Women in Human Evolution.
Hurcombe, Linda
LORI D. HAGER (ed.). xiii+214 pages, 14 illustrations. 1997. London
& New York (NY): Routledge; 0-415-10833-0 hardback [pounds]50. $69.
& 0-415-10834-9 paperback [pounds]15.99 $18.95.
There are now a number of books on women's issues and gender in
archaeology but this one is distinctive in its focus and much needed.
Human evolution is an influential, prestigious and multidisciplinary
field. It has fierce debates and develops rapidly. As such, it might be
expected that this field would have accepted the feminist critiques that
have developed within archaeology/anthropology as a whole. This volume
demonstrates that this is not the case, and that instead, there has been
a backlash against them!.
The nine chapters cover a diverse range of issues. There are also
general themes; the position of women in science, female researchers and
recognition for their work, and gender bias in the explanations of
developments in human evolution. Overarching all of these is the
acknowledgement of the positive contributions made by women. The most
fundamental of these is outlined in the opening paper by Wylie. She
addresses the multiple forms of feminism and the loss of women in the
training 'pipeline', but more importantly, she points out that
feminist critiques have refuted the notion of objectivity in science.
This conclusion should not be ignored, nor dismissed as a
'women's issue', but seen as the exposure of a
fundamental error in societies' perception of science. Fedigan, who
studies baboons, pursues this investigation of the nature of science
within primatology, a field in which women are well represented. She
points out that key publications on gender issues received polarized reviews and goes on to identify phases of reactions to such concerns.
Her conclusion is that primatology has been influenced by feminist
science and contains many of its characteristics, but that the
resistance to feminist critiques is governed by the perception that
feminists make science political when it should be free from politics.
The reality for feminist scientists is that their critiques show that
science is not an absolute authority but a politically determined
relativistic study!
Cann deals with some of the problems caused by the multi-disciplinary
nature of research. Molecular biologists and anthropologists do not
necessarily see the potential to identify new areas for research using
data from the other's discipline. It is easier to adhere to the
accepted tenets of one's own. She, too, points out that her ideas
can be dismissed merely by using the term 'African Eve'. This
loaded term can be ridiculed or dismissed without ever delving into the
scientific issues. A recent Sunday Times article (Connor 1997) showcased
the male equivalent of Cann's work. The tenor was very much on
redressing the natural order of things by presenting the male side of
the genetic story and giving us Adam, the father of Man. The biblical
creation metaphor obviously looms large in human evolution.
Zhilman's comments on the disturbing Laetoli tableau created at the
American Museum of Natural History draw parallels with the explusion of
Adam and Eve from the garden. I, too, found this image disturbing
(Hurcombe 1995) and we have both quoted written sources where the scene
has been reproduced. The image spreads into a number of different arenas
over time and Zhilmann uses it to initiate a historiographical approach.
She has documented some of the same phases of feminist debates as Wylie
and Fedigan and concluded, alongside these authors, that feminist ideas
can be dismissed simply because they can be labelled and ridiculed as
feminist! Her discussion of the bias inherent in the 'man the
hunter' model of causality in human evolution is compelling. Falk
picks up this theme, giving a dynamically written critique of
Lovejoy's arguments before getting into details of how male and
female brains differ in their 'wiring', This was novel and,
refreshingly, looked at difference without defining one as standard and
the other as deviant from it. If only all human evolution debates held
these attitudes!
Two papers examine reproduction in different ways. Sperling &
Beyene critique the polarization of biological and cultural influences
upon reproduction, In fact, cultural practices can determine
physiological differences over a life span. This was pertinent because
it showed that blinkers do not just exist at the male/female and
biology/culture divides. Western nutritional and reproductive norms
cannot be viewed as 'normal' at all. Power & Aiello
continue the reproductive debates by refuting the 'coat-tails'
view of human evolution where changes occurred in the male sphere with
women taken 'along for the ride'. They also address the
important issue of the origins of symbolic concepts and social
structuring. Ethnographic systems show widespread menstrual taboos.
Since menstrual cycles link to lunar phases these 'periods'
govern ceremonies and hunting activities which take place in the
taboo-free intervals. This is a complex argument using different lines
of evidence.
The final paper by Conkey makes a fitting end. Its subject is imagery
of the past, but its key point forms an excellent conclusion to the
volume. We can deconstruct the imagery of the past but what do we want
to put in its place? Multiple possibilities and ambiguities deserve to
be explored and presented because they lead to a better understanding of
the subject. The authority of 'this is how it was' is false
and constrains ideas about human evolution. Norms and standards for two
sexes should not be set by one alone. This is to miss the evolutionary
potential of two sexes. Differences need to be recognized. The differing
wirings of the brain in each sex was a good example of how seeing one as
the norm and the other as deviant misses the scientific question of how
would these differences have worked.
This book both impresses in its scope but depresses in its
documentation of the continuing problems of gender bias in the field of
human evolution. It contains all that could be looked for in a
discussion of women and human evolution. There is historical depth,
scientific argument and the exposure of prejudice. It covers the work of
female researchers and the rich textures of women's social
relationships, the images of the past and current theories. As such, it
fits into a growing corpus of literature on gender issues (although it
misses some of the European and Australian publications on women and
archaeology) and deserves to be read widely. However, its target
audience is somewhat problematic. As with all these books, the very
people who most need to read such books will be the last to do so!
LINDA HURCOMBE Department of Archaeology, University of Exeter
L.M.Hurcombe@Exeter.ac.uk
References
CONNOR, S. 1997, DNA tests trace Adam to Africa, The Sunday Times 9
November 1997: 24.
HURCOMBE, L. 1995. Our own engendered species, Antiquity 69: 87-100.
