Author: Debbie

Early women in prehistoric archaeology: the case of Berlin, 1880s to 1930s (Part 2)

Posted on by Debbie

by Elsbeth Bösl & Doris Gutsmiedl-Schümann

The early 20th century and the Kiekebusch seminar at Märkisches Museum
At the turn of the 20th century, things began to change. Both amateurs and academic scholars began narrow their expertise to certain focus fields. Distinct disciplines evolved out of Altertumskunde and prehistoric archaeology was turned into an academic profession with distinct boundaries and institutions. University chairs and institutes were installed (Kühn 1976, Leube 2010, Wiwjorra 2006).

Heritage conservation was institutionalized outside of academia. Some of the amateur societies changed into academic bodies, others became irrelevant or specialised in the local preservation of archaeological monuments. At the same time, German nationalism became increasingly radical, and a specific German way of doing prehistoric archaeology, Deutsche Vorgeschichte, was branded by Gustav Kossinna and his followers. (Gramsch 2006) After the First World War, this process gained momentum and political attention to Deutsche Vorgeschichte increased, Germano-mania was on the rise (Leube 2010).

How did these changes impact women?

In the years before the turn of the century, private and public girls’ schools emerged in Berlin, allowing women to attain degrees for university entry, and by 1909, the University of Berlin admitted women as regular students. However, most of these women opted for fields such as medicine and the social sciences, not archaeology (Heinsohn 1996; Mazón 2003; Coastas 2010).

Few women studied prehistoric archaeology before 1930 in Berlin. Studying meant a heavy financial burden and personal insecurity. Most female students depended on their families and on the goodwill of the male professors and supervisors. There was also the question of paid employment after graduation. Where would female archaeologists find a job?

While a number of self-taught women volunteered in archaeology, only a handful of women were accepted into paid positions in the 1910s to 1920s. And very few of them actually had degrees in archaeology. Most of the women we discovered in the museums and at the university of Berlin worked as secretaries, librarians and technical assistants. They had no formal qualification in archaeology but had been qualified in office professions. They trained on the job — sorting finds and labelling them, keeping research diaries, creating card indexes, and catalogues, and mounting photos, as well as restoring, drawing, and editing (with further references Bösl / Gutsmiedl-Schümann 2024).

Such jobs were increasingly coded as suitable jobs for women – albeit under male supervision. These jobs were also regarded as subaltern. They were hardly visible but these women significantly contributed to everyday research, knowledge transfer and communication.
In Berlin, however, a rather unique path into archaeology connected 19th-century civil science with 20th-century academic archaeology: Berlin was renowned for its teacher training programs during the 1910s and 1920s, with prehistory being a prominent discipline. Melting nationalism, patriotism and local-ism into one, this approach aimed to familiarize school children with the prehistory of their home area, fostering a strong sense of attachment (Kiekebusch 1915).

Albert Kiekebusch (1870–1935), a prehistoric archaeologist and the director of the Märkisches Museum in Berlin, established semi-academic classes that provided practical training, including excavation techniques and conservation (Dorka 1955; Kiekebusch 1915). Members of the Kiekebusch Circle, as it was often called, contributed voluntarily to conservation and heritage management. Notably, around one-third of the participants were women, as teaching was deemed a suitable academic profession for women early on (ref Dorka 1955).

Lena Köppler (biographical data unknown) and Elisabeth Bellot (1881-1956)

Grainy black and white photograph of a white woman from the early 1900s.

Fig 6. Elisabeth Bellot, c. 1937. Source: LAB_Bellot Reichskammer Bildende Künste A Rep. 243-04;542.

Two of these women teachers were Lena Köppler and Elisabeth Bellot (Keil 2022; Bösl 2023c). Both continued their teaching careers while engaging in voluntary archaeological work. Elisabeth Bellot also pursued the career as an artist and wrote a book on childhood psychology. She focused on recording ground monuments and conducting surveys, emphasizing drawing as a critical tool for authentication and knowledge transmission. Despite emerging photography, drawing remained pivotal for conveying findings and insights.

Sepia photograph of a woman in a excavation hole looking at finds.

Fig. 7. Lena Köppler at the excavation of Pennigsberg, 1930. Source: I-MPM, 087 Pennigsberg 1930-L.Köppler

Lena Köppler served as a voluntary conservator for Neukölln in Berlin, overseeing recoveries, excavations, documentation, and visitor engagement. Two other female teachers from the Kiekebusch Circle transitioned to studying prehistoric archaeology in Berlin: Waldtraut Bohm and Gertrud Dorka.

Waldtraut Bohm (1890-1969)

Black and white photograph of a white woman in glasses with dark hair.

Fig. 8. Waldtraut Bohm, 1961. Photo from family property (rights holder WP-user History&more), CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

One of them was Waldtraut Bohm (1890-1969), who graduated from the university of Berlin in 1930. Even before studying she had organized and negotiated the purchase of private collections of finds for the Märkisches Museum. Kiekebusch had great trust in her capabilities and treated her as an independent colleague (Koch 2024).

She graduated with a seminal study on early Bronze age Brandenburg (HU UA, Phil.Fak.01.Prom, Nr. 749; Bohm 1935). Afterwards she was employed to the Staatliches Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte to sort and arrange finds at the prehistoric department, followed by a systematic archaeological survey of the Westprignitz, a region in Brandenburg. The publication of her book Die Vorgeschichte des Kreises Westprignitz in 1937 marked a transition: Waldtraut Bohm was not following strict science anymore; instead she adopted a nationalistic and racist take on ‘Germanic’ prehistory. So, the book turned out a peculiar mix of a very modern type of catalogue with detailed documentation on the one hand and an ideologic, Germano-manic essay part on the other hand (Bohm 1937).

With the rise of the National Socialism political and ideological objectives were prioritized in prehistoric archaeology. Women who embraced Nazi ideology such as Waldtraut Bohm now found increased funding and job prospects, particularly during WWII. Prehistoric archaeology received ample funding after the Nazis seized power in 1933 now. New job opportunities opened up in conservation and heritage work as well as in popular prehistory and science communication, especially in Berlin. It was a political goal to advance public interest in Germanic prehistory to prepare a scientific rationale for conquest. Waldtraut Bohm who openly embraced Nazism received a job at the publication’s office of the NSDAP at Amt Rosenberg as a proofreader which actually meant she became a censor. She also co-edited popular prehistoric archaeology books and a handbook of German Prehistory (Handlexikon der Deutschen Vorgeschichte) – this was clearly ideological work. So were the public lectures she now gave frequently (Barthel / Atzenbeck 1938; Lindemann 2011).

Gertrud Dorka (1893-1976)

Sepia images of a woman crouched down on an excavation site.

Fig. 9. Gertrud Dorka at the excavation of Pennigsberg 1930. Source: I-MPM, 087 Pennigsberg 1930-G.Dorka

Gertrud Dorka took quite a different path. She was a member of the Kiekebusch Circle since 1916 and devoted teacher. She was particularly fond of and good at creating exhibitions and taking classes through them. She volunteered as a museum guide at Märkisches Museum and curated mobile exhibitions for schools in the 1920s. In 1930 she took up studying part time alongside her teaching job. It was very hard for her to bring up the money. She prepared a dissertation on the prehistory of the Pyritz (Pyrzyce, Poland), a district in East Prussia (Dorka 1939; Gutsmiedl-Schümann / Koch / Bösl 2023; Gandert 1957; Müller 1978; Hohmann 1963.)
However, Getrud Dorka faced massive conflicts with her Berlin professor, Hans Reinerth, a leading figure in Nazi Germany’s prehistorical research at the aforementioned Amt Rosenberg. Due to ideological disputes with Reinerth she initially failed to complete her PhD and returned to full-time teaching. With the help of friends from the Kiekebusch Circle, she later took her degree at the university of Kiel. Gertrud Dorka then turned down a museum job at Kiel because it would have come with the obligation to join the Nazi party. She did not expect to work as an archaeologist anymore.

hand drawn portrait of a white woman with wavy hair.

Fig. 10. Gertrud Dorka. Portrait drawn by Jens Notroff.

Yet, after World War II, Gertrud Dorka became the first female director of the Ehemals Staatliches Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Berlin (former State Museum for Prehistory and Early History). She rebuilt the destroyed museum and it’s library and reorganized the system of heritage management in the Western parts of the divided city (Hohmann 1963; Gandert 1957; Müller 1978). She had kept in touch with people from the Kiekebusch Circle, and now collaborated with former fellow members such as Lena Köppler and others. Gertrud Dorka was also the leading figure behind the re-launch of the BGAEU after 1945 (Dorka 1955). The role of the BGEAU, however, had changed and it never lived up to its 19th century importance. Gertrud Dorka also chose other venues for her activities which shows how things had changed for professional women. Even though the 1950s were a period of restoration and restrictive on working women there was an increasing number of options for those who wanted to engage with others and make their voices heard. Gertrud Dorka now engaged in the Berlin branch of Deutscher Akademikerinnen Bund e.V., the most important association of professional women in Germany that was re-established after 1945 and now bloomed.

Group photo of 10 people, 4 women sitting, 6 men standing at the back with a dog lying down at the front.

Fig 11. Gertrud Dorka with her staff in the 1950s. Source: MVF_Berlin_Dorka-Album_F5037

Conclusion

In conclusion, our analysis has centred on the significance of citizen science during the nascent phases of German prehistoric archaeology, particularly its influence on the roles of women. We have charted the trajectories of female archaeologists against the backdrop of socio-political and historical dynamics spanning the late 19th to the early 20th centuries. We advocate for conceptualizing the knowledge production process as a collaborative endeavour, acknowledging the diverse contributions of individuals undertaking various tasks and employing a range of tools.

Biography

Elsbeth Bösl is a research associate at the University of the Armed Forces in Munich. She holds a Ph.D. in Contemporary History and specializes in the History of Science and Technology, Disability History, and Gender History. She is currently working on early female archaeologists in the project “Akteurinnen archäologischer Forschung zwischen Geistes- und Naturwissenschaften: Im Feld, im Labor, am Schreibtisch (AktArcha)”, funded by the by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

Doris Gutsmiedl-Schümann is research associate at the University of the Armed Forces in Munich and Privatdozent at the Institute of Prehistoric Archaeology, Freie Universität Berlin. She holds a doctorate in prehistoric archaeology from the University of Bonn and a master’s degree in Higher Education from the University of Hamburg. She is also working in the “AktArcha”-project on early female archaeologists.

Bibliography

Barthel, Waldemar & Atzenbeck, Carl (1938), Handlexikon der deutschen Vorgeschichte. Durchgesehen und in wesentlichen Teilen nach neuesten Ergebnissen überarbeitet und ergänzt von Waldtraut Bohm, 2. erw. Aufl., Verlagsanstalt Wilhelm Kürzl, München.

Bohm, Waldtraut (1935), Die ältere Bronzezeit in der Mark Brandenburg, Berlin.

Bohm, Waldtraut (1937), Die Vorgeschichte des Kreises Westprignitz, Leipzig.

Bösl, Elsbeth (2023c), Frauen in der Berliner Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte (BGAEU), AktArcha – Akteurinnen archäologischer Forschung und ihre Geschichte(n), 19.1.2023, URL: https://aktarcha.hypotheses.org/1229 [accessed 1 July 2024].

Bösl, Elsbeth & Gutsmiedl-Schümann, Doris (2024), ‘Breaking Ground: Women’s Roles in German Archaeology Since the Nineteenth Century’, Bulletin of the History of Archaeology, Vol 34 / Issue 1, URL: https://archaeologybulletin.org/articles/10.5334/bha-680

Costas, Ilse (2010), ‘Von der Gasthörerin zur voll immatrikulierten Studentin: Die Zulassung von Frauen in den deutschen Bundesstaaten 1900–1909’, Trude Maurer (ed.), Der Weg an die Universität: Höhere Frauenstudien vom Mittelalter bis zum 20. Jahrhundert, Göttingen, pp. 191–210.

Dorka, Gertrud (1939), Urgeschichte des Weizacker-Kreises Pyritz, Stettin.

Dorka, Gertrud (1955), ‘Gertrud Dorka: 40 Jahre siedlungsarchäologische Übungen und Studien in Berlin. Aus der Geschichte des ‘Seminars’, begründet von Albert Kiekebusch im Jahre 1915′, Berliner Blätter für Vor- und Frühgeschichte, 5/3-4: 73–80.

Gandert, Otto-Friedrich (1957) Otto-Friedrich Gandert: Gertrud Dorka zum 65. Geburtstag. Berliner Blätter für Vor- und Frühgeschichte, 6/2-3: 49–51.

Gramsch Alexander (2006), ‘Eine kurze Geschichte des Archäologischen Denkens in Deutschland, Leipziger online-Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie’, Sabine Rieckhoff and Wolf-Rüdiger (eds.) Teegen 19 (2006), https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:bsz:15-qucosa2-33995.

Gutsmiedl-Schümann, Doris & Koch, Julia Katharina & Bösl, Elsbeth (2023), Women’s Contributions to Archaeology in Germany Since the Nineteenth Century, Sandra L. López Varela (Hrsg.) (eds.) Women in Archaeology. Intersectionalities in Practice Worldwide, New York, pp. 283–307.

Heinsohn, Kirsten (1996), Der lange Weg zum Abitur, Elke Kleinau and Claudia Opitz (eds.) Geschichte der Frauen- und Mädchenbildung, 2: Vom Vormärz bis zur Gegenwart, Frankfurt a.M., pp. 149–161.

Hohmann, Karl (1963), ‘Gertrud Dorka zum 70. Geburtstag.’ Berliner Blätter für Vor- und Frühgeschichte, 10/1: 1-4.

Imeri, Sabine (2019), Wissenschaft in Netzwerken. Volkskundliche Arbeit in Berlin um 1900, Berlin.

Keil, Maria (2022), “Stirb und werde” – Biografische Notizen zu Elisabeth Bellot (1881–1956), AktArcha – Akteurinnen archäologischer Forschung und ihre Geschichte(n), 08.12.2022, URL: https://aktarcha.hypotheses.org/912 [accessed 1 July 2024].

Kiekebusch, Albert (1915), Die heimische Altertumskunde in der Schule. Ein Beitrag zur Um- und Ausgestaltung des heimatkundlichen Unterrichts, Berlin.

Koch, Julia (2024): Waldtraud Bohm (1890–1969), AktArcha – Akteurinnen archäologischer Forschung und ihre Geschichte(n), 22.02.2024, URL: https://aktarcha.hypotheses.org/4516.

Kühn, Herbert (1976), Geschichte der Vorgeschichtsforschung, Berlin.

Leube, Achim (2010), Prähistorie zwischen Kaiserreich und wiedervereinigtem Deutschland. 100 Jahre Ur- und Frühgeschichte an der Berliner Universität Unter den Linden, Bonn.

Lindemann, Arne (2011) ‘Der Prignitzer Boden gehört also zum uralten Heimatboden der Germanen“. Waldtraut Bohm und das Museum Perleberg’, Museumsblätter. Mitteilungen des Museumsverbandes Brandenburg 18: 40-41.

Mazón, Patrizia (2003), Gender and the Modern Research University: The Admission of Women to German Higher Education, 1865-1914, Stanford.

Müller, Adriaan von (1978), ‘Gertrud Dorka zum Gedenken’, Ausgrabungen in Berlin. Forschungen und Funde zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Berlin 5: 175.

Waldtraut Bohm (1937), Die Vorgeschichte des Kreises Westprignitz, Leipzig.

Wiwjorra, Ingo (2006), Die politischen und geistesgeschichtlichen Voraussetzungen der ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Bemerkungen zu Forschungsstand und Forschungsperspektiven, in Jörg Haspel & Wilfried Menghin (eds) Miscellanea Archaeologica III. Berlin und Brandenburg. Geschichte der archäologischen Forschung, Petersberg, pp. 11-25.

This post is part of a series in which speakers of the session “(In)Visbile Women in History of Archaeology” of the Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists 2023 publish their presentations. The posts will be published simultaneously in German and English. The German version of this post can be found on the blog of the project AktArcha at https://aktarcha.hypotheses.org/6625.

Early women in prehistoric archaeology: the case of Berlin, 1880s to 1930s (Part 1)

Posted on by Debbie

by Elsbeth Bösl & Doris Gutsmiedl-Schümann

This topic was first presented to the Session “(In)visible Women in History of Archaeology” at EAA’s 29th Annual Meeting at Belfast in 2023. We took the audience along to Berlin and introduced them to women who worked in prehistoric archaeology from the 1880s to the early 1930s.

We used an interdisciplinary approach, integrating biographical and history of science perspectives to examine gender dynamics in archaeology’s historical trajectory (with reference to Harders 2020). Our methodology scrutinizes printed materials and archival records, while acknowledging the inherent limitations imposed by the scarcity of such sources. The scope of our investigation encompasses the broad spectrum of archaeological work, covering both amateur and academic realms, diverse professional roles, and engagement across universities, museums, preservation, and science communication. This inclusive approach proves essential in unravelling the contributions of women during the discipline’s formative years.

While we adopt the “women-in-science”-perspective here, our overall objective is to contribute to a gendered history of archaeology. Our focus on collecting data about women serves as a means to challenge the historical male bias pervasive in scholarship. Emphasizing a gendered analysis, we recognize the need for comprehensive information on individuals, transcending gender boundaries, to counteract the prevailing narrative dominated by a few male figures in prehistoric archaeology. By concentrating on the often-overlooked group of women, we remain attuned to other marginalized groups, prompting an intersectional perspective. The study advocates for the inclusion of diverse categories such as gender, class, background, ethnicity, religion, and more in shaping a nuanced understanding of archaeology’s historical landscape.

The rise of prehistoric archaeology and the self-taught independent researchers of the 19th century

In the 19th century, the emergence of prehistoric archaeology in Germany was propelled by the exploration of local finds and sites, leading to the establishment of collections and museums. In post-Napoleonic times this surge was fuelled by political nationalism. It was often amateurs, predominantly from the Protestant educated bourgeois middle class, who promoted the expansion of prehistoric archaeology. The rise of the discipline had a lot to do with the rise of the bourgeoisie as a social class and as actors in the political process. Clubs and societies were founded in an attempt to demonstrate the claim for participation at a time when political participation was rather limited. These enthusiasts engaged in archaeology, anthropology, ethnology, and linguistics, forming a variety of scientific societies for discourse and collaboration (Imeri 2019). Many of them also provided women with diverse opportunities to actively participate in and contribute to the field of archaeology. In the 19th century German prehistoric archaeology was mainly shaped by citizen science.

The city of Berlin played a pivotal role in these developments. As the capital of Prussia and later the Deutsches Reich, Berlin burgeoned into a metropolis with a vibrant cultural and scholarly environment. The city, integral to German university reform, housed numerous museums, collections, libraries, and science clubs, including the Berliner Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte (BGAEU), co-founded in 1869 by Rudolf Virchow. Notably, this society embraced female members from its inception. Turning our attention to women in this narrative, Julie Schlemm emerges as one of the amateur experts affiliated with BGAEU.

Julie Schlemm (1850-1944)

A sepia photograph of a a group of people with hand written names underneath.

Fig. 1. The photo shows Julie Schlemm in the group picture at the conference of the Anthropological Society in Heilbronn in 1911. Schlemm is marked as No. 10. Source: BGAEU FS 142 Julie Schlemm 1911

The number 10 written on a sepia blurred photograph of a woman.

Fig. 2. Detail showing Julia Schlemm in the group picture.

In our review of the BGAEU records, we found Julie Schlemm’s first mention in 1893, when she became a regular member of the society – likely due to her father’s influence (Bösl 2023a). Despite the era’s educational barriers for women, Julie Schlemm, being financially independent, educated herself. Utilizing digital tools, we catalogued her work and connected with scholars, revealing her ongoing scientific impact.

Julie Schlemm’s biography is elusive, with scant archival evidence. Her intellectual approach involved extensive reading, critiques, travel, and photography, rather than fieldwork. She significantly advanced typology, managing the Berlin Museum für Völkerkunde’s typology cards in 1905 and serving on various committees (Imeri 2019; Bösl 2023). In subsequent years, Schlemm authored research articles for the Zeitschrift für Ethnologie solidified her reputation.

Image of a book open at a page of illustrations and words.

Fig 3. Pages from The Wörterbuch zur Vorgeschichte

Moreover, Julie Schlemm authored the first comprehensive German dictionary of prehistoric archaeology, The Wörterbuch zur Vorgeschichte, a tome of 700 pages with over 2,000 meticulously hand-drawn illustrations (Schlemm 1908). In her era, museums and universities were bursting with fresh discoveries. This prompted a need for reference books. And her’s was the first German comprehensive attempt in this direction.

In the preface, she positioned the handbook as a service to her “fellow sufferers” who, like her, engaged in archaeology out of passion or lacked access to extensive libraries and public collections. Schlemm, assertively, extended her address to professional archaeologists as well (Schlemm 1908, 9). Leaving behind contemporary conventional approaches, she innovatively structured the book strictly by typology and chronology. The handbook received international acclaim (Schmidt 1908; Waldeyer 1908; Seger-Breslau 1908).

The handbook also aids in unravelling the process of her being forgotten. Last documented in 1976 by prehistoric archaeologist Herbert Kühn (1895-1980) within his historical narrative of the discipline in Germany (Kühn 1976), he lauded Schlemm’s book as an outstanding work. However, Schlemm’s legacy faded, with scant references after Kühn 1976. She epitomized women’s passion-driven contributions to archaeology, finding community in Berlin’s science clubs.

A hand drawn portrait of a white woman wearing her hair in a bun in 1900s style dress.

Fig. 4. Julie Schlemm. Portrait drawn by Jens Notroff.

Educated upper-middle-class women found socially and morally acceptable spaces to pursue scientific interests, placing their research at the forefront despite limited formal education and lacking degrees, significantly contributing to the discipline’s development (Imeri 2019). Translating was one such important contribution.

Margarete Lehmann-Filhès (1852–1911)

Margarete Lehmann-Filhès (1852–1911) was a pivotal translator in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, notably advancing early prehistorical research (Gutsmiedl-Schümann/Koch/Bösl 2023). Her expertise in translating Icelandic archaeological and ethnological texts enriched the BGAEU meetings and her work was frequently published. Margarete Lehmann-Filhès’ research spanned ethnoarchaeology, experimental archaeology, and ethnology, with a notable focus on board-weaving, leading to her acclaimed 1901 study (Lehmann-Filhès 1901).

a black and white photograph of a white woman in a high neck black top with a broach.

Fig. 5. Margarete Lehmann-Filhés as a young woman. Source: Þorvaldur Thoroddsen: Margarete Lehmann-Filhés, Eimreiðin, 18 (1912), 103-106, 103.

Similar to Julie Schlemm, Margarete Lehmann-Filhès’ biography was challenging to uncover, with scant information available from archives (Bösl 2023b). Nonetheless, through the proliferation of retro-digitized collections, we accessed a posthumous obituary in the Icelandic cultural journal Eimreiðin (Thoroddsen 1912), shedding light on her background. Born and raised in Berlin, she hailed from a family with an academic inclination, her mother Bertha Filhés being a writer and her father a philology professor. She was educated at a girls’ school with private training in the natural sciences, and she autonomously selected her academic interests, focusing on ancient and modern languages, northern folklore, and history. Self-taught in Icelandic language, she initiated research on Icelandic history, advocating for its translation into German to benefit scholars. The BGAEU routinely published her translations and digests.
This highlights the favourable conditions for women in the discipline’s early formation, characterized by a blurred line between scholarly and amateur research. Although few in number and often excluded from leadership positions, women made significant contributions to the field.

Biography

Elsbeth Bösl is a research associate at the University of the Armed Forces in Munich. She holds a Ph.D. in Contemporary History and specializes in the History of Science and Technology, Disability History, and Gender History. She is currently working on early female archaeologists in the project “Akteurinnen archäologischer Forschung zwischen Geistes- und Naturwissenschaften: Im Feld, im Labor, am Schreibtisch (AktArcha)”, funded by the by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

Doris Gutsmiedl-Schümann is research associate at the University of the Armed Forces in Munich and Privatdozent at the Institute of Prehistoric Archaeology, Freie Universität Berlin. She holds a doctorate in prehistoric archaeology from the University of Bonn and a master’s degree in Higher Education from the University of Hamburg. She is also working in the “AktArcha”-project on early female archaeologists.

Bibliography

Bösl, Elsbeth (2023a), Julie Schlemm, in AktArcha – Akteurinnen archäologischer Forschung und ihre Geschichte(n), 9.2.2023, URL:https://aktarcha.hypotheses.org/1306 [accessed 1 July 2024].

Bösl, Elsbeth (2023b), Margarethe Lehmann-Filhés (1.9.1852– 17.8.1911), AktArcha – Akteurinnen archäologischer Forschung und ihre Geschichte(n), 2.2.2023, https://aktarcha.hypotheses.org/1279 [accessed 1 July 2024].

Gutsmiedl-Schümann, Doris & Koch, Julia Katharina & Bösl, Elsbeth (2023), ‘Women’s Contributions to Archaeology in Germany Since the Nineteenth Century’, in: Sandra L. López Varela (Hrsg.) (eds.), Women in Archaeology. Intersectionalities in Practice Worldwide, New York, pp. 283–307.

Harders, Levke (2020), Historische Biografieforschung (Version 1.0), in Docupedia-Zeitgeschichte: Begriffe, Methoden und Debatten der zeithistorischen Forschung, Potsdam: Leibniz-Zentrum für Zeithistorische Forschung: https://docupedia.de/zg/Harders_historische_Biografieforschung_v1_de_2020.
Imeri, Sabine (2019), Wissenschaft in Netzwerken. Volkskundliche Arbeit in Berlin um 1900, Berlin.

Kühn, Herbert (1976), Geschichte der Vorgeschichtsforschung, Berlin.

Lehmann-Filhés, Margarete (1901), Über Brettchenweberei, Berlin: Reimer.

Schlemm, Julie (1908), Wörterbuch zur Vorgeschichte. Ein Hilfsmittel beim Studium vorgeschichtlicher Altertümer von der Paläolithischen Zeit bis zum Anfange der Provinzial-Römischen Kultur, Berlin.

Schmidt, Hubert (1908), ‘Rezension zu: Wörterbuch zur Vorgeschichte. Ein Hilfsmittel beim Studium vorgeschichtlicher Altertümer von der paläolithischen Zeit bis zum Anfange der provinzial-römischen Kultur’, Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, 40 / H. 3: 471-473.

Seger-Breslau, H. (1908), ‘Besprechung von Julie Schlemm: Wörterbuch zur Vorgeschichte’, Zentralblatt für Anthropologie 13: 223–225.

Thoroddsen, Porvaldur (1912), Margarete Lehmann-Filhés, Eimreiðin, 18 / 1.5.1912: 103-106.
Waldeyer, Heinrich Wilhelm Gottfried (1908) , Wörterbuch zur Vorgeschichte, Anatomischer Anzeiger, 9/10: 270.

This post is part of a series in which speakers of the session “(In)Visbile Women in History of Archaeology” of the Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists 2023 publish their presentations. The posts will be published simultaneously in German and English. The German version of this post can be found on the blog of the project AktArcha at https://aktarcha.hypotheses.org/6617.

Three Women in Lithuanian Archaeology: Life and Work on Two Sides of the Iron Curtain

Posted on by Debbie

By Dr. Šarūnė Valotkienė, National Museum of Lithuania

In Lithuania, the origin of archaeological science is attributed to the second half of the 19th century (Kulikauskas, Zabiela 1999: 15-21). For a long time, archaeology was an all male field. However, in the middle of the 20th century, a pivotal turning point occurred as three promising female archaeologists – namely Regina Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė, Rimutė Rimantienė, and Marija Alseikaitė-Gimbutienė (better known abroad as Marija Gimbutas) – joined the ranks of archaeologists. This transformation raises questions about the factors that influenced this change.

The Three Women Archaeologists
Volkaitė Kulikauskienė (1916-2007) stands out as one of the most renowned Lithuanian archaeologists of the second half of the 20th century. In 1936 she started to study history (archaeology was not a specialized field at that time in Lithuania). 1938-1941 her career began at a museum, where she worked for several years before becoming a university lecturer and conducting research at the Lithuanian Historical Institute. Her primary research interests revolved around Lithuanian ethnogenesis and the material culture of the 9th-12th centuries. Throughout her career, she authored more than 10 books on archaeological topics (for example: Lietuviai IX-XII amžiais in 1970 (“Lithuanians in the 9th-12th centuries”), Senovės lietuvių drabužiai ir jų papuošalai in 1997 (“Clothes and jewelry of ancient Lithuanians”), numerous articles, and conducted various significant archaeological investigations.

The data utilized in this paper are from the memoirs and diaries of Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė, which have been published in the book titled Prisiminimų pynės (2016, “The Braids of Diaries”). This biography of the archaeologist is constructed based on her personal diaries, letters, and recollections shared by her relatives, particularly her daughter, Daiva Kulikauskaitė-Jankauskienė.

Rimantienė (1920-2023) was another prominent figure among Lithuanian archaeologists during the second half of the 20th century. In 1938-1946 Rimantienė studied Lithuanian studies, then she transitioned to archaeology. Her career from 1942 to 1960 included positions at a museum. From 1960 to 1999, she conducted research at the Lithuanian Historical Institute; at the same time Rimantienė worked at the universities of Kaunas (1945-1947) and Vilnius (1972-1977).

A black and white photo of a white woman with dark hair.

Fig. 1. R. Rimantienė in 1975. By Aleknavičius Bernardas. © Klaipeda County Ieva Simonaityte Public Library. CC BY-NC-ND.

Rimantienė’s research primarily focused on archaeological monuments from the Stone and Bronze Ages. She actively participated in various archaeological excavations. Throughout her career, Rimantienė published approximately 10 books on archaeological topics, alongside numerous scientific articles. A few essential books were translated into foreign languages such as German Die Steinzeit-fischer an der Ostseelagune in Litauen (2005) and English NIDA. A Bay Coast Culture Settlement on the Curonian Lagoon (2016).

The valuable information utilized in this research is drawn from Rimantienė’s memoir entitled Aš iš dvidešimtojo amžiaus: pluoštas archeologės prisiminimų (2010; “I from the Twentieth Century: a bundle of memories by an archaeologist”). Within its pages, the archaeologist candidly describes her childhood experiences, years of academic pursuit, and later professional and personal life.

Gimbutas (1921-1994) is a world-renowned archaeologist. In 1938, she pursued studies in Lithuanian studies, later transitioning to archaeology. Gimbutas defended her dissertation in Germany straight after the Second World War (1946). In 1949, M. Gimbutas emigrated to the USA with her family, where she taught at universities. From 1967 until 1980, she conducted archaeological excavations in south-eastern Europe. Gimbutas’s primary research focus encompassed Post-Paleolithic Europe and archaeomythology, resulting in the publication of more than 20 books and various scientific articles. For example, “The Balts” (1963), “The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe 6500-3500 BC: Myths and Cult Images” (1974).
This paper focuses on material from the diaries, memoirs and letters of Gimbutas, as well as published recollections of her family members and relatives (Gimbutienė 2002, 2005, 2015).
Several common key moments emerge from examining the diaries and memoirs of these women regarding their decision to pursue archaeology, particularly concerning the influence of their family environment, schooling, and university experiences.

Family Environments

The influence of family, particularly that of their fathers, is evident for Rimantienė and Gimbutas. Both individuals grew up in families of intellectuals and were exposed from a young age to renowned figures involved in national activities. Rimantienė’s grandfather Jonas Jablonskis, was a Lithuanian linguist, her father Konstantinas Jablonskis, was a historian, and her mother Sofija Landsbergytė-Jablonskienė, was a mathematician. Meanwhile, M. Gimbutas’s father Danielius Alseika, was a prominent ear, nose and throat doctor, actively engaged in public affairs in the Vilnius region; and her mother Veronika Alseikienė, was an ophthalmologist and public figure. Both girls’ fathers held an interest in the history and ethnography of Lithuania, thus exposing them to these sciences even before formal studies.

Gimbutas, in particular, demonstrated a strong sense of patriotism, as reflected in her diary entry at the age of 19, where she wrote, “I am studying because it is something that is close to my heart, so that I can educate myself and then give something back to Lithuania, it’s culture and my relatives” (Gimbutienė 2015: 50).

On the other hand, Rimantienė fondly recalled her childhood and emphasized the influence of her family’s passion for ethnology, stating “Growing up amidst folklore and ethnography at home, I felt a natural inclination towards studying ethnology” (Rimantienė 2010: 33).

Rimantienė’s mother exhibited remarkable activity despite the societal constraints that relegated her to the housewife role prevalent during her time. She shared invaluable wisdom with her daughter, encouraging her to pursue her career ambitions, regardless of the number of children she might have. On the other hand, Gimbutas’s mother actively worked and held a prominent public role, serving as an exemplar of a woman engaged in professional endeavors. Thus, within both girls’ families, the importance of women’s education was emphasized, reflecting a shift in attitudes toward working women from previous norms.

Schooling

Education also likely played an important role in shaping the career trajectories of these women. Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė’s passion for history was sparked by her history teacher, whose guidance proved pivotal in her decision to pursue this field: ‘Her lessons encouraged me to choose this field, although for a while, I was undecided between Lithuanian language and history. History eventually won out’ (Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė 2016: 31). Similarly, the Lithuanian language teacher of both Rimantienė and Gimbutas significantly influenced their professional paths. His engaging lessons were imbued with numerous examples of folklore.
University Experiences.

The third, and equally significant influence on these women was Dr. Jonas Puzinas, who happened to be a teacher for all three. During that time, he was the first and only professional archaeologist in Lithuania. He worked at Kaunas and Vilnius universities from 1934 until 1944. Puzinas conducted captivating lectures that encompassed a diverse range of subjects, including research papers on various topics, book reviews, museum seminars, and engaging field trips (Zabiela 2005: 19).

All three women vividly and respectfully described the impact of Puzinas’ lectures. In her memoirs, Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė wrote: “He was the teacher who ‘got me started’ in my professional field” (Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė 2016: 47). Rimantienė had a prior connection with her teacher, Puzinas, as she had participated in several archaeological excavations led by him, alongside her father. Fondly recalling the experience during the lectures, she remarked:

I remembered well how Professor Puzinas worked, how he collected material, how he compiled the card index. And most importantly, he showed us. […] And it was all written down in detail and in a very nice way’“ (Rimantienė 2010: 90, 120).

After The Second World War

In 1939, the Second World War began, and less than a year later, on 15th June 1940, the Soviet Union occupied Lithuania. In the wake of these events, the first mass arrests targeted politicians, well-known public figures, and intellectuals, leading to raids and interrogations. In response to the unfolding circumstances, in 1944, Gimbutas, her husband and their young daughter made the decision to leave Lithuania. They initially resided in Austria before seeking refuge in Germany and ultimately settling in the USA.

Consequently, the three scientists found themselves on both sides of the Iron Curtain. Gimbutas pursued her work and contributions in the West, while Rimantienė and Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė continued their professional endeavors in Eastern Europe, particularly in Soviet-occupied Lithuania.

What Were Archaeological Excavations Like?

After the war, in 1948, archaeological excavations in Lithuania resumed. The process faced several challenges, however, due to a shortage of various tools and instruments essential for conducting archaeological investigations. Furthermore, there was a scarcity of materials required for preserving the excavated artifacts in the field, as well as modern packaging materials (Luchtanas 2010).

Transportation to archaeological sites also posed difficulties, as archaeologists had to pre-book cars to reach and return from the excavation locations. During the excavation, they often had to arrange for their own transportation from their accommodations to the site, which usually involved walking or utilizing local modes of transport, such as horse-drawn wagons. Archaeological expeditions found lodging in local schools or on people’s homesteads and obtained food from the nearby communities, occasionally foraging for mushrooms, berries, and even fishing for sustenance.

A black and white photograph of an excavation with adults and children taking part.

Fig. 2. Archaeological excavation at the Juodonys hillfort in 1958, Lithuania. No. RKM F 6329, taken by Kazys Makuška © Rokiškis Regional Museum. CC BY-NC-ND.

Regarding the 1975 expedition to the Narkūnai hillfort, Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė wrote:

“During the initial days, much time was consumed by organizational tasks. We had to arrange accommodation for the students, coordinate food arrangements, and prepare the wagon that would serve as our living quarters.” (Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė 2016: 88)

So how were Gimbutas’s excavations conducted? Throughout her career, she led five excavations in south-eastern Europe. In 1971 she excavated in Anza (Macedonia). This is how Gimbutas described her daily life at the Anza excavations:

“I get up with the sun; I go to bed with the sun. We are still experiencing up to 40 degrees of heat. In addition to the excavation work, I am responsible for organizing everything else – buying food, fixing the car, cooking, laundry, etc. We have a lady who cooks a second breakfast and lunch for us for half a day” (Gimbutienė 2015: 265).

Her daughter, Živilė, recalled her mother‘s archaeological expeditions: ‘Leading up to the excavations, there was a substantial amount of correspondence, donation requests, team organization, and administrative tasks’” (Gimbutienė 2015: 231). For instance, the excavations in Greece required a significant amount of diplomatic skills, as Gimbutas mentioned: ‘I counted how many letters I had to write in connection with the present excavations in Greece: 228 in total’.

Although the conditions during Gimbutas’s excavations were not perfect, they were likely far better than those in Lithuania at that time. This is apparent not only from the previously mentioned excavation conditions in Lithuania but also from Rimantienė’s recollection of Gimbutas’s visit to Lithuania in 1971. During the visit, Gimbutas observed Rimantienė’s excavations and expressed surprise at their challenging working conditions, remarking that they were working hard without even having a water pump available.

The disparities in conditions were well-known among women scientists living under the Soviet regime. Following a visit to the USA in 1976 and a meeting with Gimbutas, Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė shared her impressions:

Marija showed me the material from the excavations in Macedonia. […] We discussed the conditions of their research and ours. Naturally, the difference is vast, and I really couldn’t boast about anything. (Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė 2015: 226).

Conferences

All three researchers attended numerous conferences abroad, but due to the division created by the Iron Curtain, they rarely had the opportunity to meet together. The contrast between the conference experiences on either side of the Iron Curtain was quite notable. A good example is the Archaeological Congress held in Prague in 1966, which was attended by Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė and Rimantienė.

However, before they were allowed to attend, they had to navigate a labyrinth of questionnaires, each with a slightly different twist, yet essentially containing the same questions. As Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė remembered:

A trip abroad was like a prize; in order to leave, one had to endure significant suffering and inspections. […] The process involved filling out detailed questionnaires, where you had to list all your relatives, including their dates of birth, death, and burial places. I had to make a choice, and the list of family members included only my sisters, husband, and daughter. (Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė 2016: 79).

Notably, Regina had three brothers, whom she couldn’t mention in the questionnaires due to political reasons prevailing at that time.

The archaeologists who were granted permission to leave Lithuania had to first travel to Moscow, despite the possibility of a more direct route to Prague. The authorities insisted on this route and provided ‘training’ on how to behave in Prague. They were advised not to befriend foreigners, avoid sharing the same lift with them, refrain from asking questions to local people, and so on. During the congress, participants from Soviet republics, including the Lithuanian archaeologists, were taken on targeted excursions, not only to sightseeing places but also to locations that promoted Soviet ideology. For instance, they were brought to lay wreaths at monuments honoring Soviet soldiers who had lost their lives during the Second World War.

Meanwhile, Gimbutas, already a renowned scientist, led a vastly different life. Memoirs and letters published by her husband, Jurgis Gimbutas, and her daughters reveal Gimbutas’s constant travels, mostly to various parts of Europe. Some of these trips lasted for several months, during which she not only familiarized herself with archaeological material from Western Europe but also visited museums and scientific institutions, conducted archaeological research, engaged with fellow archaeologists and participated in the archeological excavations and conferences.

The stark contrasts between the two sides of the Iron Curtain were well understood by the archaeologists themselves. In 1960, during one of Gimbutas’s journeys to Europe, she visited Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. After returning to Vienna, she expressed in a letter to her husband: ‘One day in the free world! You cannot imagine the difference’” (Gimbutienė 2005: 175). This statement provides a vivid depiction of her experiences, particularly in light of her visit to Lithuania in 1968. In a letter to her daughter, she penned: ‘I live with the impressions from the beyond’. (Gimbutienė 2015: 263). The word “beyond” in her letter carries a profound sense of ambiguity and poignancy.

Conclusions

The mid-20th century marked a significant change in society. Three girls had much more choice than before. It showed evolving attitudes towards women. However, despite this progress, these women had to grapple with stereotypes throughout their lives, although this post does not fully explore this aspect due to word constraints.

The girls’ career choices were primarily influenced by their home environment, including their parents’ attitudes and fields of interest, as well as the impact of their teachers and the professors they encountered at university.

This study compared the subsequent professional paths of women who lived on different sides of the Iron Curtain. The focus has been on examining two specific moments in the researchers’ lives – the conditions of archaeological excavations and their participation in conferences. Gimbutas, living in the West, experienced considerably fewer constraints, although she did not entirely avoid bureaucratic nuances associated with organizing expeditions, as well as various other difficulties commonly encountered in the lives of scientists.

Biography
Dr. Šarūnė Valotkienė
I’m an archaeologist, specialized in the Iron Age. In 2019, I defended a PhD about the practice of placing grave goods. Now, my fields of interest are the history of archaeology and women’s lives in prehistoric societies.

Bibliography
Gimbutaitė, Marija (2005), Iš laiškų ir prisiminimų, sud. Živilė Gimbutaitė, Vilnius: Žaltvykslė.
Gimbutienė, M. (2002, Laimos palytėta, sud. Austėja Ikamaitė, Vilnius: Scena.
Gimbutienė, M. (2015), Dienoraštis ir prisiminimai, sud. Živilė Gimbutaitė, Kaunas: Naujasis lankas.
Luchtanas, Aleksiejus (2010), ‘Archeologija, su Lietuvos TSR Istorijos Katedros vėliava’, Archaeologia Lituana, 11: 15–19.
Rimantienė, R. (2010), Aš iš dvidešimtojo amžiaus: pluoštas archeologės prisiminimų. Vilnius: Vilniaus dailės akademijos leidykla.
Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė, R. (2005), ‘Vainikas draugystei’, in Marija Gimbutienė, Iš laiškų ir prisiminimų, sud. Ž. Gimbutaitė, Vilnius: Žaltvykslė: 224-229.
Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė, R. (2016), Dienoraščių pynės. parengė R. D. Kulikauskaitė-Jankauskienė ir G. Zabiela, Vilnius: LNM.
Zabiela, G. (2005), ‘Jono Puzino gyvenimo kelias’, Lietuvos archeologija, t. 29: 13-30.
VLE website: Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija, https://www.vle.lt/ [accessed 24 April 2024]

This post is part of a series in which speakers of the session “(In)Visbile Women in History of Archaeology” of the Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists 2023 publish their presentations. The posts will be published simultaneously in German and English. The German version of this post can be found on the blog of the project AktArcha at https://aktarcha.hypotheses.org/6549.

Caroline Amy Hutton: a pioneering Greek archaeologist

Posted on by Debbie

By Dr. Rosario Rovira Guardiola, Combined Institute of Classical Studies and Hellenic and Roman Library.

The history of scholarship is filled with researchers who made valuable contributions during their careers but whose names have been forgotten. Caroline Amy Hutton is one of those names, even if during her lifetime her work was highly praised. She lived between 1860 and 1931, a challenging time in which women could not easily access academic education and jobs. Hutton’s own career attests to those inequalities as the only paid jobs that she held were her teaching jobs after she graduated from Girton College, Cambridge. Her work at the British Museum, the Hellenic Society and the British School at Athens was unpaid even if she fulfilled duties equal to those of her male colleagues.

Black and white photograph of a white woman.

Fig. 1. Caroline Amy Hutton (From the collection of photographs of scholars held in Hellenic and Roman Library, London).

Hutton’s career is not only a testimony of the challenges that female academics had at the time but also of the development of archaeology as a discipline. Hutton lived through a time in which archaeology moved from an artistic perspective towards the material culture of the past to a historical approach to the study of those remains, of ‘minor artifacts’ such as vases or terracottas, which aimed to fully understand Greek culture. Hutton’s work both as an academic and an administrator contributed to it.

Although from Hutton there might remain her academic work, her book on Greek terracottas, her articles on inscriptions and her inventories of amphora stamps at the British Museum (BM), it is not always easy to reconstruct her career and aspirations as barely any of her personal papers have survived. The main sources to study Hutton are her letters kept at the department of Greek and Roman Antiquities of the British Museum. An institution she was linked to for almost 40 years. In them we see Hutton change from a combative young scholar that combined teaching with academic research to a respected donor of funds to the department.

The [personal] counterpart to the BM letters is the Chamberlain sisters’ letters, held at the University of Birmingham. Hutton was the cousin of Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister and she had a close relationship with his sisters, particularly with Beatrice Chamberlain. Her letters are full of references to ‘cousin Amy’ and her career in archaeology as she visited Amy Hutton often, attended her lectures and even accompanied Hutton on a research trip to Berlin. From her we learn that not only was Hutton a passionate archaeologist but also an independent woman who loved cats and travelled with a kettle. We might not have Amy’s words, but we can sense what she expected as an archaeologist and the difficulties she faced.

Hutton as a Classics teacher

Having been born in New Zealand, Hutton studied Classics at Girton College between 1879 and 1882, even taking the option of studying Classics for a fourth year. She took both exams but due to the typos obtained a third; a low mark that was not uncommon for women who had not had access to the same type of education that their male counterparts had. After 1882 we lose sight of Hutton for a few years, until she re-appears in London in June 1890 requesting a ticket for the Round Reading Room of the British Museum. She requested access for the study of Philosophy and Archaeology and said that her occupation was a teacher, while giving an address at the University Club for Ladies (now called University Women’s Club), at 31 New Bond Street (BM Central Archive – Reader’s Applications to the Round Reading Room).

According to the Chamberlain correspondence, Hutton appears to have been a very busy teacher not only giving private classes in Chelsea and Hampstead but also teaching at Allenswood Boarding School. This school was founded in 1870 by Marie Souvestre and Paoline Samaia and was a revolutionary school where women were taught feminist ideals of social responsibility and independence.

The subject of these classes was varied; Chamberlain mentions Greek language, Greek vases, heroes and heroines and life in the Homeric period. These included visits to the British Museum to see the objects in person. These lessons might have prompted Hutton to expand her relationship with the BM and offer guided visits of the location. An initiative that seemed excellent to Beatrice ‘as people are grateful to be rescued from a helpless wandering through crowds of objects, which they know nothing about’ (BC/A/2/1/31-60 (56)).

Hutton at the British Museum

At the end of 1892 Hutton was working in the department of Greek and Roman Antiquities of the British Museum studying the pottery of Naukratis. It is not clear how this started, but it is possible that her friend Eugenie Sellers, also a former student at Girton, had introduced her to the staff of the department. Sellers had been encouraged by Charles Thomas Newton, archaeologist and former keeper of the department to lecture in the galleries of the BM and she was on good terms with the then current keeper, Alexander Stuart Murray.

The Chamberlain letters show what Hutton expected from the role, that would allow her to pursue a career in the archaeological field but also stated that it was an unpaid position, “for love” (BC/A/2/1/61-94 (68)). The comment suggests that perhaps it was expected that a position of this kind should be paid. The fact that it was an unpaid position has possibly contributed to the fact that the value of Hutton’s work has been underestimated. However, volunteers provide an invaluable service to institutions, in many cases of the same level as paid curatorial work. For many years, one of the best-selling books of the British Museum was Early Medieval Art, written by the art historian Ernst Kinzinger while he was a volunteer in the 1930s.

However, this was the start of the most academically fruitful period in Hutton’s career; with a series of research stays in Paris, Berlin and Athens that led to the publication of various articles. An academic interest that perhaps can be seen in her joining the Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies in 1890.

The voluntary work on the pottery of Naukratis led to Hutton’s first academic work, the article ‘Inscriptions on pottery from Naukratis’ published in the Classical Review (1893) where she published unknown fragments that came from the Ernest Arthur Gardner excavations in 1886.
In 1895 Hutton carried on her work at the British Museum by “copying and deciphering inscriptions on the handles of Rhodian wine jars, which inscriptions are to be sent to Berlin to a German, who is publishing Rhodian inscriptions” (BC/1/13/2/11-48 (18)). These texts were the ones published by Friedrich Hiller von Gaertringen in Inscriptiones Graecae (XII / 1: 175) published in 1895. Murray himself had done a similar task helping Theodor Mommsen and his disciples in the preparation of the volumes of the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. Hutton would return to these amphora stamps later in life, in 1925 when she accessioned them. Other than carrying out research on inscriptions, Hutton also contributed to the visits to the museum that the staff of the department conducted for schools and private individuals.

Independently Hutton might have also been working on an English translation of Edmond Pottier’s Statuettes de terre cuite (1890), a groundbreaking work that highlighted the relevance of this type of object. Discrepancies between the French publisher, Hachette and the English one, Nutt made the publication of the translation impossible. Hutton wrote to Murray about her disappointment, but she carried on working on the subject and went to publish the first English monograph dedicated to Greek terracottas, Greek terracotta statuettes in 1900 (Letter to Murray in BM Greece & Rome Department Archive, Original Letters 1893, 569). Hutton’s book aimed to reach a wider audience with the terracottas organised by subject, instead of the chronological order more common in museum catalogues. It was the culmination of years of research in the museums of Paris, Berlin and even Athens, where she in fact held a scholarship at the British School at Athens (BSA) between 1896 and 1897.

The scholarship in Athens was not without hardship, as female students were not allowed to stay in the building. Instead, she stayed at the Hotel d’Anglaterre with her mother. Also access to the archaeological material she was interested in was difficult and it seems that it was only through the help of the archaeologist Paul Perdrizet that she accessed the stores of the archaeological ephorate (Letter to Murray in BM Greece & Rome Department Archive, Original Letters 1897, 277). While in Athens, Hutton also worked with Cecil Smith, an attendant at the British Museum who was having a sabbatical as a director of the British School at Athens, on the publication of the pottery that had been found in the excavation of Pylos in 1896. Hutton and Smith would carry on working together; they published the Annual of the British School of Athens and on cataloguing the Wyndham Francis Cook collection; a project that she abandoned because of disagreements with Cook’s wife (Letter to Smith in BM Greece & Rome Department Archive, Wyndham Francis Cook Papers).

Hutton at the Hellenic Society

While Hutton had joined the Hellenic Society in 1890 and became part of the Council in 1908, attending most of the meetings, she is not recorded as having contributed much to the discussions, but things changed when in 1911 she took over the role of acting secretary. John Baker Penoyre, the librarian and secretary of both the HS and the BSA suffered a nervous breakdown and requested a few months of absence from his role. Hutton stepped in and volunteered to cover his role; she would only be paid for the fare of the cab that would take her to Bloomsbury Square 3 days a week. Hutton did not waste her time and soon acknowledged the need for a new catalogue of slides; one of the main resources of the library. She also took care of the welfare of the staff by requesting that the assistant librarian F. Wise should get a pay rise, from £1.2 to £1.5 pounds monthly and that he should get a bonus of £5.00 (approximately a month’s salary) and an extra week of holiday for his work in keeping the library going while Penoyre was away). She would mediate between the Hellenic Society and the newly formed Roman Society and helped reach an agreement that would allow them to share the library and the premises. Hutton would also take on routine library work such as accessioning new books.

An image of a handwritten letter.

Fig. 2. Entry from a meeting of the council of the Hellenic Society held on 14 November 1911 where Hutton’s proposal of taking over Baker-Penoyre’s tasks while he is on sick leave, is approved (Hellenic Society Archives).

Eventually Penoyre came back to work, but Hutton continued working for the Hellenic Society by being in various subcommittees such as the Finance one and the one of Classics Materials for Schools. She was appointed as Honorary Secretary in 1919, an office from which she resigned in December 1930, due to ill health. It was then that the Council offered her the Vice-Presidency of the Hellenic Society. Her letter of resignation was then added to the Minute Book in what seems to have been a rare honour. The position was left vacant sine die, because at the time they could not find anyone to fill Hutton’s shoes.

An image of handwritten notes in a minute book.

Fig. 3. Entry, in Hutton’s handwriting, from a meeting of the council of the Hellenic Society held on the 12 November 1918 where Hutton proposed an increase in salary for Mr. Garnett , the assistant treasurer and Miss Powell, the attendant and cleaner (Hellenic Society Archives).

During these last years of her career, Hutton not only held administrative roles, but also carried on publishing. Her last article would be on the Wood Collection [add link below]. The Wood Collection is a series of notebooks, sketchbooks and other material relating to the journey that Robert Wood, James Dawkins and John Bouverie undertook to Syria, it was donated to the library in 1926 and is still today one of the most important archives held in the library (https://library.ics.sas.ac.uk/wood-collection).

The name of C. Amy Hutton might not be very familiar today but a brief look at her career shows her contribution to the development of Greek archaeology, from publishing previously unknown material and collaborating in the XIX century corpus of inscriptions to being part of the management of the Hellenic Society.

Biography

Dr Rosario Rovira Guardiola is an Ancient Historian and Archaeologist who works as an Assistant Librarian (Periodicals & Archives) at Combined Institute of Classical Studies and Hellenic and Roman Library. Rosario specialises in ancient trade and in the reception of antiquity in modern art and literature. She is the editor of Ancient Mediterranean Sea in Modern Visual and Performing Arts: Sailing in Troubled Waters (Bloomsbury 2017) and the author of several publications on subjects such as Oscar Wilde, Marguerite Yourcenar, Antinous. and Hadrian’s Villa. She is member of the research groups CEIPAC (University of Barcelona), Proyecto Palazzo (Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Seville) and Imagines Project (https://www.imagines-project.org/).

Bibliography

Publications by Caroline Amy Hutton
“Inscriptions on Pottery from Naukratis”, The Classical Review, 7, No. 1/2 (Feb., 1893): 82-83.
“On two terracotta figurines”, The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 15, 1895: 132-135.
“On three bronze statuettes”, The Annual of the British School at Athens, 3, 1896-97: 149 – 152 and 49.
“Votive reliefs in the Acropolis Museum”, The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 17, 1897: 306-318.
Greek Terracotta Statuettes, London 1899 (with preface by Alexander Stuart Murray).
Catalogue of the antiquities in the collection of the late Wyndham Francis Cook (with Cecil Smith), London 1908.
“A Collection of Sketches by C. R. Cockerell, R. A.”, The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 29 (1909): 53-59.
“The Greek inscriptions at Petworth House”, The Annual of the British School at Athens, 21, 1914-1915 and 1915-1916: 155-165.
“Two sepulchral inscriptions from Suvla bay”, The Annual of the British School at Athens, 21, 1914-1915 and 1915-1916: 166-168.
“The Travels of ‘Palmyra’ Wood in 1750-51″, The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 47, Part 1 (1927): 102-128

British Museum Archives: BM Central Archive, Greece & Rome Department Archive – Original Letters and Wyndham Francis Cook Papers.

Chamberlain Family Letters (BC), University of Birmingham Archive, website: https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/facilities/cadbury/rlt/subject-guides/chamberlain-family-guide [accessed 24 April 2024].

Gaertringen, von Hiller (1895), Inscriptiones Graecae , XII (1): 175

Hellenic Society Archives: (1911) Hellenic Society Minute Book 7 and (1918) Hellenic Society Minute Book 9.

This post is part of a series in which speakers of the session “(In)Visbile Women in History of Archaeology” of the Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists 2023 publish their presentations. The posts will be published simultaneously in German and English. The German version of this post can be found on the blog of the project AktArcha at https://aktarcha.hypotheses.org/5955.

Anna Apostolaki (1881-1958): a “visible” Greek female archaeologist

Posted on by Debbie

By Kleanthi Pateraki
Anna Apostolaki was a typical example of a “visible”, internationally recognized Greek female archaeologist (Fig. 1). She was born in Margarites, Rethymno, Crete in 1881. She was the eldest child of Emmanouil Apostolakis and Aikaterini Apostolaki (Florou 2017: 22-23). Due to the death of her father she had to take care of her younger siblings from an early age, but additional responsibilities did not stop her intellectual development, which was encouraged by her mother. After her circular studies, due to the turbulent political situation in the then Ottoman-occupied Crete, she moved with her family to Piraeus and then to Athens (Kokkinidou 2016: 13).

Black and white photo of a white woman with greying hair dressed in black with a white collar.

Fig. 1. Anna Apostolaki. Λεύκωμα της Εκατονταετηρίδος της Εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 1837-1937 (Album of the Centennial of the Archaeological Society at Athens 1837-1937) (Athens 1937): 58.

Financial reasons must have led to her decision to follow the teaching profession, the only relatively decent professional outlet for the women of the time (Kokkinidou 2016: 13). She studied from 1891 to 1894 at the Εξωτερικό Διδασκαλείο της ΦιλεκπαιδευτικήςΕταιρείας (External Teaching School of the Society of the Friends of Education), a non-profit organization which created schools for young girls in Athens. She received scholarships as an orphan daughter from the Council of the specific Society and received the title of a teacher. She served as a home teacher for at least 25 consecutive years (Florou 2017: 24).

Education and Study

She enrolled in the Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Athens in 1903 (Barkoula 2017, 55), while continuing to earn a living as a teacher. She was a student of very notable Greek professors of the time. Their influence, especially that of Nikolaos Politis, Panagiotis Kavvadias, and Christos Tsountas, played a key role in her subsequent brilliant course in the respective field of research and work (Barkoula 2017: 61).

Her network included influential people who played an important role in her career. She knew Iphigenia Syggrou, the widow of the Greek banker, politician and national benefactor Andreas Syggros and pioneer female figure of the Athenian society in the field of social welfare. Apostolaki settled in Syggrou’s mansion to accompany her after the death of her husband in 1899. The two women developed a spiritual relationship until the death of Syggrou in 1921. Thanks to Syggrou, Apostolaki was selected as a teacher of the children of wealthy Athenian families, including the children of Prince Andreas (Florou 2017: 24-25).

While she was studying in the University of Athens, Apostolaki started working at the Numismatic Museum of Athens as an unpaid assistant of its director and numismatist Ioannis Svoronos. He instilled in her the zeal for scientific research. Probably due to this acquaintance she participated in the First International Archaeological Congress held in Athens in 1905, published her first article in the Διεθνής Εφημερίς της Νομισματικής Αρχαιολογίας (Journal International d’Archéologie Numismatique) that Svoronos edited (Apostolaki 1906) and was admitted to the Archaeological Society at Athens in 1906 (Florou 2016; Kokkinidou 2016: 13). In 1909 Apostolaki became one of the first ten women to graduate from the University of Athens (with “excellent” qualification), characterized as a “female triumph” by Kalliroe Parren (Parren 1909: 623), one of the most prominent figures in Greek feminism.

Apostolaki was the first woman from Crete to earn a university degree at all and the first woman to join the Archaeological Society at Athens and the Greek Folklore Society (Ekonomou 2017: 115). Furthermore, she was a regular member of the Greek Christian Archaeological Society, the Historical and Ethnological Society of Greece, the Greek Society of Byzantine Studies and the Association of Friends of the National Archaeological Museum of Athens.

Women and Craft

She became interested in the art of fabric through her acquaintance with the handicraft workshop of disadvantaged women of the Σύλλογος των Κυριών υπέρ της γυναικείας παιδεύσεως (Association of Ladies for Women’s Education), whose president was Iphigenia Syggrou. Furthermore, she was associated with the Λύκειον των Ελληνίδων (Lyceum Club of Greek Women), whose founder was Kalliroe Parren. The purpose of the Lyceum was to promote Greek culture and preserve Greek customs. Apostolaki became member of its administrative board and curator of its philological department (Parren 1912: 2045-46). She actively participated in its handicraft exhibitions and festivities from 1924 onwards (Ioannidou-Barbarigou 1958: 661).

Apostolaki contributed regularly to the Εφημερίς των Κυριών (Newspaper of the Ladies), the most widely Greek feminist newspaper of the times and seems to have been a close collaborator of its director, Kalliroe Parren (Nikolaidou & Kokkinidou 1998: 235). In addition, during 1921‐1922 and 1924‐1927 Apostolaki was a member of the Εκπαιδευτικός Όμιλος (Educational Association), which was founded by progressive Greek writers, educators and politicians in Athens in 1910. The specific Association promoted the Δημοτική Γλώσσα (Demotic Greek), which was a colloquial vernacular form of Modern Greek (Kokkinidou 2016: 27 note 93). In 1976, by government order, it became the official language of the state, replacing the Καθαρεύουσα (Katharevusa Greek).

Managing Collections and Museums

Apostolaki was the first woman to direct a museum in Greece, specifically the National Museum of Decorative Arts of Athens – currently the Museum of Modern Greek Culture. This museum was her life’s work. The poet Georgios Drosinis, co-founder of the Museum and Director of the Department of Letters and Fine Arts of the Ministry of Education in 1914-1920 and 1922-1923, invited her in 1924 to help him arrange the original collection of the museum. This invitation was probably related to Apostolaki’s scientific interests and to Iphigenia Syggrou, who was the common link between Apostolaki and Drosinis (Kokkinidou 2017: 94 note 54).

Apostolaki was an unpaid assistant of Drosinis in 1924-1926, curator of the National Museum of Decorative Arts of Athens in 1926‐1935 and its director in 1935‐1954. She was the driving force of the museum. She had a solid scientific background, she was also a linguist and she loved her research (Hatzinikolaou 2017: 183). With a lot of zeal, effort, and money from her earnings, she tried to overcome difficult conditions at the museum, such as the lack of staff, operating costs, the lack of annual state subsidies after 1926 and the need to purchase relics (Florou 2017: 34-36).

Colour photograph of classical building next to an Ottoman mosque in Athens.

Fig 2. Side view of the former National Museum of Decorative Arts of Athens, later renamed the National Museum of Greek Folk Art. Photograph Debbie Challis, 2023.

Moreover, as its director, she promoted the National Museum of Decorative Arts of Athens with all the means at her disposal. From 1927 onwards she was in contact with the International Institute for Intellectual Collaboration of the League of Nations giving her the opportunity of completing a questionnaire regarding the museum’s collections. She believed in international collaborations and was actively involved in them. In 1953, as a member of a committee, with Manolis Hatzidakis and Dimitrios Loukatos, she undertook the study for the completion and improvement of the Greek display case in Musée de l’Homme in Paris.

Apostolaki was in contact with colleagues in Greece and abroad. She corresponded with Manolis Hatzidakis, S. Pelekanidis, A. Grabar, R. Pfister, Monneret de Villard, F. Volbach, among others. She maintained correspondence with various museums, such as the British Museum and the Victoria & Albert Museum (mainly in the 1940s), among others (Hatzinikolaou 2017: 191-192).
Her own research included the cleaning, maintenance, and exhibition of the Coptic fabrics of the 4th-7th c. BC, as well as their scientific classification and study. The fruit of her efforts was the catalogue Τα κοπτικά υφάσματα του εν ΑθήναιςΜουσείου Κοσμητικών Τεχνών (The Coptic fabrics of the National Museum of Decorative Arts of Athens), which was one of the first systematic catalogues of Coptic fabrics published internationally dealing with weaving and the only one at that time written in Greek (Hatzidakis 1960: 159). It holds a prominent place in the international literature (Kalamara 2017: 256).

Legacies in Folklore, Textiles and Beyond

Apostolaki carried out pioneering folklore research on-site for the study, and acquisition of folk-art objects with the aim of enriching the museum’s collections. Moreover, she gave expert advice on the establishment of new folk art museums in Greece (e.g. in Kefallonia) (Bounia 2017, 164). Due to her passionate activity in this field, she is considered today as one of the first Greek folklorists (Economou 2017: 118).

Apostolaki’s experience and expertise led the Benaki Museum in Athens to assign her the cataloguing of its rich collection of Coptic fabrics in 1933. Indicative of her collaboration with the specific museum is her correspondence with internationally recognized researchers of ancient or Byzantine fabrics, such as Rudolf Pfister, André Grabar, Fritz Volbach and Ugo Monneret de Villard (Kalamara 2017: 256-257).

On the eve of the Greek-Italian war in 1940, Apostolaki took care of the transfer of the exhibits of the National Museum of Decorative Arts to the National Archaeological Museum with patriotic devotion, with the support of the Greek archaeologists Semni Karouzou and Christos Karouzos (Florou 2017: 44).

Apostolaki was considered a model employee by the post-war leadership of the Hellenic Ministry of Culture. She also received substantial recognition from the international scientific community. The director of Dumbarton Oaks, Thomas Whittemore, invited her in 1948 to participate in an honorary collective volume for the distinguished Coptologist Walter Ewing Crum. She contributed to the volume with the essay Κατοπτριζομένη επί υφάσματος (Mirrored in Fabric), written in Greek; it was the only non-English text in the entire volume (Florou 2017: 45).
In 1954 Apostolaki retired. On December 30 of the same year, she was awarded a Silver Medal by the Academy of Athens for her contribution to the development of the National Museum of Decorative Arts. Anna Apostolaki died on 26 July 1958 in Athens. After her death, the Lyceum of Greek Women honored her memory through various events (Economou & Florou 2017).

Biography

Dr. Kleanthi Pateraki is a Greek classical archaeologist, currently working as a freelancer. She obtained her BA, MA and Ph.D. from the University of Crete, Greece. Her research interests include archaic and classical sculpture, the sculptures of the temple of Zeus in Olympia, the history of the discovery, excavation and research of the sanctuary of Olympia, the ancient Olympic Games and the ancient Olympic winners. She was a lecturer at the History Department, Ionian University and at the Department of Mediterranean Studies, University of the Aegean. She has written a monograph and twenty-one research articles, mostly in Greek scientific and non-scientific journals. She has also co-editored the Honorary Tome for Professor Nikolas Faraklas – Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas (Rethymno 2009).

Bibliography

Apostolaki, Anna (1906), Οπλιτοδρόμος επί αττικού συμβόλου (An hoplitodromos runner on an attic token). Διεθνής Εφημερίς της Νομισματικής Αρχαιολογίας (Journal International d’Archéologie Numismatique) 9, 1906: 55‐60.

Barkoula, Chaido (2017), Η γυναικεία φοιτητική ταυτότητα στο Πανεπιστήμιο Αθηνών. Από την Ιωάννα Στεφανόπολι στην Άννα Αποστολάκι (The female student identity at the University of Athens. From Ioanna Stefanopoli to Anna Apostolaki). In: Andromachi Economou & Vasiliki Florou (eds.), Αντίδωρο στην Άννα Αποστολάκι. Η ζωή, το έργο και η συνεισφορά της (Countergift to Anna Apostolaki. Her life, work and contribution), Athens: 55-80.

Bounia, Alexadra (2017), Η Άννα Αποστολάκι και η ίδρυση λαογραφικών μουσείων στην ελληνική περιφέρεια (Anna Apostolaki and the establishment of folklore museums in the Greek region). In: Andromachi Economou & Vasiliki Florou (eds.), Αντίδωρο στην Άννα Αποστολάκι. Η ζωή, το έργο και η συνεισφορά της (Countergift to Anna Apostolaki. Her life, work and contribution): 151-174.

Economou, Andromachi (2017), Η θεωρητική και θεσμική συγκρότηση της ελληνικής λαογραφίας κατά το α΄ μισό του 20ού αιώνα. Το πλαίσιο δράσης της Άννας Αποστολάκι (The theoretical and institutional composition of Greek folklore during the first half of the twentieth-century. The framework of action of Anna Apostolaki). In: Andromachi Economou & Vasiliki Florou (eds.), Αντίδωρο στην Άννα Αποστολάκι. Η ζωή, το έργο και η συνεισφορά της (Countergift to Anna Apostolaki. Her life, work and contribution): 111-132.

Florou, Vasiliki (2016), “Anna Apostolaki: A Forgotten Pioneer of Women’s Emancipation in Greece”, Website From the Archivist’s Notebook. Essays Inspired by Archival Research in Athens Greece: https://nataliavogeikoff.com/2016/01/01/anna-apostolaki-a-forgotten-pioneer-of-womens-emancipation-in-greece/ [accessed 19 April 2024].

Florou, Vasiliki (2016), Εξετέλεσα πάντοτε το καθήκον μου αθορύβως εργαζόμενη. Βίος και έργο της Άννας Αποστολακι(1881-1958) (I carried out my duty quietly and diligently). Life and work of Anna Apostolaki (1881-1958). In: Andromachi Economou & Vasiliki Florou (eds.), Αντίδωρο στην Άννα Αποστολάκι. Η ζωή, το έργο και η συνεισφορά της(Countergift to Anna Apostolaki. Her life, work and contribution): 21-54.

Hatzidakis, Manolis (1960), Άννα Αποστολάκη (Anna Apostolaki). Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας (Deltion tis Christianikis Archaeologikis Etaireias) 1, 1960: 159-160.

Hatzinikolaou, Teti (2016), Η Άννα Αποστολάκι και το Εθνικόν Μουσείον Κοσμητικών Τεχνών (Anna Apostolaki andthe National Museum of Decorative Arts). In: Andromachi Economou & Vasiliki Florou (eds.), Αντίδωρο στην Άννα Αποστολάκι. Η ζωή, το έργο και η συνεισφορά της (Countergift to Anna Apostolaki. Her life, work and contribution): 175-196.

Ioannidou-Barbarigou, Maria (1958), Άννα Αποστολάκι (Anna Apostolaki). Λαογραφία (Laografia) 17 (2): 659-664.

Kalamara, Pari (2016), Το συλλεκτικό ενδιαφέρον για τα κοπτικά υφάσματα και ο ρόλος της Άννας Αποστολάκι στην παρουσίασή τους στο ελληνικό κοινό (The collectible interest in the Coptic fabrics and the role of Anna Apostolaki in their presentation to the Greek public). In: Andromachi Economou & Vasiliki Florou (eds.), Αντίδωρο στην ΆνναΑποστολάκι. Η ζωή, το έργο και η συνεισφορά της (Countergift to Anna Apostolaki. Her life, work and contribution): 245-266.

Kokkinidou, Dimitra (2016), Από την ιστορία των πρώτων Ελληνίδων αρχαιολόγων (From the History of the first Greek female Archaeologists). Προ–Ιστορήματα (Pro-istorimata) 7, 2016: 1-106.

Kokkinidou, Dimitra (2016), Η Άννα Αποστολάκι και οι πρώτες αρχαιολόγοι (Anna Apostolaki and the first female archaeologists). In: Andromachi Economou & Vasiliki Florou (eds.), Αντίδωρο στην Άννα Αποστολάκι. Η ζωή, το έργο και η συνεισφορά της (Countergift to Anna Apostolaki. Her life, work and contribution): 81-108.

Nikolaidou, Marianna & Kokkinidou, Dimitra (1998), ‘Greek women in archaeology: an untold story’, Margarita Díaz‐Andreu & M. L. S. Sørensen (eds.), Excavating Women: A history of women in European archaeology, London: Routledge: 235-265.

Parren, Kalliroe (1909), Αριστούχος διδακτόρισσα (An excellent Doctor of Philosophy). Εφημερίς των Κυριών (Newspaper of the Ladies), 964, 1909, 623.

Parren, Kalliroe (1912), Λογοδοσία του Λυκείου των Ελληνίδων 1911 (Accountability of the Lyceum Club of Greek Women 1911). Εφημερίς των Κυριών (Newspaper of the Ladies), 1023, 15th ‐ 31st May 1912: 2044‐2046.

This post is part of a series in which speakers of the session “(In)Visbile Women in History of Archaeology” of the Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists 2023 publish their presentations. The posts will be published simultaneously in German and English. The German version of this post can be found on the blog of the project AktArcha at https://aktarcha.hypotheses.org/5502.

Introduction: (In)visible Women in History of Archaeology Series

Posted on by Debbie

The session “(In)visible Women in History of Archaeology” was a full-day session at the 2023 Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists in Belfast, UK. It was co-organized by Ammandeep Mahal from Beyond Notability, Doris Gutsmiedl-Schümann and Elsbeth Bösl from AktArcha, Tove Hjørungdal from the University of Gothenburg and Laura Coltofean-Arizancu from the German Archaeological Institute, Research Cluster 5: History of Archaeology. The session aimed to shed some light on the roles of women working in and contributing to archaeology and heritage in the history of archaeology, and welcomed papers about individual biographies as well as overviews and comparisons of women and their work in a particular area of archaeology. During the session, we also discussed methods and approaches to research the history of women in archaeology and heritage. 

A photograph of a whiteboard with the words Beyond Notability on from a conference.
Slide from the the Beyond Notability presentation.

The Beyond Notability team is collaborating with AktArcha to publish a series of blog posts on women in archaeology in which speakers of the “(In)Visible Women in History of Archaeology” session at the European Association of Archaeologists Annual Meeting 2023 will publish their presentations.  The series will be published simultaneously in German on AktArcha’s blog and in English on the Beyond Notability blog.

We would like to thank all speakers who decided to publish a blog post about their paper with us!

This post is part of a series in which speakers of the session “(In)Visbile Women in History of Archaeology” of the Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists 2023 publish their presentations. The posts will be published simultaneously in German and English. The German version of this post can be found on the blog of the project AktArcha at https://aktarcha.hypotheses.org/5942.

Stories of Women and the Past: International Women’s Day 2024

Posted on by Debbie

A full day of reflections, information and ideas about women and how they explored the past, punctuated by four specially created stories.

This event was recorded and is available to watch here.

Since 2021, the team behind Beyond Notability, based at the Institute of Classical Studies at University of London and the University of Southampton in partnership with the Society of Antiquaries, has been working on recovering the names, lives, residences and (most importantly) work of women in the archives of the Society of Antiquaries and elsewhere. Taking inspiration from and drawing on this work, we present a day seminar on Storytelling, Inclusivity and (Re)Presenting Women’s Work in Archaeology, History and Heritage.

The Programme for the day is now available here and includes biographies of the people speaking. There may still be small changes:

StorytellingIWD2024_BeyondNotabilitiesFinalDownload

Four performances commissioned from storyteller Vanessa Woolf will interpret some of our research around some key women, such as Charlotte Stopes, themes, like folklore, and places, such as Hadrian’s Wall. Readings of these stories on the day will be followed by talks from and with academics, heritage professionals and creative practitioners on how they engage with the past and women’s work in these areas. The day considers storytelling through books, re-enactments, costume and interpretation in heritage sites and museums.

There will be presentations covering theatre and community, AI, the historic environment, museum displays, inclusive re-enactment and research-inspired art from Julia Pascal (Pascal Theatre Co.),  Catherine Clarke (Institute of Historical Research), Jo Badger (historical costume-maker), Pamela Franklin (Caribbean Social Forum),  Jennifer Wexler (English Heritage), Marie Basting (author), Emma Anderson and Bryony Renshaw (Silk Museum Macclesfield), Katy Drake and Kath Van Uytrecht (Society of Antiquaries Artists-in-Residence). Amara Thornton and Katherine Harloe (Beyond Notability / Institute of Classical Studies) will facilitate discussion and reflect on the process needed to engage creatively with the stories and women found in the archives the team has examined.

Join in the conversation online: #StorytellingWomen #IWD2024 #InternationalWomensDay #WomensHistoryMonth