Rhinds Sister | Recognising and honouring women in archaeology

Originally posted online on 24 November 2014 at rmchapple.blogspot.com

(http://rmchapple.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/rhinds-sister-recognising-and-
honouring_24.html)

Appendix >

If I like you, I like you.

For me thats a pretty simple philosophy.
Similarly, when it comes to academic pursuits if I like and respect your work its
because do actually like and respect your work. What Im getting at here is that I dont
have any particular agendas when it comes to the age, sex, gender, ethnicity, or
whatever else you care to mention. Basically, if youre doing interesting work (or, at
least work that I find interesting which is inevitably bound up in its own collection
of biases) I dont particularly care if youre male or female, what colour skin youve got,
or who you choose to sleep with. That all sounds laudably liberal, but it does put me in
the odd position that certain things are largely invisible to me as theyre totally off my
radar. They dont bother me because I not always aware that I need to be bothered.
Sometimes it takes someone stating the blindingly obvious (to everyone else) for me
to recognise that a problem even exists.

In April of this year, Emeritus Professor John Waddell was given the honour of being
the 2014 Rhind Lecturer. I was taught by Waddell for my undergraduate degree (1991)
and he consented to be the supervisor for my MA (1998). I continue to regard him as
a mentor, and one of the most important figures in modern Irish archaeology. The
series of lectures are named for Alexander Henry Rhind (1833-1863), who left a
bequest to the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland for that purpose. His Wikipedia entry
notes that he was the first archaeologist to plot the exact locations and relationships of
finds, and that he was described as the only bright shining light of archaeological
method and conscience during the mid-19th century. If you have anything more than
a passing interest in Egyptology, you will also know him as the purchaser of the Rhind
Mathematical Papyrus, now in the British Museum. The first Rhind Lecture was held
in 1874 and, up to 2014, there have been 135 lectures. I didnt think too much about it
its a prestigious honour, given to an undoubtedly deserving recipient. My only
sadness was that I would not be able to get to Edinburgh to see the event in person.

That was right up until a well-known academic asked the simple question on social
media: how many of those Rhind Lecturers were women? I had no idea, so I did what
anyone would do I Googled it! I shot back a quick answer based on a very speedy
assay of the evidence and I was shocked. A day or so later I changed my answer
slightly, once Id taken a closer look at the data. In the time since that initial exchange,
this has continued to bother me so Ive decided to re-examine the available data and
present it here.

At a quick glance, it appeared that those 135 lectures were given by 139 people (some
lectures had multiple presenters). Some years have had no Rhind Lecture, others have
had two. No lecture was held in 1957, owing to the death of the intended lecturer,
Professor Sen P. Rordin. The lectures for 1874-8 were all given by Arthur
Mitchell, and those for 1879-82, and 1892 were given by Joseph Anderson. Thomas
Ross was the Rhind Lecturer in 1899 and 1902, and Dr F Haverfield was Lecturer in
1905 and 1907, while Professor Haakon Shetelig gave the lectures for both 1940 and
1946. As the Wikipedia entry for the Rhind Lectures has considered each to be a
separate event, I feel that I would be justified in following suit. However, Ive taken the
line that once a Rhind Lecturer, always a Rhind Lecturer you cant become more
the Rhind Lecturer by doing it more than once! Similarly, the Rhind Lectures were
jointly given on a number of occasions: Professor John and Dr Bryony Coles shared
the duties in 1994/95 and in 1999/00 the lecture series was shared between four
individuals (Dr DV Clarke; Professor D Meek; Dr JNG Ritchie; Mr WDH Sellar). Ive
chosen to count each of these as an individual Rhind Lecturer and not 0.5 or 0.25
each.

Year-on-year accumulation of Rhind Lecturers. 1874-2014

By my rough count, that makes 131 people who have given the Lectures. When it comes
to dividing the list between the sexes, I make it that 111 men have given Rhind
Lecturers, but only five women have been so honoured. I have a further 15 people
where, based on the evidence available to me, I have been unable to come to a
conclusion as to their sex. In some cases it has been easy to know whos who I either
know the person is; their full name is given (John, William, Eric are all easy to
differentiate from Bryony and Rosalie), their title (Mr vs Mrs and Miss), or personal
information can be found online. All the same I did attempt to double check as many
names as possible and in the process I managed to learn that J Romilly Allen was
actually male, not female I presume that I always imagined that Romilly was a
girls name. Where Ive been unable to verify the sex of an individual by any of the
means above, Ive categorised them as unsure. Im sure that a broader knowledge of
various aspects of archaeology would quickly resolve these remaining uncertainties.
Ive published my data as an appendix to this post, so the reader can check my figures
[here]. If anyone can provide evidence to remove my uncertainty over the remaining
15, Ill happily accept it and amend my figures accordingly.

All caveats and lacunae aside, its clear that men vastly outnumber women as Rhind
Lecturers. By my figures, men make up 85% of the total. Women, by contrast, make
up a pitiful 4%. Even if all of the unsure Lecturers turned out to be women (although
thats vastly unlikely), it would only bring the figure up to 15%. The first female
presenter was a Mrs Eugnie Sellers Strong, of the British School at Rome, who spoke
on Painting in the Roman Empire (from the last century of the Republic to about 800
AD) in 1921. It would be another 29 years before another female Rhind Lecturer
appeared: Miss I F Grant spoke on Periods of Highland Civilization in 1950. The
1976/77 lecture was given by Dr Isabel Henderson on the topic of Pictish Art and
Society. The next was 11 years later in 1987/88 when The Archaeology of Death in
Ancient Egypt was delivered by Dr A Rosalie David. The most recent was when Dr
Bryony Coles spoke (with Prof John Coles) in 1994/95 on Enlarging the Past: the
contribution of Wetland Archaeology.

That was twenty years ago! Not that I want to excuse or explain away the lack of female
lectures, but you dont generally expect to see too many women in top academic
positions in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. But in the period since then its
difficult to believe that the organising committee couldnt find a suitably qualified
female lecturer to fulfil the role. I am fully aware that societal differences, expectations,
and life choices regularly mean that women do not attain the professional status and
recognition that they might otherwise achieve. Even so, I simply refuse to accept that
only five women since 1874 (three post-1960) have been sufficiently advanced in the
archaeo-historic professions as to be awarded this accolade.

Obviously, this is not simply an issue with the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland it
is reflective of broader societal trends and problems. I dont presume to tell the Rhind
selection committee (and others like them) who they should or should not confer their
honours upon. However, as the gender ratio in archaeology approaches parity, we
should all be mindful that honouring outstanding contributions through selective
processes, like the Rhind, should reflect that balance. I am an unlikely and somewhat
uncomfortable spokesperson for feminism, but the truth is that when I graphed out
my results they really did shock me. I know plenty of really top-notch female
archaeologists some are well-established and some are in the process of becoming
so and it stung me to think that no matter how high the quality of their work, they
were less likely to be chosen for prestigious recognition than their male colleagues.
An early draft of this piece attempted to frame a conclusion with some uplifting words
that were suitably forward looking and forward thinking. The more I thought about it,
the more I realised that platitudes from people like me are merely part of the problem.
I can be as laudably liberal as I like about this, and express as much righteous tutting
as I can muster, all rounded off with some banality about hope for future change. I
wrote all that. I looked at it. I reconsidered and deleted the lot on several occasions
I abandoned this draft it just seemed too difficult and contentious to write it would
have been easier to pretend that I didnt notice and that it doesnt bother me. But I did
notice and it does bother me!

Im still not particularly sure what I should say in conclusion Ive no personal power
to influence any academic body, and theyre unlikely to come seeking my advice. I can
attempt to recognise and change my own biases, so that I become more aware, but
thats of limited value to anyone but myself. At the top of the tree, institutions like
Society of Antiquaries of Scotland have a huge role to play in recognising and
rewarding our top archaeologists. Decisions made at this level have an enormous
impact not just for the chosen individual, but for the next generation of professionals.
All other institutions that reward excellence in academia from bursaries, grants, and
sundry honours need to be attuned to this too. These decisions provide significant
role models, career-long inspiration, or simply the understanding that academic work
is assessed on merit alone, not on which set of reproductive organs youre in possession
of!

There are plenty of great archaeological researchers, academics, and deep thinkers out
there who also happen to be women. Theyre not hard to find! Theyre in all the same
places that male archaeologists are to be found universities, research institutes,
museums, and sundry places of higher learning. On the basis of who gets chosen as
Rhind Lecturer, theyre clearly being ignored. Whether that stems from an active or a
passive disinterest (as was my own situation) is immaterial - it's still disinterest and
it's hurting careers, it's harming individuals, and (most important of all) it's hampering
the wider project of researching and understanding our shared past.

All I can say right now is that this situation is wrong and it needs to change. Everyone
engaged in academic pursuits even if only on the peripheries, like myself must
realise that there is a problem that needs fixing. Until then, there is no hope for the
future.

Appendix >

Notes:
Data was taken from the Rhind Lecture Wikipedia page [here] and the Society of
Antiquaries of Scotland page [here].

The Rhind Lecture Wikipedia page [here] gives the 1987/88 Lecturer as Dr A Rosalie
Davie, which I am taking to be a typo. See here.

You can find videos of all of John Waddells 2014 Rhind Lectures here.

The title of an earlier draft of this post was a slight play on the name The Honourable
Woman, a recent TV miniseries, starring Maggie Gyllenhaal. I eventually decided not
to use it as the movement between a woman possessing honour vs. a woman who
should receive honours seemed more likely to confuse and alienate than draw in
readers. I mention it here solely in terms of the TV show - despite being in need of a
bit of editing (its about two episodes too long), its an excellent, thought-provoking
series & I highly recommend it! Also, Maggie Gyllenhaals English accent is so
convincing I was sure that she was a brilliant actress from the UK that Id not
previously encountered its worth watching for that alone!

The actual title of this post is a play on the Shakespeares Sister section of Virginia
Woolfs 1929 extended essay A Room of One's Own but, of course, you knew that.

Update:
Not long after this post went live, I was contacted by Maarten Blaauw of QUB with an
alternative means of graphing the situation:

Graph of cumulative relative female contributions to the Rhind lecturers. Red =

women, blue = males, black = unknown.