About techniques and technology: A feminist perspective of lithic artifacts studies
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2448-1750.revmae.2021.163775Keywords:
Technology, Feminist critique, Lithic technology, Archaeological theory, Feminist methdologyAbstract
Substantial theoretical reflections have been made about technology as a means of action in the physical, social and culturally constituted world, including considerations that derive from the material rather than symbolic aspect of the social production of techniques, including inventions that are considered crucial for evolution of humanity. Chipped stone artifacts fall into this fundamental category, having been constituted as a specifically human intentional technical production. Usually in the archaeological discipline, lithic artifacts tend to be analyzed in a clinical manner according to criteria that allow them to fit into typological schemes. Such methodology is intrinsically related to the modern concept of technology which is characterized by its separation from the sphere of social relations and culture. Although in recent years a criticism of the division between subject / object and the limitations that such approach has for the construction of scientific knowledge has been built, the validity norms for technological studies presuppose at least some techno-typological aspect incorporated into the analysis. From a feminist perspective of technological studies, reinserting the field of techniques in the set of social practices, we intend to raise questions about how it would be possible to analyze lithic artifacts from other conceptions of technology.
Downloads
References
Arthur, KathrynWeedman. (2018). The Lives of Stone Tools: Crafting the Status, Skill, and Identity of Flintknappers. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Arthur, Kathryn Weedman. (2010). Feminine Knowledge and Skill Reconsidered: Women and Flaked Stone Tools. American Anthropologist, 112(2): 228–243.
Binford, Lewis. (1962). Archaeology as Anthropology.American Antiquity, Vol. 28, No. 2.: 217-225.
Blackmore, Chelsea. (2011). How to Queer the Past Without Sex: Queer Theory, Feminisms and the Archaeology of Identity.Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress, vol. 7 n. 1: 75-96.
Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. (2019). v.14, n. 2.
Bradley, Brenda J. (2008). Reconstructing phylogenies and phenotypes: a molecular view of human evolution. Journal of Anatomy, 212(4): 337–353.
Cobb, Hannah. (2006). (Dead) Bodies the matter? Examining Prehistory from a Queer Perspective.UK Postgraduate Conference in Gender Studies.Univ. of Leeds.Disponível em: https://gender-studies.leeds.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/53/2013/02/epaper8-hannah-cobb.pdf. Acesso em: 31 de julho de 2020.
Conkey, Margaret; Spector, Janet.(1984). Archaeology and the Study of Gender. In: Schiffer, Michael, (Ed.),Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol.7: 1-38.
Dahlberg, Frances, (Ed.).(1981). Woman the Gatherer.Yale University Press, New Haven.
Davis, Angela. (2016).Mulheres, raça e classe. Boitempo, São Paulo.
Dias, Adriana S. (2003).Sistemas de assentamento e estilo tecnológico: uma proposta interpretativa para a ocupação pré-colonial do alto vale do rio dos Sinos, Rio Grande do Sul. (Tese de doutorado). Museu de Arqueologia e Etnologia da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo.
Doell, Ruth;Longino, Helen. (1983). Body, Bias, and Behavior: A Comparative Analysis of Reasoning in Two Areas of Biological Science. Signs, Vol. 9, No. 2: 206-227.
Estioko-Griffin, Agnes; Griffin, P. Bion.(1981). Woman the hunter: the Agta. In:Dahlberg, Frances, (Ed.), Woman the gatherer.Yale University Press, New Haven, 121-152.
Endicott, Karen. (1999). Gender relations in hunter-gatherer societies. In: Lee, Richard; Daly, Richard, (Ed.),The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New York,411-418.
Federici, Silvia. (2017).Calibã e a bruxa: mulheres, corpo e acumulação primitiva. Editora Elefante, São Paulo.
Finlay, Nyree. (2006).Manifestingmicroliths: insights and strategies from
experimental replication. In: Apel, Jan;Knutsson,Kjel, (Ed.),Skilled Production and Social Reproduction: Aspects of Traditional StoneTool Technologies. Proceedings of a Symposium in Uppsala, August 20–24, 2003. SocietasArchaeologicaUpsaliensis, SAU, Stone Studies 2, University of Uppsala,299-314.
Finlay,Nyree. (2013). Gender and Lithic Studies in Prehistoric Archaeology. In: Bolger, Diane, (Ed.), A companion to gender prehistory. Wiley-Blackwell,Malden,142-160.
Gaspar, Maria Dulce;Heilborn, Maria Luiza;Escorcio, Eliana. (2011). A sociedade
sambaquieira vista através de sexo e gênero. R. Museu Arq. Etn., São Paulo, n. 21: 17-30.
Gero, Joan. (1991). Genderlithics: Women’s Roles in Stone Tool Production. In: Conkey, Margareth;Gero, Joan, (Eds.). Engendering Archaeology: women and prehistory.BlackwellPublishing, Oxford, 163-193.
Goodall, Jane. (1986). The Chimpanzees of Gombe. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Haraway, Donna. (1995). Saberes localizados: a questão da ciência para o feminismo e o privilégio da perspectiva parcial. Cadernos Pagu, 5: 7-41.
Harding, Sandra. (1987). Is there a feminist method? In: Harding, Sandra, (Ed.),Feminism and methodology.Indiana University Press,Bloomington, 1-14.
Harding, Sandra. (1995). "Strong Objectivity": A Response to the New Objectivity Question.Synthese, vol. 104, no. 3: 331-349.
Ingold, Tim. (1997). Eight themes in the anthropology of technology. Social Analysis: The International Journal of Social and Cultural Practice, vol. 41, no. 1: 106-138.
Ingold, Tim. (1999).On the social relations of the hunter-gatherer band. In: Lee, Richard; Daly, Richard, (Ed.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New York, 399-410.
Ingold, Tim. (2000).The Perception of the Environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. Routledge, London.
Inizan, Marie-Louise; Reduron-Ballinger, Michèle; Roche, Hélène; Tixier, Jacques.(2017). Tecnologia da Pedra Lascada. Tradução, revisão e complemento com definições e exemplos brasileiros. Tradução: Maria Jacqueline Rodet e Juliana Machado Resende. Museu de História Natural e Jardim Botânico da UFMG, Belo Horizonte.
Koide, Kelly; Ferreira, Mariana; Marini, Marisol. (2014). Arqueologia e a crítica feminista da ciência: entrevista com Alison Wylie. Scientiae Studia, 12(3): 549-590.
Lee, Richard; DeVore, Irvan, (Ed.). (1968). Man The Hunter. Aldine, Chicago.
Laming-Emperaire, Anette. (2017). Guia para o estudo das indústrias líticas da América do Sul.Manuais de Arqueologia 2, CEPA, Curitiba.
Laughlin, William. (1968). Hunting: An Integrating Biobehavior System and Its Evolutionary Importance. In:Lee, Richard; DeVore, Irvan, (Ed.), Man The Hunter. Aldine, Chicago, 304-320.
Lemmonier, Pierre.(1993). Introduction. In: LEMONNIER, Pierre, (Ed.), Technological Choices. Routledge, London.
Leroi-Gourhan, André. (1971). Evolution et techniques, vol. 1: L'Homme et la matière. Albin Michel, Paris.
Longino, Helen. (1987). Can There Be A Feminist Science? Hypatia, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1: 51-64.
Martin, M. Kay;Voorhies, Barbara.(1975). Female of the Species. Columbia University Press, New York.
Mauss, Marcel. (2003). As técnicas do corpo. In: Mauss, Marcel. Sociologia e antropologia. Cosac &Naify, São Paulo, 399-422.
Moreno de Sousa, João Carlos. (2018). Tecnologia de Ponta a Ponta: Em busca de mudanças culturais durante o Holoceno em indústrias líticas do Sudeste e Sul do Brasil. (Tese de Doutorado). Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro.
Prous, André. (1986/1990). Os artefatos líticos, elementos descritivos classificatórios. Arquivos do Museu de História Natural, v 11:1-55.
Ribeiro, Loredana. (2017). Crítica feminista, arqueologia e descolonialidade. Revista de Arqueologia, v. 30, n. 1: 210-234.
Sahlins, Marshall. (1960).The origin of society. Scientific American, 203(3): 76–87.
Sahlins, Marshall. (2007). A sociedade afluente original. In: Sahlins, M. Cultura na prática. Editora UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, 105-152.
Schimidt, Sarah K. (2018). Garimpeiras locais contra as Minas Gerais: o que elas me ensinaram sobre Capitalismo e Ciência. (Dissertação de Mestrado). Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas.
Silva, Fabíola. (2000). As Tecnologias e seus Significados: Um Estudo da Cerâmica dos Asuriní do Xingu e da Cestaria dos Kayapó-Xikrin sob uma Perspectiva Etnoarqueológica. (Tese de Doutorado). Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo.
Washburn, Sherwood; Lancaster, Chet. The evolution of hunting. In: Lee, Richard; DeVore, Irvan, (Ed.),Man The Hunter. Aldine, Chicago, 293-303.
White, Leslie. (1959). The Evolution of Culture: The Development of Civilization to the Fall of Rome. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Wylie, Alison. (1997). The Engendering of Archaeology Refiguring Feminist Science Studies.Osiris, 2nd Series, Vol. 12: 80-99.
Wylie, Alison. (2007). Doing Archaeology as a Feminist: Introduction. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 14, No. 3: 209-216.
Wylie, Alison. (2017). Os que conhecem, conhecem bem: teoria do ponto de vista e arqueologia de gênero. Scientiae Studia, São Paulo, v. 15, n. 1: 13-38.
Zihlman, Adrienne. (1981). Woman as Shapers of the Human Adaptation. In: Dahlberg, Frances, (Ed.), Woman the Gatherer. Yale University Press, New Haven, 75-120.
Zihlman, Adrienne. (2012). Engendering Human Evolution. In: Bolger, Diane, (Ed.), A companion to gender prehistory. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, 23-44.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Danusa Vieira
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
