PUBLICATIONS (underlined dates are links to pdf versions)

2006                Michael Shott and Kathryn Weedman. Measuring Reduction in Stone Tools: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Gamo Hidescaper Blades from Ethiopia.  Journal of Archaeological Science XX (2006):1-20..

2006                Kathryn Weedman. An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Stone tools and Hafting among the Gamo of southern Ethiopia, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory,13 (3):188-237.

2005                Kathryn Weedman. Gender and Stone Tools: An Ethnographic Study of the Konso and Gamo Hideworkers of Southern Ethiopia. In Gender and Hide Production, edited by Lisa Frink    and  Kathryn Weedman, pp. 175-196, AltaMira Press:Walnut Creek.

2002                Kathryn Weedman. An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Stone-Tool Variability among the Gamo Hide Workers of Southern Ethiopia.  In Le Travail Du Cuir de La Prehistoire, edited by S. Beyries and F. Audoin-Rouzeau, pp.131-142, Editions APDCA: Antibes, France.

2002                Kathryn Weedman. On the Spur of the Moment: Effects of Age and Experience on Hafted Stone Scraper Morphology. American Antiquity 67(4): 731-744.

RESEARCH QUESTION

A controversial and long-standing debate in archaeology is concerned with whether similarities and differences in stone tools represent style (marking the cultural identity of the maker) or function (indicating how stone tools were used). The Gamo people are one of the ethnic groups in southwestern Ethiopia who manufacture stone tools for the scraping of hides. Craftspeople such as hideworkers, potters, and iron smiths are considered to occupy a separate social position from farmers and weavers. Hide workers produce commodities used by almost every household including leather bedding, clothing, carrying bags, saddles, and chairs. Initial interviews with the Gamo hide workers revealed morphological differences in their handles and stone scrapers that reflected their production, use, and discard as well as intraethnic group membership. I spent two years among the Gamo hide-workers of southwestern Ethiopia conducting an ethnoarchaeological study of stone tool production and use, which addressed the tenets of the style and function debate.

METHODOLOGY

Ethnoarchaeology offers a position from which to explore the ideologies of living populations and how they invoke meaning into materials. A contextualized approach to ethnoarchaeology unmasks the heterogeneous nature of culture, revealing the necessary background information to infer the meanings behind material variation. To access an understanding of variation in Gamo stone tools, I enlisted a contextualized scale of analysis study. Hence, I studied the stone scrapers in terms of their position in the environmental and cultural landscape. My ethnoarchaeological study of the Gamo hide-workers consisted of three stages of research: 1) documentary and archival research in Addis Ababa (6 weeks); 2) an ethnographic survey of the Gamo villages to locate hide-workers (6 months); and 3) in-depth interviews with hide-workers within four villages.

During my first six months among the Gamo, I studied the similarities and differences in their handles, sockets, and stone tools in terms of their location within the Gamo territory. During the survey, I interviewed 180 hide-workers living in 115 villages.I conducted an ethnographic survey of the Gamo hide-workers in order to: 1) survey the Gamo region to locate hide-workers, 2) record their social and geographical relationships, and 3) discover, measure, and collect the types of handles and stone tools they were using. I interviewed at least one hide-worker from each of the villages (i.e., that has hide-workers) in 6 of the 10 Gamo districts (deres) including Doko, Kogo, Dorze, Ochollo, Zada, and Borada. The total number of hide-workers living in six of the 10 districts is 550, which is an average of 92 hide-workers per district. Based on the latter calculation, there are probably at least 1000 Gamo hide-workers. The average number of individual hide-workers living in a village was three, with a range of 1 to 15. I interviewed the elder hide-worker of each lineage. Although most hide-workers did not know their age, I could estimate age by inquiring about political changes which had occurred during their lifetime. The average age of the hide-workers I interviewed was 40-49, with a range from approximately 20 to 70 years.

I studied four villages in-depth to focus on scraper production, use, and discard and the hide-workers' social, economic, and political position within society. I selected four villages in which the hide-workers: 1) only use stone; 2) use different handle types; 3) represent different clans; and 4) represent several generations from one lineage within a village. I decided to become the student of 30 individual hide-workers, who are members of four different clans (Gezemala, Zutuma, Bolosa, and Maagata). These individuals live in four different villages located in two districts (Borada and Zada). My survey indicated that only four Gamo districts (deres) have villages that use stone to the exclusion of glass and iron: Borada, Zada, Ochollo, and Bonke. Because I was studying kinship and learning practices, I wanted to study villages in which there were several generations of hide-workers and possibly many individuals related as cousins, fathers, and sons. In Ochollo and Bonke, each village had only one or two hide-workers and so I chose not to conduct in-depth studies in these districts. This left me with selecting villages in Borada and Zada. In order to discern if variation is the result of social groups or function, I wanted to study members of the same clan using the two Gamo handle types, tutuma (single-hafted nonmastic) and zucano (double-hafted mastic), even if in the past both types were used. My reasoning here was that individuals of the same clan should make a similar scraper form regardless of handle type because they are descendants from a common ancestor and stone tool production is a learned skill through the patrilineal line. Unfortunately, there were no two villages with hide-workers belonging to the same clan and using different handles, which represented several generations of individuals from the same lineage. This in itself suggests that clans are closely tied to residence and specific handle types. I decided to study four different villages that represented four clans--two villages using tutuma (single-hafted nonmastic) handles (Zutuma and Bolosa clans) and two villages using zucano (double-hafted mastic) handles (Gezemala and Maagata clans). This would at least allow me to determine whether regularities associated with handle type would cross village membership. I selected the villages of Mogesa Shongalay, Eeyahoo Shongalay, Amure Dembe Chileshe, and Patela Tsela.

CONCLUSIONS

My study of the Gamo hide-workers revealed that the local environment and available resources for stone tool production in association with their maker's social identities interface with geographic and cultural divisions in the landscape. Whether a region is culturally heterogeneous or homogeneous depends on the materials investigated and the scales at which they are examined. Hence, I studied the Gamo stone scrapers in terms of the emically important scales of analysis including regional/interethnic, subregional (north, central, south), political districts, moieties, clans, lineages, domestic groups, and the individual. My research suggests that exploring similarities and differences in terms of scales of analysis eliminates the necessity for a function and style division and emphasizes that both aspects exist within the material culture of a single ethnic group.

Variation associated with activities can be seen within each household including: stage of use (unused and discardable), differences in types of hides scraped (lowland verses highland cattle hides), and type of scraping activity (scraping verse chopping). In contrast, when I examined stone scraper variability across different contexts between households, villages, subregional and regional, variability associated with the age, domestic group, village membership, clan, moiety, and political district membership were visible.