68

TARA MILLION

relational dialogues; spatial containment in archaeological practise and ideology; and the applications of archaeology in current social, political, and cultural contexts. As Conkey moves into presenting overviews of specific
archaeological work by feminist and Indigenous archaeologists, her writing
and tone become more direct. I found the subsections on archaeological interpretation, "Experience" and "Oral Traditions and Storytelling;' to be especially interesting explorations of the work that has been done, while Conkey's
interjected reflections provided considerable food for thought.
In general, Conkey has been one of the major influences on my development as an archaeologist. Her work in the early 1990s on engendering archaeology was immensely exciting and compelling for me (Conkey 1991; Gero and
Conkey 1991). Mong with Mison Wylie (1991), Joan Gero (Gero and Conkey
1991), and Janet Spector ( 1991, 1993), Margaret Conkey was a driving force in
recognising and developing a feminist archaeology. It was during my undergraduate years that I first encountered Conkey and her cohorts, and doing so
significantly altered my archaeological interests and research direction. At the
same time, I began to explore my personal approaches and reactions to archaeology and realised that other Indigenous archaeologists were doing the
same (Nicholas and Andrews 1997; Swidler et al. 1997). In addition to archaeology, Indigenous people were attempting to rework other academic disciplines such as anthropology and general research methodologies (Biolsi and
Zimmerman 1997; Smith 1999). I made several preliminary attempts at incorporating gender archaeology and Indigenous perspectives into undergraduate papers, but it was not until my master's fieldwork that I began to
genuinely"engender" and "Aboriginalize" my practise of archaeology (Million
2002, 2004).
Given my overall admiration for Conkey, I was disappointed in this article.
I found that in general the writing got in the way of the ideas presented: the
introduction is excessively apologetic; the definitions of "intersectionality"
"Indigenous archaeology(ies)," and "feminist archaeology(ies)" are unclear;
the use of qualifiers such as "might," "perhaps,' "may be," and "try to" weaken
the argument; and questions are used excessively. There were certain things
that I would have liked to see in both the tone and the intent of the article that
simply were not present. I thought the writing needed to be stronger and more
direct and the headings more accurate reflections of each section's content. I
felt that the introduction and title needed to state more strongly that this article is primarily an overview of feminist and Indigenous archaeology, both
methods and practitioners, with a secondary focus on presenting some possible directions for collaboration. In general, I would have liked this article either to be an explicit overview~retrospective/compilation of current and past
work in Indigenous and feminist archaeology, or to become two articles focussing on the overview and the collaborative possibilities separately. If this

68

TARA MILLION

relational dialogues; spatial containment in archaeological practise and ideology; and the applications of archaeology in current social, political, and cultural contexts. As Conkey moves into presenting overviews of specific
archaeological work by feminist and Indigenous archaeologists, her writing
and tone become more direct. I found the subsections on archaeological interpretation, "Experience" and "Oral Traditions and Storytelling;' to be especially interesting explorations of the work that has been done, while Conkey's
interjected reflections provided considerable food for thought.
In general, Conkey has been one of the major influences on my development as an archaeologist. Her work in the early 1990s on engendering archaeology was immensely exciting and compelling for me (Conkey 1991; Gero and
Conkey 1991). Mong with Mison Wylie (1991), Joan Gero (Gero and Conkey
1991), and Janet Spector ( 1991, 1993), Margaret Conkey was a driving force in
recognising and developing a feminist archaeology. It was during my undergraduate years that I first encountered Conkey and her cohorts, and doing so
significantly altered my archaeological interests and research direction. At the
same time, I began to explore my personal approaches and reactions to archaeology and realised that other Indigenous archaeologists were doing the
same (Nicholas and Andrews 1997; Swidler et al. 1997). In addition to archaeology, Indigenous people were attempting to rework other academic disciplines such as anthropology and general research methodologies (Biolsi and
Zimmerman 1997; Smith 1999). I made several preliminary attempts at incorporating gender archaeology and Indigenous perspectives into undergraduate papers, but it was not until my master's fieldwork that I began to
genuinely"engender" and "Aboriginalize" my practise of archaeology (Million
2002, 2004).
Given my overall admiration for Conkey, I was disappointed in this article.
I found that in general the writing got in the way of the ideas presented: the
introduction is excessively apologetic; the definitions of "intersectionality"
"Indigenous archaeology(ies)," and "feminist archaeology(ies)" are unclear;
the use of qualifiers such as "might," "perhaps,' "may be," and "try to" weaken
the argument; and questions are used excessively. There were certain things
that I would have liked to see in both the tone and the intent of the article that
simply were not present. I thought the writing needed to be stronger and more
direct and the headings more accurate reflections of each section's content. I
felt that the introduction and title needed to state more strongly that this article is primarily an overview of feminist and Indigenous archaeology, both
methods and practitioners, with a secondary focus on presenting some possible directions for collaboration. In general, I would have liked this article either to be an explicit overview~retrospective/compilation of current and past
work in Indigenous and feminist archaeology, or to become two articles focussing on the overview and the collaborative possibilities separately. If this

Comment on "Dwetfing at the Margins, Action at the Intersection?"

69

article were more firmly focussed on being an overview or were broken into
two separate articles, it/they could become very impressive and useful reference tools.
In terms of the idea of "intersectionality" that is presented in this work I
have several thoughts. First, I find Conkey's"hope that all archaeologists.., will
find something of value i n . . . the intersectionality of current feminist and Indigenous archaeologies" both laudable and idealistic (11). Although it would
be nice to think that the collaborative effort of two marginal groups will result
in substantial changes to the discipline, I highly doubt this will occur. Instead I
think there is a risk of further marginalising and isolating feminist and Indigenous archaeologists. An article on "intersectionality" between feminist and Indigenous archaeology is primarily going to be read by feminist and Indigenous
archaeologists, and I wonder both how many mainstream archaeologists are
going to read this article and what they will make of it if they do. In short, while
"intersectionality" between feminist and Indigenous archaeology is interesting
to some, it is not enough. In order for "intersectionality" to have a significant
and widespread impact on the discipline, there need to be intersections created
between all areas of archaeology: the margin and the mainstream; the more
powerful and the less powerful; the academic and the community; Western archaeologists and Indigenous archaeologists; and processualists, postprocessualists, and unclassifiables.
Lastly, Conkey walks her talk, so to speak. In this article, she has made a
significant contribution to the beginnings of archaeological "intersectionality" in several ways. She has identified two areas in current archaeology where
intersections are beginning to be explored, feminist archaeology and Indigenous archaeology, and has obviously pulled together a great deal of literature
research and review on these two areas, as seen in the substantial bibliography.
As well, Conkey creates some of the very intersections she is advocating for, by
incorporating the work of young, emerging archaeologists into her overview
of feminist and Indigenous archaeology and by connecting these theoretical
approaches to the practise of archaeology.

References Cited
Biolsi, T., and L. Zimmerman (editors)
1997. Indians and Anthropologists: Vine Deloria Jr. and the Critique of Anthropology.University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Conkey, M.
1991. Contextsof Action, Contexts for Power: Material Culture and Gender in the
Magdalenian. In Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory, edited by
J. Gero and M. Conkey.Blackwell,Oxford.

70

TARA MILLION

Gero, J., and M. Conkey (editors)

1991. Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. Blackwell, Oxford, United
Kingdom.
Million, T.
2002. Using Circular Paradigms within an Archaeological Framework: Receiving
Gifts from White Buffalo Calf Woman. Unpublished thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
2004. Exploring the History of Archaeological Theory and Method. In Aboriginal
Cultural Landscapes, edited by J. Oakes, R. Riewe, Y. Belanger, S. Blady,
K. Legge, and P. Wiebe. Aboriginal Issues Press, University of Manitoba,
Winnipeg, Canada.
Nicholas, G., and T. Andrews (editors)
1997. At a Crossroads: Archaeology and First Peoples in Canada. Archaeology Press,
Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.
Smith, L.T.
1999. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. Zed Books,
London.
Spector, J.
1991. What This Awl Means: Towards a Feminist Archaeology. In EngenderingArchaeology: Women and Prehistory, edited by 1. Gero and M. Conkey. Blackwell, Oxford, United Kingdom.
1993. What This Awl Means: Feminist Archaeology at a Wahpeton Dakota Village.
Minnesota Historical Society Press, St. Paul.
Swidler, N., K. Donogoske, R. Anyon, and A. Downer (editors)
1997. Native Americans and Archaeologists: Stepping Stones to Common Ground.
MtaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California.
Wylie, A.
1991. Gender Theory and the Archaeological Record: Why Is There No Archaeology of Gender? In Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory, edited
by J. Gero and M. Conkey. Blackwell, Oxford, United Kingdom.