What do you think?
Rate this book
What This Awl Means: Feminist Archaeology at a Wahpeton Dakota Village
This pioneering work focuses on excavations and discoveries at Little Rapids, a 19th-century Eastern Dakota planting village near present-day Minneapolis.
173 pages, Paperback
First published May 15, 1993
11 people are currently reading
131 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
Read
February 24, 2015A brilliant book by a woman who fought her way through the patriarchal field of mid western archaeology to bring humanism to the study of native American digs, dominated by grave robbers and cultural chauvinists.
December 19, 2008
An example of why nobody respects post-processual archaeology.
December 14, 2017
A wonderful narrative working its way into trying to speak about meaning in a way that is responsible both to science and to the people who used the archaeological objects.
"When I excavate sites and touch things that have lain untouched for centuries, I know why I am an archaeologist. But until now, when I wrote about those sites and objects, I felt no connection with the past, my own or that of the people whose cultural landscapes I had unearthed . . . . I was reminded of my original reasons for wanting to be an archaeologist. These motives are empathetic -- a longing to discover essences, images, and feelings of the past -- not detached, distanced, objective" (1).
Conkey summarizes work she has done on the assumption , assertions, and statements of fact about gender embedded in many archaeological projects and writings: 1. more attention and importance to men and presumed male activities 2. portray women as dependent and tethered to domestic duties; 3. assume rigid sexual division of labor throughout history 4. imply male-headed nuclear organization of families.
Her writing is so human: of the description of the site at which she worked, which, following Binford's insistence on archaeological jargon, she called a "summer logistical base," "The pretentiousness of the term 'summer logistical base' embarrasses me now, especially after discovering the more meaningful phrase used by nineteenth-century Dakota elders. They referred to Inyan Ceyaka Atonwan as their 'summer planting village'" (12)
Spector excavated at Aztalan in 1964 under the supervision of Joan Freeman of the WI state Historical Society. She "imagined being transported into the past and through the empathetic barrier that separated me from the people who once used the broken tools, ornaments, containers, and plant and animal remains we carefully exposed with our trowels." (3) Notes that no one suggested involving contemporary native Americans in attempts to understand these things.
Of working for the first time with native people on an excavation, she writes, "Cavender was cordial, he seemed distant and, maybe, suspicious. Candid about his impression of 'anthros,' as he called us, he openly expressed skepticism about the motives of most academic researchers" (13). But later, "For the first time in my archaeological career, a project felt right. We worked as an interdisciplinary, multicultural team. Descendants of the people who had lived at the site were there, speaking Dakota, telling us about Dakota culture, and helping us understand more about the small clues to their past that we found buried just beneath the surface. Every day Chris and Carrie talked with us about Dakota family and community life, Dakota place-names and words for the seasons and months of the year, the Dakota council fires, and Dakota spirituality (Cavender 1986)." Amos Owen conducted a pipe ceremony "shortly after our field season began, communicat[ing] in words that had been spoken there for centuries until Dakota voices were silenced at Little Rapids in the 1850s." (15)
"I found the task-differentiation approach too constraining as a way of writing about what life was like for the nineteenth-century people. Like other taxonomic schemes, it generated distanced and lifeless representations of the past" (17)
"The style of presentation favored by Stone and Mason channels our attention as readers in specific but unacknowledged ways. Their descriptions inadvertently convey negative messages about Indian people and culture, despite the neutral, objective-sounding language. For example, an important but hidden assumption in their works is that European-produced metal awl tips are more important than Indian-produced awl handles. Built into Stone's and Mason's classifications and table titles, this theme leads to emphasis on metal awl tips as markers of European influence on Indians and implies the disintegration of native culture. This would have been insulting, annoying, or simply wrong to Indians who used awls, particularly to women who inscribed their bone or antler handles to display publicly their accomplishments" (31-32) "Boring, tedious, and confusing-to-read descriptions of awls affect readers, who inevitably transfer their feelings to the people who once made or used the tools . . . Why do archaeologists write dense technical reports in esoteric language instead of lively cultural studies?" (33)
"Reviewing trends in written archaeology from the eighteenth century to the present, archaeologist Ian Hodder similarly observed that contemporary archaeological reports are 'at best . . . dull, excessively long, detailed and expensive and read by no one except the delirious specialist." He continued, "It often seems to me as if the code has become everything, pursued for its own sake. The public value of the lists and dry descriptions is questionable" (Hodder 1989, 273), 33
Notes that the notion of a public-private dichotomy within culture in which women are relegated to the lesser private sphere is an artifact of 19th century European culture imposed on others. (33).
She outlines the ways in which how we talk about other cultures matters, "archaeologists have paid little critical attention to the political implications of their writing styles, the rhetoric of cultural anthropology has recently been subjected to a good deal of scrutiny, debate, and experimentation (Clifford and Marcus 1986, Rosaldo 1989; Mascia-Lees et al 1989). . . . Rosaldo [demonstrates] how a 'detached, dehumanizing, descriptive idiom,' can undermine 'the anthropological project of understanding other cultures.' He also argued that the authority of this kind of discourse 'has become so well established, so much taken for granted, that it appears within the norms of the discipline, not as one rhetorical mode of representation among others, buta s the one and only legitimate form for telling the literal truth about other people's lifeways. Yet no single rhetoric, whatever current fashions may dictate, has a monopoloy on objectivity' (Rosaldo 1986, 14-15, 32).
Sugar camps: "women tapped the trees with their axes. Then they collected the sap in bark containers and poured it into [hollowed-out log 'canoes,' from which the kettles were kept filled. Within or just outside the sugar house, the women built a long fire and suspended kettles over it to process the sap. The sap boiled for hours until it became syrup. Boys took charge of the kettles, tending the fire and watching them so they did not boil over. They frequently tested the syrup on the snow, apparently consuming a fair amount in the first few days (C.Eastman 1902 1971, 27).
"The women stored the bulk of the syrup to bring back to their summer villages for feasts, where it would be served with wild rice, parched corn, or dried meat. They made sugar cakes by pouring the boiled syrup into molds made from hollow canes, reeds, or the bills of ducks and geese. They also pulverized and packed some in rawhide cases." Boys hunted small birds, rabbits, chipmunks, and pests drawn to the area by the sugar. Meanwhile, the men were at the muskrat camps (75).
On the social dynamics of field archaeology: "During the day as we dug or stopped for breaks, we often created scenarios, speculations about why people would have gone to some part of the site and what they would have done to produce the remains - the memory traces - we discovered there . . . . how did they tolerate the exhausting summer heat and humidity and the swarming mosquitos and gnats? Did they watch the darkening skies some days as we did, hoping to finish our work before a thunder storm struck? Was their community life, like ours, punctuated by summer romances and interpersonal tensions, or were such relationships a product of our particular time and place only?" (90)
Dakota participation was meaningful to the archaeologists, but the two native participants were not "particularly interested in the archaeology or the artifacts." Nor was the team able to find American Indian students to participate, despite the offer of full tuition scholarships. One young woman explained that "she had been raised in an Indian community that viewed archaeologists as grave robbers. Our presentation contradicted that imagery, and she could see how archaeology could recover unrecorded traces of her own history without disrespect or desecration. Even so, she did not feel able to participate in a field project" (92)
"When I excavate sites and touch things that have lain untouched for centuries, I know why I am an archaeologist. But until now, when I wrote about those sites and objects, I felt no connection with the past, my own or that of the people whose cultural landscapes I had unearthed . . . . I was reminded of my original reasons for wanting to be an archaeologist. These motives are empathetic -- a longing to discover essences, images, and feelings of the past -- not detached, distanced, objective" (1).
Conkey summarizes work she has done on the assumption , assertions, and statements of fact about gender embedded in many archaeological projects and writings: 1. more attention and importance to men and presumed male activities 2. portray women as dependent and tethered to domestic duties; 3. assume rigid sexual division of labor throughout history 4. imply male-headed nuclear organization of families.
Her writing is so human: of the description of the site at which she worked, which, following Binford's insistence on archaeological jargon, she called a "summer logistical base," "The pretentiousness of the term 'summer logistical base' embarrasses me now, especially after discovering the more meaningful phrase used by nineteenth-century Dakota elders. They referred to Inyan Ceyaka Atonwan as their 'summer planting village'" (12)
Spector excavated at Aztalan in 1964 under the supervision of Joan Freeman of the WI state Historical Society. She "imagined being transported into the past and through the empathetic barrier that separated me from the people who once used the broken tools, ornaments, containers, and plant and animal remains we carefully exposed with our trowels." (3) Notes that no one suggested involving contemporary native Americans in attempts to understand these things.
Of working for the first time with native people on an excavation, she writes, "Cavender was cordial, he seemed distant and, maybe, suspicious. Candid about his impression of 'anthros,' as he called us, he openly expressed skepticism about the motives of most academic researchers" (13). But later, "For the first time in my archaeological career, a project felt right. We worked as an interdisciplinary, multicultural team. Descendants of the people who had lived at the site were there, speaking Dakota, telling us about Dakota culture, and helping us understand more about the small clues to their past that we found buried just beneath the surface. Every day Chris and Carrie talked with us about Dakota family and community life, Dakota place-names and words for the seasons and months of the year, the Dakota council fires, and Dakota spirituality (Cavender 1986)." Amos Owen conducted a pipe ceremony "shortly after our field season began, communicat[ing] in words that had been spoken there for centuries until Dakota voices were silenced at Little Rapids in the 1850s." (15)
"I found the task-differentiation approach too constraining as a way of writing about what life was like for the nineteenth-century people. Like other taxonomic schemes, it generated distanced and lifeless representations of the past" (17)
"The style of presentation favored by Stone and Mason channels our attention as readers in specific but unacknowledged ways. Their descriptions inadvertently convey negative messages about Indian people and culture, despite the neutral, objective-sounding language. For example, an important but hidden assumption in their works is that European-produced metal awl tips are more important than Indian-produced awl handles. Built into Stone's and Mason's classifications and table titles, this theme leads to emphasis on metal awl tips as markers of European influence on Indians and implies the disintegration of native culture. This would have been insulting, annoying, or simply wrong to Indians who used awls, particularly to women who inscribed their bone or antler handles to display publicly their accomplishments" (31-32) "Boring, tedious, and confusing-to-read descriptions of awls affect readers, who inevitably transfer their feelings to the people who once made or used the tools . . . Why do archaeologists write dense technical reports in esoteric language instead of lively cultural studies?" (33)
"Reviewing trends in written archaeology from the eighteenth century to the present, archaeologist Ian Hodder similarly observed that contemporary archaeological reports are 'at best . . . dull, excessively long, detailed and expensive and read by no one except the delirious specialist." He continued, "It often seems to me as if the code has become everything, pursued for its own sake. The public value of the lists and dry descriptions is questionable" (Hodder 1989, 273), 33
Notes that the notion of a public-private dichotomy within culture in which women are relegated to the lesser private sphere is an artifact of 19th century European culture imposed on others. (33).
She outlines the ways in which how we talk about other cultures matters, "archaeologists have paid little critical attention to the political implications of their writing styles, the rhetoric of cultural anthropology has recently been subjected to a good deal of scrutiny, debate, and experimentation (Clifford and Marcus 1986, Rosaldo 1989; Mascia-Lees et al 1989). . . . Rosaldo [demonstrates] how a 'detached, dehumanizing, descriptive idiom,' can undermine 'the anthropological project of understanding other cultures.' He also argued that the authority of this kind of discourse 'has become so well established, so much taken for granted, that it appears within the norms of the discipline, not as one rhetorical mode of representation among others, buta s the one and only legitimate form for telling the literal truth about other people's lifeways. Yet no single rhetoric, whatever current fashions may dictate, has a monopoloy on objectivity' (Rosaldo 1986, 14-15, 32).
Sugar camps: "women tapped the trees with their axes. Then they collected the sap in bark containers and poured it into [hollowed-out log 'canoes,' from which the kettles were kept filled. Within or just outside the sugar house, the women built a long fire and suspended kettles over it to process the sap. The sap boiled for hours until it became syrup. Boys took charge of the kettles, tending the fire and watching them so they did not boil over. They frequently tested the syrup on the snow, apparently consuming a fair amount in the first few days (C.Eastman 1902 1971, 27).
"The women stored the bulk of the syrup to bring back to their summer villages for feasts, where it would be served with wild rice, parched corn, or dried meat. They made sugar cakes by pouring the boiled syrup into molds made from hollow canes, reeds, or the bills of ducks and geese. They also pulverized and packed some in rawhide cases." Boys hunted small birds, rabbits, chipmunks, and pests drawn to the area by the sugar. Meanwhile, the men were at the muskrat camps (75).
On the social dynamics of field archaeology: "During the day as we dug or stopped for breaks, we often created scenarios, speculations about why people would have gone to some part of the site and what they would have done to produce the remains - the memory traces - we discovered there . . . . how did they tolerate the exhausting summer heat and humidity and the swarming mosquitos and gnats? Did they watch the darkening skies some days as we did, hoping to finish our work before a thunder storm struck? Was their community life, like ours, punctuated by summer romances and interpersonal tensions, or were such relationships a product of our particular time and place only?" (90)
Dakota participation was meaningful to the archaeologists, but the two native participants were not "particularly interested in the archaeology or the artifacts." Nor was the team able to find American Indian students to participate, despite the offer of full tuition scholarships. One young woman explained that "she had been raised in an Indian community that viewed archaeologists as grave robbers. Our presentation contradicted that imagery, and she could see how archaeology could recover unrecorded traces of her own history without disrespect or desecration. Even so, she did not feel able to participate in a field project" (92)
November 15, 2020
After spending many hours hiking the Mazomani Trail in the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, this book added a deep appreciation for the Wahpeton Sioux and their history of life in this region. Now in 2020, very curious as to other archaeology or history events that continue since this was written in the 1980's.
April 23, 2025
In its time a groundbreaking work. Spencer brings a Feminist view to archaeology, a science that has long been stuck in an anglo-male view, bogged down in facts and tabulations. While she does bring the artifacts to life it is still conjecture. The author does a good job of getting the readers and the students of her time interested in that story.
August 22, 2025
Considering this book is in my Goodreads profile picture, I should have read this long ago! As a public historian, I really appreciated this as a historiography of the archaeological field and a foundational work in rethinking the field. I also appreciated the insights into archaeological fieldwork. Finally, the title is just perfect lol
November 12, 2022
Four stars for this book as a fundamental piece of feminist archaeology. I can fully understand its importance in early feminist thought, and appreciate the fact that it was groundbreaking (if controversial) at the time.
October 7, 2024
while i love the premise and the feminist perspective, a few of the chapters read like a field report, which is not the most engaging of subject matter. adore the theoretical approach and that its a quick read and the lack of jargon!
December 20, 2022
A must read for all archaeologists
August 28, 2016
I was invited to read this book by one of Jeremy's professors when I mentioned to her that I enjoy ethnography. I like ethnography because I am fascinated with the details of what makes a society unique and the history behind how a society develops. I like to delve into the factors that generate individuality.
Other than the fact that this book was boring, it was interesting to give a little bit of insight into archaeological study, and how cultural knowledge is created literally from digging into the ground, and summarizing and synchronizing scarce records and verbal recollection. There was great respect given to this project and true ethical approach, which apparently is missing in a lot of ethnographical studies. That, and the feminine style of this author is what I think I was meant to learn appreciation for. I learned appreciation for the planning, studies and objective reports. I learned tenacity is a must for an archaeologist. I learned that it takes patience to master the skill of trying to accurately retell history when little documented information is available. I learned to leave nothing to assumption. And if I think I have it figured out that I need to acknowledge that it is merely my conclusion and that it might not be right, especially if my conclusion can't be backed by hard facts. For more info on that, search definition of "post-processual archaeology".
This is the authors documentation on her historical dig. It highlights "the activities and accomplishments of Dakota women and shows the significance of gender in shaping history". The book includes the author's story of the Wahpeton woman and people of Little Rapids.
My favorite quote:
"People interested in the past find the notion of traveling through time compelling."
For me that couldn't be more true.
Other than the fact that this book was boring, it was interesting to give a little bit of insight into archaeological study, and how cultural knowledge is created literally from digging into the ground, and summarizing and synchronizing scarce records and verbal recollection. There was great respect given to this project and true ethical approach, which apparently is missing in a lot of ethnographical studies. That, and the feminine style of this author is what I think I was meant to learn appreciation for. I learned appreciation for the planning, studies and objective reports. I learned tenacity is a must for an archaeologist. I learned that it takes patience to master the skill of trying to accurately retell history when little documented information is available. I learned to leave nothing to assumption. And if I think I have it figured out that I need to acknowledge that it is merely my conclusion and that it might not be right, especially if my conclusion can't be backed by hard facts. For more info on that, search definition of "post-processual archaeology".
This is the authors documentation on her historical dig. It highlights "the activities and accomplishments of Dakota women and shows the significance of gender in shaping history". The book includes the author's story of the Wahpeton woman and people of Little Rapids.
My favorite quote:
"People interested in the past find the notion of traveling through time compelling."
For me that couldn't be more true.
April 17, 2013
A great blend of story-telling and hard research. Instead of reducing the work she conducted at a Wahpeton Dakota Village to dry statistics, tables, and charts, Janet Spector brought the village to life reminding us that actual people once lived there. Enough detailed science to please the academic, this book is pleasantly readable to the non-academic as well.
May 31, 2009
This mix of archaeology and historical fiction makes for a very interesting, informative read of the anthropological study of Native Americans.
May 10, 2021
Interesting, informative, but pretty dry. The Eastman illustrations are beautiful.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews