Archaeologies of technology

Cambridge Journal of Economics

Volumn 34, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 103-114

  Dobres, Marcia Anne ^a  

^a University of Maine   (United States)

Author keywords

Archaeology; Cha ne op ratoire; Embodied agency; Gender; Technology

Indexed keywords

ARCHAEOLOGY; ARTIFACT; COGNITION; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT; TECHNOLOGY;

EID: 77950921129     PISSN: 0309166X     EISSN: 14643545     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/cje/bep014     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. Andrefsky, W. Jr 1994. Raw-material availability and the organization of technology, American Antiquity, vol. 59, no. 1, 21-34
2. Balfet, H. (ed.), 1991. Observer l'Action Technique: Des Chaînes Opératoires, Pour Quoi Faire?, Paris, CNRS
3. Barcet, A., Le Bas, C. and Mercier, C. 1985. Savoir-Faire et Changements Techniques, Lyon, Presses Universitaires de Lyon
4. Binford, L. 1965. Archaeological systematics and the study of culture process, American Antiquity, vol. 31, no. 2, 203-10
5. Bleed, P. 2001A. Artifice constrained: what determines technological choice?, pp. 151-62, in Schiffer, M. B. (ed.), Anthropological Perspectives on Technology, Dragoon and Albuquerque, Amerind Foundation and University of New Mexico Press
6. Bleed, P. 2001B. Trees or chains, links or branches: conceptual alternatives for consideration of stone tool production and other sequential activities, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 8, no. 1, 101-27
7. Bleed, P. 2002. Cheap, regular, and reliable: implications of design variation in late Pleistocene Japanese microblade technology, pp. 95-102, in Elston, R. G. and Kuhn, S. (eds), Thinking Small: Global Perspectives on Microlithization, Washington, DC, Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association No. 12
8. Bleed, P. and Bleed, A. 1987. Energetic efficiency and hand tool design: a performance comparison of push and pull stroke saws, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, vol. 6, 189-97
9. Brumfiel, E. M. 2003. It's a material world: history, artifacts, and anthropology, Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 32, 205-23
10. Chapman, J. 1996. Enchainment, commodification, and gender in the Balkan Copper Age, Journal of European Archaeology, vol. 4, 203-42
11. Childs, S. T. 1999. "After All, A Hoe Bought A Wife": the social dimensions of ironworking among the Toro of East Africa, pp. 23-45, in Dobres, M.-A. and Hoffman, C. R. (eds), The Social Dynamics of Technology: Practice, Politics, and World Views, Washington, DC, Smithsonian Institution Press
12. Conkey, M. W. and Spector, J. D. 1984. Archaeology and the study of gender, Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 7, 1-38
13. Costin, C. 1991. Craft specialization: issues in defining, documenting, and explaining the organization of production, Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 3, 1-56
14. Costin, C. 1996. Exploring the relationship between gender and craft in complex societies: methodological and theoretical issues of gender attribution, pp. 111-37, in Wright, R. P. (ed.), Gender and Archaeology, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press
15. Cresswell, R. 1983. Transferts de techniques et chaînes opératoires, Techniques et Culture, vol. 2, 145-63
16. Crown, P. 2007. Learning about learning, pp. 198-217, in Skibo, J., Graves, M., and Stark, M. (eds), Archaeological Anthropology: Perspectives on Method and Theory, Tucson, University of Arizona Press
17. Dietler, M. and Herbich, I. 1994. Habitus et reproduction sociale des techniques: l'intelligence du style en archéologie et en ethno-archéologie, pp. 202-87, in Latour, B. and Lemonnier, P. (eds), De la Préhistoire aux Missiles Balistiques: L'Intelligence Sociale des Techniques, Paris, Editions la Découverte
18. Dobres, M.-A. 1995. 'Gender in the Making: Late Magdalenian Social Relations of Production in the French Midi-Pyrénées', PhD Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California at Berkeley, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor
19. Dobres, M.-A. 1999A. Of paradigms and ways of seeing: artifact variability as if people mattered, pp. 7-22, in Chilton, E. S. (ed.), Material Meanings: Critical Approaches to the Interpretation of Material Culture, Salt Lake City, University of Utah Press
20. Dobres, M.-A. 1999B. Technology's links and chaînes: the processual unfolding of technique and technician, pp. 124-46, in Dobres, M.-A. and Hoffman, C. R. (eds), The Social Dynamics of Technology: Practice, Politics, and World Views, Washington, DC, Smithsonian Institution Press
21. Dobres, M.-A. 2000. Technology and Social Agency: Outlining a Practice Framework for Archaeology, Oxford, Blackwell Publishers
22. Dobres, M.-A. 2001. Meaning in the making: agency and the social embodiment of technology and art, pp. 47-76, in Schiffer, M. B. (ed.), Anthropological Perspectives on Technology, Dragoon and Albuquerque, Amerind Foundation and University of New Mexico Press
23. Dobres, M.-A. 2004. Digging up gender in the earliest human societies, pp. 211-26 in Wiesner-Hanks, M. and Meade, T. (eds), Blackwell Companion to Gender History, Oxford, Blackwell
24. Dobres, M.-A. 2008. Technologies, pp. 115-41, in Cunliffe, B., Gosden, C., and Joyce, R. (eds), Oxford Handbook of Archaeology, Oxford, Oxford University Press
25. Edmonds, M. 1990. Description, understanding, and the chaîne opératoire, Archaeological Review From Cambridge, vol. 9, no. 1, 55-70
26. Fedigan, L. 1986. The changing role of women in models of human evolution, Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 15, 25-66
27. Gamble, C. and Porr, M. (eds), 2006. The Individual Hominid in Context, London, Routledge
28. Gero, J. 1985. Socio-politics and the woman-at-home ideology, American Antiquity, vol. 50, 342-50
29. Gero, J. M. and Conkey, M. W. 1991. Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory, Oxford, Basil Blackwell
30. Gibson, K. R. and Ingold, T. (eds), 1993. Tools, Language and Cognition in Human Evolution, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
31. Gosselain, O. P. 1998. Social and technical identity in a clay crystal ball, pp. 78-106, in Stark, M. (ed.), The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, Washington, DC, Smithsonian Institution Press
32. Gowlett, J. A. J. 1996. Rule systems in the artefacts of Homo erectus and early Homo sapiens: constrained or chosen?, pp. 191-215, in Mellars, P. and Gibson, K. (eds), Modelling the Early Human Mind, Cambridge, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research
33. Hendon, J. 1996. Archaeological approaches to the organization of domestic labor: household practice and domestic relations, Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 25, 45-61
34. Hoffman, C. R. 1999. Intentional damage as technological agency: breaking metals in late Prehistoric Mallorca, Spain, pp. 103-23, in Dobres, M.-A. and Hoffman, C. R. (eds), The Social Dynamics of Technology: Practice, Politics, and World Views, Washington, DC, Smithsonian Institution Press
35. Hosler, D. 1996. Technical choices, social categories and meaning among the Andean potters of Las Animas, Journal of Material Culture, vol. 1, no. 1, 63-92
36. Ingold, T. 1988. Tools, minds, and machines: an excursion in the philosophy of technology, Techniques et Culture, vol. 12, 151-76
37. Ingold, T. 1990. Society, nature, and the concept of technology, Archaeological Review From Cambridge, vol. 9, no. 1, 5-17
38. Ingold, T. 1993. The Reindeerman's Lasso, pp. 108-25, in Lemonnier, P. (ed.), Technological Choices: Transformation in Material Cultures Since the Neolithic, London, Routledge
39. Jarvenpa, R. and Brumbach, H. J. (eds), 2006. Circumpolar Lives and Livelihood: A Comparative Ethnoarchaeology of Gender and Subsistence, Lincoln, University of Nebraska
40. Karlin, C., Bodu, P. and Pelegrin, J. 1991. Processus techniques et chaîne opératoires: comments les préhistoriens s'appropient un concept élaboré par les ethnologues, pp. 101-17, in Balfet, H. (ed.), Observer l'Action Technique: Des Chaînes Opératoires, Pour Quoi Faire?, Paris, CNRS
41. Karlin, C. and Julien, M. 1994. Prehistoric technology: a cognitive science, pp. 152-64, in Renfrew, C. and Zubrow, E. (eds), The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
42. Keightley, D. 1987. Archaeology and mentality: the making of China, Representations, vol. 18, 91-128
43. Keller, C. M. 2001. Thought and production: insights from the practitioner, pp. 33-45, in Schiffer, M. B. (ed.), Anthropological Perspectives on Technology, Dragoon and Albuquerque, Amerind Foundation and University of New Mexico Press
44. Keller, C. M. and Keller, J. D. 1991. Thinking and Acting with Iron, Urbana-Champaign, University of Illinois, Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology
45. Keller, C. M. and Keller, J. D. 1996. Cognition and Tool Use: The Blacksmith at Work, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
46. Lechtman, H. 1977. Style in technology: some early thoughts, pp. 3-20, in Lechtman, H. and Merrill, R. S. (eds), Material Culture: Styles, Organization, and Dynamics of Technology, St Paul, Minnesota, American Ethnological Society
47. Lechtman, H. 1984A. Andean value systems and the development of prehistoric metallurgy, Technology and Culture, vol. 25, no. 1, 1-36
48. Lechtman, H. 1984B. Pre-Columbian surface metallurgy, Scientific American, vol. 250, 56-63
49. Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1964A. Le Geste et la Parole I: Technique et Langage, Paris, Albin Michel
50. Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1964B. Le Geste et La Parole II: La Mémoire et Les Rythmes, Paris, Albin Michel
51. Mauss, M. 1969. [orig. 1934]. Fragment d'un plan descriptif de la sociologie, pp. 303-54 reprinted in Oeuvres, Vol. III: Cohésion sociale et divisions de la sociologie, Paris, Editions de Minuit
52. Miller, D. 1998. Material Culture: Why Some Things Matter, Chicago, University of Chicago
53. Pálsson, G. 1994. Enskilment at sea, Man, vol. 29, 901-27
54. Pelegrin, J. 1991. Les savoir-faires: une très longue histoire, Terrain, 1991, 106-113
55. Pelegrin, J. 1993. A framework for analysing prehistoric stone tool manufacture and a tentative application to some early lithic industries, pp. 302-14, in Berthelet, A. and Chavaillon, J. (eds), The Use of Tools by Human and Non-Human Primates, Oxford, Oxford University Press
56. Pelegrin, J., Karlin, C. and Bodu, P. 1988. 'Chaînes opératoires': un outil pour le préhistorien, pp. 55-62, in Tixier, J. (ed.), Té chnologie Préhistorique, Paris, CNRS, Notes et Monographies Techniques, No. 25
57. Perlès, C. (ed.) 1991. 25 Ans d'Etudes Technologiques en Préhistoire: Bilan et Perspectives, Juan-les-Pins, Editions APDCA
58. Pigeot, N. 1990. Technical and social actors: flintknapping specialists at Magdalenian Etiolles, Archaeological Review From Cambridge, vol. 9, no. 1, 126-41
59. Pigeot, N. 1991. Réflexions sur l'histoire technique de l'homme: de l'homme cognitive à l'evolution culturelle, Paleo: Revue d'Archéologie Préhistorique, vol. 3, 167-200
60. Porr, M. 2000. Signs of the times: a different approach towards the origins of Lower Palaeolithic handaxes, Annual Review from Cambridge, vol. 17, 19-32
61. Roux, V. 1990. The psychosocial analysis of technical activities: a contribution to the study of craft specialization, Archaeological Review From Cambridge, vol. 79, no. 1, 142-53
62. Roux, V. 1991. Peut-on interpréter les activities lithiques préhistoriques en termes de durée d'apprentissage? apport de l'ethnologie et de la psychologie aux études téchnologiques, in Perlès, C. (ed.), 25 Ans d'Etudes Technologiques en Préhistoire: Bilan et Perspectives, Juan-les-Pins, Editions APDCA
63. Sahlins, M. 1976. Culture and Practical Reason, Chicago, University of Chicago Press
64. Schiffer, M. B. 1975. Behavioral chain analysis: activities, organization, and the use of space, Fieldiana, vol. 65, 103-74
65. Schiffer, M. B. 1992. Technology and society, pp. 130-41, in Schiffer, M. B. (ed.), Technological Perspectives on Behavioral Change, Tucson, University of Arizona
66. Schiffer, M. B. 2001. The explanation of long-term technological change, pp. 215-35, in Schiffer, M. B. (ed.), Anthropological Perspectives on Technology, Dragoon and Albuquerque, Amerind Foundation and University of New Mexico Press
67. Schiffer, M. B. 2004. Studying technological change: a behavioral perspective, World Archaeology, vol. 36, no. 4, 579-85
68. Schiffer, M. B. and Skibo, J. M. 1997. The explanation of artifact variability, American Antiquity, vol. 62, no. 1, 25-50
69. Schiffer, M. B., Skibo, J. M., Griffitts, J., Hollenback, K. L. and Longacre, W. L. 2001. Behavioral archaeology and the study of technology, American Antiquity, vol. 66, no. 4, 729-38
70. Schlanger, N. 1994. Mindful technology: unleashing the chaîne opératoire for an archaeology of mind, pp. 143-51, in Renfrew, C. and Zubrow, E. (eds), The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
71. Schlanger, N. 1996. Understanding Levallois: lithic technology and cognitive archaeology, Cambridge Archaeological Journal, vol. 6, no. 2, 231-54
72. Schmidt, P. R. and Mapunda, B. B. 1997. Ideology and the archaeological record in Africa: interpreting symbolism in iron smelting technology, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, vol. 16, 73-102
73. Scott, E. 1994. Through the lens of gender, pp. 3-24, in Scott, E. (ed.), Those of Little Note: Gender, Race, and Class in Historical Archaeology, Tucson, University of Arizona
74. Shennan, S. (ed.), 1995. Symbolic aspects of early technologies, World Archaeology, Vol. 27, no. 1
75. Sillar, B. and Tite, M. S. 2000. The challenge of 'technological choice' for materials science approaches in archaeology, Archaeometry, vol. 42, no. 1, 2-20
76. Sofaer Derevenski, J. 2000. Rings of life: the role of early metalwork in mediating the gendered life course, World Archaeology, vol. 31, no. 3, 389-406
77. Tacxon, P. 1991. The power of stone: symbolic aspects of stone use and tool development in Western Arnhem Land, Australia, Antiquity, vol. 65, 192-207
78. Torrence, R. (ed.), 1989. Time, Energy and Stone Tools, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
79. van der Leeuw, S. E. 1994. Cognitive aspects of 'technique', pp. 135-42, pp. 135-42 in Renfrew, C. and Zubrow, E. (eds), The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
80. Vinsrygg, S. 1988. Archaeology-as if people mttered: a discussion of humanistic archaeology, Norwegian Archaeological Review, vol. 21, no. 1, 1-12
81. Wylie, A. 1991. Gender theory and the archaeological record: why is there no archaeology of gender?, pp. 31-56, in Gero, J. and Conkey, M. W. (eds), Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory, Oxford, Basil Blackwell
82. Wynn, T. G. 1999. The evolution of tools and symbolic behaviour, pp. 263-87, in Lock, A. and Peters, C. R. (eds), Handbook of Human Symbolic Evolution, Oxford, Clarendon Press