  
|
Examining tools and the material culture of historic period societies is extremely helpful for understand the past. Gender issues are necessary to the interpretation of prehistoric technology and assigning false assumptions lead to a failure to note the possibility of gender relations in the subsistence activities of prehistoric foragers. Kenneth Sassaman looks at the ceramic vessel technology of South Carolina-Georgia from 4500 BP, and by examining collections in terms of technology, functionality and spatial variability, suggests that most of the pottery found in the archaeological record is close to home bases and work sites, and therefore was probably made by women (1997:164). He suggests that men and women both used stone tools, and that men hunted game, but women collected plants and small animal resources with different technologies. Because women did more of the collecting-type activities and would need carrying vessels, it is safe to assume that women made and used most of the pottery in these prehistoric societies. The argument that who made the tools is closely linked to how they were used (and by whom) is helpful in assigning gender designations to the archaeological record. Because there is no way to tell who made tools just by looking at the archaeological record, examining modern and historic tool use can help infer a great deal about the prehistoric tool making activities of women (Bird 1993:25). Furthermore, the distribution of tools found in the archaeological record does not support a male tool-making bias, in fact, it is more supportive of the idea that women were prolific tool makers and users as well. Archaeological sites and modern ethnographic studies in Africa have been helpful in re-evaluating how men and women express themselves in unique ways and how gender has played a part in the analysis of the Paleolithic activities. Weedman suggests that the current female tool makers of the Konso region of Ethiopia show that women have visible roles as tool makers and that this should be applied to archaeological lithic analysis (in press 2005). Konso women do not use informal or inferior tools, and there is nothing to suggest it was very different prehistoric times. Based on ethnographic analysis in Ethiopia, Weedman suggests that it is no longer feasible or acceptable to dismiss women tool makers in the archaeological record or to demean their abilities. It seems unrealistic to suggest that women did not make or use tools in prehistoric times, given the ethnographic and archaeological data to the contrary. As more women anthropologists apply feminist critique to archaeological data, it seems probable that a model showing women as active tool makers will emerge and gain universal acceptance. The data exist and the papers discussing the evidence have been written, so it is only a matter of time before the textbooks follow suit. |
