Noel (was Re: psychic archaeology)

Jerry W. Forstadt (forstadt@ASU.EDU)
Wed, 7 Dec 1994 19:24:26 -0700

On Wed, 7 Dec 1994, Elizabeth Vance wrote:

> > We can have a whole thread on discussing Hume's approach to archaeology.
> > I wish I had a copy of that book in front of me right now so that I can
> > post some of his insane ideas about the place of women on archaeological
> > excavations. I wouldn't consider him to be sane or rational.
> So let's start one! I've never heard of this person Hume, and I would be
> interested in hearing some of his insane ideas. :)
> - Elizabeth

You asked for it!
from Historical Archaeology
Page 60: "I realize that we live in a time when discrimination can land
you in jail, but I must risk it and say that you stand a better chance of
taking on an inexperienced male volunteer than a female. Digging is,
after all, a masculine occupation, and while more women than men are
likely to do well in the pot-washing shed or in the laboratory,
shovel-wielding females are not everyday sights in Western society. If
they are to be useful on a site (and the right women can be splendid
excavators), they must be prepared to be accepted as men, eschewing the
traditional rights of their sex. It is vastly time-wasting for men in one
area to be constantly hopping up and down to push barrows for women
working in another. Besides, it is inordinately restricting after
clouting one's knee with a shovel to have to look around to see if women
are in earshot befor commenting on it... one lady volunteer improperly
dressed for the occasion can cause havoc throughout the crew as well as
damaging the ground on which she walks. High heels and low decolletage
are a lethal combination." etc. etc.

J. W. Forstadt
Tempe, Arizona