38 BE"IWEENlUITANDARl1FAcr
andmacrolevels,althoughnotalwaysexplicitlY,14buttheyhavealmost
neverbeencombinedintheinterestofrecoveringthelivesofindividuals.
The use ofcomparative information from ethnographyis especially
important,giventheavailabilitynowofgender-sensitivestudiesmadein
thelastfewdecades,inwhichfeministcritiqueshaveledtobenerreport-
ing of gendered activities. When it comes to anribUling genderto
householdactivities,theinformationprovidedbythedirectobservation
ofhumansocietiescanhelpdeterminetherangeofpossibilitiesandthus
helpintheinterpretationofarchaeologicalandtextualdatawil.hrespect
10 thegenderoftheusers,lSHowever,beyondthat,ethnographicobser·
vationsprovideideasaboutthemeaningofthehouseholdactivitieswith
respecttotheinteractionsofthefemaleandm.~lehouseholdmembers
andtheirrelationshipwithpeopleinthelargercommunity.
Anotherinterpretivetool--experimentalarchaeology-alsoisnotewor-
thy.Thisaspectofarchaeology,practicedfarmorebyanthropologistswho
arearchaeologiststhanbySyro-Palestinianarchaeologistsdealingwiththe
biblical periods, involvescontrolled attemptsto re-create orreproduce
ancientartifactsandtechnologiesandtodeterminehowtheywouldhave
beenused.Suchexperimentsprovidedataabout,forexample,howlongit
wouldhavetakentocarryouta basichouseholdactivityusingtheavailable
technologies.Thusif a particularactivitycanbedeemeda woman'stask,
thentheamountoftimelhalactivitywouldtakeona dailybasiscanbe
ascertained.Suchinformation,intum,canhelpreconstructtheactivitypat-
temsandattendantsocialrelationsofthefemalemembersofa household,
Becauseoftheavailabilityoftheseinterpretivetools,Ibelievethata
genderedbiblicalarchaeologyispossibleandthatonecanusearchaeol-
ogytolocatethe"girls"ofourbiblicalpast.However,asI havegoneto
somelengthstoexplain,most research inSyro-Paleslinianarchaeology
has notbeendesigned to producesuch results, norhave researchers
allemptedtousetheresultsofexcavationprojectstoreconstructthegen-
dereduseofanifactsandbuildings.Jmaybeoneofthefewwhobelieve
thata genderedbiblicalarchaeology is possibleandwhohasactually
allemptedit.Thisbringsmetoasomewhatawkwardsituationinthatthe
twoexamplesI will describewillbe myownstudies, Bothdeal with
14 Theuseofethnogmphyisoflendebated,witheritia;ebiminglhaltheanalogicalrea-
soning,whichisalthecoreofel.hnoarchaeologic31work,isoverlysubjc<:liveandunreliable,
Despitesuehconcerns,el.hnographicobservationsremaininvaluableforinterpretingthepast.
Fora usefuldiscussionoflheprospectSandlimitationsofe1hnoarchaeology,seeCharlesE.
Caner,-Ethnoarchaeology:OEAf','E2:280-84.
ISCathyLynneCostin,"u:ploringtheRelalklnshipbelweenGenderandCraftin
ComplexSocieties:Mel.hodoIogkaland11leoretica1IssuesofGenderAltritx!lion,-inWright,
GemJeralldArchaeology,114-40,