Lecture 8 — Gender, Lithics, and Archaeological Bias
Big idea: Stone tools are not just technical artifacts; they are social products. Long‑standing assumptions about gender (“Man the Tool‑Maker”) have shaped how archaeologists interpret lithic evidence. Gender archaeology asks what — and whom — we have systematically overlooked.
Key terms
- Lithic: stone artifact (from Greek lithos, stone)
- Sex vs. Gender:
- Sex: biological attributes
- Gender: socially and culturally constructed roles and identities
- Gender archaeology (1990s–): study of how material culture both reflects and reproduces gender relations
The problem: inherited assumptions
“Man the Hunter”
- Traditional narratives assume:
- Men = hunters, toolmakers, controllers of resources
- Women = passive or invisible in technological production
- These assumptions are culturally specific, not universal.
Why this matters
- Archaeological interpretations are shaped by modern bias.
- Gender is variable across cultures and time.
- Poor assumptions → poor science.
Response: transparency, reflexivity, and empirical testing.
Gender archaeology: approaches & evidence
Gender archaeology examines:
- Burials (association of bodies and objects)
- Skeletal evidence
- Art & iconography
- Ethnoarchaeology
- Material and microwear analyses
- Feminist and gender theory
Goal: identify how identities were produced, enacted, and negotiated — not assumed.
Lithic typologies and gendered thinking
Traditional dichotomy
| Ground stone tools | Chipped stone tools |
|---|---|
| Processing tasks | Hunting/fishing |
| Often non‑portable | Portable |
| Near domestic space | Outside settlements |
Problem: these associations are not evidence of gender — they are interpretations.
Why stone tools matter
Stone tools are powerful archaeological evidence because they:
- Preserve extremely well
- Are among the earliest human technologies (≈ 3.3 million years ago)
- Are ubiquitous
- Are conservative in manufacture
- Encode information about:
- Production → technology & networks
- Function → activities
- Style → identity
Raw material procurement
Ideal lithic materials are:
- Hard
- Non‑resilient
- Homogeneous
Access to stone depends on:
- Knowledge
- Distance
- Ease of access
- Social rules and rights
Key insight: ethnographic cases show access is situational, not universally gendered.
Skills in stone‑tool making
Lithic production requires:
- Hand‑eye coordination
- Fine motor control
- Patience
- Instruction and imagination
Not required: exceptional strength.
Evidence: experimental archaeology (flint knapping experiments).
The reduction sequence (how tools are made)
1. Primary reduction
- Strike flakes from a core
- Tools: hammer stone
- Products: cores, primary flakes
2. Shaping
- Direct or indirect percussion
- Increased precision and skill
- Secondary flakes produced
3. Retouch / pressure flaking
- Edge sharpening
- High precision, time, and experience
- Produces retouch flakes
Form follows function
Lithic tools are “made to order”:
- Scrapers
- Knives
- Burins / drills
- Hoes
- Projectile points
Most are used for processing, not hunting alone.
Lithic assemblages & “garbage”
Lithic assemblage = tools + debitage (waste)
- Debitage reveals:
- Activity types
- Stages of production
- Activity areas
Assemblage composition reflects behavior, not gender by default.
Lithic landscapes
By analyzing assemblages across space, archaeologists reconstruct:
- Land use
- Resource procurement
- Movement
- Group identity (style)
Important: gender rarely appears explicitly in stone.
Beyond hunting: lithics everywhere
Stone tools were used for:
- Plants
- Hides
- Wood
- Antler
- Fiber
- Clothing and housing materials
Composite tools (hafted implements) extended usefulness and lifespan.
Farming and microwear
Microwear analysis reveals use‑patterns:
- Polish
- Abrasion
- Chipping
Compared against experimental replicas, this identifies contact materials (wood, grain, hide).
Key point: we cannot identify who used a tool — but we can avoid biased assumptions.
Bottom line
- Lithic technology does not require exceptional strength.
- Stone tools were used for many activities across social contexts.
- Gendered divisions of labor are often projected, not proven.
- Absence of certainty requires creative, cautious interpretation.
Better framing: not “Man the Tool‑Maker,” but people as tool‑makers.