Buenos Aims: Centro Editor deArnbrica Latina.
Conca, Claudia A.
1992 El sesgo androdntrico en la producci6n
ejemplo: el discurso arqueol6gico. In Propu
antropologia argem'na 2, ed. C. Berb
Buenos Aim: Editorial Biblos.
Conkey, Margaret and Janet Speclor
1984 Archaeology and the Study of Gender. In Advan
Archaeological Merhod and Theory 7:I-38. M S C
ed. Academic Press.
Crivelli, Eduardo ?'
1992 P d o g o machista a un articulo feminista.
para una anrropologia argentina 2. (Introdu
C. 1992), ed. C. Berbeglia, pp. 75-76.
Editorial Biblos.
Dosne Pasqualini, Christiane
1989190 Mujeres en ciencias biombdicas. Ciencia Hoy 1(5):79-
Fee, Elizabeth
1988 Critiques of Modern Science: The Relationshi
Feminism to Other Radical Epistemologies. In Fe
Approachesro Science, ed. R. Bleier, pp. 42-56. Pergarno
Press.
Femindez, Jorge
1982 Hisroria &loarqueologia argentina. Mendoza: Asociaci6n
Cuyana de Antmpologia.
Gem, Joan
1988 Gender Bias in Archaeology: Here, Then and Now.
Feminism wirhin the Science and Healrh Care Professions.
Overcoming Resismce, ed. S. V . Roser, pp. 33-43
Pergamon Press.
1991 ~enderlithics:Women's Roles in Stone Tools Production
In Engendering Archaeology. Women and Prehistory, eds
J. Gero and M. Conkey, pp. 163-193. Basil Blackwell Inc.
Gem, Joan and Margaret Conkey
1991 Engendering Archaeology. Women hnd Prehisrory. Ba
Blackwell Inc. .
Keller, Evelyn F.
1985 ReJlecrions on Gender and Science. Yale Univ.Press.
Lamas, Marta
1986 La antropologia feminista y la categoria "gbnero". Nue
Annopologia 30:173-198.
Lorandi, Ana c aria
1992 Faccionalismo y machismo en las ciencias sociales. Revista
deAnrropologia 2(2):59-63. Special Issueabout "Encuentro
sobre profesionalidad y hican. Montevideo.
Demystifying Argentine Archeology 137

Said, Edward Yacobaccio, Hugo

1989 Representing thecolonized: Anthropology's Interloartors. 1988 Introducci6n. In Arqueologia ConfemporrineaArgenrina.
Critical Inquiry 15:205-225. Acnulidad y perspeclivas, d . H. Yacobaccio, pp.7-12.
Buenos Aires: Ediciones Bfisqueda.
Wylie, Alison
1992 The Interplay of Evidential Constraints and Political
Interests: Recent Archaeological Research on Gender.
Ameriean Aruiquiry 57(1):15-35.