Thesis proposal

W. Isaac Falcón Revelo

Title: Gender archaeological contexts: An analysis of domestic and productive spaces in

Ecuadorian coast.

Introduction

The most common archaeological studies have avoided to work, interpret, and search for

diverse non material derived themes as personalities or/and individuals’ mind. This avoidance

it is typical from archaeologists belonged to “New Archaeology”, who were more interested

in material evidence and functionalist theory that can explain the relationship between

artifacts and the subsistence organization of societies (Binford, 1967; Binford & Sabloff,

1982). However, each time it is more common archaeological perspectives (typically known

as post-procesual) that have shown interest in use social theoretical approaches to apply and

suggest interpretations about persons, social phenomena and their symbolic basis based

beyond the material evidence. The importance of theory is fundamental because this

archaeological perspective understand artefacts like subjective, voiceless and frequently

limited (Hodder, 1987). Thus, it is possible do an engendering interpretation of a specific

archaeological context? This work pretends demonstrate that it is possible through the use of

a complementary concepts, archaeological data, methods and interpretations.

The main objective of this propose is assess the evidence of two different archaeological

contexts from Manabí province, Ecuador, since a gender perspective. These contexts have

been defined as a domestic context (N4C3-040) and as a productive workshop of shell

context (OMJ-PLP-170C) (Martínez et al., 2006). The analysis of these spaces will include

productive, spatial, and interpretative analysis in order to understand how the people were

involved in the productive processes that formed these domestical and/or productive context.

Then, the guide principal question to address this issue is: How we can analyze the

archaeological evidence with a gender focus? And similarly: Which objects, considerations

and implications we shall consider to see and interpret social actors beyond of their cultural

material remains?

In order to answer the main question and interpret evidence, this research present three

specific objectives:

1. Contextualize archeologically two sites of the Manabí coast for understand and

qualify what evidence of productive actions are available as well as evidence of

occupation.

2. Compare evidence of N4C3-040 site which has been interpretated as a domestic

context, and archaeological remains of OMJ-PLP-170C which have been understand

as a productive shell workshop context and then, assess the differences between these

spaces that are supposed produced by gender different actors (Women associated to

domestic context and Male artisans to productive context of workshops)

3. Relate these domestic and economic-productive spaces with the hierarchical,

productive and symbolic interpretations that have been provided for the Manteño

cultural manifestations (archaeological filiation identified in the Manabí province) by

the principal researches of these area.

Literature Review

Manteño-Huancavilca Culture

The Manteño-Huancavilca is a cultural manifestation that composes almost 350 km of the

Ecuadorian coastal line, from the north of Santa Elena peninsula to the modern Bahía de

Caráquez settlement (fig. 1). This culture is chronologically settled between A.D 800 to A.D

1535 (Evans & Meggers, 1965), and it is characterized principally for a well know black

ceramic corpus and stone constructions (Stothert & Sánchez, 2011). Likewise, it is

remarkable the artisan work with various types of shells, where is significant the works with

madre perla shell and spondylus shell (fig. 2). These works possibly were involve in a trade

system with the Andean areas form Ecuador and Peru and even west of Mexico (Marcos,

1980). As an heir of Guangala and Bahía archaeological cultures, the Manteño culture

possibly has a social structure based in chiefdoms and some researchers have interpreted the

development of this society with patrons that suggest an emergency of a state (McEwan &

Delgago, 2008).
Figure 1. Manteño-Huancavilca Area (in green). Image extracted and modificated from

Bouchard, 2010: 479.

 Figure 1. Manteño typicall shell work. Image extracted from Guinea, 2006

Gender Analysis of domestic contexts

Though the gender in archaeology begun to be worked and published since the final of 80´s,

in 90´s decade, hand by hand with the feminist theory, this perspective born as a critic

contribution to the androgynist reconstruction and interpretation of the past (Wiesheu, 2006).

Commonly the archaeological interpretation created a general well-defined gender division of

labor without evidence that can support those assumptions. Rather, these models fit better as

an analogy for the gender division of labor of north American western society of XX century

(Falcó Martí, 2003; Nelson, 1997). One of the most typical interpretations of a model of

division of labor is the one who understand the labor of woman as a gatherer or housekeeper,
and the men like the hunter or as the person in charge of the development of technology in

specialized places as production workshops.

But the domestic units possibly do not correspond to that simple analogy, because the

domestic units are not homogeneous and always are related with the external conditions.

Also, these units are affected by the social and economic structures of a society (Julia

Hendon, 1996). Correspondingly, we have to consider this is a back-and-forth relationship in

order that the public species, understood as political and structure decision make species,

probably where firstly discussed and created in domestic context (Bowser & Patton, 2004).

In this sense, the gender archaeology do not is looking for found women in the archaeological

record, because things have not intrinsic gender and if women are not visible are not the men

as well, but rather it tries to recognize theoretically that the users and producers had

identities, relations, conflicts and so forth (Gero, 1991). Thus, thanks of the contributions of

gender archaeology we can recognize the role of the women in the masculine spaces where

only men were view and also, we can theorize and evidence gender relations that

undoubtedly have strong relation with dynamics of society.

Methodology

The most challenging issue of interpret archaeological remains since a gender perspective is

object do not have an intrinsic associated gender, but whether we understand the remain

materials as a part of social relations may the evidence could communicate new aspects of

culture. Every physic phenomenon could be both technical and social (Ibid.), then their origin
is not only in physical activities rather also in social relationships. In this sense, one of the

most important social relationship this research is interested is gender relationships.

As the last parts exposed, this proposal is determined to analyze two specific special contexts,

a domestic and a productive space that, because of its size and materials found, have been

interpreted as workshop where shell materials were exploited. The methodology of this work

is based in one that have been used to compare domestic spaces of different cultures to

understand how structures change when people with diverse cultural, chronological and

religious characteristics habit these places (Guitiérrez LLoret, 2012). The main goal of

Gutierrez’s investigation was analyze structures since a grammatic perspective (Morphologic,

Syntactic, and Semiotic) and demonstrate that a new conjunction of social relationships must

be represented materially different, so this work understands that different gender and

productive relations must produce different material evidence. Whether the division on labor

is market and only men are producing shell ornaments in the workshops, evidence must be

different from the domestic context, unless both women and man were producing in a

communitarian production system, then the evidence shall show similar.

Thus, this thesis proposal will use a comparative analysis of these spaces in at least three

different levels: 1. A morphologic analysis of the forms, structures, modifications and,

considering these structures are part of sites with long-time occupations, their changes

through time. It will do a descriptive, systematic and hierarchized classification of the

structures considering their spaces (single, multiple), general form, and size. 2. A second

level of analysis refers of how this structure fits within a larger social and environmental

organization, which means, how these buildings are in reference with other structures and

features (e.g., distance between them, existence of garbage spaces, subsistence land features)
and, 3. The last level is about what evidence has each one of the sites in perspectives of raw

material, quantities, and what is the productive status of the materials.

The last level of analysis has a special emphasis because it also can be examined by a

“Operational Chaine” that is a theoretical concept that permits us differentiate the cultural

remains according with their productive process (i.e., procurement, fabrication,

use/modification/re-use, and discard) (Bar-Yosef, 2009; Soressi & Geneste, 2011). This

differentiation is important because if we understand the evidence of the production steps of

the material, we can think and identify other labors associated with the production of the

available archeological remains. Nelson (1997) arguments that typically in an Operational

Chain different persons are involved in a production of an artifact, and there is some evidence

that demonstrates men and women have different manners (related with techniques,

materials, uses) to relation with artifacts (Costin, 1991). In this way, this method not only

can recognize the visible labors that taken place in this context but rather the other that

possible were associated with other persons (Conkey, 1991).

Theoretical approach

The most recurring perspective theories I will use to understand and analyze my evidence, as

well as fit methodologies, is gender and feminist theory focus in archaeological practice. I

understand gender archaeology as a theoretical standpoint which not only is interested in

view women but rather interpreter the history, process and evidence assuming that comes

from different socio active actors with unique and diverse genders and personalities

(Tringham, 1991). Then, although gender is not clearly visible in artifacts without
interpretation, it must consider that all objects, their production and their use were products of

social relations (i.e: social, kin, conflictive) that also include gender relations (Conkey, 1991).

Considering this, the present proposal offers a convenient use gender theory perspective

principally in three associate levels. 1. As a critical standpoint about the assumptions around

the labor differentiation of the past; 2. As a theoretical view to evaluate the productive

process; and 3. As an interpretative focus to evidence the diverse and complexity of past´s

characters, identities and their relations. This theoretical ways to approach will help to

understand since an integrative analysis the same evidence.

The first approach has to do with the interpretations that history has offered about our past

related to the different roles of women, men, or even the non-binary genders. The principal

issue here is that assumptions about these themes have more to do with our contemporary

structure than the real past, which may is not real as a reachable truth but rather as a

interpretative approximation (Benavides, 2004, 2006). The most common assumption maybe

is the separation spheres where public sphere is represented by men (sometimes also related

with hunter tasks) and the private sphere (household) represented by women. These spaces

have been understood as different but, according with gender studies, this has not real

material fundaments and even, evidence suggest the contrary (Gero, 1991; Tringham, 1991)

The second perspective is related with production, so, considering this work is interested in

domestic contexts, is also important consider the household concept as the smallest and

minimum residence and productive unit (Conkey, 1991). Thus, it is the fundamental space to

evidence the social relations of production and we have to make it the correct questions:

What activities were done there, and by who? If we assume logical conditions, every
population could have at least around of 50 % of women. Then, women must be included

within production activities without differentiation of public-private sphere, since

ethnographic information shows women can do any work done by males (Wright, 1991).

Subsequently, as women and men are working in any productive space (including specialized

workshops), the way we have to also analyze is the relationship between different associated

spaces to understand how they relation themselves (Tringham, 1991). In Mesoamerica, for

instance, similar analyses have been done and they showed no private-specified workshops

(before associated with men) but rather small community units of production that could be

satisfied local and external necessities (Wilk & Rathje, 1982). In my opinion, similar

domestic production and consumption could correspond to the antique coastal Ecuadorian

case.

The last consideration has to do with the antique gender relations tied with gender identities.

Whether the material culture is seen as active and symbolic (Shanks & Tilley, 1987) the main

question is how the evidence (as material culture) is used, produced by people at the same

time these actions challenging and create their gender relation and their identities (Conkey,

1991; Gero, 1991). How we understand this? According with the most fundamental

anthropological views of basic social differentiation, we have the labor distinction among sex

and age as the most elementary and universally accepted. This first organization could serve

us as a clue of a formation of more complex social orders (LaFontaine, 1978). At the time,

these social orders are related with the productive actions that has to do with the

environmental factors because we cannot understand the production (domestic, specialized,

communal and so furth) without the production features. At the last, as I exposed, it is

obviously we are dealing with social, economic and politic factors that are important in
identifying individuals (gender, sex, labor, age, relation with environment) and then, connect

those with cultural identities (Dobres & Robb, 2000)

Contrary to the processual perspectives that argument it is impossible see identities, minds,

social relations (even they accept these are fundamental part within structure society), Hodder

argued it is possible if we use theory, methods and science in a different way (Hodder, 1987).

As other archaeological gender investigations, this work does not pretend assume or find

objects with gender, but rather make them different questions that result in further

explanations beyond the traditional ones (Conkey, 1991; Gero, 1991).

Significance

This study frames itself in a current stream of feminist studies that not only search for put

main focus in women but rather the gender as one of principal relationships that have

motivated the production of context we study. These relations are principally visible in

domestic spaces where the interactions of families, communities and different gender actors

happen (Marina Gurina & Marcén, 2005). Then, development of studies who focuses in

everyday day could be useful to view past not like our present (i.e., men doing things and

women in private spaces), but seeing our history like a critic tool of how we construct the

archaeological narratives and how this could change if we apply inclusive standpoints. As

well, this research could be used as a comparative case that could engage with similar

domestic sites that be very common in Ecuadorian coast and, propose new data and

interpretation for analysis. Finally, this study proposes itself like of one of the first affords

that have gender perspectives beyond the iconographic approaches that have been showed

successfully evidence of diverse gender identities yet (Ugalde & Benavides, 2018).
 References

Bar-Yosef, O. (2009). The chaîne opératoire approach in Middle Paleolithic archaeology.

Current Anthropology, 50(1), 103–131.

Benavides, H. (2004). Making Ecuadorian histories: Four centuries of defining power.

University of Texas Press.

Benavides, H. (2006). La representación del pasado sexual de Guayaquil: Historizando los

enchaquirados. Íconos-Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 24, 145–160.

Binford, L. R. (1967). Smudge pits and hide smoking: The use of analogy in archaeological

reasoning. American Antiquity, 1–12.

Binford, L. R., & Sabloff, J. A. (1982). Paradigms, systematics, and archaeology. Journal of

Anthropological Research, 38(2).

Bowser, B., & Patton, J. (2004). Domestic spaces as public places: An ethnoarchaeological

case study of houses, gender, and politics in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Journal of

Archaeological Method and Theory, 11(2), 157–181.

Conkey, M. (1991). Contexts of action, contexts for power: Material culture and gender in the

Magdalenian. In Engendering archaeology: Women and prehistory (pp. 57–92).

Costin, C. (1991). Craft specialization: Issues in defining, documenting, and explaining the

organization of production. Archaeological method and theory. Archaeological

Method and Theory, 3, 1–56.

Dobres, M.-A., & Robb, J. (2000). Agency in archaeology. Psychology Press.

Evans, C., & Meggers, B. (1965). Cronología relativa y absoluta en la costa del Ecuador.

Falcó Martí, R. (2003). La arqueología del género: Espacios de mujeres, mujeres con

espacio. Centro de Estudios sobre la Mujer.

Gero, J. (1991). Genderlithics: Women’s roles in stone tool production. In Engendering

archaeology: Women and prehistory (pp. 163–193).

Guitiérrez LLoret, S. (2012). Gramática de la casa: Perspectivas de análisis arqueológico de

los espacios domésticos medievales en la península ibérica (siglos VII-XIII). In

Arqueología de la arquitectura (pp. 139–164).

Hodder, I. (1987). La arqueología en la era postmoderna. Trabajos de Prehistoria, 44, 11.

LaFontaine, J. (1978). Introduction in Sex and age as principles of social differentiation.

ASA Monograp.

Marcos, J. (1980). Intercambio a larga distancia en América: El caso del Spondylus. Boletín

de Antropología Americana, 1, 124–129.

Marina Gurina, & Marcén, P. (2005). Arqueología de la vida cotidiana. In Arqueología y

género (pp. 141–158). Servicio de Publicaciones.

Martínez, V., Graber, Y., & Harris, M. (2006). Estudios interdisciplinarios en la costa centro-

sur de la provincia de Manabí (Ecuador): Nuevos enfoques. Bulletin de l’Institut

Français d’études Andines, 35(3), 433–444.

McEwan, C., & Delgago, F. (2008). Late pre-Hispanic polities of coastal Ecuador. In The

Handbook of South American Archaeology (pp. 505–525). Springer.

Nelson, N. (1997). How women and men got by and still get by (only not so well): The

gender division of labour in a Nairobi shanty-town. In Cities in the Developing

World: Issues, Theory, Policy. Oxford University Press.

Shanks, M., & Tilley, C. (1987). Social theory and archaeology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Soressi, M., & Geneste, J.-M. (2011). Reduction sequence, chaîne opératoire, and other

methods: The epistemologies of different approaches to lithic analysis the history and

efficacy of the chaîne opératoire approach to lithic analysis: Studying techniques to

reveal past societies in an evolutionary perspective. PaleoAnthropology, 334, 350.

Stothert, K. E., & Sánchez, A. (2011). Culturas del Pleistoceno final y el Holoceno temprano

en el Ecuador. Boletín de Arqueología PUCP, 15, 81–119.

Tringham, R. (1991). Households with faces: The challenge of gender in prehistoric

architectural remains. In Engendering archaeology: Women and prehistory (pp. 93–

131).

Ugalde, M. F., & Benavides, H. (2018). Queer histories and identities on the Ecuadorian

Coast. Queer.

Wiesheu, W. (2006). Arqueología de género y patrones de especialización artesanal.

Cuicuilco, 13(36), 139–149.

Wilk, R. R., & Rathje, W. L. (1982). Household archaeology. American Behavioral Scientist,

25(6), 617–639.

Wright, R. (1991). Women’s labor and pottery production in prehistory. In Engendering

Archaeology. Women and Pre-History (pp. 194–223). Basil Blackwell.