Content uploaded by Doris Gutsmiedl-Schümann
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Doris Gutsmiedl-Schümann on Dec 31, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Edited by:
JULIA KATHARINA KOCH, WIEBKE KIRLEIS
GENDER
TRANSFORMATIONS
in Prehistoric and Archaic Societies
This is a free oprint – as with all our publications
the entire book is freely accessible on our website,
and is available in print or as PDF e-book.
www.sidestone.com
Scales of Transformation I 06
Edited by:
JULIA KATHARINA KOCH, WIEBKE KIRLEIS
GENDER
TRANSFORMATIONS
in Prehistoric and Archaic Societies
© 2019 Individual authors
Published by Sidestone Press, Leiden
www.sidestone.com
Imprint: Sidestone Press Academics
All articles in this publication have peen peer-reviewed.
For more information see www.sidestone.nl
Layout & cover design: CRC 1266/Carsten Reckweg and Sidestone Press
Cover images: Carsten Reckweg. – In the background a photo of the
CRC1266-excavation of a Bronze Age burial mound near Bornhöved (LA117),
Kr. Segeberg, Germany, in summer/autumn 2018. The leadership was taken
over by 2 women, the team also included 10 women and 11 men, of whom the
female sta were present for a total of 372 days and the male for 274 days.
Text editors: Julia Katharina Koch and Suzanne Needs-Howarth
ISSN 2590-1222
ISBN 978-90-8890-821-7 (softcover)
ISBN 978-90-8890-822-4 (hardcover)
ISBN 978-90-8890-823-1 (PDF e-book)
The STPAS publications originate from or are involved with the Collaborative
Research Centre 1266, which is funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
(DFG, German Research Foundation; Projektnummer 2901391021 – SFB 1266).
Preface of the series editors
With this book series, the Collaborative Research Centre Scales of Transformation:
Human-Environmental Interaction in Prehistoric and Archaic Societies (CRC 1266) at
Kiel University enables the bundled presentation of current research outcomes of
the multiple aspects of socio-environmental transformations in ancient societies.
As editors of this publication platform, we are pleased to be able to publish mono-
graphs with detailed basic data and comprehensive interpretations from dierent
case studies and landscapes as well as the extensive output from numerous scientic
meetings and international workshops.
The book series is dedicated to the fundamental research questions of CRC 1266,
dealing with transformations on dierent temporal, spatial and social scales, here
dened as processes leading to a substantial and enduring reorganization of so-
cio-environmental interaction patterns. What are the substantial transformations
that describe human development from 15,000 years ago to the beginning of the
Common Era? How did interactions between the natural environment and human
populations change over time? What role did humans play as cognitive actors trying
to deal with changing social and environmental conditions? Which factors triggered
the transformations that led to substantial societal and economic inequality?
The understanding of human practices within often intertwined social and
environmental contexts is one of the most fundamental aspects of archaeological
research. Moreover, in current debates, the dynamics and feedback involved in
human-environmental relationships have become a major issue, particularly when
looking at the detectable and sometimes devastating consequences of human inter-
ference with nature. Archaeology, with its long-term perspective on human societies
and landscapes, is in the unique position to trace and link comparable phenomena in
the past, to study human involvement with the natural environment, to investigate
the impact of humans on nature, and to outline the consequences of environmental
change on human societies. Modern interdisciplinary research enables us to reach
beyond simplistic monocausal lines of explanation and overcome evolutionary per-
spectives. Looking at the period from 15,000 to 1 BCE, CRC 1266 takes a diachronic
view in order to investigate transformations involved in the development of Late
Pleistocene hunter-gatherers, horticulturalists, early agriculturalists, early metallur-
gists as well as early state societies, thus covering a wide array of societal formations
and environmental conditions.
The volume Gender Transformations in Prehistoric and Archaic Societies shows
that gender matters on all societal levels and throughout times; be it in reconstructed
social and economic organisation in research on prehistoric times, in the investi-
gation and recent perception of women’s roles in past and modern societies or as
expressed in the still low representation of females in higher academic positions of
knowledge production in archaeology. The proceedings are the outcome of the inter-
national Workshop on Gender Transformations in Prehistoric and Archaic Societies,
which took place from 8-10 March 2018 in Kiel, Germany, organised within the
framework of CRC 1266 Scales of Transformation. The workshop provided a platform
to stimulate discussions on gender transformations in the past and the eects of
gender inequality on scientic discourses in our research community, which was
much appreciated by the numerous international participants, who promoted and
enjoyed the cross-cultural academic exchange.
This volume is being presented in the 21st century, about 100 years after female
surage was established in Germany. Nevertheless, feminists are still confronted
with draw-back mechanisms, leading, e.g., in Switzerland to demonstrations by
women, who continue to have to demand equal pay, or in Germany, where females
once more have to ght for sexual self-determination because gynaecologists are
juristically punished if they inform the public about medical treatment concerning
abortion. This shows that even today, gender equality and gender freedom are not
self-evident, and that their necessity has to actively be kept alive in the general con-
sciousness. Gender transformations, the topic of the workshop and this volume, also
accompany our discussions on societal and environmental transformations, in par-
ticular when dealing, e.g., with material culture or settlement patterns in the past,
but also with the question of scientic actors and gendered bias in doing research.
By gendering the archaeological discussion on transformation processes within the
framework of our CRC, we want to assimilate and stimulate the impulses of gen-
der-sensitive research and processes that are currently on the European and the
worldwide agenda.
We are very thankful, in particular to Julia Katharina Koch, for the organisa-
tion of the workshop and for her engagement with the editing of this book. Her
expertise in gender archaeology and her long-lasting engagement with the German
association FemArc e. V. and the EAA-community Archaeology and Gender in Europe
(AGE) enabled her to bundle an impressive number of contributions on gender
transformations for this volume. We are especially grateful to Nicole Schwerdt-
feger and Carsten Reckweg for the preparation of the gures for publication and
to Katharina Fuchs and Hermann Gorbahn for controlling the editing ow and for
further support with technical and communication issues. We also wish to thank
Karsten Wentink, Corné van Woerdekom and Eric van den Bandt from Sidestone
Press for their responsive support in realizing this volume.
Wiebke Kirleis and Johannes Müller
Contents
Preface of the series editors 5
Introduction to gender transformations 11
Julia Katharina Koch and Wiebke Kirleis
1 Gendering eldwork 19
Matters of gender in the Kerameikos excavation in Athens 21
Jutta Stroszeck
Women in the eld. Preliminary insights from images of 43
archaeology in Portugal in the 1960s and the 1970s.
A rst essay
Ana Cristina Martins
Gendered and diversied eldwork classes in prehistoric 65
archaeology? An examination of and a perspective on
Bachelor study programs of German universities
Doris Gutsmiedl-Schümann
‘Fieldwork is not the proper preserve of a lady’. Gendered images 93
of archaeologists from textbooks to social media
Jana Esther Fries
2 Tracing gender transformations 109
2.1 In methodology 109
What is gender transformation, where does it take place, 111
and why? Reections from archaeology
Marie Louise Stig Sørensen
Osteology denes sex and archaeology denes gender? 125
Insights from physical anthropology
Johanna Kranzbühler
Gender in Linearbandkeramik research. Traditional 133
approaches and new avenues
Nils Müller-Scheeßel
2.2 In burials 153
Changing gender perception from the Mesolithic to the 155
beginning of the Middle Neolithic
Daniela Nordholz
Making the invisible visible. Expressing gender in 183
mortuary practices in north-eastern Hungary in the
5th millennium BCE
Alexandra Anders and Emese Gyöngyvér Nagy
Copper Age transformations in gender identities. An Essay 205
Jan Turek
Gender symbolism in female graves of the Bronze Age 221
evidenced by the materials from the Lisakovsk burial
complex of the Andronovo cultural horizon
Emma R. Usmanova and Marina K. Lachkova
Male gender identity during the Ural Bronze Age. 241
On the way down?
Natalia Berseneva
Transformations in a woman’s life in prehistoric and 261
archaic societies of the Scythians and the Kalmyks
Maria Ochir-Goryaeva
Tracing gender in funerary data. The case study of elite 275
graves in the North-Alpine complex (Late Bronze Age to
La Tène B)
Caroline Trémeaud
2.3 In cultural landscapes 295
Social manipulation of gender identities in Early Iron Age 297
Latium Vetus (Italy)
Ilona Venderbos
Time- and space-related genders and changing social roles. 315
A case study from Archaic southern Italy
Christian Heitz
2.4 In ritual and art 339
‘Shaman’ burials in prehistoric Europe. Gendered images? 341
Nataliia Mykhailova
Part-time females and full-time specialists? Identifying 363
gender roles in ritual behaviour and archaeological remains
Andy Reymann
Beyond gender. Approaches to anthropomorphic 381
imagery in prehistoric central Anatolia
Aysel Arslan
Art and gender. The case study of enamelling in 403
continental Europe (4th-3rd century BCE)
Virginie Defente
3 Gendering and shaping the environment 417
Gender and the environment in archaeology. A discussion 419
Julia Katharina Koch and Oliver Nakoinz
The gender division of labour during the proto-Elamite 423
period in late 4th millennium BCE Iran. A case study from
Tepe Sofalin in Iranian Central Plateau
Rouhollah Youse Zoshk, Saeed Baghizadeh, and Donya Etemadifar
Change and continuity. Gender and int knapping 435
activities during the Neolithic in the Paris basin
Anne Augereau
Labour organisation between horticulture and agriculture. 459
Two separate worlds?
Wiebke Kirleis
The construction of space and gender in prehistory. 477
An approach to the Chalcolithic walled enclosures of Iberia
Ana M. Vale
Contributors 493
65
Gendered and diversified fieldwork classes in prehistoric archaeoloGy?
Gendered and diversified fieldwork
classes in prehistoric archaeology?
An examination of and a perspective
on Bachelor study programs of German
universities
Doris Gutsmiedl-Schümann
Abstract
Topics for eldwork and eldwork classes are a regular part of undergraduate study
programs in Germany. They are often seen as enhancing the future employabili-
ty of graduate students, and they are emphasised in the advertising of those study
programs. However, as eldwork is only a small part of the archaeological working
environment, other practical aspects, such as museum and collection work, are
much less part of undergraduate study programs. Therefore, this paper examines if
and how stressing eldwork as an important part of archaeological training aects
the composition and the diversity of the students of a study program, and how this
contributes to shaping the academic discipline.
Keywords: undergraduate study programs, Bachelor study programs, academic
eldwork, academic training, diversity of students
Introduction
To certain academic disciplines, including archaeology, conducting research
in eld settings is an integral component of scholarship. The adventurous and
‘exotic’ aspects of eldwork are often believed to attract many young and future
researchers to the discipline, and are often seen as one reason for prospective
students to get more involved in archaeology– and eventually to take a degree in
an archaeological discipline.
As the call for papers to the conference ‘Gender transformations in prehistoric
and archaic societies’ stated, ‘[…] research about the past is always inuenced by the
Doris Gutsmiedl-Schümann
Freie Universität Berlin
Institute of Prehistoric Archaeology
Fabeckstraße 23‑25
14195 Berlin
Germany
doris.gutsmiedl@fu‑berlin.de
66 Gender Transformations in Prehistoric and Archaic Societies
societal frame in which it is carried out’. Therefore, research and eldwork are not
only related and connected to each other, but also to the individual backgrounds of
the people involved– directors, workers, researchers, teachers, and students alike.
Usually, eldwork training is included from the beginning in Bachelor study
programs in archaeology, and the future archaeologists are also usually doing
eldwork for the rst time during their time at university. Therefore, this paper asks
whether eldwork classes and courses are teaching eldwork methods in a gender-
and diversity-sensitive way, and whether the circumstances of eldwork classes are
aecting the diversity of the students, for example, by excluding certain groups or
persons, and therefore leading to inequality in the accessibility of mandatory parts
of archaeological programs of study.
In this paper, I will rst give a short introduction on the variety of study programs
in prehistoric archaeology that are oered at the Bachelor level in Germany. Then I
will look into the individual study programs and examine their eldwork classes. In
the third and last part of my paper, I will discuss the possible eects that the current
way of organising eldwork classes and other practical elements in the study
programs could have, and I will show some examples and delve into the current
discussion on how these eects can be minimised. Unfortunately, especially for the
last part of my paper, only limited data are available, so that some questions have to
remain unanswered and at least some of my conclusions have to be characterised
as preliminary until further systematic research on eldwork classes is conducted.
Archaeological study programs in Germany
In the so-called Bologna Process, the archaeology study programs at German uni-
versities were changed from the old Magister/Diplom system to the new Bachelor/
Master system. It was mainly a political decision to change the study programs to a
system that should– in theory– ensure comparability in the standards and quality
of higher education throughout continental Europe. Some of the core elements of
this change were to, on the one hand, create and design the study programs from
14
11
21
38
3
15
4613
19
18 17 26 1
5
12
24
25
22
20
25
7
910 16
2
23
Figure 1. Spatial distribution of Bachelor study programs that are on or
involve prehistoric archaeology. Squares: Bachelor study programs that
are only on prehistoric archaeology; circles: multidisciplinary Bachelor
study programs that involve prehistoric archaeology (for more details,
see Table 1) (map: <www.kleinefaecher.de>, with additions by Doris
Gutsmiedl-Schümann).
Table 1 (opposite page). List of
Bachelor study programs that
are on or that involve prehistoric
archaeology. The numbers refer
to the numbers on the maps in
Figures 1-3; the names of the
study programs and the subjects
involved are indicated in German
(for sources, see the list of
examined study programs at the
end of this article).
67
Gendered and diversified fieldwork classes in prehistoric archaeoloGy?
University Name of Bachelor study program Single or multidisciplinary? Involved subjects
1 Bamberg Archäologische Wissenschaften multidisciplinary
Archäologie des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit, Archäologie der Römischen Provinzen, Ur- und Früh-
geschichtliche Archäologie, Informationsverarbeitung in der Geoarchäologie, Islamische Kunst-
geschichte und Archäologie
2 Berlin (FU) Altertumswissenschaften multidisciplinary Ägyptologie, Altorientalistik, Klassische Archäologie, Prähistorische Archäologie, Vorderasiatische
Altertumskunde
3 Bochum Archäologische Wissenschaften multidisciplinary Klassische Archäologie, Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Archäometrie
4 Bonn Archäologien multidisciplinary Ägyptologie, Christliche Archäologie, Klassische Archäologie, Vor- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäo-
logie
5 Erlangen Archäologische Wissenschaften multidisciplinary Prähistorische Archäologie, Klassische Archäologie, Christliche Archäologie
6 Frankfurt Vor- und Frühgeschichte single Vor- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie
7 Freiburg Archäologische Wissenschaften multidisciplinary
Urgeschichtliche Archäologie, Vorderasiatische Archäologie, Klassische Archäologie, Provinzialrömi-
sche Archäologie, Christliche Archäologie und Byzantinische Kunstgeschichte, Frühgeschichtliche
Archäologie und Archäologie des Mittelalters
8 Göttingen Ur- und Frühgeschichte single Ur- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie
9 Göttingen Antike Kulturen multidisciplinary Klassische Archäologie, Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Altorientalistik, Ägyptologie, Altes und Neues Testa-
ment, Koptologie, Griechische und Lateinische Philologie, Alte Geschichte
10 Halle-Wittenberg Archäologien Europas multidisciplinary Klassische Archäologie, Prähistorische Archäologie, Archäologie des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit
11 Hamburg Vor- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie single Vor- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie
12 Heidelberg Ur- und Frühgeschichte single Ur- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie
13 Jena Ur- und Frühgeschichte single Ur- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie
14 Kiel Prähistorische und historische Archäologie single Ur- und Frühgeschichte
15 Köln Archäologie multidisciplinary Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Klassische Archäologie, Archäologie der Römischen Provinzen
16 Leipzig Archäologie der Alten Welt single Klassische Archäologie, Ur- und Frühgeschichte
17 Mainz Vor- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie single Vor- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie
18 Mainz Archäologien multidisciplinary Klassische Archäologie, Vor- und Frühgeschichte, Vorderasiatische Archäologie, Biblische Archäo-
logie, Christliche Archäologie
19 Marburg Archäologische Wissenschaften multidisciplinary Klassische Archäologie, Vor- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie
20 München (LMU) Archäologie Europa und Vorderer Orient multidisciplinary
Vorderasiatische Archäologie, Vor- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie, Provinzialrömische Archäo-
logie, Spätantik-Byzantinische Kunstgeschichte, Klassische Archäologie, Archäozoologie, Anthropo-
logie
21 Münster Archäologie-Geschichte-Landschaft multidisciplinary Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Geographie, Geschichte
22 Regensburg Vor- und Frühgeschichte single Vor- und Frühgeschichte
23 Rostock Ur- und Frühgeschichte single Ur- und Frühgeschichte
24 Saarbrücken Altertumswissenschaften multidisciplinary Klassische Archäologie, Klassische Philologie, Vor- und Frühgeschichte, Alte Geschichte
25 Tübingen Ur- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie und Archäo-
logie des Mittelalters single Ur- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie, Archäologie des Mittelalters
26 Würzburg Vor- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie single Vor- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie
68 Gender Transformations in Prehistoric and Archaic Societies
the perspective of the learning outcomes, that is, from the contents the students
should know and what they should be able to do when they graduate and, on the
other hand, provide more equal access to a university education for young people,
whereby gender, social and cultural background, family and nancial situation,
and so forth should not matter (see, e.g., Berlin Kommuniqué 2003). Equal access
to higher education for all students, and therefore bringing social and cultural
diversity to the lecture halls of the universities, is still one of the main aims of
the Bachelor/Master system. In terms of gender, the eorts seem to have been
successful, at least in archaeology study programs, as usually more women than
men start an archaeology study program in Germany (Gutsmiedl-Schümann and
Helmbrecht 2017, 167-169).
Archaeology as a discipline is divided in various subjects and specialisations,
which are represented in dierent study programs at numerous universities in
Germany. At the Bachelor level, some of these subjects are combined, either exclu-
sively within archaeology, or with other ancient studies, but there are also Bachelor
study programs on single archaeological subjects. For the subject prehistoric archae-
ology, currently (as of spring 2018), 12 universities oer Bachelor study programs
on only this subject, while 14 universities oer multidisciplinary Bachelor study
programs where prehistoric archaeology is combined with other archaeologies
and/or with other humanities. Two universities oer both kind of Bachelor study
programs (Fig. 1; Table 1).
According to the general study program recommendations, a Bachelor study
program should last three years full-time and should be built on 180 ECTS credit
points, where one ECTS credit point is earned for approximately 30 hours of
working/studying time1. During the entire study program, a certain amount of ECTS
credit points should be awarded for classes and lectures that are on aspects of future
work environments and that therefore increase the employability of the graduates.
In Bachelor study programs, eldwork is usually oered as a component of the
future employability of the students.
Fieldwork in archaeology study programs
Fieldwork is part of all 26 examined study programs that are on or involve prehis-
toric archaeology. In examination regulations of those study programs, eldwork is
party described as ‘archaeological excavations’ in the strict meaning of the term and
partly described as ‘survey, prospection or excavation’ in a broader sense; in some
programs it is mandatory and in some it is optional (Table 2; Fig. 2). Where eldwork
is mandatory, the students must prove that they have undertaken between 12 and
90 days2 of eldwork experience and they get between 1.5 and 33 ECTS credit points
1 ECTS stands for European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System; it is pan-European and
expresses the volume of learning based on the dened learning outcomes and their associated
workload. See, for example, <http://ec.europa.eu/education/ects/users-guide/key-features_
en.htm#ectsTop> or <https://www.hrk-nexus.de/glossar-der-studienreform/begri/ectsects-
credits/> (both retrieved 22 November 2018). One ECTS credit point, in general, equals between
25 and 30 hours of working/studying time (see Musterrechtsverordnung gemäß Artikel 4
Absätze 1-4 Studienakkreditierungsstaatsvertrag [Beschluss der Kultusministerkonferenz
vom 07 December 2017]. <http://www.akkreditierungsrat.de/leadmin/Seiteninhalte/KMK/
Vorgaben/Musterrechtsverordnung.pdf> (retrieved 22 November 2018); in most Bachelor
study programs on prehistoric archaeology, however, one ECTS credit point equals 30 hours
of working/studying time.
2 The length of required practical experience in the dierent study program descriptions is stated
in either hours, days, or weeks. To make those specications comparable, in this paper, the
required length of practical experience is always stated in days. To convert required hours into
required days, one working day is calculated as eight working hours; to convert required weeks
into days, one working week is calculated as ve working days.
69
Gendered and diversified fieldwork classes in prehistoric archaeoloGy?
Table 2. Overview of eldwork and museums work in Bachelor study programs that are on or that involve prehistoric archaeology. The length of required practical experience is stated in hours, days, or weeks. To
make the dierent study programs comparable, the required length is stated in days, where one working day equals eight hours and one working week equals ve working days. SWS stands for ‘semester periods per
week’. The names of the study programs are indicated in German (for sources, see the list of examined study programs at the end of this article).
University Study program Fieldwork Musems and collection work
Mandatory? Length (min-max) ECTS (min-max) Propaedeutica? Mandatory? Length (min-max) ECTS (min-max)
Bamberg Archäologische Wissenschaften yes 34-49 days 9-13 2 + 1 SWS
Berlin FU Altertumswissenschaften yes 15-48 days 5-15 2 SWS no 15 days 5
Bochum Archäologische Wissenschaften no max. 15 days max. 5 2 SWS
Bonn Archäologien no max. 20 days max. none specied no not specied
Erlangen-Nürnberg Archäologische Wissenschaften yes 38 days 10 none specied yes 38 days 10
Frankfurt Ur- und Frühgeschichte yes 56-86 days 15-23 none specied no 30 days 8
Freiburg Archäologische Wissenschaften yes 20-40 days 6-12 none specied no 20 days 6
Göttingen Ur- und Frühgeschichte no max. 20 days max. 6 none specied no not specied
Göttingen Antike Kulturen no 12-34 days 4-10 28 h in total no 10 days
Halle-Wittenberg Archäologien Europas yes 20-50 days 10-20 30 h in total no 30 days 10
Hamburg Vor- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie yes 60-90 days 24-33 lenght not spe-
cied no not specied 12-21
Heidelberg Ur- und Frühgeschichte yes 38 days 10 2 SWS
Jena Ur- und Frühgeschichte yes 80 days 15 none specied yes 20 days 10
Kiel Prähistorische und historische Archäo-
logie yes 12-30 days 1.5-6.5 2 SWS
Köln Archäologie no 20-60 days 12-24 30 h in total no not specied
Leipzig Archäologie der Alten welt yes 19 days 10 none specied no not specied max. 10
Mainz Archäologien no not specied max. 15 none specied no not specied
Mainz Vor- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie no not specied max. 9 none specied no not specied
Marburg Archäologische Wissenschaften yes 20 days 6 none specied yes 20 days 6
München Europa und Vorderer Orient no not specied max. 6 2 SWS no not specied
Münster Archäologie-Geschichte-Landschaft no max. 23 days max. 6 none specied no 23 days
Regensburg Ur- und Frühgeschichte no not specied max. 8 2-4 SWS no not specied
Rostock Ur- und Frühgeschichte yes 11-24 days 6-12 2 SWS no not specied 12
Saarbrücken Altertumswissenschaften no not specied max. 6 none specied no not specied
Tübingen Vor- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie yes 10 days + 23 days 12 2 SWS
Würzburg Vor- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie yes 30 days 10 none specied no 20 days 5
70 Gender Transformations in Prehistoric and Archaic Societies
for it in a 180 ECTS credit points Bachelor study program. In e study programs where
eldwork is only optional, it usually highly recommended. In those study programs,
up to 60 days of eldwork and up to 24 ECTS credit points can be earned during
eldwork experience. It is usually not explicitly stated when eldwork classes shall
or will take place, during term or outside of term, but the way the time spans for
expected eldwork time are verbalised assume that it is expected that the students
will take eldwork classes outside of term time. It should be noted here that, because
in some study programs students must collect a quite high number of credit points
for eldwork, there is not much time left for the students to get other practical ex-
periences during their academic holidays, such as in museums and collection work,
public outreach, publication, and other archaeology-related elds.
Judging by the relatively high number of ECTS credit points, and therefore to the
relatively large amount of time students are required to spend in eldwork classes,
eldwork seems to be an important aspect of the study programs that are on or that
involve prehistoric archaeology. Therefore we should ask not only How is eldwork
implemented in the study programs? but also Do the study programs prepare their
students for this and other working environments, and if so, how?
Surveys and excavations within a study program are often described as hands-on
or practical experience and as vocational preparation for future work in the eld
of cultural heritage management (CRM) (in German: Denkmalpege). However,
this is a very narrow view on the eld of CRM, where excavations are only a small
part of the everyday work. Moreover, as Frank Nikulka (2016) pointed out, CRM
and eldwork classes have often contradictory aims: CRM seeks to protect archae-
ological sites, using archaeological excavation as a last resort if the site is somehow
in danger and can no longer be protected eectively. Fieldwork classes, however,
especially in Bachelor study programs, seek to teach eld methods rst-hand and
therefore need to excavate. But as teaching eld methods takes time, especially if
there is no class or seminar planned in the curriculum to prepare students in the
theory of eldwork, eldwork classes can usually not be conducted as rescue exca-
vations at archaeological sites that are about to be destroyed, for example, because
of construction work.
1
1
Figure 2. Map of Bachelor study programs where eldwork is mandatory
(black shovel symbols) or optional (open shovel symbols) (map:
<www.kleinefaecher.de>, with additions by Doris Gutsmiedl-Schümann; for
sources, see the list of examined study programs at the end of this article).
71
Gendered and diversified fieldwork classes in prehistoric archaeoloGy?
As each archaeological excavation is also a destruction of the archaeological site,
study programs on archaeological subjects face a dilemma: On the one hand, they
aim to teach eldwork methods in the eld, and on the other hand, CRM regula-
tions and laws make it dicult to nd suitable sites, at least in Germany. As Nikulka
also pointed out, many archaeological study programs therefore provide eldwork
classes at sites abroad, and continue to excavate often complex sites over a longer
period of time. This often also means that students as well as their academic teachers
and other people involved in the excavation have to live for a certain time abroad,
in the location where the eldwork classes take place. To be able to take part in such
kinds of eldwork classes, students and teachers alike must be able to be away from
home for longer periods, which cannot be expected from everyone. For example,
some have to take care of children or of elderly relatives or of relatives otherwise in
need of care, and some are in need of regular medical support. For those students, the
study programs should state which alternatives they can choose to get ECTS credit
points that are meant for eldwork classes or similar. Unfortunately, among the
examined undergraduate study programs descriptions, there is only one example,
from the university of Kiel, where this has been done. Furthermore, some may live
a way of life that is incompatible with eldwork classes abroad or makes it dicult
to attend, for example, members of religious or ethnic minorities that are following
certain rules in every-day life, or individuals following a particular diet for personal,
health or religious reasons. This would, of course, not necessarily exclude them from
eldwork classes, but it can lead to discriminatory situations or exclusion (see also
below). In general, it seems that eldwork classes abroad are aimed at independent,
young, single students without restrictions, ignoring the actual diversity of lifestyles
and daily routines among the student population.
To undertake survey and excavation within a study program should also increase
the employability of the graduates. ‘Employability’ in Bachelor study programs,
however, was and is widely discussed. The implementation of practical experience
into the curriculum and the possibilities that are given to students to develop their
own set of practical experiences, in particular, have been researched throughout
dierent subjects and disciplines. In general, as Brigitte Petendra, Katja Schikorra,
and Rudi Schmiede (2012) pointed out, internships and practical training play a minor
part in Bachelor study programs in the humanities and are often not connected to
other parts of the study programs, such as other modules, lectures, or seminars. This
is also the case for Bachelor study programs about prehistoric archaeology: Only 13
of the 26 examined study program descriptions mention lectures or seminars that
are dedicated to the introduction to eldwork, excavation, prospection methods,
and/or CRM; they are usually oered in the same module in which the eldwork
takes place. These modules are usually without entrance requirements, and they
are themselves usually not required as a prerequisite for other modules. Therefore,
it might be dicult for academic teachers to connect eldwork aspects with other
teaching activities, as they can never be sure how many if any, of the participants in
their class actually nished the module on eldwork. Furthermore, what students
should learn in particular, and which skills they should acquire during eldwork
classes, is often not specied. Remarkably, only one study program description, in
this case from the university of Leipzig, not only mentions the technical and scientif-
ic aspects than can be learned during eldwork, but also emphasises the social skills
the students will gain during eldwork. In the other study program descriptions,
no specic details for professional or archaeological preparation for eldwork are
mentioned. That does not, of course, necessarily mean that is not conducted at all,
but as it is not part of the curriculum, it seems to be valued less than other learning
activities.
72 Gender Transformations in Prehistoric and Archaic Societies
Museums work and other practical experiences in
archaeology study programs
As mentioned, it is expected, based on the study program descriptions, that eldwork
courses shall provide students a view into one of the main elds of their possible
future archaeological work. Therefore, it could be expected that other main elds
of possible future archaeological work would, equally, be part of the Bachelor study
programs. Surprisingly, they are not. The broad area of museums and collection
work provides an example. In only 3 of the 26 study programs is museum work
mandatory, and in only 18 of the 26 study programs it is mentioned as optional
(Table 2; Fig. 3). In ve study programs, museums work is not stated as part of the
study program at all. And even in the three study programs where eldwork and
museums work are both mandatory, only at two universities is an equal amount
of eldwork and museums experience requested from the students (38 days of
practical work at the university of Erlangen, 20 days of practical work at the uni-
versity of Marburg). Where museums work is an optional part of the curriculum,
students can get between 5 and 21 ECTS credit points for practical museums work
and are expected to work between 10 and 60 days in museums and exhibitions.
Moreover, dierent pedagogical approaches to eldwork and excavation, on
the one hand, and to museums work, on the other hand, can be found in the study
program descriptions. Where eldwork is mandatory, eldwork methods are usually
taught by participating in eldwork, whereby students have to excavate or conduct
archaeological surveys themselves. Fieldwork methods are therefore perceived as
methods that can only be learned by doing eldwork. Museums and collection work,
however, is usually taught by visiting museums and collections, and therefore by
looking at and examination how others do museums work. In the examined study
program descriptions, one exception to this trend can be found: At the university of
Munich, both, museums work and eldwork are taught by seminars and single-day
excursions.
Figure 3. Map of Bachelor study programs where museums work
is mandatory (black vase symbols) or optional (open vase symbols)
(map: <www.kleinefaecher.de>, with additions from Doris Gutsmiedl-
Schümann; for sources, see the list of examined study programs at the
end of this article).
73
Gendered and diversified fieldwork classes in prehistoric archaeoloGy?
If the examined undergraduate study programs are compared with each other,
eldwork and excavation are much more often part of the study programs than
are museums and exhibitions, while the possibilities to explore other possible
future working environments are usually missing in the practical parts of the study
programs– or they can be chosen instead of museums work, but not instead of
eldwork. In the end, the picture of their future job options that students get during
their study programs is quite a narrow one.
Discussion of the practical training in undergraduate
study programs
One main question that emerges from the discussion above is Why are excavation
and eldwork so much more often part of undergraduate study programs than are
other possible future working areas? Unfortunately, there is not much research and
investigation study programs has been undertaken so far, so I can only be try to
argue for possible explanations. One explanation could be that the study programs
try to meet public expectations of ‘what archaeologists do’. Cornelius Holtdorf, for
example, in his work about archaeology in contemporary popular culture, has
collected data from various polls and surveys in which the interviewees were asked
to describe, in their own words, what they think when they hear the term archae-
ology or archaeologist (Table 3). In four of the six studies, ‘digging’ or ‘going on ex-
cavations’ was the most common perception; in the remaining two studies, these
answers were among the top three (Holtdorf 2016, pos. 1210-1212; see also Fries in
this volume). The other answers to this open-ended interview question can be sum-
marised as ‘research’, such as studying the past using ancient objects, or similar. But
museums work– such as preserving the excavated objects, displaying some of them,
and informing the general public about the past– was not mentioned by any of the
interviewees (Holtdorf 2016, pos. 1210-1212).
Maybe the emphasis of eldwork can therefore be considered as some kind of
self-fullling prophecy, as students, when they start university, most likely have
the same ideas and expectations about archaeology as do members of the general
public. Students expect to do eldwork, so they choose study programs where the
aspect of eldwork is prominently placed, which might then become a criterion for
a successful– because popular– study program.
It should be remembered, however, that even in those study programs where
comparatively much eldwork is expected from the students, they get only up to
33 ECTS credit points for it, in a study program that requires 180 ECTS credit points
in total. So, of the total number of ECTS points garnered for lectures, seminars, and
Survey Most common answer 2nd most common answer 3rd most common answer
Merriman 1991 the past (26%) ruins or objects (53%) digging (45%)
Mackinney 1994 digging (32%) past (28%) ancient civilisations / cultures (24%)
Pokotylo & Guppy 1999
study the past using archae‑
ological record / methods
(21%)
study the past, ancient society /
civilisations (20%) excavations (17%)
Pokotylo 2002 excavations / digs (39%) sites / ruins /artefacts (29%) dinosaur bones / fossils (21%)
Ramos & Duganne 2002 digging (22%) history, heritage, and antiquity
(12%)
digging artefacts / things / objects
from the past
Högberg 2004 excavation / excavation tools
(26%) nding ancient artefacts (16%) ancient cultures (9%)
Table 3. Public perceptions of
archaeology (after Holtdorf
2016, pos. 1246).
74 Gender Transformations in Prehistoric and Archaic Societies
activities that are part of a study program, eldwork classes are still quite a small
part. Nevertheless, it is often a major part of the advertising for a study program3.
Does emphasis on eldwork aect the diversity of
students?
Based on this survey of study program descriptions, I will discuss whether and
how this focus on prospection and excavation in the practical aspects of Bachelor
study programs aects the diversity of students, and which possible eects it has
on gender equality and/or other (in)equalities. Unfortunately, not much research
has been done to date on this or similar topics, especially not in connection with the
current study programs at German universities. However, some papers on gender
and eldwork published from the 1980s onward may help inform the discussion.
Those were mostly written by women, often in English-speaking archaeological en-
vironments, and usually from a personal perspective and with a focus on working
situations – and therefore with a focus on already graduated archaeologists (e.g.
Perry 2018; Shipley 2018, with further references). Publications and surveys that
focus on students and study programs are rare (e.g. Cobb and Croucher 2016).
The rst publications addressed mainly eldwork and gender. Joan Gero
(1985), for example, in her paper ‘Socio-Politics and the Woman-at-Home Ideology’,
examined eld-based research projects and non-eld-based projects in Meso-Amer-
ican archaeology. She describes that many more men than women worked on
eldwork-based projects, while more women than men conducted non-eldwork-
based research. She concludes, also using data from other surveys, that ‘[…] these
gures suggest that archaeological eld research, fullling a male stereotype and
indeed associated with male archaeologists, is heavily emphasized […]’ (Gero 1985,
347). Fieldwork and eld-based projects seem to be perceived as both more prestig-
ious and ‘male’, non-eld-based projects, often focusing on artefacts and therefore
the necessary research after excavation, seem to be perceived as less prestigious
as well as ‘female’: ‘The woman-at-home archaeologist must fulll her stereotypic
feminine role by specializing in the analysis of archaeological materials, typologiz-
ing, seriating, studying wear or paste or iconographic motifs. She will have to do the
archaeological housework’ (Gero 1985, 344). In publications from the 1990s, Sybille
Kästner described a similar situation for Germany (Kästner 1999), as did Roberta
Gilchrist (1991) for British eld archaeology and Stephanie Moser (1996) for Austral-
ian archaeology. These surveys thus describe a gendered division of archaeological
work. It is notable that that this kind of gendered division of labour (men doing the
digging, women taking care of the artefacts) is, according to recent discussions on
social media, still a topic during eldwork classes, and is perceived by male and
female students alike as discriminatory, as both groups are reduced to only a few
skills and activities. Unfortunately, systematic surveys to explore the perception of
labour divisions in eldwork classes according to gender or other personal features
of the participating students, as well as further research, are still lacking.
Furthermore, as Hannah Cobb und Karina Croucher pointed out few years ago by
comparing various studies conducted in English-speaking countries on professional
archaeology with the survey ‘Digging Diversity’, which focused on the situation of
3 See, for example, the leaets advertising the Bachelor study programs B.A. Vor- und
Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie (Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main), at <http://www.
uni-frankfurt.de/60033944/SSC_Flyer_DIN_A4_Vor_und_Fr%C3%BChgeschichtliche_HF_web.
pdf>; B.A. Archäologien (Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhems-Universität Bonn), at <https://www.
uni-bonn.de/studium/vor-dem-studium/faecher/archaeologien/at_download/info_attachment>;
and B.A. Ur- und Frühgeschichte (Universität Rostock), at <https://www.altertum.uni-rostock.
de/leadmin/uni-rostock/Alle_PHF/PHF/Studium/02_BA-Zweifaecher/Ordnungen_2017/Ur-und_
Fruegeschichte/Ur-_und_Fruehgeschichte_BA_2017.pdf> (all retrieved 9 January 2019).
75
Gendered and diversified fieldwork classes in prehistoric archaeoloGy?
students as well as that of professionals (Cobb and Croucher 2016; Cobb 2015), not
all archaeologists categorise themselves into ‘male’ or ‘female’. ‘Digging Diversity
showed that just under one in ve respondents (professional and student) were not het-
erosexual and, most worryingly, that when sexuality and professional role were corre-
lated, those in positions of power were exclusively heterosexual’ (Cobb and Croucher
2016, 953). Interestingly, the number of ‘other’ genders were higher among the
students, as were the numbers of participants with varying disabilities or dierent
ethnicities (Cobb and Croucher 2016, 953-955; see also Rocks-Macqueen 2013). Cobb
and Croucher concluded that ‘[…] this disparity in diversity gures between students
and professionals indicates, therefore, is that there are clearly still a series of barriers
that are preventing a more diverse profession’ (Cobb and Croucher 2016, 956). Being
part of a minority might therefore also be a reason for dicult situations during
eldwork, and in the long term a reason for quitting archaeology. These studies also
demonstrate that gender is only one aspect of the diversity that can be assumed to
exist among archaeologist and archaeology students4. So, the crucial point is to an-
ticipate the many levels of diversity (Fig. 4) and how those may aect students and
other personnel during eldwork.
Fieldwork classes often last several days and bring a group of mostly very
dierent people – such as students, instructors, workers, and researchers, both
male and female– from dierent social and cultural backgrounds closely together
to work and live in an often remote place. Participants should be made aware that
4 The many levels of diversity in working environments are, for example, shown by the project
‘Charta der Vielfalt’ (diversity charter) <https://www.charta-der-vielfalt.de/diversity-verstehen/
diversity-dimensionen/>, retrieved 1 December 2018.
Organizational dimensions
External dimensions
Internal dimensions
Personality
Management
StatusMarital Religion
Age
Nationality Gender
Income
Work
Content
Field
Sexual
Oriantation
Personal
Habits
Parental
Status
Work
Experience
Seniority
Union
Affiliation
Appearance
Educational
Background
Work
Location
Geographic
Location
Division/ Department/
Unit/Group
Ethnicity
Physical Ability
Functional
Level/
Classification
Recreational
Habits
Status
Figure 4. Four layers of diversity
(Maj 2015, Fig. 3, which is
adapted from Gardenswartz and
Rowe 2003, with modication).
76 Gender Transformations in Prehistoric and Archaic Societies
eldwork classes are not only physically demanding, with their long and physical la-
bour-lled days, but also socially demanding, in that they take place in often unique
social settings. This has the potential to provide students with opportunities to gain
social skills, but it also entails the danger of unwanted interactions.
Social skills that can be gained during eldwork, and the personal challenge
that living and working in a remote place with a small group of fellow students as
well as with workers and academic teachers and under often quite special condi-
tions means, are two sides of the same coin. As about 20 per cent of undergraduate
students in Germany nowadays still live with their parents, mainly due to the in-
creasing rents and other cost of living in university cities5, this adds even for typical
students extra challenge to ‘being in the eld’, as the everyday support they might
experience at home is of course missing in the eld setting. Therefore, pointing out
the possibilities for personal development and the gaining of social skills during
eldwork seems all the more important. Furthermore, living on a special diet, living
with disabilities, or depending on regular medical services, which might not be a
problem in everyday life or during normal holidays, might suddenly become a real
challenge. Therefore, students should be made aware of that, and for those who are
among these groups, it should be made clear by academic teachers or those who are
in charge of the eldwork class whether there will be any support for them during a
eldwork class. In summary, it is important that academic teachers learn in advance
of a eldwork class, not only who the students are, but also from which backgrounds
they come, what they expect from taking part in eldwork, and whether they need
special support. For example, to meet as many dierent food requirements in the
regular eld kitchen and at the same time restrict the cost of food and labour for
the daily cooking, the archaeologist Eleanor Scott and the The Inclusive Archaeol-
ogy Project collected nutrient-rich, tasty, and easy-to-cook recipes based on usually
quite cheap ingredients that are also vegan and diabetic friendly, but suitable to any
participant of the eldwork class6. This way, none of the students is excluded during
the daily meals. Still, not every student might be aware that being in the eld also
involves give-and-take on everyday matters, such as when and what to eat.
Especially hidden disabilities could become a real challenge during eldwork.
To increase awareness of disability issues in archaeology and to improve the inte-
gration of disability in eldwork teaching, the Inclusive, Accessible, Archaeology
project was started by the University of Reading, UK. To see how many students
might actually be aected, issues surrounding disability and current practices
related to disability7 and archaeological eldwork were evaluated through question-
naires. The project argues that all individuals have limitations and areas of greater
ability, no matter whether they are embodied or otherwise. Therefore, beginning
by realistically assessing skills and playing to the strengths of each participant on
a eldwork campaign provides a productive, non-discriminatory way of practicing
and of training students in the eld (Phillips et al. 2007). Other exclusionary elements
that regularly appear in excavation settings were also addressed, for example, by
Stephanie Moser (2007, 24) and Karina Croucher and Wendelin Romer (2007, 12-14),
such as the emphasis on drinking in the evenings or the lack of segregated sleeping
arrangements, which can be exclusionary to specic groups for various reasons.
5 Results of the latest student census can be found at <http://www.sozialerhebung.de/archiv>,
retrieved 1 December 2018.
6 The collection of recipes by Eleanor Scott can be found at her ‘Dig Food Blog’ at <https://
eleanorscottarchaeology.com/dig-food-blog/>, retrieved 1 December 2018.
7 Disability was in this project seen in a social model, which ‘… shifts the emphasis from what is
“wrong” with a disabled person, to the “barriers” in society (physical, social, economic and attitudinal)
that exclude them from participating in everyday activities …’. It was therefore ‘… attempting to
remove barriers that exclude some members of society from participating in archaeological eldwork
training. In this, it is promoting inclusiveness’ (Phillips and Gilchrist 2005, 7).
77
Gendered and diversified fieldwork classes in prehistoric archaeoloGy?
Therefore, it is important to put in place lectures, seminars, or workshops that
prepare students for eldwork experiences and that aim to sensibilise them as well
as the academic teachers and others involved to the risk of marginalising certain
groups because of their needs, and that encourage communication about possible
issues and what can be done about it– before the eldwork starts.
No discussion on gender, diversity, and eldwork situations is complete without
also talking about unwanted personal interactions, bullying, and harassment. Oc-
casionally cases are reported, and some small surveys have been conducted, but
systematic research taking wider perspective on this unpleasant topic, especially in
connection with archaeology study programs and eldwork classes, is still missing.
In 2014, the results of the Survey of Academic Field Experiences (SAFE): Trainees
Report Harassment and Assault, which was open to all disciplines with eldwork
aspects, were published by Kathryn Clancy and her co-authors. Many more women
than men responded to this poll, and unfortunately, quite a number of unwanted
contacts and interactions were reported (Clancy et al. 2014, esp. Fig. 3). A survey that
was done in Spanish archaeology and presented at the 24th Annual Meeting of the
European Association of Archaeologists8 yielded quite comparable results. Here, it
was also pointed out that unwanted interactions, bullying, and harassment usually
also involve hierarchies and power relations. Many more cases were collected by
the cultural anthropologist Karen Kelsky, who started a crowdsourced survey of
sexual harassment in academia9. By April 2018, 2438 individual cases were reported
anonymously to this survey, and these are accessible through a public spreadsheet.
The archaeologist Doug Rocks-Macqueen found by searching through this document
that 91 of these stories involve archaeologists (Rocks-Macqueen 2018). These cases
might, in the rst place, seem like unconnected, single stories, but the next step
should be to discuss if there are structures or periodic events that favour unwanted
interactions of this or any other kind, and how that can be changed – to make
studying and working in archaeology safe and secure for everyone.
How do we create diversity-sensitive
eldwork classes?
In general, there are two kinds of longer-lasting special situations that archaeolo-
gy students usually experience during their time at university, namely, excursions
or eld trips of several days’ duration, and eldwork or excavations. Both excur-
sions and excavations require preparation, primarily in a scientic, but also in an
organisational and social way. But while it is quite common to prepare students
for excursions with some kind of lecture, seminar, or course, for which some time
is set aside in the study program description, it is less common to provide time for
preparation for excavations and eldwork, as was shown above. Nevertheless, not
only students, but also academic teachers, instructors, workers, and researchers– in
short, anyone who might be involved in eldwork– should be aware of the special
nature of the upcoming situation. To bring this to mind among the participants, the
archaeologist Sara Perry designed a ‘code of conduct for teams on eld projects’,
which any participant has to sign before the actual eldwork starts. This code of
8 It can still be followed on Twitter by searching for the hashtags #EAA2018, #s744 (for
‘session 744: The women dimension in archaeology’), #stopharassmentinarchaeology and
#stopviolenceinarchaeology. See also <https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DmeTqo7XgAEZ8hO.jpg>
(retrieved 29 November 2018). Some Spanish newspapers, such as El País from 7 September
2018 (<https://elpais.com/cultura/2018/09/07/actualidad/1536347632_264117.html> [retrieved 10
January 2019]), also wrote about it.
9 <https://theprofessorisin.com/2017/12/01/a-crowdsourced-survey-of-sexual-harassment-in-the-
academy/>.
78 Gender Transformations in Prehistoric and Archaic Societies
conduct was built on six eldwork expectations, which include the various perspec-
tives of the eldwork participants as well as the perspectives of the local people.
Each expectation is explained in detail, and persons whom the eldwork partici-
pants can approach in the case of problems are named. The headlines of this code of
conduct are mentioned below (Perry 2018):
1. We are committed to working as a team
2. We are committed to prioritising and championing the people and communities
that host us
3. We are committed to the working hours, professional expectations, and responsi-
bilities dened by the overall project directors
4. We are representatives and extensions of the University of York and its sta, and of
the professional bodies to which we and our project leaders are subscribed
5. We recognise that eldwork can be intense, emotional, and tiring
6. We have the right to a safe, secure, and non-threatening working and living
environment
It seems crucial that archaeology study programs should be able to create a safe
working and living environment during eldwork classes. If the individuals and
groups involved are working and living together in a respectful and appreciative
way and are aware of the dierent needs of dierent individuals and groups, the
creation of inequalities can be avoided. Therefore it is important to raise awareness
about the special circumstances of eldwork classes in advance, and to oer lectures
and workshops that prepare the persons involved archaeologically and otherwise
for the upcoming eldwork campaign.
Furthermore, to provide more equality in eldwork classes and courses, it
could be helpful to make explicit what students should learn there, how this will
be achieved, and what mechanisms are in place to ensure that each participant will
have the same opportunities. To make sure that students and other participants in
eldwork classes keep an eye on their own learning progress, the Inclusive, Acces-
sible, Archaeology Project created a questionnaire for self-evaluation (Phillips et al.
2007, esp. 12-15), which is still available for use10. To structuralise diversity-sensitive
and equality-aware eldwork classes in the discipline, the discussion presented in
this paper should also be incorporated in undergraduate study program descriptions.
Finally, I want to express the hope that students who have experienced empow-
ering eldwork classes and who were encouraged by their study programs to look
not only into eldwork as a possible future working area, but also into other aspect
of archaeology, will themselves act in a gender- and diversity-sensitive way when
they are one day in charge of students and eldwork classes themselves.
10 The Archaeological Skills Self-Evaluation Tool kit (ASSET) can be found online at <www.britarch.
ac.uk/accessible/abouttoolkit.php>.
79
Gendered and diversified fieldwork classes in prehistoric archaeoloGy?
Appendix: List of examined study programs11
University of Bamberg: Otto-Friedrich-Universität
Bamberg, study program B. A. Archäologische
Wissenschaften
Ocial documents and study program descriptions:
Allgemeine Prüfungsordnung für Bachelor- und Masterstudiengänge der
Fakultäten Geistes- und Kulturwissenschaften sowie Humanwissenschaften
und für Modulprüfungen im Rahmen der Ersten Lehramtsprüfung an der Otto-
Friedrich-Universität Bamberg vom 30. September 2010.
Online available at <http://www.uni-bamberg.de/leadmin/uni/amtliche_
veroeentlichungen/2010/2010-39.pdf>
Studien- und Fachprüfungsordnung für den Bachelorstudiengang
‘Archäologische Wissenschaften/Archaeology’ und das im Rahmen von Mehr-
Fach-Bachelorstudiengängen wählbare Fach ‘Archäologische Wissenschaften/
Archaeology’ an der Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg vom 17. Oktober 2012.
Online available at <http://www.uni-bamberg.de/leadmin/uni/amtliche_
veroeentlichungen/2012/2012-74.pdf>
Modulhandbuch Bachelorstudiengang ‘Archäologische Wissenschaften/
Archaeology’.
Online available at <https://www.uni-bamberg.de/leadmin/uni/fakultaeten/
ggeo_professuren/fruehgesch_archaeologie/Dateien/Endfassung_Modulhandbuch_
Stand_08.04.2013.pdf>
University of Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin,
study program B. A. Altertumswissenschaften,
Schwerpunkt Prähistorische Archäologie
Ocial documents and study program descriptions:
Rahmenstudien- und Prüfungsordnung der Freien Universität Berlin. Amtsblatt
der Freien Universität Berlin 32/2013 vom 22. August 2013, 260-269.
Online available at <http://www.fu-berlin.de/service/zuvdocs/amtsblatt/2013/
ab322013.pdf>
Studienordnung des Fachbereichs Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaften der
Freien Universität Berlin für den Bachelorstudiengang Altertumswissenschaften,
die 60- und 30-Leistungspunkte-Modulangebote Klassische Archäologie,
Altorientalistik, Ägyptologie und Prähistorische Archäologie sowie die
30-Leistungspunkte-Modulangebote Ägyptische Philologie, Ägyptische Archäologie
und Vorderasiatische Archäologie im Rahmen anderer Studiengänge. Amtsblatt der
Freien Universität Berlin 85/2012 vom 15. September 2012, 1938-2036.
Online available at <http://www.fu-berlin.de/service/zuvdocs/amtsblatt/2012/
ab852012.pdf>
Prüfungsordnung des Fachbereichs Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaften der
Freien Universität Berlin für den Bachelorstudiengang Altertumswissenschaften,
die 60- und 30-Leistungspunkte- Modulangebote Klassische Archäologie,
11 Last reading of all internet documents in the appendix was 9 January 2019.
80 Gender Transformations in Prehistoric and Archaic Societies
Altorientalistik, Ägyptologie und Prähistorische Archäologie sowie die
30-Leistungspunkte-Modulangebote Ägyptische Philologie, Ägyptische Archäologie
und Vorderasiatische Archäologie im Rahmen anderer Studiengänge. Amtsblatt der
Freien Universität Berlin 85/2012 vom 15. September 2012, 2037-2056.
Online available at <http://www.fu-berlin.de/service/zuvdocs/amtsblatt/2012/
ab852012.pdf>
Studien- und Prüfungsordnung für den Studienbereich Allgemeine
Berufsvorbereitung in Bachelorstudiengängen des Fachbereichs Geschichts-
und Kulturwissenschaften der Freien Universität Berlin. Amtsblatt der Freien
Universität Berlin 35/2014 vom 27. August 2014, 697-747.
Online available at <http://www.fu-berlin.de/service/zuvdocs/amtsblatt/2014/
ab352014.pdf>
University of Bochum: Ruhr-Universität Bochum,
study program B. A. Archäologische Wissenschaften
Ocial documents and study program descriptions:
Gemeinsame Prüfungsordnung für den 2-Fächer-Bachelor-Studiengang an der
Ruhr-Universität Bochum vom 21.10.2016. Amtliche Bekanntmachung Nr. 1186,
3.11.2016.
Online available at <http://www.uv.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/dezernat1/amtliche/
ab1186.pdf>
Studienordnung für das 1-Fach B. A.-Studium Archäologische Wissenschaften an
der Ruhr-Universität Bochum (Entwurf).
Online available at <http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/archaelogie/mam/content/
ba1fach.pdf>
Studienordnung (Entwurf) für das B. A.-Studium Archäologische Wissenschaften
an der Ruhr-Universität Bochum.
Online available at <http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/archaelogie/mam/content/
ba2fach.pdf>
Modulhandbuch 1-Fach-Bachelor ‘Archäologische Wissenschaften’.
Online available at <http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/archaelogie/mam/content/
modulhandbuch_ba_arwi_1_020315.pdf>
Modulhandbuch 2-Fach-Bachelor ‘Archäologische Wissenschaften’.
Online available at <http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/archaelogie/mam/content/
modulhandbuch_2-ba-arwi.pdf>
University of Bonn: Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-
Universität Bonn, study program B. A. Archäologien
Ocial document and study program description:
Prüfungsordnung für die Bachelorstudiengänge der Philosophischen Fakultät der
Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn vom 5. August 2013. Amtliche
Bekanntmachungen Jg. 43, Nr. 52, 30. August 2013.
Online verfügbar <http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11811/326>
81
Gendered and diversified fieldwork classes in prehistoric archaeoloGy?
University of Erlangen-Nürnberg: Friedrich-
Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg,
study program B. A. Archäologische Wissenschaften
Ocial documents and study program descriptions:
Allgemeine Studien- und Prüfungsordnung für die Bachelor- und
Masterstudiengänge der Philosophischen Fakultät und Fachbereich Theologie der
Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (ABMStPO/Phil) vom 27. September 2007, geändert
durch Satzungen vom 3. Dezember 2007, 5. August 2008, 1. September 2009, 4.
September 2009, 3. März 2010, 1. Juni 2010, 6. Juli 2010, 5. November 2010, 8. März
2011, 5. August 2011, 18. Januar 2012, 8. Oktober 2012, 19. Februar 2014, 21. Juli
2014, 6. August 2015, 2. August 2016.
Online available at <http://www.zuv.fau.de/universitaet/organisation/recht/
studiensatzungen/PHIL1/StuO_PrO_Allg_%20BA_%20Phil.AUG2016.pdf>
Fachstudien- und Prüfungsordnung für das Fach Archäologische Wissenschaften
im Ein-Fach-Bachelorstudiengang an der Philosophischen Fakultät und
Fachbereich Theologie der Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg
(FPO Archäol. Wiss. Ein-Fach) vom 9. Oktober 2007, geändert durch Satzungen vom
5. November 2010, 8. März 2011, 21. Juli 2014, 6. August 2015.
Online available at <http://www.zuv.fau.de/universitaet/organisation/recht/
studiensatzungen/PHIL1/FachStuOPrO_ArchaeolWiss.AUG2015.pdf>
Fachstudien- und Prüfungsordnung für das Fach Archäologische Wissenschaften im
Zwei-Fach-Bachelorstudiengang an der Philosophischen Fakultät und Fachbereich
Theologie der Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FPO Archäol.
Wiss. Zwei-Fach) vom 18. Juli 2014, geändert durch Satzung vom 11. August 2015.
Online available at <http://www.zuv.fau.de/universitaet/organisation/recht/
studiensatzungen/PHIL1/2FachBA_ArchaeologischeWissenschaften_AUG2015.pdf>
University of Frankfurt am Main: Johann
Wolfgang-Goethe Universität Frankfurt am Main,
study program B. A. Vor- und Frühgeschichte
Ocial documents and study program descriptions:
Allgemeine Bestimmungen für Bachelor- und Masterstudiengänge der Johann
Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main vom 16.04.2008 in der Fassung
vom 13.04.2011. Genehmigt vom Präsidium der Johann Wolfgang-Goethe
Universität Frankfurt am Main am 10.05.2011. UniReport Satzungen und
Ordnungen vom 20.05.2011.
Online available at <https://www.uni-frankfurt.de/40802831/Allgemeine_
Bestimmungen_fuer_Bachelor-_und_Masterstudiengaenge.pdf>
Ordnung für den Bachelorteilstudiengang Vor- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie
mit dem Abschluss Bachelor of Arts (B. A.) im Hauptfach an der Johann Wolfgang
Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main vom 6. Juli 2011 in der Fassung vom 17.
Juli 2013. Genehmigt durch das Präsidium am 23. September 2014. UniReport
Satzungen und Ordnungen vom 20.10.2014.
Online available at <https://www.uni-frankfurt.de/54721150/BA_VFG-HF_V2014.pdf>
Ordnung für den Bachelorteilstudiengang Vor- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie
mit dem Abschluss Bachelor of Arts (B. A.) im Nebenfach an der Johann Wolfgang
Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main vom 6. Juli 2011 in der Fassung vom 13.
82 Gender Transformations in Prehistoric and Archaic Societies
Juli 2013. Genehmigt durch das Präsidium am 23. September 2014. UniReport
Satzungen und Ordnungen vom 20.10.2014.
Online available at <https://www.uni-frankfurt.de/54720368/BA_VFG-NF_V2014.pdf>
University of Freiburg: Albert-Ludwigs-Universität
Freiburg, study program B. A. Archäologische
Wissenschaften
Ocial documents and study program descriptions:
Prüfungsordnung der Albert-Ludwigs-Universität für den Studiengang Bachelor of
Arts (B. A.) vom 25.11.2011, zuletzt geändert am 30.09.2016.
Online available at <https://www.geko.uni-freiburg.de/studiengaenge/bachelor/
bachelor2011/allgbest.pdf>
Prüfungsordnung der Universität Freiburg für den Studiengang Archäologische
Wissenschaften, Bachelor of Arts (B. A.) vom 25.11.2011 in der Fassung der fachspe-
zischen Bestimmungen vom 30.09.2014.
Online available at <http://www.geko.uni-freiburg.de/pruefungsordnungen/
bachelor/po-bachelor2011/HFArchaeologie300914.pdf>
University of Göttingen: Georg-August-Universität
Göttingen, study program B. A. Ur- und
Frühgeschichte
Ocial documents and study program descriptions:
Allgemeine Prüfungsordnung für Bachelor- und Master-Studiengänge sowie
sonstige Studienangebote an der Universität Göttingen (APO). Veröentlicht in
den Amtlichen Mitteilungen Nr. 39 vom 12.11.2010, Änderungen in den Amtlichen
Mitteilungen vom 19.08.2013, 24.03.2015, 11.11.2015 und 05.10.2016.
Online available at <https://www.uni-goettingen.de/de/
version-am-i-5205102016/82941.html>
Prüfungs- und Studienordnung für den Zwei-Fächer-Bachelor-Studiengang der
Georg-August-Universität Göttingen. Veröentlicht in den Amtlichen Mitteilungen
vom 08.12.2011, Änderungen in den Amtlichen Mitteilungen vom 31.01.2012,
04.04.2012, 05.05.2012, 02.08.2012, 08.08.2012, 14.11.2012, 27.05.2013, 23.09.2013,
17.03.2014, 16.05.2014, 22.10.2014, 30.03.2015, 23.10.2015, 22.04.2016 und
16.11.2016.
Online available at <https://www.uni-goettingen.de/de/
version-am-i-6016112016/553371.html>
Prüfungs- und Studienordnung für den Zwei-Fächer-Bachelor-Studiengang der
Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Anlage II.45 Fachspezische Bestimmungen–
Studienfach ‘Ur- und Frühgeschichte’. Veröentlicht in den Amtlichen Mitteilungen
vom 23.09.2013.
Online available at <https://www.uni-goettingen.de/de/
version-am-i-4123092013/447947.html>
Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Zwei-Fächer-Bachelor-Studiengang–
Studienfach ‘Ur- und Frühgeschichte’: Modulhandbuch ‘Ur- und Frühgeschichte’.
Online available at <https://www.uni-goettingen.de/de/version-am-
ii-2801102013/447948.html>
83
Gendered and diversified fieldwork classes in prehistoric archaeoloGy?
University of Göttingen: Georg-August-Universität
Göttingen, study program B. A. Antike Kulturen
Ocial documents and study program descriptions:
Prüfungs- und Studienordnung für den Bachelor-Studiengang ‘Antike Kulturen’
an der Universität Göttingen. Veröentlicht in den Amtlichen Mitteilungen vom
25.11.2011, Änderungen in den Amtlichen Mitteilungen vom 05.10.2012, 13.09.2013,
30.09.2015 und 11.11.2016.
Online available at <https://www.uni-goettingen.de/de/
version-am-i-5811112016/551509.html>
Modulverzeichnis zu der Prüfungs- und Studienordnung für den Bachelor-
Studiengang ‘Antike Kulturen’. Amtliche Mitteilungen I Nr. 18/2011, zuletzt
geändert durch Amtliche Mitteilungen I Nr. 58/2016.
Online available at <https://www.uni-goettingen.de/de/version-am-
ii-2011112016/551510.html>
University of Halle-Wittenberg: Martin-Luther-
Universität Halle-Wittenberg, study program B. A.
Archäologien Europas
Ocial documents and study program descriptions:
Studien- und Prüfungsordnung für das Studienprogramm Archäologien Europas (90
Leistungspunkte) im Zwei-Fach-Bachelor-Studiengang der Martin-Luther-Universität
Halle-Wittenberg vom 12.07.2006. Amtsblatt 17. Jg, Nr. 5 vom 3. April 2007.
Online available at <http://wcms.itz.uni-halle.de/download.
php?down=27944&elem=2643303>
Modulhandbuch für das Studienprogramm (90 LP) Archäologien Europas im
Bachelor (2-Fach)– Studiengang (Modulversionstand vom 12.10.2015).
Online available at <http://wcms.itz.uni-halle.de/download.
php?down=39892&elem=2643304>
University of Hamburg: Universität Hamburg,
study program B. A. Vor- und Frühgeschichtliche
Archäologie
Ocial documents and study program descriptions:
Prüfungsordnung der Fakultät für Geistes- und Kulturwissenschaften für
Studiengänge mit dem Abschluss Bachelor of Arts / Baccalaurea Artium bzw.
Baccalaureus Artium (B. A.) vom 23. November 2005. Amtlicher Anzeiger 32, 25.
April 2006, 770-777.
Online available at <https://www.fbkultur.uni-hamburg.de/studium/
ba-studiengaenge/ba-studiengaenge-ab-ws-12-13/materialien/rpo-und-fsb-ab-
ws-12-13/rpo-ba-231105-mit-aenderung-050706.pdf>
Änderung der Prüfungsordnung der Fakultät für Geistes- und
Kulturwissenschaften für Studiengänge mit dem Abschluss ‘Bachelor of Arts/
Baccalaurea Artium bzw. Baccalaureus Artium’ (B. A.) vom 11. Juli 2012. Amtliche
Bekanntmachung 73 vom 21. September 2012.
Online available at <https://www.geschichte.uni-hamburg.de/studium/
pruefungsordnungen/aenderung-po-ba-2012.pdf>
84 Gender Transformations in Prehistoric and Archaic Societies
Fachspezische Bestimmungen für den Bachelorstudiengang Vor- und
Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie vom 4. April 2012. Amtliche Bekanntmachung 59
vom 13. September 2012.
Online available at <https://www.fbkultur.uni-hamburg.de/vfg/studium/
bachelor-studiengang/bachelorpopneu.pdf>
Fachspezische Bestimmungen für den Bachelorstudiengang Vor- und
Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie vom 4. April 2012– Berichtigung. Amtliche 131
vom 19. Dezember 2014.
Online available at <https://www.fbkultur.uni-hamburg.de/studium/ba-
studiengaenge/ba-studiengaenge-ab-ws-12-13/materialien/rpo-und-fsb-ab-ws-12-13/
berichtigung-fsb-ab-1213-ba-vor-und-fruehgeschichtliche-archaeologie.pdf>
Modulübersicht Hauptfach BA Vor- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie.
Online available at <https://www.fbkultur.uni-hamburg.de/studium/
ba-studiengaenge/ba-studiengaenge-ab-ws-16-171/materialien/moduluebersicht-hf/
vfga-hf-moduluebersicht-ab-ws-1617.pdf>
University of Heidelberg: Ruprecht-Karls-
Universität Heidelberg, study program B. A. Ur- und
Frühgeschichte
Ocial documents and study program descriptions:
Prüfungsordnung der Universität Heidelberg für den Bachelor-Studiengang Ur-
und Frühgeschichte vom 14. April 2011.
Online available at <http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/md/studium/download/ur_
fruehgeschichte_po_bachelor.pdf>
Modulhandbuch des Bachelor-Studiums: BA-Studiengang ‘Ur- und Frühgeschichte’.
Online available at <http://www.ufg-va.uni-hd.de/md/zaw/ufg/ba-ufg_modulhandbuch.pdf>
University of Jena: Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena,
study program B. A. Ur- und Frühgeschichte
Ocial documents and study program descriptions:
Prüfungsordnung der Philosophischen Fakultät für den Studiengang mit dem
Abschluss Bachelor of Arts mit Kern- und Ergänzungsfach vom 17. Juli 2013.
Verkündungsblatt 7/2013, 197-211.
Online available at <https://www.uni-jena.de/unijenamedia/Downloads/
einrichtungen/dez1/verb/vb_2013_7/v74_43_57.pdf>
Studienordnung der Philosophischen Fakultät für das Fach Archäologie der Ur- und
Frühgeschichte in Studiengängen mit dem Abschluss Bachelor of Arts vom 05.
Januar 2009 (Verkündungsblatt der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena Nr. 10/2009
S. 1015), geändert am 22. Mai 2013 (Verkündungsblatt der Friedrich-Schiller-
Universität Jena Nr. 6/2013 S. 129), geändert am 19. Februar 2015 (Verkündungsblatt
der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena Nr. 3/2015 S. 45), geändert am 18. Februar
2016 (Verkündungsblatt der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena Nr. 2/2016 S. 36).
Online available at <https://www.uni-jena.de/unijenamedia/Bilder/einrichtungen/
dez1/ordnungen/Philo/StO+BA+UrFr%C3%BChgeschichte+KF_EF.pdf>
Modulkatalog Bachelor of Arts 548 Ur-und Frühgeschichte.
Online available at <https://friedolin.uni-jena.de/download/modulkataloge/
de/68_548_ufg_kf.pdf>
85
Gendered and diversified fieldwork classes in prehistoric archaeoloGy?
University of Kiel: Christian-Albrechts-Universität
Kiel, study program B. A. Prähistorische und
historische Archäologie
Ocial documents and study program descriptions:
Prüfungsverfahrensordnung (Satzung) der Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel
für Studierende der Bachelor- und Masterstudiengänge vom 21. Februar 2008.
Veröentlichung vom 25. Februar 2016.
Online available at <http://www.studservice.uni-kiel.de/sta/
pruefungsverfahrensordnung-bachelor-master.pdf>
Fachprüfungsordnung (Satzung) der Philosophischen und der Mathematisch-
Naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel
für Studierende der Ein-Fach-Studiengänge Prähistorische und Historische
Archäologie mit den Abschlüssen Bachelor of Arts (B. A.), Bachelor of Science
(B.Sc.), Master of Arts (M. A.) und Master of Science (M.Sc.) und der Zwei-Fächer-
Studiengänge Prähistorische und Historische Archäologie mit den Abschlüssen
Bachelor of Arts (B. A.) und Master of Arts (M. A.) (Fachprüfungsordnung
Prähistorische und Historische Archäologie [Ein-Fach, Zwei-Fächer]) vom 10. Juni
2015. Veröentlichung vom 14. Juli 2015.
Online available at <http://www.studservice.uni-kiel.de/sta/
fachpruefungsordnung-praehistorische-und-historische-archaeologie-bachelor-
master-1-fach-und-2-faecher.pdf>
Praktikumsordnung (Satzung) für die Durchführung der Praxismodule im Rahmen
des Prols Fachergänzung der Zwei-Fächer-Bachelor-Studiengänge und des Ein-
Fach-Bachelor-Studienganges Prähistorische und Historische Archäologie vom 29.
November 2007. Veröentlichung vom 13. Februar 2014.
Online available at <http://www.uni-kiel.de/sy/verzeichnis-2014.shtml>
University of Köln: Universität zu Köln,
study program B. A. Archäologie
Ocial documents and study program descriptions:
Prüfungsordnung für das Bachelorstudium an der Philosophischen Fakultät der
Universität zu Köln vom 04.08.2015. Amtliche Mitteilungen 151/2015.
Online available at <http://am.uni-koeln.de/e15791/am_mitteilungen/@150/
AM_2015_151_BPO_PhilFak.pdf>
Prüfungsordnung für das Bachelorstudium an der Philosophischen Fakultät der
Universität zu Köln vom 15. Oktober 2015.
Online available at <http://phil-fak.uni-koeln.de/sites/phil-fak/lehre_studium/
bachelor/Pruefungsordnungen_PO2015/PO-2015-Bachelorstudiengaenge.pdf>
Modulhandbuch 1-Fach-Bachelor Archäologie, Version 10.2.2016.
Online available at <http://philtypo3.uni-koeln.de/sites/phil-fak/lehre_studium/
bachelor/modulhandbuecher/2015BA1FArch.pdf>
Modulhandbuch 2-Fach-Bachelor Archäologie, Version 10.2.2016.
Online available at <http://philtypo3.uni-koeln.de/sites/phil-fak/lehre_studium/
bachelor/modulhandbuecher/2015BA2FArch.pdf>
86 Gender Transformations in Prehistoric and Archaic Societies
University of Leipzig: Universität Leipzig,
study program B. A. Archäologie der Alten Welt
Ocial documents and study program descriptions:
Prüfungsordnung für den Bachelorstudiengang Archäologie der Alten Welt
an der Universität Leipzig vom 15. April 2011, in Verbindung mit der ersten
Änderungssatzung zur Prüfungsordnung für den Bachelorstudiengang Archäologie
der Alten Welt an der Universität Leipzig vom 6. Juni 2012.
Online available at <http://www.zv.uni-leipzig.de/universitaet/prol/
entwicklungen/amtliche-bekanntmachungen.html?kat_id=533>
Studienordnung für den Bachelorstudiengang Archäologie der Alten Welt
an der Universität Leipzig vom 15. April 2011, in Verbindung mit der ersten
Änderungssatzung zur Studienordnung für den Bachelorstudiengang Archäologie
der Alten Welt an der Universität Leipzig vom 6. Juni 2012.
Online available at <http://antik.gko.uni-leipzig.de/leadmin/antik/media/Studium/
Dokumente/Bachelor/2013/B_SO_2011.pdf>
Modulbeschreibungen BA Archäologie der Alten Welt, Ur- und Frühgeschichte,
Stand: 23.2.2012.
Online available at <http://db.uni-leipzig.de/bekanntmachung/dokudownload.
php?dok_id=2673>
University of Mainz: Johannes Gutenberg-Universität
Mainz, study program B. A. Archäologien
Ocial documents and study program descriptions:
BA Archäologien (Ein-Fach/Verbundstudiengang), neu ab SoSe2016.
Online available at <https://www.bachelormaster.archaeologie.uni-mainz.de/
les/2017/12/1-PO-Anhang-BA-2015-Archaeologien-FINAL.pdf>
Modulhanbduch BA Archäologien (Ein-Fach / Verbundstudiengang, 180 LP), neu ab
SoSe 2016.
Online available at <https://www.bachelormaster.archaeologie.uni-mainz.de/
les/2017/12/MHB-BA-2015-Archaeologien.pdf>
University of Mainz: Johannes Gutenberg-
Universität Mainz, study program B. A. Vor- und
Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie
Ocial documents and study program descriptions:
BA Vor- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie (Kernfach), neu ab SS 2016.
Online available at <https://www.blogs.uni-mainz.de/fb07-klass-arch-bm/
les/2017/12/3-PO-Anhang-BA-2015-Kernfach-VFG-FINAL.pdf>
Modulhandbuch Kernfach Vor- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie, neu ab SoSe
2016.
Online available at <https://www.blogs.uni-mainz.de/fb07-klass-arch-bm/
les/2017/12/MHB-BA-2015-Kernfach-VFG-2015.pdf>
87
Gendered and diversified fieldwork classes in prehistoric archaeoloGy?
University of Marburg: Philipps-Universität Marburg,
study program B. A. Archäologische Wissenschaften
Ocial documents and study program descriptions:
Studien- und Prüfungsordnung für den Studiengang ‘Archäologische
Wissenschaften’ / ‘Archaeology’ mit dem Abschluss Bachelor of Arts (B. A.) an der
Philipps-Universität Marburg vom 08. Dezember 2010, in der Fassung vom 22.
Juni 2016. Veröentlicht in den Amtlichen Mitteilungen der Philipps-Universität
Nr. 101/2010 am 16.12.2010, mit der ersten Änderung, veröentlicht in den
Amtlichen Mitteilungen der Philipps-Universität Nr. 40/2016 am 05.09.2016.
Online available at <http://www.uni-marburg.de/administration/recht/studoprueo/
stpo-archwiss-ba-erste-aend-22062016.pdf>
University of Munich: Ludwig-Maximilians-
Universität München, study program B. A.
Archäologie: Europa und Vorderer Orient
Ocial documents and study program descriptions:
Prüfungs- und Studienordnung der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München für den
Bachelorstudiengang Archäologie: Europa und Vorderer Orient vom 2. März 2010.
Online available at <https://www.uni-muenchen.de/aktuelles/amtl_
voe/0400/486-12ar-180-10-ps00.pdf>
University of Münster: Westfälische Wilhelms-
Universität Münster, study program B. A.
Archäologie – Geschichte – Landschaft
Ocial documents and study program descriptions:
Rahmenordnung für die Bachelorprüfungen an der Westfälischen Wilhelms-
Universität innerhalb des Zwei-Fach-Modells vom 6. Juni 2011.
Online available at <https://www.uni-muenster.de/imperia/md/content/wwu/
ab_uni/ab2011/ausgabe11/beitrag_05.pdf>
Prüfungsordnung für das Fach Archäologie-Geschichte-Landschaft zur
Rahmenordnung für die Bachelorprüfungen innerhalb des Zwei-Fach-Modells an
der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität Münster vom 30.06.2014.
Online available at <https://www.uni-muenster.de/imperia/md/content/wwu/
ab_uni/ab2014/ausgabe28/beitrag01.pdf>
University of Regensburg: Universität Regensburg,
study program B. A. Vor- und Frühgeschichte
Ocial documents and study program descriptions:
Bachelorprüfungs- und Studienordnung für die Philosophischen Fakultäten der
Universität Regensburg vom 21. Juli 2008, geändert durch Satzung vom 24. Juli 2009,
27. Juli 2010, 28. Juli 2010, 10. Februar 2011, 14. April 2011, 1. Juni 2011, 25. August
2011, 1. März 2012, 14. März 2012, 20. Juli 2012, 23. November 2012, 27. Februar 2013,
11. September 2013, 10. März 2014, 24. Juli 2014, 30. Juni 2015 und 25. April 2016.
88 Gender Transformations in Prehistoric and Archaic Societies
Online available at <http://www.uni-regensburg.de/studium/pruefungsordnungen/
medien/bachelor-master/baphilfak__7_voll.pdf>
Modulhandbuch
online available at <http://www.uni-regensburg.de/studium/modulbeschreibungen/
medien/ba/vfg-ba-neu.pdf>
University of Rostock: Universität Rostock,
study program B. A. Ur- und Frühgeschichte
Ocial documents and study program descriptions:
Rahmenprüfungsordnung für die Bachelor- und Masterstudiengänge der
Universität Rostock (RPO-Ba/Ma). Mitteilungsblatt des Ministeriums für Bildung,
Wissenschaft und Kultur Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Nr. 8/2012 vom 9. Juli 2012.
Online available at <https://www.altertum.uni-rostock.de/leadmin/uni-rostock/
Alle_PHF/PHF/Studium/01_Allgemeine_Ordnungen_Fristen_etc/RPO-BaMa.pdf>
Studiengangsspezische Prüfungs- und Studienordnung für den Zwei-Fach-
Bachelorstudiengang der Philosophischen Fakultät der Universität Rostock vom 4.
April 2018; mit Fachanhang Anlage 4.17: Ur- und Frühgeschichte (EF/ZF).
Online available at <https://www.altertum.uni-rostock.de/leadmin/uni-rostock/
Alle_PHF/PHF/Studium/02_BA-Zweifaecher/Ordnungen_2018/BA_SPSO_2018_
inkl_Diploma.pdf> and <https://www.altertum.uni-rostock.de/leadmin/
uni-rostock/Alle_PHF/PHF/Studium/02_BA-Zweifaecher/Ordnungen_2018/Ur-_und_
Fruehgeschichte/Fachanhang-UFG-SPSO2018.pdf>
Praktikumsordnung für den Zwei-Fach-Bachelorstudiengang und Masterstudiengänge
der Philosophischen Fakultät der Universität Rostock vom 14. Januar 2016.
Online available at <https://www.altertum.uni-rostock.de/leadmin/
uni-rostock/Alle_PHF/PHF/Studium/01_Allgemeine_Ordnungen_Fristen_etc/
Praktikumsordnung_BA-MA.pdf>
Saarland University: Universität des Saarlandes,
study program B. A. Altertumswissenschaften
Ocial documents and study program descriptions:
Prüfungsordnung der Fakultät 3 (Philosophische Fakultät I– Geschichts- und
Kulturwissenschaften) und der Fakultät 4 (Philosophische Fakultät II– Sprach-,
Literatur- und Kulturwissenschaften) der Universität des Saarlandes für Bachelor-
und Master-Studiengänge, sowie Zertikate vom 5. Juni 2014. Dienstblatt der
Hochschulen des Saarlandes 80/2014 vom 9. September 2014.
Online available at <https://www.uni-saarland.de/leadmin/user_upload/Campus/
Service/Recht_und_Datenschutz/Recht_der_Universitaet/Ausbildungs-_Pruefungs-_
Studienordnungen/StudO_PO_2011_12_13/DB11-357.pdf>
Studienordnung für den Kernbereich-Bachelor-Studiengang
Altertumswissenschaften vom 28. Oktober 2010.
Online available at <https://www.uni-saarland.de/leadmin/user_upload/Campus/
Service/Recht_und_Datenschutz/Recht_der_Universitaet/Ausbildungs-_Pruefungs-_
Studienordnungen/StudO_PO_2011_12_13/DB11-068.pdf>
Modulhandbuch des Kernbereich-Bachelor-Studiengangs Altertumswissenschaften.
Online available at <https://www.uni-saarland.de/leadmin/user_upload/studium/
angebot/ba/bachelor/Altertumswiss-BA-Modulhandbuch.pdf>
89
Gendered and diversified fieldwork classes in prehistoric archaeoloGy?
University of Tübingen: Eberhard Karls
Universität Tübingen, study program B. A. Ur- und
Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie und Archäologie des
Mittelalters
Ocial documents and study program descriptions:
Studien- und Prüfungsordnung der Universität Tübingen für den Studiengang Ur-
und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie und Archäologie des Mittelalters mit akade-
mischer Abschlussprüfung Bachelor of Arts (B. A.) vom 26.7.2012.
Online available at <https://www.ufg.uni-tuebingen.de/studium/bachelor.html>
Modulhandbuch
Online available at <https://www.ufg.uni-tuebingen.de/studium/bachelor.html>
University of Würzburg: Julius-Maximilians-
Universität Würzburg, study program B. A. Vor- und
Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie
Ocial documents and study program descriptions:
Allgemeine Studien- und Prüfungsordnung (ASPO) für die Bachelor- (6-semestrig)
und Masterstudiengänge (4-semestrig) an der Julius-Maximilians-Universität
Würzburg vom 28. September 2007.
Online available at <https://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/studium/pruefungsamt/
rechtliches-und-satzungen/allgemeine-studien-und-pruefungsordnung/
aspo-ba-6-semestrigma-4-semestrig/>
Fachspezische Bestimmungen für das Bachelor-Hauptfach Vor- und
Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie mit dem Abschluss Bachelor of Arts (Erwerb von
120 ECTS-Punkten) vom 28. September 2015.
Online available at <http://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/
amtl_veroeentlichungen/2015-151>
Fachspezische Bestimmungen für das Bachelor-Hauptfach Vor- und
Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie (Erwerb von 75 ECTS-Punkten) vom 28. September
2015.
Online available at <http://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/
amtl_veroeentlichungen/2015-150>
Fachspezische Bestimmungen für das Bachelor-Nebenfach Vor- und
Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie (Erwerb von 60 ECTS-Punkten) vom 28. September
2015.
Online available at <http://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/
amtl_veroeentlichungen/2015-149>
References
Berlin Kommuniqué 2003, Den Europäischen Hochschulraum verwirklichen. Kommu-
niqué der Konferenz der europäischen Hochschulministerinnen und -minister am
19. September 2003 in Berlin. Online available at <europass.cedefop.europa.eu/
sites/default/les/berlin.pdf> (German) and <www.ehea.info/media.ehea.info/
le/2003_Berlin/28/4/2003_Berlin_Communique_English_577284.pdf> (English),
retrieved 30 October 2018.
90 Gender Transformations in Prehistoric and Archaic Societies
Clancy, Kate, Nelson, Robin, Rutherford, Julienne, and Hinde, Katie 2014. Survey of
Academic Field Experiences (SAFE): Trainees Report Harassment and Assault.
PLoS ONE 9, 7, Article e102172. doi: <10.1371/journal.pone.0102172>.
Cobb, Hannah 2015. A diverse profession? Challenging inequalities and diversifying
involvement in British archaeology. In: Everill, Paul, and Irving, Pamela (eds.),
Rescue Archaeology@40. Hereford: RESCUE, 232-251.
Cobb, Hannah, and Croucher, Karina 2016. Personal, Political, Pedagogic. Challeng-
ing the Binary Bind in Archaeological Teaching, Learning and Fieldwork. Journal
of Archaeological Method and Theory, 23, 3, 949-969.
Croucher, Karina, and Romer, Wendelin 2007. Inclusivity in teaching practice and
the curriculum. Guides for Teaching and Learning in Archaeology 6. Higher
Education Academy. <www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/les/number6_teaching_
and_learning_guide_inclusivity.pdf>, e-published 1 March 2008; retrieved 25
February 2019.
Gardenswartz, Lee and Rowe, Anita 2003. Diverse Teams at Work: Capitalizing on
the Power of Diversity. Alexandria, VA: Society of Human Resource Management.
Gero, Joan 1985, Socio-Politics and the Woman-at-Home Ideology. American
Antiquity, 50, 2, 342-350.
Gilchrist, Roberta 1991. Women’s archaeology? Political feminism, gender theory
and historical revision. Antiquity, 65, 495-501.
Gutsmiedl-Schümann, Doris, and Helmbrecht, Michaela 2017. Geschlechtergerech-
tigkeit vom Archäologiestudium bis zum Arbeitsalltag. Blickpunkt Archäologie,
issue 3, 168-174.
Holtdorf, Cornelius 2016. Archaeology Is a Brand! The Meaning of Archaeology in
Contemporary Popular Culture. Walnut Creek: Taylor and Francis.
Kästner, Sybille 1999. Über den Tanz auf dem Eis. Eine Einführung zur Geschlech-
terforschung in der deutschen Ur- und Frühgeschichte. In: Vorgeschichtliches
Seminar (ed.). Frauenbilder – Frauenrollen. Frauenforschung in den Altertums-
und Kulturwissenschaften? Symposion des Vorgeschichtlichen Seminars
Marburg am 31.10.1998. Kleine Schriften aus dem Vorgeschichtlichen Seminar
Marburg 49. Marburg: Philipps Universität, 1-19.
Maj, Jolanta 2015. Diversity management’s stakeholders and stakeholder’s man-
agement. Proceedings of the International Management Conference, 9, 1, 2015,
780-793.
Moser, Stephanie 1996. Science, stratigraphy and the deep sequence: Excavation vs
regional survey and the question of gendered practice in archaeology. Antiquity,
70, 813-823.
Moser, Stephanie 2007. On disciplinary culture: archaeology as eldwork and its
gendered associations. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 14, 235-263.
Nikulka, Frank 2016. “Zwei Seelen…”: Denkmalschutz und universitäre Forschung–
Gegner oder Partner? Jahresschrift des Tübinger Vereins zur Förderung der Ur-
und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie, 15, 47-54.
Perry, Sara 2018. Six Fieldwork Expectations: Code of conduct for teams on eld
projects. In: Perry, Sara (ed.). Webblog The Archaeological Eye. <saraperry.
wordpress.com/2018/05/04/eldwork-code-of-conduct/>, e-published 4 May
2018, revised 1 June 2018; retrieved 25 February 2019.
Petendra, Brigitte, Schikorra, Katja, and Schmiede, Rudi 2012. Praxisphasen in un-
terschiedlichen Fächerkulturen. In: Schubarth, Wilfried (ed.). Studium nach
Bologna: Praxisbezüge stärken?! Praktika als Brücke zwischen Hochschule und
Arbeitsmarkt. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, 101-112.
Phillips, Tim, and Gilchrist, Roberta 2005. Inclusive, Accessible, Archaeology (HEFCE
FDTL5), Phase 1. Disability and archaeological eldwork. Summary of a report
based on a questionnaire survey of Archaeology Subject Providers, Disability
Support Services in HEIs and Archaeological Employers. <http://archaeologyuk.
91
Gendered and diversified fieldwork classes in prehistoric archaeoloGy?
org/accessible/docs/IAA_Phase1Summary.doc>, e-published June 2005; retrieved
25 February 2019.
Phillips, Tim, Gilchrist, Roberta, Hewitt, Iain, Le Scouiller, Stephanie, Booy, Darren,
and Cook, Geo 2007. Inclusive, accessible, archaeology: good practice guidelines
for including disabled students and self-evaluation in archaeological eldwork
training. Guides for Teaching and Learning in Archaeology 5. Higher Education
Academy. <www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/les/number5_teaching_and_
learning_guide_inclusive_accessible_archaeology.pdf>, e-published June 2007;
retrieved 25 February 2019.
Rocks-Macqueen, Doug 2013. Archaeologists, the Whitest People I Know. In:
Rocks-Macqueen, Doug (ed.). Webblog Doug’s Archaeology. Investigating the
Profession and Research. <dougsarchaeology.wordpress.com/2013/10/15/
archaeologists-the-whitest-people-i-know/>, e-published 15 October 2013;
retrieved 25 February 2019.
Rocks-Macqueen, Doug 2018. 91 Stories of Archaeology. In: Rocks-Macqueen, Doug
(ed.). Webblog Doug’s Archaeology. Investigating the Profession and Research.
<dougsarchaeology.wordpress.com/2018/04/14/91-stories-of-archaeology/>,
e-published 14 April 2018; retrieved 25 February 2019.
Shipley, Lucy 2018. Let me just google that for you: a shout into the void. In: Shipley, Lucy
(ed.). Webblog lucyshipleywritesthepast. <lucyshipleywritesthepast.wordpress.
com/2018/02/08/let-me-just-google-that-for-you-a-shout-into-the-void/>, e-pub-
lished 8 February 2018; retrieved 25 February 2019.
