Chapter 7 (Page 71)

Gender and Technology at the Archaic-Woodland "Transition"

Kenneth E. Sassaman
South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology

In 1941, archaeologists working in eastern North America assembled to define Woodland cultural patterns (Woodland Conference 1943). They employed a variety of technological, economic and sociocultural criteria to delineate the Woodland Period from the preceding Archaic Period. Over the ensuing decade, researchers reported difficulty in applying the criteria (Griffin 1952; Sears 1948; Willey and Phillips 1958:118). Pottery appeared to be the only distinguishing trait, and this, they argued, was a nondisruptive addition to the existing Archaic period technology.    Pottery today remains the chief diagnostic trait separating the Archaic and Woodland Periods in the Eastern Woodlands. However, archaeologists recognize that pottery does not mark a uniform, structural boundary in time and space (papers in Farnsworth and Emerson 1986; Sassaman 1991b). Rather, the development and spread of pottery technology constitute complex, nonuniform patterns in the archaeological record of the Eastern Woodlands. Remarkably, few attempts to explain these broad patterns have been made. One notable exception is the work of James Brown (1986, 1989), who has called attention to social and economic factors that may account for the differential acceptance of early pottery. Otherwise, the variegated patterns of early pottery use remain unexplored, unchallenged, or indirectly accounted for by technofunctional (Schiffer and Skibo 1987; Skibo et al. 1989) or taphonomic (Reid 1984) factors.    In this paper I want to build upon the work of Brown to consider how one social variable--gender relations--can be used to explain patterns of early pottery use. Drawing from a social perspective on technology, I maintain that gender is the primary social variable of the labor process in forager or hunter-gatherer societies. I argue further that pottery creates a gender bias in the way we perceive changes in other technological and economic aspects of the Archaic-Woodland "transition." The Social Basis of Technology    Let me begin by outlining the premises of my argument. First, technology cannot be understood apart from society. In fact, technology constitutes a labor process for appropriating nature that is inherently social. The social basis of the process is the means by which the instruments of work (i.e. tools), are brought together with the subjects of work (Hindess and Hirst 1975:10-11). How the work of several individuals is divided, articulated and coordinated exemplifies this union.    At a higher level of articulation, technology is combined with social relations to define a particular mode of production. Social relations refer to the means by which surplus labor is appropriated. Surplus labor is present in all modes of production, including non-food-producing societies, but it varies with respect to the way it is appropriated (Hindess and Hirst 1975:25-27; Saitta and Keene 1990). Among foragers, surplus labor is appropriated collectively through reciprocal exchange. Page 72    Within a forager mode of production, gender is the primary social variable of the labor process. The sexual division of labor among foragers is thus a baseline for interpreting variation in the design, production and use of technical apparatus. We can imagine that variation in gender-specific technology, when it exists, would tell us something about the way labor is organized to ensure domestic livelihood, and about the differences between men and women in appropriating surplus labor.    Gender status is important in understanding the roles men and women play in extracting social surplus. Decisions about marriage, settlement and subsistence, and abilities to attract and maintain exchange relations are all critical factors in appropriating surplus labor.    In forager societies, at least two variables affect gender status. One is the relative autonomy of men and women in the labor process. Ethnographic data, for instance, show that women's status, measured in terms of decision-making in public or extra-domestic affairs, varies with control in subsistence production (Friedl 1975; Gale 1974; Leacock 1972, 1978; Lee 1979). This does not mean that status is based on subsistence contributions per se, but rather, on whether women control the conditions of their work and the distribution of the products of their labor (Leacock 1978:252).    The second variable is participation in the "outside economy." Most of our information on "outside economy" comes from accounts of recent contact between foragers and Europeans (Draper 1975; Estioko-Griffin and Griffin 1981; Leacock 1955, 1980). In a variety of cases the results are similar: men enter into market-based trading relations; the ensuing economic transformations result in incipient ranking, gender inequality, and the inability of women to exercise autonomy over the labor process.    As an entry point into the archaeological record of gender, we should be able to relate data on subsistence and nonsubsistence production to variation in gender relations, and ultimately to patterns of technological change. I suggest that observations on women's status can be gleaned from such data, and that patterns in the adoption of technology used by women can be explained in these terms. I think that the case of pottery innovation in the American Southeast illustrates these points well. Fiber-Tempered Pottery in the Savannah River Valley Region    Stallings fiber-tempered pottery from the Savannah River Valley, South Carolina-Georgia, is the oldest ceramic vessel technology in eastern North America, appearing at about 4500 B.P. and persisting with a variety of related wares to about 3000 B.P. I recently examined collections from over two dozen sites in the region to refine the chronology of the ware and to determine its technological, functional and spatial variability (Sassaman 1991b). Existing stratigraphic and radiometric data enabled me to use lip form and surface treatment to divide the series into three distinct phases. From technofunctional analyses of sherds representing over 1200 vessels I was able to discern two distinct vessel forms: round-bottomed pots and shallow, flat-bottomed basins. I employed criteria of mechanical performance to hypothesize that pots were used for direct-heat cooking and that basins were used for indirect-heat cooking, or "stone-boiling." My observations of use-alteration supported these suppositions.    When these results are placed into temporal and spatial contexts, some interesting patterns emerge. During Phase I, roughly 4500-3800 B.P., fiber-tempered pottery was used in the Coastal Plain portion of the valley, but not in the Piedmont. In the latter area, an innovative means of indirect cooking had emerged some 500 years earlier when inhabitants began to procure locally-available soapstone to make perforated slabs for "stone-boiling." These items were apparently traded with Coastal Plain inhabitants long before pottery was introduced, and for several centuries after flat-bottomed basins were made and used. The association of basins and soapstone slabs in the Coastal Plain during Phase I supports the argument that the earliest pottery was used in a traditional way; that is, early vessels were simply "portable pits" for indirect cooking.    Changes in the organization of regional populations and in pottery technology unfolded towards the end of Phase I. Populations appear to have consolidated, and distinct coastal and interior sociopolitical entities emerged after about 4000 B.P. Among coastal inhabitants a series of pottery innovations appeared, all apparently directed toward a direct-heat cooking function. Similar innovations appeared in the interior, but there is no evidence that pots were used directly over fire. Instead, soapstone slabs continued to be made and used, presumably in conjunction with ceramic vessels. Little to no soapstone was exported into the Coastal Plain during this time.    The sociopolitical entities of Phase II dissolved after Page 73 about 3400 B.P. Pottery technology and direct-heat cooking were widely accepted among groups dispersed throughout the region. Soapstone slab use diminished quickly, although soapstone vessels began to be made and used in limited fashion. Soapstone vessel technology was of course well-developed centuries before in other parts of the Southeast. After about 3400 B.P., however, production was apparently fueled by the trading incentives of the Poverty Point exchange network. Ned Jenkins and colleagues suggest that Poverty Point soapstone exchange facilitated the spread of fiber-tempered pottery technology from the Savannah River region into the Midsouth (Jenkins et al. 1986; Walthall and Jenkins 1976). While it may be true that some pottery was traded along these lines, the volume was not significant, nor was the technology widely adopted until Poverty Point trading ceased. Shellfishing and Women's Production    How are we to explain the variegated spatial and temporal patterns in the adoption of pottery innovations across the American Southeast? Some researchers have sought functional explanations that can be related directly to subsistence and food preparation (Stoltman 1974; Goodyear 1988). In this regard, it is difficult to escape the generalization that pottery was first introduced in the context of shellfishing. This is a global pattern that holds as well for the Savannah River Valley region (Bullen and Stoltman 1972). Yet the functional linkages between shellfishing and pottery are tenuous at best, and the only satisfactory explanation is that they each reflect the larger milieu of economic intensification that higher population density and increased settlement permanence entailed. What is more interesting about pottery and shellfishing is that ethnographic generalizations (Arnold 1985:101; Waselkov 1987) permit us to safely assume that both activities can be attributed to women's labor (cf. Claassen 1991)    To elaborate on this point, let us consider how the innovation of pottery could have emerged and been widely adopted only under conditions which put increased demands on women's labor. In this regard shellfishing per se is an unlikely impetus for pottery innovations. We know from seasonality studies that shellfishing and pottery manufacture were probably mutually exclusive seasonal activities. Considering, however, that shellfishing represented an increase in, or at least an addition to, women's contributions to subsistence production, gains in women's status and prestige are expected. These gains would have been the foundation for increased social demands on women's labor. Coupled with suggestive evidence for a decrease in the relative contribution of deer to the subsistence economy, the addition of shellfishing had the potential to restructure gender relations and lead to innovations in gender specific technology to meet the shifting demands on surplus labor.    Implied by this line of reasoning is a structural shift in the balance of status and prestige between the sexes. I envision this to include greater decision-making power among women with regard to settlement choices, production schedules, marriage, and conflict resolution, among other things. I also suspect that women increasingly occupied central roles in ceremonial activities at coastal shell rings and other locations of social aggregation. The ability to appropriate surplus labor for ceremonial funds was likely enhanced by the adoption of pottery. Equally important, however, was the role of prestige leaders in influencing others to quickly adopt pottery and its attendant innovations. I suggest that the rapidity and pervasiveness with which pottery and direct-heat cooking were adopted on the coast is explicable because women (at least some women) were able to assert authority over the production, distribution and consumption of a key food resource, in this case shellfish. Interregional Exchange and the Resistance to Pottery Innovations    But while it had the potential to increase women's status in Late Archaic society, shellfishing was not a sufficient condition for the adoption of pottery or the innovation of direct-heat cooking. Groups occupying the interior portion of the Savannah River Valley experienced subsistence changes similar to coastal groups, including the exploitation of shellfish, yet their technological histories diverged. I suggest that the initial lag in adopting pottery and the ensuing resistance to the innovation of direct-heat cooking in the interior were consequences of the social relations surrounding the production and distribution of traditional soapstone cooking technology.    Reintroducing gender into the equation, I suspect that resistance to pottery innovation can be partly attributed to the increased participation of men in interregional exchanges. Considering the scale and expanse of the Poverty Point exchange network (Gibson 1980; Walthall et al. 1982), the effects of far-flung exchange on local production may have paralleled those observed elsewhere in historical times. I do not mean to imply that market conditions emerged in the fourth millennium, only that production was increasingly geared toward exchange, and that some individuals were undoubtedly removed from subsistence production on a part-time basis. Production specialists may have included both men and women, but the control of exchange probably rested with the individuals who made trading trips. Perhaps men were predisposed to these roles (Marquardt 1985:81), or suffered fewer negative consequences from lengthy journeys. Trade routes in the Poverty Point network were indeed long. The Page 74 commerce in soapstone vessels, for instance, is thought to have originated in present-day western Georgia, moved down the Chattahoochee, across the Gulf Coast, and up gulf-draining rivers.    Within the Savannah River Valley and throughout the greater southeastern Coastal Plain, participation in long-distance exchange apparently dampened individual autonomy over certain labor processes, including the adoption of innovations. Although men and women alike stood to gain from the use of pottery, Poverty Point traders, probably men, may have realized an advantage only if they were able to appropriate women's labor and channel it into long-distance exchange. That this apparently was not the case argues that soapstone production, as well as exchange, was under the purview of men's labor.    In summary, pottery and its associated innovations were developed and adopted first on the periphery of soapstone exchange. Periphery connotes two different things in this regard. Spatially, pottery was first developed for use at locations where soapstone could only be indirectly procured, and it was used strictly for indirect-heat cooking with soapstone slabs. Later innovations for adapting pots for direct-heat cooking emerged at locations entirely remote from soapstone exchange networks. When adopted in areas of soapstone production and exchange, these same innovations were not used to their full potential, being instead subordinated by the persistence of indirect-heat cooking.    The second connotation of periphery refers to gender. Women were the likely innovators of pottery design and use, but perhaps not direct participants in long-distance exchanges involving traditional soapstone cooking technology. Women's choices to adopt innovations were influenced by their own labor allocation problems and opportunities and by the ritual constraints of male prestige systems. Where women gained greater control over the subsistence economy through shellfishing and occupied a peripheral position in interregional exchange, innovations in pottery were quickly adopted for use. Where women experienced similar economic constraints but were situated within the sphere of exchange, innovations were adopted but used in modified ways to accommodate both traditional and novel gender relations in society.    At the pan-southeastern level, the resistance to pottery innovations was even more severe, and pottery was not widely adopted until interregional exchange networks collapsed. To the extent that the use of pottery enabled women to appropriate surplus labor for other ends, the adoption of pottery may have itself undermined male-dominated exchange and prestige systems. I suspect that if we looked at the geographical peripheries of river-based Late Archaic settlement systems, that is, at upland locations that were used on a seasonal basis, we would find that women were developing pottery and other innovations that were otherwise absent during periods of social aggregation and ritual. Lithic Technology at the Archaic-Woodland Transition    In the remainder of this paper I want to shift the focus to technology normally attributed to men, namely flaked stone tool technology. A recent paper by Joan Gero (1991) provides ample evidence to show that women, as well as men, made and used stone tools. Nonetheless, recent models accounting for variation in stone tool technology fail to include gender as a relevant factor. If we allow that women and men alike used stone tools, we should anticipate that any differences in the productive activities of men and women involving stone tools would contribute to technological variation in the material records of those activities. These records should therefore be relevant to the study of prehistoric gender relations.    To begin, I propose that our perceptions of lithic technological change at the Archaic-Woodland transition are shaped by the categories used to order archaeological time. As a foundation for this proposition, let us assume that there was a basic division of labor whereby men hunted game, and women collected plants and small animal resources. Let us also assume that hunting technology was distinct from other lithic technology, and that the technological requirements of hunting game contributed to regularities in tool design that are now useful in dividing archaeological time into meaningful phases or periods. It follows that time-space systematics in archaeology are largely based on continuity and change in the design of tools used by men; in North America these consist largely of hafted bifaces, both projectiles and other bifacial tools associated with hunting activity.    While hafted bifaces comprise the primary diagnostic artifacts for early North American prehistory, pottery types replace bifaces as the chief time markers during late prehistory. I think it is again safe to assume that women made and used most of the pottery in these prehistoric societies. It follows then that late prehistory is subdivided temporally by variation in technology attributed to women.    The significance of this observation becomes apparent when we consider the distinct disposal patterns of hafted bifaces versus pottery (Figure 1). Hafted bifaces used in hunting are discarded at some domestic sites, where tools are replaced, and at hunting-related and quarry-related locations used exclusively by men. In contrast, pottery is discarded at most, if not all domestic sites, and at Page 75 some locations where women conducted specialized activities. In short the record of the preceramic period consists almost exclusively of locations at which hafted bifaces were discarded, while the ceramic period record consists largely of locations at which pottery was discarded. Insofar as the sexual division of labor ensures that these locations are not completely isomorphic, the preceramic and ceramic period archaeological records represent distinct samples of settlement variation. Observed differences in the records of these periods are interpreted as the result of anything other than gender.    This sort of bias is illustrated in recent models for the apparent shift from formal to expedient core reduction in flaked stone industries. Because it seemingly reflects a degeneration of the art of flintknapping, the change is sometimes referred to "devolutionary." What is interesting about the change is that it occurs in so many different places across the globe, and at similar junctures in the historical trajectories of local prehistoric populations. Two models have been developed to account for these broad patterns. One developed by Torrence (1989) points to changes in the risk avoidance strategies of hunters as societies become increasingly dependent on agricultural production. An alternative articulated by Parry and Kelly (1987) focuses on the diminishing need for portable bifacial cores as the residential mobility of hunter-gatherers decreased through time. Both arguments are logically sound and supported by evidence. However, because the technological change coincides with the adoption of pottery in many parts of the globe, our perceptions of it are partly shaped by a shift in focus from men's roles to women's roles in stone tool production and use. If we include gender in Page 76 the extant models of this technological change we not only eliminate this bias, but also introduce a variable that accounts for more of the variation in the design, use and discard of lithic stone tools cross-culturally.    In another paper, I outlined alternatives to the models of Torrence and Parry and Kelly that attention to gender afford (Sassaman 1991a). I will not reiterate the arguments here, but I do want to provide a few general comments for consideration.    First, I think lithic analysts need to incorporate expectations about the sexual division of labor in their models of lithic technology. If we can develop predictions about the types of subsistence activities men and women respectively perform, and relate these to the timing and severity of risk, we can begin to refer the bridging arguments Torrence (1989) makes between risk and tool design to gender-specific technology. We can expect, as Torrence notes, that the risks of hunting mobile game are different than the risks of collecting plant foods, and that tools will be designed and used accordingly.    In contemplating this, however, we will have to look toward variation in the design and use of formal tools such as projectiles and other hunting-related bifaces. Regrettably, the expedient tools that comprise a significant portion of any lithic technology are just not specific enough with respect to function, place, and the sexual division of labor, to be useful in testing ideas about gender relations. Instead, we must begin to model variation in biface design and use as it relates to activities other than hunting. Torrence makes some progress in this direction when she relates the demise of biface technology to the rise of low-risk food production. However, many of the subsistence pursuits of women in non-food-producing situations had similar effects on the design and use of hunting technology. Considering this, we should expect to find a rich and varied record of gender roles and relations that is manifested in variation in male hunting technology.    A similar case can be made for the model proposed by Parry and Kelly (1987). To expand their model we need to disentangle the different types of mobility embedded in the seasonal rounds of hunter-gatherers. Parry and Kelly consider residential mobility--the mobility of entire coresident groups--to be the critical consideration in technological design. However, the relevant amount of mobility for the transport of tools is the distance travelled by the tool-user. In this sense, the distances and patterns of mobility of men and women differ. Thus, the sexual division of labor is a variable that potentially accounts for combinations of formal and expedient core technology in terms of the mobility parameters spelled-out by Parry and Kelly. Rather than seeing the two technologies as being mutually exclusive, we should expect the use of these to be complementary and interdependent.    In terms of production, for example, bifacial and expedient core technologies varied from being independent, to being interdependent. The two strategies of tool production converged when bifaces were made from flakes removed from expedient cores. This occurred in parts of the Southeast during the Early Woodland and continued into late prehistory. The strategy can be partly explained by changes in biface technology itself, not the least of which was the adoption of bow and arrow technology in the Late Woodland period. In addition though, we need to consider how women's uses of flaked stone helped to support the shift from bifacial to expedient core technology within men's technology. For instance, women's reduction of cores for expedient flakes could have contributed to the sorts of residential stockpiles that Parry and Keely deem necessary for the observed changes in biface technology. Conclusion    Issues of gender must take a central role in our interpretations of prehistoric technology because gender is a fundamental variable in the labor processes of small-scale societies. The need to include gender is imperative when we consider that variation in technology forms the basis for archaeological time-space systematics, such as the Archaic-Woodland transition, and is therefore the most influential determinate of the way we perceive prehistoric societies. That gender issues have not been important in studies of prehistoric foragers no doubt stems from popular perceptions of egalitarianism. In this respect, efforts to demonstrate that gender asymmetry is neither natural nor inevitable in the modern world (e.g., Leacock 1978) have hindered our imagination about alternative formations. It is counter-productive to dismiss the possibility of gender asymmetry among prehistoric foragers simply because it may appear to legitimate similar conditions today. This not only establishes a false dichotomy between the past and present, but it also dismisses the possibility that variation in gender relations are important in explaining the rich and varied record of prehistoric foragers. Endnotes 1 Claassen's (1986) seasonality research for sites along the Atlantic Coast shows that shellfish were procured from fall to early spring. Assuming that dry, warm weather was desirable for pottery Page 77 manufacture (Arnold 1985:61-98), the best seasons for making pots would have been late spring, late summer and early fall. 2 Deer bone at coastal shellmidden sites is often pulverized (DePratter 1979:24; Waring 1968:191), presumably for extracting bone grease. That similar evidence is not found in the interior suggest that coastal groups had a tougher time acquiring protein. The evidence has been described by Goodyear (1988) as an indication of economic intensification on the coast. 3 Jackson (1991) describes a situation among Californian Indians in which women control the construction and supply of acorn granaries, but men sometimes appropriate the stores for purposes of interregional trade. 4 I refer here specifically to the hunting of solitary game such as white-tailed deer, not herd species such as bison, reindeer and caribou. Documentary information on the hunting of herd species shows that entire co-resident groups relocate to kill sites after a successful hunt. Under these circumstances, we can not anticipate spatial separation of men's and women's activities at the intersite level of analysis. Unfortunately, equivalent analogs for the organization of white-tailed deer hunting are not available. I can only assume that some of the intersite assemblage variability observed in the archaeological record of temperate forest hunter-gatherers reflects a spatial (and sexual) dichotomy in the logistical organization of deer hunting. Even if this dichotomy is exaggerated, the addition of pottery to the archaeological record of temperate forest hunter-gatherers assures that we are focussed on locations at which women worked. This alone creates a potential bias in the way we perceive functional differences between preceramic and ceramic period sites. References Cited Arnold, Dean E. 1985 Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Brown, James A. 1986 Early Ceramics and Culture: A Review of Interpretations. In Early Woodland Archaeology, edited by K.B. Farnsworth and Thomas E. Emerson, pp. 598-608. Kampsville Seminars in Archaeology No. 2, Center for American Archaeology Press, Kampsville, Illinois. 1989 The Beginnings of Pottery as an Economic Process. InWhat's New? A Closer Look at the Process of Innovation, edited by S.E. van der Leeuw and R. Torrence, pp. 203-224. Unwin Hyman, London. Bullen, Ripley P. and James B. Stoltman (editors) 1972 Fiber-tempered Pottery in Southeastern United States and Northern Colombia: Its Origin, Context and Significance. Florida Anthropologist 25(2), Part 2. Claassen, Cheryl 1986 Shellfishing Seasons in the Prehistoric Southeastern United States. American Antiquity 51:21-37. 1991 Shellfishing and the Shellmound Archaic. In Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory, edited by J.M. Gero and M.W. Conkey, pp. 276-300. Basil Blackwell, Oxford. DePratter, Chester B. 1979 Shellmound Archaic on the Georgia Coast. South Carolina Antiquities 11(2):1-69. Draper, Patricia 1975 !Kung Women: Contrasts in Sexual Egalitarianism in Foraging and Sedentary Contexts. In Toward an Anthropology of Women, edited by R.R. Reiter, pp. 77-109. Monthly Review Press, New York. Estioko-Griffin, Agnes and P. Bion Griffin 1981 Woman the Hunter: The Agta. In Woman the Gatherer, edited by Frances Dahlberg, pp. 121-151. Yale University Press, New Haven. Farnsworth, Kenneth B. and Thomas E. Emerson (editors) 1986 Early Woodland Archaeology. Kampsville Seminars in Archaeology No. 2, Center for American Archaeology Press, Kampsville, Illinois. Friedl, Ernestine 1975 Women and Men: An Anthropologist's View. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York. Page 78 Gale, F. (editor) 1974 Women's Role in Aboriginal Society. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra. Gero, Joan M. 1991 Genderlithics: Women's Role in Stone Tool Production. In Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory, edited by J.M. Gero and M.W. Conkey, pp. 163-193. Basil Blackwell, Oxford. Gibson, Jon L. 1980 Speculations on the Origin and Development of Poverty Point Culture. In Caddoan and Poverty Point Archaeology: Essays in Honor of Clarence Hungerford Webb, edited by J. Gibson. Bulletin of the Louisiana Archaeological Society 6:321-348. Goodyear, Albert C. 1988 On the Study of Technological Change. Current Anthropology 29:320-323. Griffin, James B. 1952 Culture Periods in Eastern United States Archaeology. In Archaeology of the Eastern United States, edited by J.B. Griffin, pp. 352-364. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Hindess, Barry and Paul Q. Hirst 1975 Pre-Capitalist Modes of Production. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. Jackson, Thomas L. 1991 Pounding Acorns: Women's Production as Social and Economic Focus. In Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory, edited by Joan M. Gero and Margaret W. Conkey, pp.301-325. Basil Blackwell, Oxford. Jenkins, Ned J., David H. Dye and John A. Walthall 1986 Early Ceramic Development in the Gulf Coastal Plain. In Early Woodland Archaeology, edited by K.B. Farnsworth and T.E. Emerson, pp.546-563. Kampsville Seminars in Archaeology No. 2. Center for American Archaeology Press, Kampsville, Illinois. Leacock, Eleanor 1954 The Montagnais "Hunting Territory" and the Fur Trade. Memoir 78, American Anthropological Association, Washington, D. C. 1972 Introduction. In Frederick Engel's The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, edited by E. Leacock, pp. 7-67. International, New York. 1978 Women's Status In Egalitarian Society: Implications for Social Evolution.Current Anthropology 19:247-275. 1980 Montagnais Women and the Jesuit Program for Colonization. In Women and Colonization: Anthropological Perspectives, edited by Mona Etienne and Eleanor Leacock, pp. 25-42. Praeger, New York. Lee, Richard B. 1979 The !Kung San: Men, Women and Work in a Foraging Society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Parry, W. J. and R. L. Kelly 1987 Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism. In The Organization of Core Technology, edited by Jay K. Johnson and C. A. Morrow, pp. 285-304. Westview Press, Boulder. Reid, Kenneth C. 1984 Fire and Ice: New Evidence for the Production and Preservation of Late Archaic Fiber-Tempered Pottery in the Middle Latitude Lowlands. American Antiquity 49:55-76. Saitta, Dean J. and Arthur S. Keene 1990 Politics and Surplus Flow in Prehistoric Communal Societies. In Evolution of Political Systems: Sociopolitics in Small-Scale Sedentary Societies, edited by S. Upham, pp. 203-224. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Sassaman, Kenneth E. 1991a The Androcentric Nature of Prehistoric Lithic Technology. Paper presented at the Middle Atlantic Archaeological Conference, Ocean City, MD. Page 79 1991b Economic and Social Contexts of Early Ceramic Vessel Technology in the American Southeast. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Schiffer, Michael B. and James M. Skibo 1987 Theory and Experiment in the Study of Technological Change. Current Anthropology 28:595-622. Skibo, James M., Michael B. Schiffer and Kenneth C. Reid 1989 Organic-Tempered Pottery: An Experimental Study. American Antiquity 54:122-146. Sears, William H. 1948 What is the Archaic?American Antiquity 14:122-124. Torrence, Robin 1989 Re-tooling: Towards a Behavioral Theory of Stone Tools. In Time, Energy and Stone Tools, edited by Robin Torrence, pp. 57-66. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Walthall, John A. and Ned J. Jenkins 1976 The Gulf Formative Stage in Southeastern Prehistory. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 19:43-49. Walthall, John A., Clarence H. Webb, S. H. Stow, and Sharon I. Goad 1982 Galena Analysis and Poverty Point Trade. Mid-Continental Journal of Archaeology 7:133-148. Waring, Antonio J., Jr. 1968 The Bilbo Site, Chatham County, Georgia. In The Waring Papers: The Collected Works of Antonio J. Waring, Jr, edited by S. Williams, pp. 152-197. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 58, Harvard University. Cambridge, Mass. Waselkov, Gregory 1987 Shellfish Gathering and Shell Midden Archaeology. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 11, edited by Michael Schiffer, pp. 93-210. Academic Press, Orlando. Willey, Gordon R. and Phillip Phillips 1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Woodland Conference 1943 The First Archaeological Conference on the Woodland Pattern. American Antiquity 8:393-400.