The Gamo hideworkers of southwestern Ethiopia and Cross-Cultural Comparisons

Kathryn J. WEEDMAN ARTHUR University of South Florida St. Petersburg, Anthropology Program, 140 7th Avenue South, Davis 202, St. Petersburg, FL 33713 (USA) [email protected]

Weedman Arthur K.J. 2008. – The Gamo hideworkers of southwestern Ethiopia and Cross- Cultural Comparisons. Anthropozoologica 43 (1): 67-98.

ABSTRACT Hideworking was practiced prehistorically and historically in nearly every region of the world. Today hideworking is practiced using stone tools only in parts of North America, Siberia, and Ethiopia. This article reviews and explains the diversity in hideworking practices among the Gamo of southern Ethiopia, in particular focusing on the variation of the stone scrapers, han- KEY WORDS dles, and use of space. The Gamo hideworking practices and materials are Hide production, then compared to customs in other parts of the world. It is concluded that scraper, intra-cultural and cross-cultural material and practical homogeneity and handle, stone tools, diversity can only be explained through an understanding of localized histo- Ethiopia. ries in the their global contexts.

RÉSUMÉ Les Gamo du sud-ouest de l’Éthiopie : comparaisons transculturelles. Le travail de la peau était pratiqué aux périodes préhistoriques et historiques dans presque toutes les régions du monde. Aujourd’hui, le travail de la peau en utilisant des outils de pierre est pratiqué uniquement dans certaines parties de l’Amérique du Nord, de la Sibérie et de l’Éthiopie. Cet article examine et décrit la diversité des pratiques du travail de la peau chez les Gamo du sud de l’Éthiopie en mettant en particulier l’accent sur la variation des grattoirs lithiques et des emmanchements et la gestion de l’espace. Les pratiques des MOTS CLÉS Gamo et les matériaux utilisés sont ensuite comparés avec d’autres pratiques Travail de la peau, dans différentes parties du monde. Il est conclu que les matériaux intra- et grattoir, inter-culturelles, l’homogénéité et la diversité des pratiques ne peuvent être emmanchement, outils de pierre, expliqués qu’à travers la compréhension de l’histoire locale replacée dans des Éthiopie. contextes plus larges.

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) © Publications Scientifiques du Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris. 67 Weedman Arthur K. J.

INTRODUCTION Shott & Weedman 2006), selection, efficiency and effectiveness (Meltzer 1981), and agency Since the late 19th century, ethnographers have (Wobst 2000). recorded the preparation of animal hides in The purpose of this paper is to first reveal and Africa, Australia, North America, and South explain the variation in the Ethiopian Gamo America. These accounts describe the production hideworking practices and material culture. of clothing, shelter, bedding and other accoutre- Secondly, I explore the rich diversity of hidewor- ments of human life using a variety of tools inclu- king cross-culturally by reviewing known detailed ding bone or beaming tools/fleshers/spoke shaves ethnographic accounts of hideworking with (Turner 1894: 294; Ewers 1930: 10-13; Lowie stone-tools particularly in North America among 1935: 75-79: 76; Druker 1941: 113-114; Hiller the Talhatan and Beaver Athapascans (Albright 1948), copper and iron scrapers/fleshers (Turner 1984: 50-59; Beyries et al. 2001), Haudenosaunee 1894: 294; Giglioli 1904; Ewers 1930: 10-13: (Iroquois) Iroquoian (Mason 1889: 583), Siksika 11; Lowie 1935: 75; Hiller 1948; Jarvenpa & (Blackfeet) Algonquian (Wissler 1920: 57-64; Brumbach 1995), shell scraper blades (Lothrop Ewers 1930: 10-13: 12), Nlakapmux (Thompson 1928: 69; Laurant 1946: 85; Swanton 1946: Indians) and ShuswapSalishan (Teit 1900; 442-448), rough pebble stones (Boas 1888: 53; Beyries et al. 2001), and Inuit and Yu’pik (Mason Ewers 1930: 10-13: 11; Dunn 1931: 68; Adams 1889: 557-558, 562, 566); in Siberia among the 1966; Kamminga 1982: 43), and most notably Koriak/Koryak Chukotko-Kamchatkan (Beyries flaked stone scrapers (Giglioli 1889; Mason et al. 2001; Takase 2004) and the Even Altaic 1889; Murdoch 1892: 294; Nelson 1899: 113- (Takase 2004); and in Ethiopia among the 115; Roth 1899; Teit 1900: 184-187; Aiston Semitic Gurage (Giglioli 1889; Gallagher 1974, 1929; Ewers 1930: 10-13: 12; Lowie 1935: 76; 1977a; Brandt et al. 1996), Omotic Wolayta Hambly 1936; Druker 1941: 113-114: 113; (Haaland 1987), Cushitic Oromo (Gallagher Swanton 1946: 442-448; Allchin 1957; 1974, 1977; Clark & Kurashina 1981), Cushitic Gallagher 1974, 1977a, 1977b; Clark & Sidama (Brandt & Weedman 1997), Cushitic Kurashina 1981; Albright 1984; Haaland 1987; Haidya (Brandt & Weedman 1997), and Brandt et al. 1996; Brandt & Weedman 1997, Cushitic Konso (Brandt & Weedman 2002; 2002; Beyries et al. 2001; Takase 2004; Weedman 2005). Weedman 2006). The scraping of animal hides is probably one of the oldest crafts as evidenced by the presence of stone scrapers among the first PREVIOUS RESEARCH OF ETHIOPIAN Stone Age assemblages (Toth 1985). The signifi- HIDEWORKERS cance of flaked stone-tool variation has been a source of great archaeological interest for over The Gamo people live in southern Ethiopia 100 years (Nilsson 1868: 8; Dale 1870; Holmes (Fig. 1). In the eighteenth and nineteenth cen- 1894). Much of the debate has focused on explai- tury, hideworking was of considerable impor- ning the variation witnessed in stone scrapers and tance in the Ethiopian economy including the include the following interpretations: clan mem- production of saddles, bags, swords, scabbards, bership (Bordes 1961, 1973), ethnicity (Brandt et bandoleers, cartridge belts, pouches, sandals, al. 1996), status (Hayden 1993), gender (Gero shields, sleeping mats, and clothing from both 1991; Kehoe 2005; Webley 2005; Weedman domesticated and wild animal hides ( e.g., lion, 2005), type of use (Wilmsen 1968; Broadbent & leopard, otter, monkey) (Pankhurst 1964). Knutsson 1975; Hayden 1979; Bamforth 1986), European travellers recorded hideworking in nor- mechanical and raw material availability thern and central Ethiopia during the mid-eigh- (Andrefsky 1994; Bisson 2001), reduction stages teenth to nineteenth centuries (Bruce 1790; (Dibble 1984, 1987; Kuhn 1992; Shott 1995; Combes & Tamisier 1838: 77-79; Insenberg &

68 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) The Gamo hideworkers of southwestern Ethiopia and Cross-Cultural Comparisons

F IG. 1. — Map of the Gamo region in southern Ethiopia showing the location of political units and research villages. Designer: Melanie Brandt.

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) 69 Weedman Arthur K. J.

F IG. 2. — Map locating southern and central Ethiopian hideworkers and their handle types. Designer: K.J.W. Arthur.

Krapf 1843: 255-256; Lefebvre 1846: 240-243; but short-term studies of stone-tool production Paulitschke 1888: 311; Wylde 1888: 289-291; among the Gurage, Wolayta/“Sidamo”, and Burton 1894: 170; Merab 1929; Bartlett 1934: Oromo hideworkers (Fig. 2). In these studies, the 92; Rey 1935: 225; Parkyns 1966 [1853]: 230- researchers reported the same basic pattern of 231). Johnston (1972 [1844]: 370-374) and tool manufacture (direct percussion with an iron Giglioli (1889) provide us with the first written billet), style (obsidian unifacial convex scraper), account of stone-tools associated with hidewor- use (six to eight hours scraping a cattle hide on a king among the Shoa, Oromo and Gurage vertical wood frame) and discard (in pits near peoples (Fig. 2). Later German ethnographers households). These studies of the hideworkers illustrated the hideworking material culture of report little if any variability in the hideworking the Dizi, Sidama, Gugi, and Gamo (Straube processes. Subsequently in 1995, Brandt led a 1963: 22, plate 13; Haberland 1981, 1993: 94) survey to study the southern Ethiopian hidewor- (Fig. 2). kers, which revealed a great deal of diversity in In the 1970s and 1980s, Gallagher (1974, 1977a, stone-tool and handle style, raw material type, 1977b), Clark and Kurashina (1981), and technology, and sex of the hideworker among the Haaland (1987) conducted the first systematic Gamo, Gurage, Hadiya, Konso, Sidama and

70 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) The Gamo hideworkers of southwestern Ethiopia and Cross-Cultural Comparisons

Wolayta people (Brandt 1996; Brandt et al. and exposing chert sources for stone-tool pro- 1996; Brandt & Weedman 1997). It was my par- duction and use. ticipation in Brandt’s project that led me to study Gamo hideworkers are male artisans, who prima- Gamo hideworking practices between 1996 and rily use chert scrapers to process cattle hides for 1998 for my dissertation work, which is the focus bedding, bags, and straps and on rare occasion of this current paper. However, following my goat hides for ceremonial capes. In 1996, I began research among the Gamo, I studied the Konso an uninterrupted two-year study of the Gamo hi- of southern Ethiopia. The Konso are the only deworkers because of the variability I witnessed in known Ethiopian society where women are the 1995 (Brandt 1996; Brandt et al. 1996; Brandt & primary stone-tool producers and users for the Weedman 1997) concerning their hide processing purpose of processing hides. In addition to stu- practices, hafting, and stone-tools. I interviewed dying the hideworking process and excavation of with the aid of assistant translators 180Gamo hi- recently abandoned hideworker households deworkers living in 115 villages encompassing one (Brandt & Weedman 2002; Weedman 2005), hideworker from each of the villages ( i.e., that has our project included residue and microwear hideworkers) in 6 of the 10Gamo districts, inclu- studies of the archaeological and ethnographic ding Doko, Dorze, Kogo, Zada, Ochollo, and scrapers (Rots & Willamson 2004), as well as Borada. I also visited the districts of Ganta, research concerning the history and culture of the Bonke, Kamba, and Dita, where I did less inten- hideworkers (Ellison 2006). Today, the following sive surveys that involved visiting hideworkers peoples are known to process hides with stone- who lived near the road and interviewing them in tools in central and southern Ethiopia: Amarro, markets. I then selected four villages for in-depth Dizi, Gamo, Gugi, Gurage, Hadiya, Konso, studies based on my survey. Thus, this paper is Oromo, Oyda, Sidama, and Wolayta (Fig. 2). based on the contextual data and scrapers obtai- ned through the 180survey interviews and in- depth interviews with 30 male hideworkers living THE GAMO in the four villages of Mogesa, Patala, Eeyahoo, and Amure (Fig. 1). The Gamo people live in the Gamo-Gofa zone of southwestern Ethiopia. They recognize ten ritual- political districts ( deres ) within their territory GENDER AND STATUS (Fig. 1). The Gamo are Omotic speaking peoples (Fleming 1973, 1976; Hayward 1998). In early Gamo hideworkers are male artisans, who are travellers’ accounts and ethnographies, the members of the social-economic strata tsoma . Omotic peoples were often referred to as the The Gamo divide their population into two Sidama (Cerulli 1956: 85-132) or the Western strata that are somewhat aligned with occupa- Cushitic (Straube 1963). The Gamo are agrarian tions, including: mala (farmers, smiths, and wea- peoples who live to the west of the Rift Valley vers) and tsoma (potters, hideworkers, smiths, lakes of Abaya and Chamo (Jackson et al. 1969; and groundstone-makers) (Straube 1963: 380- Jackson 1971, 1972; Olmstead 1973, 1997; 384; Bureau 1975, 1981: 85-87; Abélès 1979). Sperber 1973; Bureau 1975, 1981; Abélès 1978, In some parts of the Gamo region, the tsoma are 1979; Cartledge 1995; Freeman 2001, 2002; divided into two groups: tsoma mana (potters) Arthur 2002, 2003, 2006). The Gamo subsist and tsoma degala (hideworkers, smiths, and primarily by enset cultivation (an indigenous groundstone-makers). Although Freeman (2001: crop), but also grow wheat, barley, and a variety 187) refers to the Gamo tsoma artisans as margi- of vegetables. The biannual rains and numerous nalized minorities, many other researchers ack- rivers erode the rich basaltic foundation of the nowledge the similarities between Gamo cultural Rift Valley creating broad valleys for agriculture characteristics and caste systems described in

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) 71 Weedman Arthur K. J.

South Asia and other parts of Africa (Lewis 1962, and with mala . The implication is that any such 1974; Levine 1974: 39; Bureau 1975: 38; Abélès interaction would be barren and even dangerous 1981; Cartledge 1995; Arthur 2002, 2003, because wasting one’s own fertility upsets the 2006). ancestors. Hence, membership in mala , mana , The hideworkers as members of the tsoma degala and degala is ascribed by birth, there is no social strata do not participate in community assem- mobility, and they practice strict endogamy blies or hold local hereditary political-ritual posi- within each group. Craft specialists in Ethiopia tions (Halperin & Olmstead 1976; Abélès 1978; exist as at least one hereditary endogamous group Cartledge 1995: 81-98). The Gamo hierarchi- in virtually every Ethiopian Cushitic, Omotic, cally grade their societal strata of mala , tsoma and Semitic speaking society (Cerulli 1956: 128- mana (potters and smiths), and tsoma degala 130; Simoons 1960: 174-191; Lewis 1962, 1970; (hideworkers, groundstone makers and smiths). Shack 1966: 8-12, 131-135; Hallpike 1968, The mala are considered the highest strata follo- 1972: 139-147; Olmstead 1973; Cassiers 1975; wed by the mana and degala in terms of prestige, Gallagher 1977b: 272-275; Todd 1978; purity, and power. The tsoma mana and degala Haberland 1984; Cartledge 1995: 40-43). pay national taxes, yet in their own communities As a consequence of being considered impure, are not considered full members of Gamo society. the Gamo hideworkers perform rituals that Thus, the system as a whole appears to be focused mediate between people and illness, death and on the decisions and leadership of the mala, who infertility. They act as mediators between life, intertwine the decisions of monarchial hereditary death, and social disharmony in Gamo society by and democratically elected officials (Sperber serving as circumcisers, midwives, healers, morti- 1973). However, degala (hideworkers, smiths, cians, and messengers. Reinforcing their ritual groundstone makers) and mana (potters)have positions, tsoma have ritual languages or argots their own elected leaders, who serve to symboli- that serve to keep their craft and ritual secrets cally enhance the fertility of the tsoma , resolve from others, i.e., the mala . The Gamo hidewor- issues, and act as intermediaries between tsoma kers have their own language ( owdetso ) and the and mala . potters also have their own language ( manacalay) . The Gamo consider that the hideworkers and The tsoma utilize the same materials and skills other tsoma are polluted and segregate their com- derived from their economic roles to fulfil their munity into tsoma and mala sanctioned through ethnic and regional social roles as healers, mes- their ideological concepts of purity and impurity sengers, and circumcisers. For instance, the hide- and practices of restricting commensality bet- workers use or used in the past stone to perform ween mala and tsoma . Gamo beliefs govern that if guchay , a form of healing through incisions and the mala or tsoma break any of the cultural rules katsera , circumcision. Hideworkers also blow regarding the sharing of food, sexual relations, bovine horns to announces weddings, funerals, marriage, and space that they will upset the social and political meetings (usually held to ancestors who will disrupt the fertility of the land resolve local problems), and work parties (for and people. During rites of passage, degala (hide- creating new agricultural fields). The horns, workers, smiths, groundstone makers) and mana along with the head, tail, and entrails of the ani- (potters) initiates are not presented in a sofie cere- mal that is slaughtered for its meat and hide, is mony to the community after circumcision, given to the hideworker as a partial payment for which denies them their fertile citizen status his labor. within Gamo society. This reinforces tsoma limi- Among the Gamo, artisans such as hideworkers ted access to ritual-political positions and societal are ascribed, endogamous, and hold low political taboos restricting sexual intercourse and marriage and economic status in society. However, the between degala (hideworkers, smiths, ground- presence of tsoma leadership and their ability to stone makers) and mana (potter) with each other control and maintain secret languages, craft

72 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) The Gamo hideworkers of southwestern Ethiopia and Cross-Cultural Comparisons

production knowledge, and ritual knowledge The upper edges of the frame’s two poles either associated with healing and rites of passage attest rest on the household wall if located inside the to their power and the concept that power is household or on a mud bank wall or against large determined by context. enset plants. The hideworker secures the hide on the frame by winding enset twine through the holes along the edge of the hide and around the HIDE PRODUCTION framing poles. The twine is tied at the top and the bottom to achieve an appropriate tension in Gamo hideworkers produce items used in almost the hide. The hideworker taps on the hide to every household including, bedding, chairs, determine the appropriate tension of the hide for saddles, drums and bridles (the last four do not scraping. The frame consists of three bamboo require scraping, Weedman 2000, 2006). poles, two of which are planted in the ground at Hideworkers predominately process cattle hides an angle of 65to 85 degrees (relative to the when a Gamo person (usually someone from ground). After the hide is scraped, the hidewor- their village or a neighboring village) requests ker applies butter or etema (liquid from an indi- their services. The hideworkers receive a small genous plant) that he works into the hide using sum of 1 to 3 ETB (US $ 0.15 to 0.46) or grain his hands and feet until the hide is supple. If and the skull, horns, feet, tail, and entrails of the there are any holes in the hide, the hideworker animal. Hideworkers do not own cattle, as they will sew it together before returning the hide to are very expensive far exceeding the annual the client. income of the hideworker. Furthermore, the To process a single hide requires approximately hideworker is not allowed to slaughter the animal 4hours and 3 minutes, during which time the because of his association with pollution and hideworker uses approximately 4 1/2 scrapers, infertility. Instead a sanctioned elder mala which are resharpened after a mean of slaughters the animal, and then the hideworker 281 scrapes or 473 chops (Weedman 2000, butchers the animal and removes its hide. After 2002a, 2006). The Gamo unused and used- removing the hide from the carcass, the hidewor- up/discarded scraper morphologies are signifi- ker takes the hide to his home. While the hide is cantly different in t-tests in terms of maximum still moist, the hideworker uses the flat side of a length, distal thickness, breadth/length ratio, metal knife in a rolling motion to remove the thickness/length ratio, and edge angle (Weedman upper layer of fat and tissue on the inside of the 2002b). In general Gamo scrapers indicate that hide. The hideworker cuts seven to twelve holes there is a reduction in length and increased distal along the edge of the hide. He stretches the hide thickness as a result of resharpening associated out a few centimetres above the ground and woo- with the use of the scraper (Shott & Weedman den stakes are set through the cut holes to keep it 2006). In addition, the Gamo scraper edge angles in place. The hide dries in this manner for one to ranged from 50 to 67 degrees (Weedman 2000). two days depending on the weather. The hide- The morphology of Gamo scrapers reflect the worker rolls up the dried hide and stores it in the hideworkers membership in an ascribed caste rafters of the house or in the branches of nearby group, and as such the craft is passed down trees. They usually scrape hides during the rainy through particular patrilineal lines. Hideworkers seasons (March to May and July to early learn how to produce their stone-tools from their September), when the raw materials for scraper fathers and since post-marital residence patterns production are available. Before scraping a dried are virilocal a discrete lineage, village, and ritual- hide, the hideworker soaks it in a shallow river political district scraper style is discernable and edge for several hours. He then straps the hide statistically viable (Weedman 2000, 2002b, onto a frame and methodologically removes the 2005). Furthermore, the increased presence of inner fat from the hide using a hafted scraper. spurs (previously thought to have a secondary

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) 73 Weedman Arthur K. J.

F IG. 3. — Illustration of Gamo handle types. Designer: Melanie Brandt. function) and increased breakage rates of Gamo on either side. Acacia tree resin holds the scraper stone scrapers were found to be associated with in the closed-socket. individuals who were either just learning how to The zucano-users walk from two to four hours to produce tools or elderly hideworkers who were acquire their chert sources. To acquire chert, loosing their strength (Weedman 2002a). hideworkers go to the quarry after it rains and The Gamo hideworkers are unique in southern search the riverbanks for a suitable piece of mate- Ethiopia for their use of two handle types ( zucano rial by simply walking along the streambed and and tutuma types, Fig. 3) to process cattle hides up the sides of the riverbank. The zucano-users for bedding using predominately chert scrapers. shape the parent chert material into a scraper The presence of these two types of handles results blank before carrying the materials to their home in two different life-cycles for the procurement, (Fig. 5). Zucano-users are particular about the production, use, and discard of stone-tools in size of the flake they can use because their handle Gamo communities (Weedman 2000, 2006). has a closed socket. Rather than bringing back a large chunk of raw material, the zucano-users opt to bring back scraper blanks. At the quarry, the THE ZUCANO-USERS zucano-users work within a river valley in an approximately 2-meter diameter work area. It Today the hideworkers living in Ochollo and usually has some trees for shading and a store of Borada-Abaya districts use a zucano handle to iron billets and large pieces of raw material for haft their hideworking stone scrapers (Fig. 4). future reduction. The ground in these areas is Until approximately 30 years ago, zucano handles covered with debitage. They use a small cloth also were used in the districts of Dita, Doko, sack or pockets to carry ten to twenty scraper Dorze, Kogo, and Zada (Fig. 4). The zucano blanks back to the village. The number depends handle has a carved central opening in a thick on the season and amount of hide scraping the piece of wood forming an open oval shaped hideworker has for the next week or so. The ave- handle. The handle accommodates one scraper rage household cache contains four blanks with a

74 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) The Gamo hideworkers of southwestern Ethiopia and Cross-Cultural Comparisons

F IG. 4. — Map locating past and present uses of Gamo handle types. Designer: Melanie Brandt.

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) 75 Weedman Arthur K. J.

have a frame located inside their household that is near the hearth, which is needed to make the mastic malleable to remove and replace zucano scrapers. The scrapers are shaped and resharpe- ned within the household. The average used-up scraper measures 3.84 × 2.44 × 1.31 × 1.01 cm (length × breadth × thickness × retouch depth, n=489; Weedman 2006). I observed 13 zucano scraping events and the average time to scrape a hide was 4 hours and 47 minutes using an ave- rage of 3.611 scrapers with 681.4 scrapes and 213.3 chops. The zucano handles and stone caches are kept in cloth sacks or in wooden bowls inside the house- hold. While the hideworkers may on occasion pick up exhausted scrapers removed near the hearth and select larger waste pieces for removal, more often than not they leave them where they fall and make little effort to remove any lithic materials from the household. Their wives and daughters, however, often sweep the household floors collecting the lithic waste. Both men and women place the lithics in lithic specific waste heaps located outside the household compound near footpaths in thorny bushes to deter children from playing with the material and so they will

F IG. 5. — Photograph of Gamo man producing scraper blanks not cut themselves. Members of an extended for hideworking. Photographer: K.J.W. Arthur. family (father-son) share lithic waste piles. Although the floors of the household are swept, zucano scrapers and lithic waste can often be range from one to eight. The final shaping takes found in the household near the hearth, at the place in the household next to the hearth. The edges of the household, near the threshold, or average unused scraper measures 3.9 × 2.5 × 1.2 near the inside-scraping frame. × 0.31 cm (length × breadth × thickness × retouch depth, n = 448; Weedman 2006). The hideworkers collect tree resin and mix it with ash THE TUTUMA-USERS heating it on an outside hearth on a broken cera- mic piece. The resin is stored in the house on the Today the hideworkers living in the districts of broken sherd until the hideworker needs new Bonke, Dita, Dorze, Doko, Ganta, Kamba, mastic in his handle. The hideworkers rest the Kogo, and Zada use only a tutuma handle for handle socket next to the hearth to make the hafting their hideworking stone scrapers (Fig. 4). mastic malleable, adding new mastic when requi- A tutuma handle consists of a tubular-shaped red. When the mastic softens in the haft a new piece of wood which is split open in one end to scraper is placed within and then left to cool. accommodate a single scraper. The end of the The zucano- using hideworkers scrape inside their scraper is wrapped in a piece of cloth or hide sha- houses because the sun dries the hides out too ving or wedged with a piece of wood and inserted quickly if they work outside. Consequently, they into the split end of the wooden handle. Rope

76 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) The Gamo hideworkers of southwestern Ethiopia and Cross-Cultural Comparisons

rather than mastic is used to secure the scraper into the open-socket. The hideworkers living in Kamba, Bonke, and Ganta districts use tutuma handles that are considerably longer than the Dita, Doko, Dorze, Kogo, and Zada district tutuma or the rare Borada district tutuma handles (Weedman 2006). The tutuma -using hideworkers walk two to four hours to their chert sources. The tutuma -users will use most flakes that they can get an appro- priate edge on for scraping a hide. Shaping of the laterals is not necessary because the haft is open. F IG. 6. — Photograph of Gamo man resharpening his stone The tutuma hideworker will inspect a piece for its scraper hafted in a tutuma type handle. Photographer: K.J. quality at the quarry and may reduce it to a W.Arthur. manageable size no larger than 30 by 30 cm to bring back to the household. Reduction of large pieces is conducted at the location it was found and not taken to a specific reduction area. The reduced nodule or primary-core (a piece of raw material that has been reduced to carrying size and will be subsequently broken to produce for- mal cores) is placed in a bag or pocket to be brought back to the village. The hideworker will use almost any flake that has a good edge. When a new scraper is needed in the haft, the hidewor- ker may select a flake already made. However, the hideworker also may reduce a primary core into 2or 3 smaller cores, select one core to produce eight to ten new flakes and set the other cores aside for future use. There is no shaping of the flake to fit it into the haft since the haft is an open one. The hideworker may sharpen the wor- king edge either before or after it is hafted. The average unused scraper measures 2.8 × 2.3 × 0.9 × 0.16 cm (length × breadth × thickness × retouch depth, n = 363; Weedman 2006). In the tutuma- using households, hideworkers state that when scraping, the scraping frame would press against and shake the house causing the house to lose its thatching and become uns- table, so they tend to scrape outside the house on a frame located within their enset garden (Fig. 6). F IG. 7. — Photograph of Gamo man scraping a cow hide with a The tutuma hideworkers store their primary- tutuma handle. Photographer: K.J. W.Arthur. cores, cores, unused scrapers and debitage in a broken ceramic bowl left outside near their scra- scraping frame (Fig. 7). The average used-up ping frame within their enset gardens. Scraper scraper measures 2.67 × 2.35 × 1.06 × 0.844 cm production and resharpening occurs near the (length × breadth × thickness × retouch depth,

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) 77 Weedman Arthur K. J.

n=379; Weedman 2006). I observed 15 tutuma shaping, undercutting (extensive step fracturing) scraping events and the average time to scrape a or dorsal ridge reduction. If there are flake scars hide was 4 hours and 33 minutes using an ave- on the proximal or lateral edges of tutuma scra- rage of 4.785 scrapers with 413.76 scrapes and pers, they tend to be deep and are the result of 54.82 chops. using a second or third edge of the tool for scra- The tutuma handles and lithic materials are sto- ping rather than shaping the tools to fit in the red outside near the scraping frame. While some haft. hideworkers perform these activities over a dried The explanations for handle and stone-tool varia- hide and then fan the hide out over the garden, bility among the Gamo lies in technological prac- there is little effort by either the hideworker or tice and how technology is learned and enacted any other household member to sweep or clean in a social context reflecting the mediation of an the ground of lithic materials that fall in the area. individual’s social positions, actions, and expe- When the storage bowl becomes full of lithic riences (Weedman 2006). Function, efficiency, waste and used-up scrapers, the hideworker emp- and direct access to resources alone do not ade- ties the bowl into his enset garden. quately explain the presence or origin of the two Gamo handle ( zucano and tutuma ) and scraper types (formal and informal). Today, the Gamo EXPLAINING GAMO HAFT hideworkers use both handle types to scrape AND SCRAPER VARIABILITY cattle hides to make bedding. Although tutuma - users tend to live in highland areas away from The presence of the two hafting types among the chert resources, a comparison of scraping lowland Gamo is reflected in their use of space and ulti- and highland cattle hides in terms of time spent mately site formation processes (location of scra- scraping the hide, the size of the hide, and the per production, scraping location and provisional thickness of the hide suggests that there is no dif- and final discard location) and scraper morpho- ference in the efficiency of these two handle types logy (Weedman 2000, 2006). The scrapers haf- (Weedman 2006). Access to wood for handles, ted in the zucano (a double-socketed mastic mastic, and cherts were also not determining fac- handle) and the tutuma (a single-socketed non- tors in handle and scraper production as social mastic handle) in their unused and discardable relationships were instigated to facilitate access to forms are morphologically and statistically dis- these resources (Weedman 2006). Explanation tinct from one another. The zucano scrapers are for the two handle types among the Gamo can produced at the quarry, stored inside houses, only be found when examining their technologi- used on scraping frames inside houses, removed cal practices in their historical and present day and inserted near hearths, and discarded in speci- social contexts. fic lithic discard piles near household paths. They The Gamo hideworkers are enmeshed in a caste produce formally shaped stone scrapers, which system, which is known to exist in almost all tend to exhibit more lateral and proximal sha- Ethiopian Omotic, Semitic, and Cushitic spea- ping, more frequent undercutting (extensive step king cultures. While statistically, the Gamo hide- fracturing) and dorsal ridge reduction, and a workers produce unique stone scraper forms that higher breakage rate. In contrast, tutuma -users differ from those in neighboring ethnic groups bring raw materials (not scrapers) from the (Gallagher 1974, 1977a, 1977b; Brandt et al. quarry and store the raw materials and scrapers 1996; Brandt & Weedman 1997; Clark & outside, they scrape on frames located outside Kurashina 1981; Haaland 1987); their handle their houses in their gardens, and discard scrapers types are not unique (see Fig. 2). The Gamo and debitage in their gardens. The tutuma -users tutuma type handle is currently known among produce informal or expedient stone scrapers, the Oyda people (Feyissa 1997). The Gamo which tend to exhibit no lateral and proximal zucano type handle has been recorded as early as

78 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) The Gamo hideworkers of southwestern Ethiopia and Cross-Cultural Comparisons

the late nineteenth century among the Shoa hide- resources, and ideologies surrounding their occu- workers in central Ethiopia (Giglioli 1889) and pations and their material technologies. The fol- currently among the Gurage, Hadiya, Oromo, lowing is a comparison of Gamo hideworking Sidama, Gugi, and the Omotic-speaking Wolayta with hideworking known in other parts of peoples of central and southern Ethiopia (Straube Ethiopia, in North America, and in Asia to assess 1963: 22; Gallagher 1974, 1977a, 1977b; Clark cross-cultural variation. & Kurashina 1981; Haberland 1981, 1993: 94; Haaland 1987; Brandt et al. 1996). An intereth- nic study of hideworking practices suggests that CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISONS AND interethnic interaction, influences and entangle- DISCUSSION: GENDER AND STATUS ment may be partially responsible for the pre- sence of two handle types (Wolayta zucano The Gamo hideworkers should be craft specialists handles and Oyda tutuma handles) among the and male, like most of the other stone-tool using Gamo people (Weedman 2006). Furthermore, a hideworkers in Ethiopian societies such as the review of Gamo hideworker integration into Amarro, Dizi, Gugi, Gurage, Hadiya, Oromo, national and regional networks serves to illustrate Oyda, Sidama, and Wolayta (Gallagher 1977a; how their lives and technologies were changed by Clark & Kurashina 1981; Haaland 1987; Brandt their social context. Forty years ago, the hidewor- & Weedman 2002). Among Native Americans, kers of the southern Gamo used a tutuma handle, the Yuman-Piman (Druker 1941: 113-114), the central Gamo used tutuma and zucano Achumawi/Pitt-River, Maklaks/Modoc, and handles, and the northern Gamo used a zucano Dine/Navajo (Mason 1889) men scraped hides handle. Gamo integration into national political with stone but not as craft specialists. Among the and economic systems led to the discontinued Namaqua Khoikhoen (Webley 2005) and the use of the zucano handle in the central Gamo ter- Waganda (Mason 1889: 581) of South Africa, ritories. The Marxist-Leninist military regime and the Inuit (Nelson 1899: 116), Nde/Apache, beginning in 1974 allocated the Gamo hidewor- Chaticks-si-Chatick/Pawnee, and Caddoan kers land for farming and at the same time outla- (Gilmore 2005) of North America it is customary wed indigenous ritual and everyday leather for men and women to dress hides. Worldwide, clothing, which served to decrease the amount of however generally hideworking is not a craft spe- time they spent scraping hides. Furthermore, the cialization and women are more commonly increasing export of goat/sheep hides and the renowned as hideworkers, such as in Ethiopia import of industrially made clothing and bags (among the Konso; Brandt & Weedman 2002; contributed to the demise of scraping goat/sheep Weedman 2005), in the Americas (Apsáalooke/ hides among the Gamo. Lastly, there was a natio- Crow, Siksika/Blackfeet, Lakota/Sioux, Inuit, nal administrative change that moved the regio- Arikara, Chipewyan; and Yu’pik; Mason 1889; nal capitol from the central Gamo town of Turner 1894; Ewers 1930: 10-13; Lowie 1935: Chencha to the southern Gamo town of Arba 75-79; Hiller 1948; Jarvenpa & Brumbach 1995; Minch, which shifted commercial and political Holliman 2005; Chapters in Frink & Weedman focus to the southern region. The continued use 2005), and Asia (Even and Koriak/Koryak; Tiet of the tutuma handle among the central Gamo in 1900: plate XIV, fig. 1; Beyries et al. 2001; lieu of the zucano handle signalled this change in D’iatchenko & David 2002; Takase 2004). political and economic affiliation. Only a few Except in Ethiopia where women hideworkers hideworkers who had extremely strong ties with are specialist, in the latter accounts hideworking the north continued to use the zucano handle is a more widely learned craft practiced by most type. Thus, Gamo interaction in national and women. Hideworking is a craft which is handed regional politics and economies affected the down from parent to child and training begins demand for hideworker products, their access to early among the Gamo. Young men begin to

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) 79 Weedman Arthur K. J.

accompany their fathers and uncles to quarries Gamo tsoma , of whom the hideworkers are mem- and help them prepare, scrape and soften the bers, have their own leadership and control and hide by age ten, but do not produce their own maintain secret languages, craft production scrapers until they are married. I witnessed the knowledge, and ritual knowledge associated with same age sequence among the Konso female healing and rites of passage all of which attest to hideworkers. Albright (1984: 52) also wrote that their power. Ellison’s (2006) historical study of Tahltan Athapascan girls begin to learn the pro- the Konso hideworkers demonstrates how status cess at about the age of 10-12. Ewers (1930: 10) and economic power and prestige also have been comments that hideworking is very hard work renegotiated in the 20th century. In North and requires an industrious woman, thus male America, Gilmore (2005) indicates that women hunters usually took several wives. Gifford- could gain high status through their hideworking Gonzalez (1993: 34) laments that present day skills among historic Plains Native Americans. culture tends to depict and associate women with Hayden (1990, 1993) has suggested that during the most dull and labor intensive tasks such as the historic and prehistoric times in temperate and “Drudge-on-a-Hide”. Cross-culturally hidewor- tropical environments (Europe, Australia, North king is not the sole provenance of either males or America) that most hide processing focused on females, hence it is not biologically determined production of luxury items as a prerogative of the but is ascribed based on differential culturally wealthy. The invested time in softening a hide to determined gendered rules. Hide production is its full extent (labelled as stage 3, which includes labor intensive, but it is a sophisticated craft, fleshing, tanning and softening the hides as dis- which requires many years of training and a wide cussed in this article) would have meant that variety of knowledge regarding not only material hides were expensive and a luxury item. Hayden culture production and use, but also botanical mentions that hides were in the control of men knowledge and the order and sequence of the who were the hunters and that clothing was a process depending on the type and size of the luxury for elite males in ethnographic accounts, hide, and the final use of the hide. however it is not made clear how the status of The status of hideworkers is highly variable and women who processed the hides was entwined not necessarily connected to the gender of the with that of male elites. Most ethnohistoric hideworker. Among the Gamo and other accounts indicate as stated above that it was Ethiopian cultures, hideworking is a low status female kin who were hideworkers, but status and but specialized occupation whether the craft is power of women varied widely in North performed by males or females (Cerulli 1956: American societies. In the recent past (circa 107-108; Jensen 1959: 422-425; Simoons 1960: 1960s), among the Gamo, elite males, mala , were 174-191; Straube 1963: 376, 384; Lewis 1964, responsible for organizing the hunting of wild 1970; Shack 1966: 8-12, 131-135; Hallpike animals in the lowlands. The elite Gamo had sole 1968; Cassiers 1975; Gallagher 1977: 272-275; access to especially feared wild animals such as Todd 1978; Lange 1982: 75-77; Donham 1985: lion, hyena, and leopards. Those elite males who 107-113; Yintso 1995: 104-109; Feyissa 1997). killed these animals had the privilege of wearing Generally, Ethiopian hideworkers do not own their hides in ritual contexts. In all cases, these the hides that they scrape and are given little (a hides were prepared by the, non-elite caste group, small amount of grain or food, or a bit of money) degala . Furthermore, studies of the effects of as compensation for their labor intensive efforts. colonialism on the status of indigenous women Ethiopian hideworkers generally do not own land hideworkers of North America indicate even or participate in political and judicial life. This is though women predominated in hideworking not to say that Gamo hideworkers are without practises, it was often men who controlled the power, as boundaries of power, practice, and sale/exchange of hides especially in colonial and identity are situational (Weedman 2006). The post-colonial periods (Frink 2005; Habicht-

80 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) The Gamo hideworkers of southwestern Ethiopia and Cross-Cultural Comparisons

Mauche 2005). The presence of prepared hides as are viewed as mediators between life and death. signatures of power and status do not necessarily They act as ritual healers, circumcisors (death as dictate that the individuals who processed the child to life as an adult), and as announcers and hides have access to that power. Hayden (1990: musicians at weddings and funerals. They trans- 95) suggests that in conditions where hides are form the hides of primarily domesticate animals, processed in large numbers as prestige items the which are considered semi-polluted because they associated stone-tools will be “specialized, cura- are cared for and fed by humans. Domesticated ted, hafted, and resharpened tools”. Ethiopian animals are ritually killed by mala elite to purify societies, Plains Native Americans, and Inuit use them so that the elite can consume the meat. specialized hafted stone scrapers to produce pres- However, the hides are an enduring symbol of tige items (capes and skirts and musical instru- the death and must be transformed by a media- ments) but also items used in every household, in ting degala hideworker before they are consumed particular shelters, bedding/blankets, carrying as products used as everyday items in the house- bags/storage containers and straps (Ewers 1930: hold, which in themselves are linked to fertility 10-13; Lowie 1935: 75-79; Gallagher 1974, such as adult bedding/blankets and agricultural 1977; Albright 1984: 51; Brandt & Weedman grain sacks. Sterner and David (1991) suggest 1997; Weedman 2006). that craft specialists are endogamous and caste- In Ethiopia societies with stone-tool using hide- like because male artisans are likened to women. workers, including the Gamo, the hideworkers Neither farm or receive grain in return for their are members of a specific endogamous social-eco- services; nor do they participate in warfare, and nomic strata, who are considered ritually polluted like women male artisans create and transform, and as such serve as important ritual mediators. i.e., mediate nature and transform it into culture Studies of the other Ethiopian peoples indicate (tools). Although the Gamo do not explicitly that artisans, such as hideworkers, perform associate male hideworkers with female gender, important mediating roles as healers, messengers, the Gamo mala do consider tsoma artisans both and circumcisers (Cerulli 1956: 107-108; Jensen male and female to be a source of infertility. 1959: 422-425; Straube 1963: 376-384; Orent 1969: 284-286; Todd 1978; Lange 1982: 75-77, 158-162, 261-267; Donham 1985: 107-113; HIDEWORKING PROCESS Yintso 1995: 104-109; Feyissa 1997). Among the Khoisan of southern Africa, Webley (2005) notes The Gamo and other Ethiopian stone-tool using that hides are used in many rituals that mark per- hideworkers are craft specialists who are members iods of transition or danger and mediation such of subsistence agricultural societies (Gallagher as birth, puberty, marriage and death. Baillargeon 1974, 1977a; Clark & Kurashina 1981; Brandt et (2005) and Bodenhorn (1990) add significantly al. 1996; Brandt & Weedman 1997; Weedman to our understanding of the cross-cultural symbo- 2006). They scrape domesticated animal hides, lic meaning of hideworking in North America. predominately cattle, sheep, and goat to produce They illustrate that tanning is viewed as a spiri- bedding, musical instruments, and on rare occa- tual and ritual art in which the hideworker is a sion capes, and clothing for ritual. In most other mediator between life and death. The animal is known ethnographic studies, hideworking is infused with power and energy and brought back conducted among pastoral and forager groups, to life in respect for the fact that it gave its life for for example in southern Africa (Webley 2005), humans. This process is gendered on the physical Siberia (Beyries et al. 2001; D’iatchenko & and spiritual planes, since women work the hides David 2002; Takase 2004), and North America and concomitantly channel the soul of the animal (Turner 1894: 292-296; Teit 1900: 184; Ewers back into the hide, thus restoring order. 1930: 10-13; Lowie 1935: 75-79; Hiller 1948; Although the Gamo hideworkers are males they Albright 1984; Beyries et al. 2001) who processed

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) 81 Weedman Arthur K. J.

buffalo, reindeer, moose, red deer, bear, seal, fox, 563, 569-570; Wissler 1920: 55; Ewers 1930: walrus, and wolverine hides for clothing, shelter, 10-13; Beyries 2002; D’iatchenko & David bags, ritual capes and clothing. 2005; Schrieber 2005; Webley 2005). The hide is The Gamo and other hideworkers described in left for several days to bleach and dry in the sun. this section practice fleshing, tanning and softe- The Gamo and Australian Aborigines ning hides delineated by Hayden as Stage 3 (Kamminga 1982) did not remove the hair from (1990). However, it should be noted that there is their hides, however among most cultures the great variation in the sequence and steps in the hide was dehaired before drying the hide. In sou- process. For instance, the Siberian Evens process thern Africa, the hide was buried with succulent reindeer/caribou hides in the following sequence: plant leaves that softened the hair, which was deflesh, dry, spell scrap, dry, scrape, smoke, color, removed by hand (Webley 2005). Among many smoke, and scrape (Takase 2004). In contrast, Native American cultures the hide was immersed the Tahltans process moose and caribou in lye and water and then the hair was removed (Albright 1984) hides by defleshing, dehairing, by hand (Mason 1889: 586-587; Lowie 1935: scraping, soaking/tanning, wringing, drying, 75-79; Druker 1941: 113-114). More rarely a dressing or dry scraping, and smoking. The bone or a metal knife (Albright 1984: 53) or a Siksika Algonquian process buffalo hides (Ewers stone scraper were used to remove hair (Mason 1930: 10-13) by defleshing, dehairing, scraping, 1889: 567; Turner 1894: 293; Ewers 1930: tanning, rubbing it with a stone, and sawing over 10-13; Grinnell 1962: 213; Beyries et al. 2001). a rope; and the Inuit (Neneunot) (Turner 1894: In some cultures the hide is prepared entirely wet 293-298) process deer hides by dehairing, defle- (Lowie 1935: 75-79; Kamminga 1982) or frozen shing, drying, scraping, and tanning with an (Albright 1984: 53) instead of dried. Hayden emollient by hand rubbing. In addition to this (1990) notes that scraping dry hides produces the variation, there is great variation in the material most scraper attrition. culture associated with each stage of the process and in the following portion of this paper, I have D RY H IDE S CRAPING WITH S TONE S CRAPERS- tried to emphasize descriptions associated with P ROCUREMENT stone-tool users. The Gamo use chert/chalcedony and obsidian to scrape dried cattle hides. The Gamo collect their F LESHING, D EHAIRING AND D RYING raw material from quarries located 2-5 km away After the skin is separated from the animal, the from their households, they also traded for obsi- hideworker removes the tissue and fat from the dian a long distance resource. The Gamo chert typically wet hide using a defleshing tool such as: quarries are owned by specific village lineages of a metal knife as used among the Gamo and other hideworkers. The zucano-users brought back scra- Ethiopian cultures; the long bones from moose, per blanks and the tutuma -users raw-material. caribou or bear as used among Native Americans Unfortunately, we are given little information (Turner 1894: 293; Ewers 1930: 10-13; Albright other than the use of stone or chipped stone for 1984), Siberians (Beyries et al. 2001; Takase many North American sources (Turner 1894: 2004), and Australians (Kamminga 1982); shell 205; Ewers 1930: 10-13; Druker 1941: 113-114; as used among Australian (Kamminga 1982) and Hiller 1948). Siberian hideworkers are recorded as Native Americans (Laurant 1946: 85; Swanton using chert, obsidian and iron (Takase 2004) and 1946: 442-448); and an application of salt as Inuit and Yu’ pik hideworkers used green schis- used in southern Africa (Webley 2005). Some tose, slate, jasper and chert (Mason 1889: 585; hideworkers, like the Gamo, cut along the edges Nelson 1899: 113), however no procurement of the hide holes in which wooden or horn pegs orproduction information was provided. The are placed to secure the hide to the ground near Wolayta, Oromo, Hadiya, Gurage, and Sidama their households or camps (Mason 1889: 561- hideworkers use obsidian collected from local

82 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) The Gamo hideworkers of southwestern Ethiopia and Cross-Cultural Comparisons

quarries or through market trade bringing home metal billet and direct percussion to form the tools raw material or recycled archaeological flakes or (Clark & Kurashina 1981; Haaland 1987; Brandt scraper blanks. The flakes are made into a single et al. 1996; Brandt & Weedman 1997). Mason tool type: unifacial convex end scrapers (Gallagher (1889: 586) reports that a bone “chipper” was 1974, 1977; Clark & Kurashina 1981; Haaland used to resharpen and produce stone scrapers. 1987; Brandt et al. 1996; Brandt & Weedman However, among the Konso hideworkers, women 1997). The Wolayta hideworkers travel up to used a combination of direct percussion and the 10km to acquire their obsidian from quarries, bipolar technique with an iron billet. Albright which are not owned or controlled by anyone. (1984: 57) reports that the Tahlatan women also The Konso collect quartz, quartz crystal, chert, used the bipolar technique. Unfortunately, the and chalcedony from local and long distance quar- written accounts of scraper production by other ries (5-25 km in distance) and bring home the raw hideworkers do not exist. material (Weedman 2005). They acquire their Formal unifacial scrapers, as used by the Gamo, long distance resources through visitation to their are produced by most hideworkers (Nelson 1899: natal or ancestral villages and acquiring stone 116-117; Clark & Kurashina 1981; Albright through kin or through journeying to quarries on 1984: 59; Haaland 1987; Brandt et al. 1996; the way to long distant markets. When the Konso Brandt & Weedman 1997; Beyries et al. 2001; quarry local stone they share the quarry resources Takase 2004). However, among Native with local unrelated women. The Konso heat treat American groups a tang on the end of the end- the raw materials in their hearths for 1 day to scraper may have been produced to help secure 3months. Similarly among the Tahltan, women the scraper in the haft and dissipate stress on the in the process of other procurement activities col- working edge (Kehoe 2005). In addition, while lect course grained basalt pieces for hideworking some groups produce formal flaked scrapers, (Albright 1984: 57). Webley (2005) also reports others sometimes produce more informal scrapers that women travelled 5-10 km to acquire their (in particular households among the Konso sandstone pebble for hideworking. In my ethno- and Gamo: Brandt and et al. 1996; Brandt & graphic observations among the Konso and the Weedman 2002). Among some groups, inclu- Gamo the decision to use local resources or long ding the Khoisan (Dunn 1931: 68; Webley distance resources depends on need for other 2005) and Inuit (Boas 1888: 53) a rough but nearby resources, kinship and other social rela- unflaked stone was used. Archaeologists have tra- tionships, age and stage of life, as well as raw mate- ditionally contrasted the direct access of resources rial preference, which varies widely even in one by mobile people resulting in the curation of culture such as the Konso (Weedman 2000, stone-tools and the production of more formal 2005). Most often archaeologists stress that dis- tools, with indirect procurement by sedentary tance between stone resources and household af- peoples resulting in informal tools (Parry & fect tool morphology (Parry & Kelley 1987; Kelley 1987; Henry 1989). Thus, in contrast to Henry 1989; Andresky 1994). the idea that sedentary people will more likely produce informal tools, studies of hideworking S CRAPER P RODUCTION AND S TYLE suggest that mobility is not a good predictor for The reduction of raw material to the finished tool the formal or informal nature of stone-tools. form requires not only several stages of manufac- It is only among the Ethiopian hidescrapers that ture which may include direct percussion, indirect the meaning behind the variation witnessed in percussion, bipolar, and pressure flaking, but also stone scraper style has been studied ethnographi- correspondingly several different kinds of fabrica- cally. The Gamo hideworkers are members of an tors that must be of material different from the ascribed hereditary group, and as such the craft is stone being worked (Crabtree 1982). The Gamo past down through particular patrilineal lines. and most other male Ethiopian hideworkers use a Hideworkers learn how to produce their stone-

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) 83 Weedman Arthur K. J.

tools from their fathers and since post-marital 7. Parallel shaped handles with a single socket residence patterns are virilocal a discrete lineage, used with mastic (Ethiopia). village, and ritual-political district scraper style is The Gamo hideworkers are unique in southern discernable and statistically viable (Weedman Ethiopia for their use of two wooden handle 2000, 2002b, 2005). Since the Gamo have two types for the same function to process cattle forms of handles, each handle has a different scra- hides. They haft their scrapers in either an oval per style. The closed haft zucano handle is hafted shaped closed double hafted ( zucano) handle with formal unifacial convex scrapers and the securing the stone with acacia tree resin or paral- open haft tutuma handle with unshaped flake lel shaped open single hafted ( tutuma ) handles scrapers. Earlier studies of Ethiopian hideworkers securing the scraper using enset twine. The pre- also reported the presence of a single formal scra- sence of the handle types is not due to access to per type used in mastic closed-hafted handles resources or function, but rather historical entan- (Gallagher 1974, 1977a, 1977b; Clark & glements (Weedman 2006). In only one other Kurashina 1981; Haaland 1987). The Sidama known account of hideworking are two different and Hadiya, however, produce short and long handle types used in the same culture to execute obsidian scrapers used for scraping the center and the same function (same hide, same end product, chopping the edge of the hide respectively etc.) among the Siberian hideworkers (Takase (Brandt & Weedman 1997). Although within a 2004). Takase believes that there is a historical household, differences in scraper size and mor- order to the two handle types (perpendicular and phology may reflect functional differences. A parallel handles). morphological comparison of the Ethiopian North American and Siberian single hafted per- stone scrapers between ethnic groups suggests pendicular or beam handles do not use mastic that there is a statistically significant difference but simply the pressure of the work and shape between the scrapers produced by each ethnic of the scraper and opening to hold it in place group (Brandt et al. 1996; Brandt & Weedman (Beyries et al. 2001; D’iatchenko & David 2002; 1997), which suggests that form is not solely Takase 2004). Triangular shaped and crescent dependent on function of the tool. shaped handles made of wood and ivory are known among the Inuit (Mason 1889: Plate S CRAPER H AFTING LXXI-LXXIX; Nelson 1899: 113-114). Sinew or Hafting may have increased tool efficiency or hel- plant materials also are used to hold the scraper ped to economize resources (Oswalt 1976; Odell in the haft for parallel and adze-shaped handles. 1994; Shott 1997). There are basically 7 types of The use of parallel and adze-shaped handles scraper handles reported ethnographically: made of wood and ivory tied with sinew is 1. Oval shaped handles with two sockets and known among the Inuit (Mason 1889: Plate used with mastic (Ethiopia). LXX, LXXIX, LXXXII, LXXXV; Turner 1894: 2. Parallel shaped handles with single open haft 294; Nelson 1899: 113-114), as well as the used with lashing (Ethiopia, Siberia, North Siksika Algonquian (Ewers 1930: 10-13), America). Apsáalooke (Crow) (Lowie 1935: 75-79; Mason 3. Perpendicular or beam shaped handles with 1889: Plate XCI), Tahltans Athapascans single socketed hafts used without mastic or (Albright 1984), Lakota (Sioux) (Hiller 1948), lashing (North America and Siberia). Koriak/Koryak (Takase 2004), Ininiwok (Cree) 4. Triangular or saddle shaped handles with Algonquian (Kehoe 2005), and the Oyda of single socketed hafts (North America). Ethiopia (Teshome 1984). Mason (1899: Plate 5. Crescent shaped handles with single open haft LXXIX) commented that a Chaticks-si- (North America). Cahtick/Pawnee hideworker stated that a scraper 6. Adze-shaped handles with single open haft is lashed in rather than using mastic because the used with lashing (North America). blade is continually taken out to be resharpened.

84 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) The Gamo hideworkers of southwestern Ethiopia and Cross-Cultural Comparisons

The Gamo zucano-users place acacia tree resin in 50; McDevitt 1987; Hayden 1993; Kimball the haft to secure the scraper. The closed double- 1995). Although I noted the presence of ventral socket mastic handles are known in other parts of thinning, purposeful dorsal ridge reduction, and Ethiopia including the Gurage, Hadiya, Oromo, notching on Gamo scrapers, the occurrence of Sidama, Gugi cultural groups who use Euphorbia these features was low, indicating that tools may tree mastic, cactus milk, sheep hair, butter, and be hafted without these characteristics even melted plastic trash bags to secure the scra- (Weedman 2000). Furthermore, I was not wor- per in the haft (Giglioli 1889: 213; Straube 1963: king with polarized light and a microscope, so I 22; Brandt et al. 1996; Brandt & Weedman did not note the presence of polishing or non- 1997; Clark & Kurashina 1981; Gallagher 1974, mastic striations. Hardy (1996) though observed 1977; Haberland 1981, 1993: 94; Haaland the presence of striations (not embedded in mas- 1987). Single hafted parallel or vertical wooden tic) on the ventral and dorsal sides of tutuma -haf- handles are used among the Dizi and Konso of ted scrapers. Experimental and ethnographic Ethiopia and the scrapers are secured with bees- studies warn that polishing and striations can wax or tree resin from Balanites aegiptica occur as the result of environment, such as with (Haberland 1981, 1993; Brandt & Weedman the presence of rough soils, grit, and alkaline soils 1997; Weedman 2005). (Vaughan 1985: 35-36, 37-44; Hurcombe 1992: The discovery of traces of bitumen on Middle 71-78; Rots & Williamson 2004). Paleolithic stone-tools is the earliest evidence for In addition, decoration or style of hafts, the size the hafting of scrapers (Boëda et al. 1996). I and shape of the socket, and the uselife of a haft noted on the Gamo tools, as did Hardy (1996) in may reflect social group membership such as his study of Brandt’s 1995 ethnographic scraper individuals, language-groups, and/or ethnic iden- collection (Sidama, Gurage, Gamo, Konso, and tity (Deacon & Deacon 1980; Gould 1980: 128- Wolayta ethnic groups), the presence of mastic 129; Larick 1985; Wiessner 1983). In particular, remaining on the scrapers after they were discar- hideworking hafts are used as a recording device. ded. Williamson discerned mastic, blood, and Among some Native American societies, women collagen on the Konso ethnographic and archaeo- used their handles for recording the ages of the logical scrapers (Rots & Williamson 2004). children (Fowler 2001: 848), or the number of Hardy (1996) and I also noted the presence of tipis or hides that they had processed (Skinner striations running perpendicular to the haft along 1919). Generally it has been accepted that it the distal ventral side within the mastic present takes more time to make a haft than the stone- on scrapers.Archaeological material and experi- tool to be hafted (Rule & Evans 1985), as is evi- mental studies have suggested several other stone denced by the study of hideworking handles characteristics that may indicate hafting inclu- which tend be used for long periods of time: ding lateral notching and/or crushing, ventral anywhere from two years through many genera- thinning (Clark 1958; Nissen & Dittemore tions (Albright 1984: 58; Brandt & Weedman 1974; Gallagher 1977b: 410; Hayden 1979: 26- 1997; Weedman 2005, 2006). Lastly, Keeley 27; Deacon & Deacon 1980; Keeley 1982; Rule (1980) offers that hafted tools are more likely to & Evans 1985; McNiven 1994; Shott 1995), be smaller, thinner, and narrow, as per hidewor- polish and crushing of dorsal ridges, as well as king scrapers revealed in this overview. organized stricture (Beyries 1988; Shott 1995). Clark and Kurashina (1981) also observed the S CRAPER U SE presence of patina, polishing, and striations on The Gamo and other Ethiopian hideworkers their used-up and buried scrapers. In experimen- hold the handle with both hands and with one tal studies of hideworking, researchers recorded scraper against the hide begin to remove the fatty the presence of a luster or polish especially on inner layer of hide by either a scraping or chop- drier hides (Brink 1978: 102-103; Keeley 1980: ping motion (Gallagher 1974, 1977; Clark &

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) 85 Weedman Arthur K. J.

Kurashina 1981; Haaland 987; Brandt et al. average of 281 scrapes or 473 chops before 1996; Brandt & Weedman 1997). For scraping, resharpening. In comparison, the Gurage reshar- the hideworker shaves off long stripes of the fat pen after an average of every 90 to 100 strokes, from the inner side of the hide. For chopping, the Wolayta after every 50 to 112 scrapes, the the hideworker places his hand underneath a Konso after every 60 scrapes, the Sidama after rough spot on the hide or along the hardened every 46 scrapes, and the Oromo after only edges of the hide and pounds the hide in his hand 15-20 scrapes (Gallagher 1977a; Brandt & with short strokes of scraper. The hide is initially Weedman 1997, 2002; Clark & Kurashina 1981; hung with the tail hanging along the bottom axis. Haaland 1987: 69). In experimental studies, This allows the hideworker easier positioning to archaeologists determined that resharpening is first scrape in the upper center of the hide, which necessary after even a higher number of scrapes is the most difficult and thickest area of the hide. than most ethnographic research. For instance, After the hideworker scrapes the exposed surface quartz scrapers were resharpened after 500- of the hide, he takes the hide down and rehangs it 600 scrapes (Broadbent & Knutsson 1975) and with the tail located at the top of the frame. Then flint every 500-600 scrapes (Brink 1978: 97). he scrapes the area previously not reduced. The The Gamo tend to resharpen scrapers less often hideworker periodically sprays or dabs water on than other southern Ethiopian ethnic groups, to the hide to keep it moist. Takase (2004) notes which may be the result of scraping with different that reindeer dung or salmon roe may be used as a type of stone (chert for the Gamo and obsidian a catalysis during scraping. Beyries et al. (2001) for most of the other ethnic groups). also describe scraping by moving from the top to Compared to other Ethiopian hideworkers, the the bottom of the hide using linear motions and Gamo used more scrapers in the process of prepa- then half-circular movements. ring a cattle hide and their scrapers were reduced Among the Gamo a single hide requires approxi- less compared to other Ethiopian cultures. The mately 4 hours and 3 minutesto scrape. In addi- Gamo hideworker uses approximately 4 1/2 scra- tion to defleshing and softening, a person need at pers, which were reduced an average of 0.60 cm least a full day if not two to process a large hide. each (based on 811 unused scrapers and 872 dis- My work among the Konso and Albright’s cardable scrapers (Weedman 2000, 2002a, (1984: 56) among the Tahltan agree with this 2006). In general Gamo scrapers indicate that time frame. Among the Wolayta and Oromo of there is a reduction in length and increased distal Ethiopia it is estimated it requires 6 to 10 hours, thickness as a result of resharpening associated respectively, to process a single cattle hide with the use of the scraper (Shott & Weedman (Gallagher 1977b: 411; Clark & Kurashina 2006). Most other ethnographic studies of scra- 1981: 306; Haaland 1987: 69). Most earlier des- per use indicate more reduction of the tool, for criptions do not include a time frame, however example the Gurage reduce their scrapers Lowie (1935: 76) implicated that the a great deal 2.45 cm using 2 to 4 scrapers (Gallagher 1977b: of time and effort are needed to scrape a hide as 267-268, 278), the Oromo reduce their 2 used isexemplified in a Apsáalooke/Crow myth scrapers an average of 2.54 cm in length (Clark & “Worms-in-his-face demand that his wife should Kurashina 1981), and the Wolayta use 4scrapers tan and embroider a buffalo hide within a single (Haaland 1987: 70) averaging 1.2 cm in reduc- day. Disconsolate, she goes off crying, but animal tion (Brandt & Weedman 1997). The difference helpers appear”. between the Gurage, Wolayta and the Oromo During use, the edge of a stone scraper dulls and reduction rates and the Gamo may be a result of requires resharpening. The Gamo use an iron material type, obsidian among the former and billet to strike the ventral side of the scraper to chert among the latter. When I compared the remove small flakes off the edge of the tool for reduction of the Gamo chert scrapers (n = 778 resharpening. The Gamo use their scrapers an unused scrapers and 778 usedup scrapers) to

86 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) The Gamo hideworkers of southwestern Ethiopia and Cross-Cultural Comparisons

obsidian scrapers (n = 62 unused scrapers and increased rounding or usewear on the working 88 usedup scrapers) it was clear that the obsidian edge of the scraper (Weedman 2000). In contrast scrapers tended to be longer at initial hafting and to my own findings of rounding of used-up reduced more during use (Weedman 2000). scraper edges, Clark and Kurashina (1981) noted Dibble (1984, 1987) and Kuhn (1992) are strong irregularities along the used edge. Vaughan advocates for reduction stages as the source for (1985: 26-27) and Hurcombe (1992: 24-26) sta- variation in scraper morphology found in the ted that the harder the material the more quickly Middle Paleolithic. Dibble’s (1987) experimental rounding occurred. The difference between my work demonstrated reduction in length and in- results and Clark and Kurashina’s (1981) results crease in evidence of retouch. Although Gallagher was that they were looking primarily at obsidian (1977b: 278-279) noted differences in length, and I at chert. Brink (1978: 102) who experi- breadth, and thickness (I am assuming proximal mented with flint scrapers also noted rounding as thickness since this is a more common measu- the most important kind of use-wear associated rement), his numbers of unused (n = 18) and with hide scraping. Beyries et al. (2001) observed used-up (n = 12) are too small for statistical com- that most is decentred along the working edge of parison. Brandt et al. (1996) noted that the grea- the tool, and experimental studies by Hayden test difference between unused and used-up (1993) indicate that dry hides were “like wear scrapers was in their length, which ranged from from a fine grit grinding wheel. Grains and crys- 1.2 to 3.72 cm shorter after use, depending on the tals seem to have been truncated and resembled ethnic group. Clark and Kurashina (1981) found coarsely cut quartzite or conglomerate” (p. 129). a statistical difference in the length and thickness Microwear studies of the quartz, quartz crystal, between unused and used-up scrapers, but also and chert Konso ethnographic hidescrapers (Rots found that breadth was significantly affected. & Williamson 2004) indicate that polish and Through the scrapers uselife the angle of the wor- poor to moderate rounding was present on all king edge changes. The mean edge angle of used tools and that evidence for each stage of use Gamo unused scrapers is 50-degrees and when (scraping, resharpening and extraction from the used-up a mean of 67-degrees (Weedman 2000). haft) were visible. However, Rots warns that My results differ from Clark and Kurashina’s microwear is affected by the use duration of the (1981), who found a 44-degree mean distal edge tool since the last resharpening as opposed to the angle for unused scrapers and a 56.6-degree mean total use duration. Microwear studies of the distal edge angle for usedup scrapers. More in Konso scrapers also indicate interpretable wear line with my own study of the edge angle of used- representing each stage of use including scratches up scrapers is Broadbent and Knutsson (1975) that result from extraction of the scraper from the experimental study of quartz scrapers, finding haft (Rots & Williamson 2004). Rots also was that 55 to 65 was the best edge angle for scraping able to make these observations on archaeological hides. Again raw material type may play a role in scrapers excavated from Konso households that determining the best suitable scraper edge angles. probably date within the last 150 years. However, my unused edge angles and Clark and In general Ethiopian scrapers confirm experimen- Kurashina’s (1981) unused and used-up edge tal studies (Dibble 1984, 1987; Kuhn 1990, angles are within Wilmsen’s (1968) experimental 1992) that indicate that there is a reduction in study of edge angles for hideworking with flint length and increased distal thickness as a result of scrapers (46-55 degrees). resharpening associated with the use of the scra- One of the areas most intensely studied associa- per (Shott & Weedman 2006). In addition, the ted with hide scrapers is the associated usewear Gamo edge angles ranged from 44 to 67 degrees, (Brink 1978; Vaughn 1985; Hayden 1987, 1990; which falls in line with experimental edge angle Hurcombe 1982; Siegel 1984; Rots & (Wilmsen 1968; Broadbent & Knutsson 1975) Williamson 2004). I recorded the presence of expectations for hidescraping edge.

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) 87 Weedman Arthur K. J.

S OFTENING, T ANNING, C OLORING In southern Africa, the Khoisan used several After scraping the hide, the Gamo soften the plants in the tanning process including ground hides using butter or etema (the juice from the tubers, bark of acacia, and roots of some plants. enset plant corm). The hideworker blows liquid The Gamo do not color any of their hides, howe- butter or etema on the hide and folds the hide ver the Konso sometimes added a mixture of cas- over with his feet and tramples it for over an hour tor bean oil and ochre to their hides especially every day for a week. Although butter is a luxury those used for clothing (Brandt & Weedman item, the hideworkers still use it to soften the 2002). Among Native Americans and Siberians, hide. No tannin is added to the hide. However, hides prepared for specific products, especially some Gamo use cattle urine to wash their clo- clothing, were colored using ochre, pounded flo- thing. The Gamo may not tan their hides because wers, dried mushrooms, fish roe, and alder bark, they washed/or wash their clothing with urine, and also embroidered and beaded (Mason 1889; which acts as a preservative. Turner 1894: 296-297; Teit 1900: 187; Druker The European traveller accounts of hideworking 1941: 113-114; Takase 2004). in northern and central Ethiopia during the mid- eighteenth to nineteenth centuries are generally H IDEWORKING L OCATION concerned with the plants used to tan, soften, Most hideworkers scrape hides in specific loca- and color the hides including Euphorbia abyssi- tions and on scraping frames.After a hide has nica, Osyris abyssinica, and Cassia goratensis dried, the Gamo may store it for several months (Bruce 1790; Combes & Tamisier 1838: 77-79; or they may scrape it after several days. The hide Insenberg & Krapf 1843: 255-256; Lefebvre is soaked in water for several hours and lashed 1846: 240-243; Paulitschke 1888: 311; Wylde onto a frame at an acute angle (65-85 degrees). It 1888: 289-291; Burton 1894: 170; Merab 1929; is common cross-culturally, for hides to be scra- Bartlett 1934: 92; Rey 1935: 225; Johnston 1972 ped on an acute angle and lashed to a frame [1844]). Parkyns (1966 [1853]: 230-231) and (Nelson 1899: 116; Teit 1900: plate XVI, fig. 1; Merab (1929: 411) describe in Ethiopia the sof- Druker 1941: 113-114; Gallagher 1977; Clark & tening of hides by trampling or “pedipulation” Kurashina 1981; Albright 1984: 55-56; Haaland with milk and linseed. The Gurage, Oromo, 1987; Beyries et al. 2001; Brandt & Weedman Konso, and Wolayta Ethiopian hideworkers sof- 2002). Hides also are scraped while held in the ten their hides with their feet by grinding in but- lap (Mason 1889; Turner 1894: 294; Beyries et ter and/or castor seeds ( Riccinus comunis ) and al. 2001; Takase 2004; Brandt & Weedman sometimes eucalyptus leaves (Brandt & 2005; Webley 2005; Weedman 2006) or more Weedman 2002).Hides are softened in a variety rarely hides are scraped horizontal to the ground of ways including smoking (Ewers 1930: 10-13; (Ewers 1930: 10-13; Takase 2004). In several Beyries et al. 2001; Takase 2004), using small cultures more than one position was known for stones or shell or bone to score the hide scraping hides and the scraping position depen- (Kamminga 1982), chewing the hide with their ded on the size and type of the hide (Brandt & teeth (Turner 1894: 205; Cooper 1917), and Weedman 1997, 2005; Beyries et al. 2001; rubbing hides together (Cooper 1917; Lothrop Weedman 2005), the gender of the hideworker 1928). Native Americans used animal brains, (Weedman 2005), and the type of hidescraping liver, fat, sour milk, marrow, urine, and/or excre- tool (Takase 2004). ment and kneaded it into the hide by hand or The Gamo hideworkers’ scraping frame is located with a rough stone or pebble to soften; and then in either the household or in the garden near the smoked to tan and waterproof the hide (Mason household, in both situations the area covers 1889; Turner 1894: 295; Teit 1900: 184-185; about 5 by 5 meter work area. Among the Ewers 1930: 10-13; Druker 1941: 113-114; Wolayta, Oromo, Gurage, Hadiya, and Sidama Adams 1966; Beyries et al. 2001; Gilmore 2005). Ethiopian groups, hideworking predominately

88 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) The Gamo hideworkers of southwestern Ethiopia and Cross-Cultural Comparisons

takes place in a specialized location in the house- structure and that lithics were discarded outside hold garden (Gallagher 1977; Clark & Kurashina of the household area. Hence, they argue that 1981; Brandt & Weedman 1997). Beyries et al. the scraping area would be difficult to detect (2001) also notes specialized locations for hide- archaeologically. working. The Konso hideworkers of Ethiopia In addition, Ethiopian hideworkers have a wide scrape either in specialized workshops or under a variety of locations where they deposit their lithic shade tree for larger hides. The Konso scrape materials including: inside the compound, out- smaller hides in an open space in the household side the compound, along fences, in fields, in compound while holding the hide in the lap hearths, in rodent or other natural holes, in man- (Brandt & Weedman 2002). However, many of made holes or ditches which lends itself to a wide the accounts of hideworking are ethnohistoric range of studies relating to social organization and among mobile peoples and they indicate that and site structure. Clark and Kurashina (1981) women processed hides at hunting camps. For mapped a recently used lithic and ash discard instance, Albright (1984: 52) notes that today middens revealing flakes, cores, and scrapers. hideworking takes place near the house, but that Furthermore, research among the Gamo suggests in the past among the mobile Tahlatan that that the location of hideworking households hidescraping took place at hunting camps and within the village and the internal spatial arrange- required up to 200 square meters of work space ment of artisan and farmer households symboli- depending on the number of hides being proces- cally reflects social hierarchies, thus distribution sed. of scrapers and lithics may reflect not only house- Researchers debate the visibility of hideworking hold membership but village ideology and rela- areas archaeologically. When hideworking took tionships. Ethnographic disbursement of place inside structures, I consistently recorded materials is interesting both in terms of analyzing (among both the Gamo and the Konso) that the the specialized use of space and the formation of area was cleaned of lithic waste materials and dis- the archaeological record (Kent 1987) and for carded outside the household compound in spe- understanding past ideology and symbolic cific lithic waste areas or in household/village structures (Leone 1984; Donley-Reid 1990). trash middens. However, I still witnessed the per- sistence of stone scrapers and debitage on the household floors, after sweeping, particularly CONCLUSION near walls and the hearth. I also observed lithic materials in areas where hideworking took place This cross-cultural comparison of hideworking, outside the household structure. Furthermore, demonstrates how ethnoarchaeology can provide excavation of hideworker abandoned households multiple inferences concerning material culture. among the Konso produced lithic waste through Arguably people who practice particular crafts, the household compound but concentrated near such as hideworking, might be able to provide hearths, walls, and scraping areas. Among the insights that are not conceivable to the western- Wolayta and Sidama debitage was allowed to fall trained archaeologist. The trajectory of ethnogra- and remain on the floor of specialized workshops phic and archaeological reasoning must not only (Brandt et al. 1996; Brandt & Weedman 1997). be viewed in terms of how we transform the past Beyries et al. (2001) also indicated that materials from present knowledge and past material associated with hideworking may be visible as culture, but how we also affect the present with specialized areas were not cleared of debris. our interpretations of the past, for instance the However, Gallagher (1977a) and Clark and role of women and the complexity of indigenous Kurashina (1971) reported that all the debitage cultural practices (Wilmsen 1989: xiii; Schmidt and lithic materials are collected in a basket or 1997; Stahl 2001: 27-30). Furthermore, it bowl even when hideworking occurs outside of a isbecoming more apparent that prior to the

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) 89 Weedman Arthur K. J.

colonial era societies were no more bounded than understanding local historical process are impor- present day societies (Wilmsen 1989; Matory tant. For instance, many of the descriptions in 2005). Ethnoarchaeology has the potential as the North America date 100 years earlier than those arbitrator between cultural and archaeological in Africa and Siberia and without documentation studies and as an instigator for developing new of localized histories and transnational context theories and methods concerning ideologies ( e.g. Matory 2005) for understanding each parti- about the material world transcending the dicho- cular culture it is too easy to assume a diffusionist tomy of self/other renegotiating our ideas about explanation for the similarities. boundaries and identity. Reevaluations of culture core studies point out Exploring hideworking cross-culturally helps us that anthropologists have tended to view geogra- to unbind the ideas of the culture core and phic ethnic boundaries as stable and tangible, homogenously linked material types with specific while history was viewed as fluid and dynamic cultures. This review of hideworking suggests creating an asymmetrical relationship between that there is some consistency in the general pro- space and time (Coronil 1999). Similarly, ar- cess of preparing a hide. For instance it is com- chaeologists have tended to identify cultures mon to: deflesh a hide with a sharpened long through material homogeneity and to view hete- bone from large mammals, to dehair by hand, to rogeneity as culture change through time and use a unifacial end scraper on hides to remove fat space. The use of two handle types among the that evens the thickness of the hide, to scrape the Gamo is not dictated by environment or function, hide on a frame, and to use an animal or plant oil but by historical processes and entanglements, and to soften the hide by kneading or pounding with Takase (2004) suggested the same explanation for the feet. However, at the same time there is great the presence of two handle types among the Even diversity in the specific practices and their order, and Koriak/Koryak. An examination of Gamo as well as the specific materials used. A cross- ideology, learning systems and their group and in- cultural comparison of Ethiopian scraper mor- dividual reactions to changing political and eco- phology illustrates that each ethnic group has its nomic relationships through time best explain the own scraper style, but it also illustrates that style presence of multiple handle types and their uses is most similar among geographical neighbours and distribution of these two types through time (Brandt et al. 1996). Unfortunately, outside of and space (Weedman 2006). If we look cross- Ethiopia there are not enough published ethno- culturally at Omotic-speaking Ethiopians, there graphic details concerning stone scraper morpho- are three distinct handle types: the oval two-socke- logy to make a comparison or a detailed ted mastic handle (Gamo and Wolayta), the paral- understanding of the stone-tools. In terms of lel single-socketed open handle (Gamo and Oyda) hideworking material culture, the best ethnogra- and the parallel single-socketed closed mastic phic descriptions and illustrations focus on handle (Dizi and Konso) (Brandt & Weedman handle type. Certainly someone interested in dis- 1997). The Gamo use two handle types shared by covering cross-cultural universals could select out neighboring Omotic speakers. The oval double- the presence of the parallel single-open hafts for socketed mastic handle type is most prevalent in hideworking in Africa (Feyissa 1997), North Ethiopia and used by Cushitic, Semitic and America (Mason 1889; Nelson 1899; Albright Omotic speakers. Thus material culture types are 1984; Ewers 1930), and Siberia (Takase 2004) as neither homogenous bounded to a particular cul- evidence for the similarity in the hideworking ture or a particular region. Yet, the particular process across the world. Although there appears shape and socket type combination of these three to be a universal similarity in material form handle types is not recorded outside of Ethiopia, among these vastly different cultures, a more so there is some geographical continuity the speci- detailed examination of intra-cultural, historical fics of which can only be explained by local and re- and geographical relationships suggest that gional historical processes. The presence of

90 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) The Gamo hideworkers of southwestern Ethiopia and Cross-Cultural Comparisons

perpendicular or beam single-socket handles is when hideworking is a craft specialization with a found most commonly among Siberian permanent and specific workshop it is often the (Chukotko-Kamchatkan and Altaic speakers) and purview of men (for exception though see the in the northern populations of North American work about the Konso, Brandt & Weedman (Athapaskan and Salish). Once again there is great 1997; Weedman 2005). Although hideworking is diversity in the languages spoken by these hide- arduous and time consuming, it is also a compli- workers, but there is some geographical continuity cated craft and it takes years to master the skills and shared history between them. Hideworking which include the production and use of tools material culture suggests that each cultural group and the right application of a combination of is enmeshed in a wider system and people actively botanical and mineral compounds. Hideworking negotiate their status in their particular loci and is usually taught from parent to child beginning history in the system through their materials and when the child is about 10-12 years old. Evidence their use of space. for stages of learning is discernable in stone-tool Hideworking is strongly associated cross-cultu- assemblages (Gunn 1975; Bonnichsen 1977; rally with the intersection of gender roles, status, Weedman 2002a). However, depending on the and ideology concerning the mediation of life lineage, post-marital residence system, and lear- and death. Clearly, there is enough ethnographic ning systems of the culture, tool style at the vil- information to suggest that hideworking is a gen- lage level may be either homogeneous or not dered activity that may provide clues to unders- (Dietler & Herbich 1998; Weedman 2005). tanding use of space, division of labor, and power The status of hideworkers is not universal, in relationships (Frink & Weedman 2005). Despite Ethiopia it is a low status occupation but in other this archaeologists have ignored gender as a factor parts of the world hideworking skills can bring in interpreting Paleolithic scraper variability high status, especially to women. In Western (though see chapters in Frink & Weedman society, because of our historical background in 2005). Women identified as tool-makers are which men are the industrial outside workers, we often masked over by themes of man-the-hunter tend to ascribe the most labor intensive, dull and and the man-the-tool-maker (Conkey & Spector unskilled occupations with women including 1984; Gero 1991; Nelson 1997: 95-98; Zihlman craft production (Gifford-Gonzalez 1993). 1997). Other than stone scrapers, women have Furthermore, these crafts are viewed as only mea- been frequently documented as making and gerly contributing to household economic status using stone-tools (Holmes 1919: 316; Goodale and/or a means of obtaining status as compared 1971; Tindale 1972: 246; Gould 1977: 166, to male activities (Nelson et al. 2002). Hayden Hayden 1977: 183-186; Hamilton 1980; Bird (1990,1993) has demonstrated that much of 1993). Most commonly women are historically North American hide production may be associa- documented (Albright 1984; Bird 1993; ted with high status luxury goods, and in at least Weedman 2005) using bipolar method of pro- some instances this transfers to a high status for duction, which leaves visual signatures on the the producer even when female (see chapters in scraper. This may provide one clue as to the sex Frink & Weedman 2005, particularly Gilmore of the maker situated in the specifics of other 2005; Holliman 2005; Webley 2005). People use contextual information. Women also more com- craft items not in the domestic sphere, but also to monly practice embedded (Binford 1978) stone- mediate social, economic, political, and ritual tool procurement strategies, which means that contexts (Costin 1998). As such they are imbued women should not be reduced to using only with symbolic meaning and often serve as active locally available resources ( e.g. Gero 1991; or passive identity markers (Sackett 1990). Sassaman 1992; Casey 1998). Use of space may Artisans have an essential role in creating mea- provide one clue to the gender of the hideworker, ning that is manifested in the objects they create according to this cross-cultural comparison, (Costin 1998).

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) 91 Weedman Arthur K. J.

This review of hideworking practices, in addition am also appreciative of the Anthropozoologica to simply adding to our knowledge of stone-tool reviewers and Lisa Frink for comments and cor- technology from cultures in which it is common rections to the manuscript. Lastly, this article knowledge, adds to the growing literature which would never have reached completion without illustrates that material manifestations are not the inexhaustible support and patience of my constrained by ecological or social necessities but colleague and husband, John Arthur. are the result of situated knowledge (Gosselain 1992; Pfaffenberger 1992; Childs & Killick 1993; REFERENCES Dietler & Herbich 1998; Dobres & Hoffman 1999; Wobst 1999; Hodder 2003). Culture and A BÈLÉS M. 1977. — La guerre vue d’Ochollo. Revue material culture are heterogeneous and conti- Canadienne des Études Africaines 11 : 455-471. nuously renegotiated in terms of the activities in- A BÈLÉS M. 1978. — Pouvoir et société chez les Ochollo d’Éthiopie meridionale. Cahiers d’Études dividuals pursue in relationship totheir Africaines 18 : 293-310. environment and also their social, religious, eco- A BÈLÉS M. 1979. — Religion, traditional beliefs: nomic, and political relationships. By incorpora- interaction and changes in a southern Ethiopian ting non-western views through society: Ochollo (Gamu-Gofa), in D ONHAM D.L. & J AMES W. (eds), Society and history in Ethiopia: ethnoarchaeological studies, we broaden our un- The southern periphery from the 1880s to 1974 . derstanding of material diversity, which must be African Studies Center University of Cambridge, understood in terms of people’s daily lives and Cambridge: 184-194. their fluid entanglement in the local, regional, and A BÈLÉS M. 1981. — In search of the monarch: intro- duction of the state among the Gamo of Ethiopia, global. This ethnoarchaeological review of hide- in C RUMMEY D. & S TEWARD C.(eds), Modes of working suggest that many factors infuse material production in Africa: the precolonial era . Sage variation. Cultures are mosaics in terms of the ac- Publication, Beverly Hills: 35-67. A DAMS J. L.1966. — Use-wear analyses on manos and tivities individuals pursue in relationship to their hide-processing stones. Journal of Field Archaeology environment and their socio-political identities. 15(3): 307-315. A ISTON G. 1929. — Chipped stone-tools of the abo- riginal tribes east and north-east of Lake Eyre, south Australia. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society Acknowledgments of Tasmania March: 123-131. This research was funded by generous grants A LBRIGHT S. 1984. — Tahltan ethnoarchaeology . including a National Science Foundation Department of Archaeology Simon Fraser Dissertation Improvement Grant SBR-9634199, University, Vancouver. A LLCHIN B. 1957. — Australian stone industries, past a J. William Fulbright Student Award, and a and present. Journal of the Royal Anthropological L.S.B. Leakey Foundation Dissertation Grant. I Institute 87: 115-136. extend my deep gratitude to Ethiopia’s ARCCH, A NDRESKY W. Jr. 1994. — Raw-Material Availability SNNRP’s Bureau of Culture and Information in and the Organization of Technology. American Antiquity 59(1): 21-35. Awasa and Arba Minch, the National Museum of A RTHUR J. W. 2002. — Brewing beer: status, wealth, Ethiopia, and the Addis Ababa University and ceramic use-alteration among the Gamo of south- Herbarium. Heartfelt thanks go toward many western Ethiopia. World Archaeology 34: 516-528. people in Ethiopia and without whose patience A RTHUR J. W. 2003. — Beer, food, and wealth: an ethnoarchaeological use-alteration analysis of pot- and help this project would not have been pos- tery. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 9: sible including the Gamo hideworkers, Berhano 331-355. Wolde, Gezahegn Alemayehu, and Getacho A RTHUR J. W. 2006. — Living with pottery: ethnoar- chaeology among the Gamo of southwest Ethiopia . Girma. I especially thank Steve Brandt for intro- Foundations of Archaeological Inquiry University ducing me to southern Ethiopia and for all his of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. support of my research. Melanie Brandt produ- B AILLARGEON M. 2005. — Hide tanning: the act of re- ced the wonderful maps and in doing so transla- viving, in F RINK L. & W EEDMAN K. (eds), Gender and ted the dense text into effective visual media. I hide production . AltaMira, Walnut Creek: 143-152.

92 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) The Gamo hideworkers of southwestern Ethiopia and Cross-Cultural Comparisons

B AMFORTH D.B. 1986. — Technological efficiency B RANDT S.A. & W EEDMAN K.J. 1997. — The eth- and tool curation. American Antiquity 51: 38-50. noarchaeology of hideworking and flaked stone-tool B ARTLETT E.J. 1934. — In the land of Sheba. Cornish use in southern Ethiopia, in F UKUI K.E. & S HIGETA Brothers, Birmingham. M. (eds), Ethiopia in broader perspective: papers of B EYRIES S. 1988. — Functional variability of lithic sets the XIIth international Conference of Ethiopian in the Middle Paleolithic, in D IBBLE H. & Studies . Shokado Book Sellers, Kyoto: 351-361. M ONTET-W HITE A. (eds), Upper Pleistocene prehis- B RANDT S.A. & W EEDMAN K.J. 2002. — The etnoar- tory of western Eurasia . University of Pennsylvania chaeology of hideworking and stone-tool use in University Museum, Philadelphia: 213-223. Konso, Southern Ethiopia: an introduction, in B EYRIES S. 2002. — Le travail du cuir chez les A UDOIN-R OUZEAU F. & B EYRIES S. (eds), Le travail Tchouktches et les Athapaskans : implications du cuir de la Préhistoire à nos jours. APDCA, ethno-archeologiques, in A UDOIN-R OUZEAU F. & Antibes: 113-130. B EYRIES S. (eds), Le travail du cuir de la Préhistoire à B RANDT S.A., W EEDMAN K.J. & H UNDIE G. 1996. — nos jours. APDCA, Antibes : 143-158. Gurage hideworking, stone-tool use and social iden- B EYRIES S., V ASIL’ EV S.A., D AVID F., D ’A CHENKO V.I., tity: an ethnoarchaeological perspective, in K ARLIN C. & C HESNOKOV Y.V.2001. — Uil, a H UDSON G. (ed.), Essays on Gurage language and Paleolithic site in Siberia: an ethno-archaeological culture: dedicated to Wolf Leslau on the occasion of his approach, in B EYRIES S. & P ÉTREQUIN P. (eds), 90 th birthdayNovember 14, 1996 . Harrassowitz Ethno-archaeology and its transfers. BAR Verlag, Wiesbaden: 35-51. International Series 983. Archaeopress, Oxford: 9- B RINK J.W. 1978. — An experimental study of 21. microwear formation on endscrapers. National B INFORD L. 1978. — Nunamuit ethnoarchaeology . Museum of Canada National Museum of Man Academic Press, New York. Mercury Series, Ottawa. B IRD C.F.M. 1993. — Woman the tool maker: evi- B ROADBENT N.D. & K NUTSSON K. 1975. — An dence for women’s use and manufacture of flaked experimental analysis of quartz scrapers. stone-tools in Australia and New Guinea, in DU Fornavannen 70: 113-128. C ROS H. & S MITH L. (eds) Women in archaeology: B RUCE J. 1790 [1964]. — Travels to discover the source afeminist critique . The Australian National of the Nile. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. University, Canberra: 22-30. B UREAU J. 1975. — Le statut des artisans en Éthiopie, B ISSON M.S. 2001. — Interview with a Neanderthal: in Éthiopie, la terre et les hommes. Musée de an experimental approach for reconstructing scraper l’Homme, Paris: 38-44. production rules, and their implications for B UREAU J. 1981. — Les Gamo d’Éthiopie : étude du imposed form in Middle Palaeolithic tools. système politique . Société d’Ethnographie, Paris. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 11(2): 165-184. B UREAU J. 1983. — «La mort du serpent» : remar- B OAS F. 1888. — The central Eskimo. Government ques à propos d’une version d’Éthiopie méridionale. Printing Office, Washington D.C. Abbay 12 : 779-784. B ODENHORN B. 1990. — “I’m not the great hunter, B URTON R.F. 1894. — First footsteps in East Africa or an my wife is”. Inupiat and anthropological models of exploration of Harar . Tylston & Edwards, London. gender. Etuses Inuit Studies 14(1-2): 55-74. C ARTLEDGE D. 1995. — Taming the Mountain: B OËDA E., C ONNAN J., D ESSORT D., M UHESEN S., Human Ecology, Indigenous Knowledge, and M ERIER N., V ALLADA S H. & T ISNÉRAT N. 1996. Sustainable Resource Management in the Doko Gamo — Bitumen as a hafting material on Middle society of Ethiopia . UMI Doctoral dissertation. Paleolithic artefacts. Nature 380: 336-338. UMI, Ann Arbor. B ONNICHSEN R. 1977. — Models for deriving cultural C ASSIERS A. 1975. — Handicrafts and technical inno- information from stone-tools . National Museum of vation in Ethiopia. Cultures 2(3): 119-135. Canada, Ottawa. C ASEY J. 1998. — Just a formality: The presence of B ORDES F. 1961. — Mousterian cultures in France. fancy projectile points in a basic tool assemblage, in Science 134: 803-810. K ENT S. (ed.), Gender in African Prehistory. Walnut B ORDES F. 1973. — On the chronology and contem- Creek, AltaMira: 83-104. poraniety of different Paleolithic cultures in France, C ERULLI E. 1952. — The folk-literature of the Galla in R ENFREW C. (ed.), The explanation of cultural of southern Abyssinia. Varia Africana III: 9-228. change. Duckworth, London: 218-226. C ERULLI E. 1956. — Peoples of south-west Ethiopia and its B RANDT S.A. 1996. — The ethnoarchaeology of borderland . International African Institute, London. flaked stone-tool use in southern Ethiopia, in C HILDS S.T. & K ILLICK D.J. 1993. — Indigenous P WITIT G. & S OPER R. (eds), Aspects of African African metallurgy: nature and culture. Annual archaeology , papers from the 10 th Congress of the Review of Anthropology 22: 317-337. PanAfrican Association for Prehistory and Related C LARK J.D. 1958. — Some Stone Age woodworking Studies , 1996 . University of Zimbabwe Publica- tools in southern Africa. South African tions, Harare Zimbabwe: 733-738. Archaeological Bulletin 13: 144-152.

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) 93 Weedman Arthur K. J.

C LARK J.D. & K URASHINA H. 1981. — A study of the D OBRES M.A. & H OFFMAN C.R. 1999. — work of a modern tanner in Ethiopia and its rele- Introduction: a context for the present and future vance for archaeological interpretation, in G OULD of technology studies, in D OBRES M.A. & R.A. & S CHIFFER M.B. (eds), Modern material cul- H OFFMAN C.R. (eds), The social dynamics of technol- ture: the archaeology of us. Academic Press, New ogy . Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington York: 303-343. D.C.: 1-22. C OMBES E. & T AMISIER M. 1838. — Voyage en D ONHAM D.L. 1985. — Work and Power in Maale, Abyssine, Dans le Pays des Galla, de Choa et d’Ifat. Ethiopia . UMI Research Press, Ann Arbor. Volume IV. Louis Desessart, Paris. D ONLEY-R EID L.W. 1990. — A structuring structure: C ONKEY M. & S PECTOR J. 1984. — Archaeology and the Swahili house, in K ENT S.(ed.), Domestic archi- the study of gender. Advances in Archeological tecture and the use of space . Cambridge University Method and Theory 7: 1-38. Press, Cambridge: 114-126. C OOPER J. 1917. — Analytical and critical bibliography D UNN E. J. 1931. — The Bushmen . C. Griffen, of the tribes of Tierra del Fuego and adjacent territory. London. Smithsonian Institution Bulletin 63. United States D RUKER P. 1941. — Culture Element Distributions: National Museum, Washington D.C. XVII Yuman-Piman. Anthropological Records 6(3) C ORONIL F. 1999. — Beyond occidentalism: toward University of California Press, Berkeley. nonimperial geohistorical categories. Current E LLISON J. 2006. — “Everyone can do as he wants”: Anthropology 11(1): 51-87. economic liberalization and emergent forms of C OSTIN C.L. 1996. — Exploring the relationship antipathy in southern Ethiopia. American between gender and craft in complex societies: Ethnologist 33(4): 665-686. methodological and theoretical issues of gender E WERS J.C. 1930. — Blackfeet crafts. Department of attribution, in W RIGHT R.P. (ed.), Gender and the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington archaeology . University of Pennsylvania Press, D.C. Philadelphia: 111-140. F EYISSA D. 1997. — The Oyda of Southwestern C OSTIN C.L. 1998. — Introduction: craft and social Ethiopia. A Study of Socio-economic Aspects of Village identity, in C OSTIN C.L. & W RIGHT R.P. (eds), Inequality. MA thesis Department of History Addis Craft and social identity. Archaeological Papers of Ababa University, Addis Ababa (Ethiopia). the American Anthropological Association Number Unpublished 8. American Anthropological Association, F LEMING H.C. 1973. — Recent research in Omotic Washington D.C.: 3-18. speaking areaa, in M ARCUS H.G. (ed.), Proceedings C RABTREE D. 1982. — An introduction to flintworking. of the First United States Conference on Ethiopian Idaho Museum of Natural History, Pocatello (Idaho). Studies , 1973. African Studies Center Michigan D ALE L. 1870. — Stone implements of South Africa. State University, East Lansing: 261-278. Cape Monthly 1: 365-366. F LEMING H.C. 1976. — Omotic overview, in D EACON H.J & D EACON J. 1980. — The hafting, B ENDER L. (ed.), The Non-Semitic languages of function and distribution of small convex scrapers Ethiopia . African Studies Center, Michigan State with an example from Bloomplaas Cave. South University, East Lansing: 299-323. African Archaeological Bulletin 35: 31-37. F OWLER L. 2001. — Arapaho, in D EMALLIE R.J. (ed.), D’ IATCHENKO V.I. & D AVID F. 2002. — La prépara- Handbook of North American Indians . Volume 13. tion traditionnelle des peaux de poissons et de Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.: 840- mammifères marins chez les populations de 862. l’Extrême-Orient sibérien de langue toungouze, in F REEMAN D. 2001. — Gamo, in F REEMAN D. & A UDOIN-R OUZEAU F. & B EYRIES S. (eds), Le travail P ANKHURST A. (eds), Living on the edge: margin- du cuir de la Préhistoire à nos jours. APDCA, alised minorities of craftworkers and hunters in south- Antibes: 175-192. ern Ethiopia . Department of Sociology and Social D IBBLE H.L. 1984. — Interpreting typological varia- Administration, Addis Ababa (Ethiopia): 186-205. tion of Middle Paleolithic scrapers: function, style F REEMAN D. 2002. — Initiating change in highland or sequence reduction? Journal of Field Archaeology Ethiopia: Causes and consequences of cultural transfor- 11: 431-435. mation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. D IBBLE H.L. 1987. — The interpretation of Middle F RINK L. 2005. — Gender and Hide Production Paleolithic scraper morphology . American Antiquity Process in Colonial Western Alaska, in F RINK L. & 52: 109-117. W EEDMAN K.J. (eds), Gender and hide production . D IETLER M. & H ERBICH I. 1998. — Habitus, tech- AltaMira, Walnut Creek: 89-104. niques, style: an integrated approach to social F RINK L. & W EEDMAN K. 2005. — Gender and hide understanding of material culture and boundaries, production. AltaMira, Walnut Creek. in S TARK M.T. (ed.), The archaeology of social G ALLAGHER J.P. 1974. — The preparation of hides boundaries. Smithsonian Institution Press, London: with stone-tools in south central Ethiopia. Journal 232-269. of Ethiopian Studies XII: 177-182.

94 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) The Gamo hideworkers of southwestern Ethiopia and Cross-Cultural Comparisons

G ALLAGHER J.P. 1977a. — Contemporary stone-tool H ABICHT-M AUCHE J.A. 2005. — The shifting role of use in Ethiopia: implications for archaeology. women and women’s labor on the protohistoric Journal of Field Archaeology 4: 407-414. southern high Plains, in F RINK L. & W EEDMAN K.J. G ALLAGHER J.P. 1977b. — Ethnoarchaeological and (eds), Gender and hide production. AltaMira, Prehistoric Investigations in the Ethiopian Central Rift Walnut Creek: 37-56. Valley . UMI Doctoral dissertation. UMI, Ann H ALLPIKE C.R. 1968. — The status of craftsmen Arbor. among the Konso of southwest Ethiopia. Africa 38: G ERO J.M. 1991. — Genderlithics: women’s roles in 258-269. stone-tool production, in G ERO J.M. & C ONKEY H ALPERIN R. & O LMSTEAD J. 1976. — To catch a M.W (eds), Engendering archaeology: women and feastgiver: redistribution among the Dorze of Prehistory. Blackwell, Oxford: 163-193. Ethiopia. Africa 46: 146-165. G IFFORD-G ONZALEZ D. 1993. — You can hide, but H AMBLEY W.D. 1936. — Primitive Hunters of you can’t run: representation of women’s work in Australia . Field Museum of Natural History, illustrations of Paleolithic life. Visual Anthropology Chicago. Review 9(1): 22-41. H AMILTON A. 1980. — Dual social systems: technol- G IGLIOLI H.H. 1889. — On a singular obsidian ogy, labor and women’s secret rites in the eastern scraper used at present by some of the Galla tribes Western Desert of Australia. Oceania 51: 4-19. in southern Shoa. Internationales Archives fur H ARDY B. 1996. — Microwear analysis of Ethiopian Ethnographie 2: 212-214. stone-tools . Paper presented at the 61 st Annual G IGLIOLI H.H. 1904. — Hafted copper instruments Meeting of the Society of American Archaeology, from Peru. Man 4: 81-82. New Orleans. S.e. G ILMORE K. 2005. — These boots were made for H AYDEN B. 1987. — Use and misuse: the analysis of walking: moccasin production, gender, and the endscrapers. Lithic Technology 16(2-3): 65-70. lateprehistoric hideworking sequence on the H AYDEN B. 1977. — Stone-tool functions in the high plains of Colorado, in F RINK L. & Western Desert, in W RIGHT R.V.S. (ed.), Stone- W EEDMAN K.J.(eds), Gender and hide production . tools as cultural markers. Australian Institute of AltaMira, Walnut Creek: 13-36. Aboriginal Studies, Canberra: 178-188. G OODALE J.C. — 1971. Tiwi Wives . University of H AYDEN B. 1979. — Paleolithic reflections . Washington Press, Seattle. Humanities Press, New Jersey. G OSSELAIN O.P. 1992. — Technology and style: pot- H AYDEN B. 1990. — The right rub: hideworking in ters and pottery among the Bafia of Cameroon. high ranking households, in G RÄSLUND B. (ed.), Man 27: 559-586. The interpretative possibilities of microwear studies . G OULD R.A. 1980. — Living Archaeology . Cambridge Societas-Archaeologica Upsaliensis, Uppsala: University Press, Cambridge. 89-102. G OULD R.A. 1977. — Ethnoarchaeology: or, where H AYDEN B. 1993. — Investigating status with hide- do models come from?, in W RIGHT R.V.S. (ed.), working use-wear: A preliminary assessment, in Stone-tools as cultural markers. Australian Institute A NDERSON P.C., B EYRIES S., O TTE M. & P LISSON H. of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra: 162-177. (eds), Traces et Fonction : Les gestes retrouvés. Actes du G RINELL G.B. 1962. — The Cheyenne Indians . Cooper colloque international de Liège. ERAUL 50. ERAUL, Square Publishers, New York. Université de Liège : 119-130. G UNN J.1975. — Idiosyncratic behaviour in chipping H AYWARD R. 1998. — The challenge of Omotic. style: some hypotheses and preliminary analysis, in Horn of Africa XVI: 1-30. S WANSON E. (ed.), Lithic Technology: Making and H ENRY D.O. 1989. — Correlations between reduction Using Stone-tools . Mouton Publishers, The Hague: strategies and settlement patterns, in H ENRY D.O. 35-61. & O DELL G.H. (eds), Alternative approaches to lithic H AALAND R. 1987. — Socio-economic differentiation in analysis . Westview Press, Boulder: 139-212. the Neolithic Sudan . Monographs in African H ILLER W.R. 1948. — Hidatsa soft tanning of hides. Archaeology 20. BAR International Series 350. Minnesota Archaeologists 14: 4-11. Archaeopress, Oxford. H OLLIMON S.E. 2005. — Hideworking and changes H ABERLAND E. 1981. — Die materielle kultur der dizi in women’s status among the Arikara, 1700-1862, (Sudwest-Athiopien) und Ihr kulturhistischer kon- in F RINK L. & W EEDMAN K.J. (eds), Gender and text. Paideuma 27: 121-171. hide production. AltaMira, Walnut Creek: 77-88. H ABERLAND E. 1984. — Caste and hierarchy among H OLMES W.H. 1894. — Natural history of flaked the Dizi (Southwest Ethiopia), in R UBENSON S. stone implements, in S TANILAND W AKE C. (ed.), (ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Memoirs of the International Congress of Conference of Ethiopian Studies . University of Lund, Anthropology . The Schulte Publishing Company, Lund: 447-450. Chicago: 120-139. H ABERLAND E. 1993. — Hierarchie und kaste . Franz H OLMES W.H. 1919. — Handbook of aboriginal Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart. American antiquities Part I . Washington Bureau of

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) 95 Weedman Arthur K. J.

American EthnologyBulletin 60. Government Print L AURANT S. 1946. — The New World, the first pictures Office, Washington D.C. of America. Duell, Sloan & Pearce, New York: 85. H ODDER I. 2003. — Archaeology beyond dialogue . L ARICK R. 1985. — Spears, style, and time among University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Maa-Speaking pastoralists. Journal of Anthropo- H URCOMBE L. M. 1992. — Use wear analysis and logical Archaeology 4:206-220. obsidian: theory, experiments and result s. J.R. Collins L EFEBVRE T. 1845. — Vogage en Abyssine. Librairie de Publications Department of Archaeology and la Société de Géographie, Paris. Prehistory, University of Sheffield, Sheffield. L EONE M.P. 1984. — Interpreting ideology in histori- I SENBERG C.W. & K RAPF J.L. 1843 [1963]. — Journal cal archaeology: using the rules of perspective in the of their proceedings in the kingdom of Shoa . Cass, William Paca garden in Annapolis, Maryland, in London. C HRISTOPHER D. (ed.), Ideology: power and prehis- J ACKSON R.T. 1972. — Land use and settlement in tory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 25- Gamu Gofa, Ethiopia . Occasional Paper 17. 35. Department of Geography Makerere, University L EVINE D.N. 1974. — Greater Ethiopia: the evolution Kampala, Kampala. of a multiethnic society. The University of Chicago J ACKSON R.T. 1971. — Periodic markets in southern Press, Chicago. Ethiopia . Institute of British Geographers L EWIS H.S. 1962. — Historical problems in Ethiopia Transactions 53: 31-42. and the Horn of Africa. Annals of the New York J ACKSON R.T., R ULVANEY T.R. & F ORSTER J. 1969. Academy of Sciences 96: 504-511. — Report of the Oxford University Expedition to the L EWIS H.S. 1974. — Neighbors, friends, and kins- Gamu Highlands of Southern Ethiopia . Oxford men: principles of social organization among the University, Oxford. Cushitic-Speaking peoples of Ethiopia. Ethnology J ARVENPA R. & B RUMBACH H.J. 1995. — Ethno- 13: 145-157. archaeology and gender: Chipewyan women as L OTHROP S.K. 1928. — The Indians of Tierra Del hunters. Research in Economic Anthropology 16: 39-82. Fuego. Museum of the American Indian Heye J ENSON E. 1959. — Altvoker Sud-Atheiopiens . Foundation, New York. Kohlhammer Verlag, Stuttgart. L OWIE R.H. 1935. — The Crow Indians . Farrar & J OHNSTON C. 1844 [1972]. — Travels in Southern Rinehart, New York. Abyssinia through the country of Adaal to the M ASON O. 1889. — Aboriginal Skin Dressing. Kingdom of Shoa . Books for Libraries Press, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. Freeport. M ATORY J. L. 2005. — Black Atlantic religion. K AMMINGA J. 1982. — Over the edge: functional analy- Princeton University Press, Princeton. sis Australian Stone-tools . Occasional Papers in M C D IVETT K. B. 1987. — Results of replicative hide- Anthropology 12. Anthropology Museum working experiments: the roles of raw material, hide Unviersity of Queensland, Australia. condition, and use wear patterns in the determina- K EELEY L.H. 1980. — Experimental Determination of tion of rhyolite end scraper function. Lithic Stone-tool Uses . University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Technology 19: 93-97. K EELEY L.H. 1982. — Hafting and retooling: effects M C N IVEN I.J. 1994. — Technological organization on the archaeological record. American Antiquity and settlement in southwest Tasmania after the gla- 47(4): 798-809. cial maximum. Antiquity 68: 75-82. K EHOE A. B. 2005. — Expedient angled-tanged end- M ELTZER D. J. 1981. — A study of style and function scrapers: glimpsing women’s work in the archaeo- in a class of tools. Journal of Field Archaeology 8: logical record, in F RINK L. & W EEDMAN K.J. (eds), 313-326. Gender and hide production. AltaMira, Walnut M URDOCH J. 1892. — Ethnological Results of the Point Creek: 133-142. Barrow Expedition. Smithsonian Institution Press, K ENT S. 1987. — Method and theory for activity area Washington D.C. research: An ethnoarchaeological approach . Columbia M ERAB P. 1921-1929. — Impressions d’Éthiopie . University Press, New York. Volume III. H. Libert, Paris. K IMBALL L. 1995. — An Introduction to methodolog- N ELSON E. 1899. — The Eskimo about Bering Strait . ical and substantive contributions of microwear Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. analysis. Lithic Technology 19: 81-82. N ELSON S. M. 1997. — Gender in archaeology: analyz- K UHN S.L. 1990. — A geometric index of reduction ing power and prestige. Altamira, Walnut Creek. for unifacial stone-tools . Journal of Archaeological N ELSON M., G LOWACKI D. & S MITH A. 2002. — The Sciences 17: 583-593. impact of women on household economies: a Maya K UHN S.L. 1992. — Blank form and reduction as case study, in N ELSON S.M. & R OSEN-A YALON M. determinants of Mousterian scraper morphology. (ed.), Pursuit of Gender: Worldwide Archaeological American Antiquity 57: 115-128. Approaches . AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek: 125-154. L ANGE W. 1982. — History of southern Gonga . Franz N ILSSON S. 1868. — The Primitive inhabitants of Steiner Verlag GMBH, Wiesbaden. Scandinavia . Longmans Green, London.

96 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) The Gamo hideworkers of southwestern Ethiopia and Cross-Cultural Comparisons

N ISSEN K. & D ITTEMORE M. 1974. — Ethnographic the North American Plains, in F RINK L. & data and war pattern analysis: a study of socketed W EEDMAN K.J. (eds), Gender and hide production . Eskimo scrapers. Tebiwa 17: 67-87l. AltaMira, Walnut Creek: 57-76. O DELL G.H. 1994. — Prehistoric hafting and mobil- S HACK W. 1966. — The Gurage: a people of the enset ity in North American midcontinent: examples culture . Oxford University Press, London. from Illinois. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology S HOTT M. 1995. — How much is a scraper? Lithic 13: 51-73. Technology 20: 53-72. O LMSTEAD J. 1973. — Agricultural land and social S HOTT M. 1997. — Innovation and Selection in stratification in the Gamu highlands of southern Prehistory, in O DELL G.H. (ed.), Stone-tools: Ethiopia, in M ARCUS H.G. (ed.), Proceedings of the Theoretical Insights in to Human Prehistory. Plenum First U.S. Conference on Ethiopian Studies . African Press, New York: 279-314. Studies Center Michigan State University, East S HOTT M.J. & W EEDMAN K.J. 2006. — Measuring Lansing: 223-234. reduction in stone-tools: an ethnoarchaeological O LMSTEAD J. 1997. — Woman between two worlds: study of Gamo hidescaper blades from Ethiopia. portrait of an Ethiopian rural leader . University of Journal of Archaeological Science XX: 1-20. Illinois Press, Urbana. S IEGAL P.E. 1984. — Functional Variability within an O RENT A. 1969. — Lineage Structure and the Assemblage of Endscrapers. Lithic Technology 12: Supernatural: The Kafa of Southwest Ethiopia . 35-51. Doctoral dissertation. Boston University, Boston. S IMMONS F.J. 1960. — Northwest Ethiopia: people and O SWALT W.H. 1976. — An anthropological analysis of economy . The University of Wisconsin Press, food-getting technology. Wiley, New York. Madison. P ANKHURST R. 1964. — The Oldtime Handicrafts of S KINNER A. 1919. — A sketch of Eastern Dakota eth- Ethiopia with a note on traditional dress. Ethiopia nology. American Anthropologist 21(2): 164-174. Observer 8(3): 221-242. S PERBER D. 1973. — Paradoxes of seniority among P ARKYNS M. 1966. — Life in Abyssina . Frank Cass & the Dorze, in M ARCUS H.G. (ed.), Proceedings of the Co. LTD, London. First U.S. Conference on Ethiopian Studies . Center P ARRY W.J. & K ELLEY R.L. 1987. — Expedient core for African Studies Michigan State University, East technology and sedentism, in J OHNSON J.K. & Lansing: 209-222. M ORROW C.A. (eds), The organization of core tech- S TAHL A.B. 2001. — Making history in Banda . nology . Westview Press, Boulder: 280-304. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. P FAFFENBERGER B. 1992. — Social anthropology of S TERNER J. & D AVID N. 1991. — Gender and caste in technology. Annual Review of Anthropology 21: 491- the Mandara highlands: northeastern Nigeria and 516. northern Cameroon. Ethnology 30: 355-369. P AULITSCHKE P. 1888. — Harar. Brauchaus, Leipzig. S TRAUBE H. 1963. — Volker Sud-Atheiopien. Volume 3 . R EY C. F. 1877. — The real Abyssinia . J.B. Lippincott Kohlhammer Verlag, Stuttgart. Co., Philadelphia. S WANTON J.R. 1946. — The Indians of the R OTH H. L. 1899. — The Aborigines of Tasmaina . Southeastern United States . Bureau of American F.King & Sons, Halifax. Ethnology, Bulletin 137. Smithsonian Institution, R OTS V. & W ILLIAMSON B.S. 2004. — Microwear Washington D.C.: 442-448. and residue analyses in perspective: the contribution T AKASE K. 2004. — Hide processing of Even and of ethnoarchaeological evidence. Journal of Koryak: an ethnoarchaeological survey in Kamchatka Archaeological Science 31: 1287-1299. Peninsula, Russia. Material Culture 77: 57-84. R ULE P. & E VANS J. 1985. — The relationship of T ESHOME T. 1984. — Material Culture of the morphological variation to hafting techniques Wolaitas . MA thesis. Department of Sociology, among Paleoindian endscrapers at the Shawnee Anthropology, and Social Administration, Addis Minisink site, in M C N ETT C.W. Jr. (ed.), Shawnee Ababa University, Addis Ababa. Unpublished. Minisink. Academic Press, New York: 211-220. T INDALE N.B. 1965. — Stone implement making S ACKETT J.R. 1990. — Style and ethnicity in archaeol- among the Nakako, Ngadadjara and Pitjandjara of ogy: the case for isochrestism, in C ONKEY M.W. & the Great Western Desert. Records of the South H ASTORF C.A. (eds), The uses of style in archaeology . Australian Museum 15: 131-164. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 32-43. T ODD D.M.1978. — The origins of outcastes in S ASSAMAN K.E. 1992. — Lithic Technology and the Ethiopia reflections on an evolutionary theory. Hunter-Gatherer Sexual Division of Labor. North Abbay 9: 145-158. American Archaeologist 13: 249-262. T OTH N. 1985. — The Oldowan reassessed. Journal S CHMIDT P.R. 1997. — Iron technology in East Africa: of Archaeological Science 12: 101-120. symbolism, science, and archaeology . Indiana T URNER L. 1894. — Ethnology of the Ungava District : University Press, Bloomington. Hudson Bay Territory. Eleventh Annual Report of S CHRIBER L. 2005. — Late prehistoric bison hide the Bureau of Ethnology. Smithsonian Institute, production and hunter-gatherer identities on Washington D.C.

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) 97 Weedman Arthur K. J.

V AUGHN P.C. 1985. — Use Wear Analysis of Flaked W IESSER P. 1983. — Style and social information in Stone-tools . The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Kalahari San projectile points. American Antiquity W EBLEY L. 2005. — Hideworking among descendants of 48: 253-276. Khoekhoen pastoralist in Northern Cape, South W ILMSEN E.N. 1968. — Functional analysis of flaked Africa, in F RINK L. & W EEDMAN K.J. (eds), Gender and stone artifacts. American Antiquity 33: 156-152. Hide production . AltaMira, Walnut Creek: 153-174. W ILMSEN E.N. 1989. — Land Filled with Flies . W EEDMAN K.J. 2000 . — An Ethnoarchaeological Study Chicago University Press, Chicago. of Stone Scrapers among the Gamo people of Southern W ISSLER C. 1920. — North American Indians of the Ethiopia . UMI Doctoral dissertation. UMI, Ann Plains . Handbook Series 1. American Museum of Arbor. National History, New York. W EEDMAN K.J. 2002a. — On the spur of the moment: W OBST M. 1999. — Style in archaeology or archaeol- effects of age and experience on hafted stone scraper ogists in style, in C HILTON E.S. (ed.), Material morphology. American Antiquity 67: 731-744. Meaning: critical approaches to the interpretation of W EEDMAN K.J. 2002b. — An ethnoarchaeological material culture . University of Utah Press, Salt Lake study of stone-tool variability among the Gamo City: 118-132. hideworkers of southern Ethiopia, in A UDOIN- W OBST M.H. 2000. — Agency in (spite of) material R OUZEAU F. & B EYRIES S. (eds), Le travail du cuir de culture, in D OBRES M.A. & R OBB J.E. (eds), Agency la Préhistoire à nos jours. APDCA, Antibes: 131-142. in Archaeology . Routledge, London: 40-50. W EEDMAN K.J. 2005. — Gender and stone-tools: an W YLDE A. B. 1888. — ’83 to ’87 in the Soudan . Nego ethnographic study of the Konso and Gamo hide- Universities Press, New York. workers of southern Ethiopia, in F RINK L. & Y INTSO G. 1995. — The Ari of Southwestern Ethiopia . W EEDMAN K.J. (eds), Gender and hide production . Doctoral dissertation. Department of Sociology, AltaMira, Walnut Creek: 175-196. Anthropology and Social Administration, Addis W EEDMAN K.J. 2006. — An ethnoarchaeological Ababa University, Addis Ababa. study of hafting and stone-tool diversity among the Z IHLMAN A. 1997. — Woman the gatherer, in Gamo of Ethiopia. Journal of Archaeological Method H AYS-G ILPIN K. & W HITLEY D.S. (eds), Reader in and Theory 13(3): 188-237. Gender archaeology . Routledge, London: 91-106.

Submitted on 12 March 2007; accepted on 5 October 2007.

98 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1)