ogy in action isa first and comprehensive study of what remains, strality and multiple Hinkages, one of anthropology’s lesser known s. First developed as the study of ethnographic matezial culture from I perspectives, it has expanded its scope and relevance over the past The authors ate leading practitioners, and their theoretical approaches the processualism of the New Archacalogy and the post- n of the 1980s and 1990s. The book takes a case-study approach and is 5 geographic and topical coverage, including consideration of prenich and German. Three chapters introduce the subject and its xy the broad range of theory required, and discus field methods and spical chapters treat formation processes, subsistence, the study of style, sertiement systems, site structure and architecture, specialist jon, trade and exchange, and mortuary practices and ideology. The les with an apprectation of ethnoarchaeology's contributions, actual | and ofits place within anthropology. Generously illustrated, it tographs of leading cthnoatchaeologists in action. rd (hteps|/www.acs.ucalgary.ca/-ndavid) is Professor of Archaeology at ty of Calgary and Director of the Mandara Archaeological Project in id Nigeria His recent work includes video programs and numerous chnology and society in the Mandara mountains. ris Professor of Anthropology at the University of Arizona, Her books indran and India are, respectively, Village Ethnoarchaeology {1982} and asthan (1997), Her article "Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology” (1985] is ian ep Yona sn: Smelting won: eenactesea by (CAMBRIDGE seal, northern Camezooa, sketched UNIVERSITY PRESS ‘motor in 1983. ‘on cambrige.org fo ra PS ie) ra a Lae as NOILOV ETHNOARCHAEOLO IN ACTION NICHOLAS DAVID AND CAROL KRAMER‘yubuuvge ay rue russ sreprea or ty mann gt cananincs ‘The Edinburg Bulding Cambridge C52 2RU, UK £4 West 20h Steet, New Yank, NY 10014241, USA To Stamford Road, Oakleigh, Vic 3166, Australia ‘Ruiz de laren 18,28014 Mand, Spin Dock House, Tae Waterione Cape Towa 8001, South Asics ap www cambalige org © Cambridge Univesity Press 2001 ‘This book is a copyright. Subject 9 satay exception And vote provisae af relevant collective leasing agreements, ‘Rorepradocron of np part may ake place without {he wniten permission of Carbide University Press. First published 200) ‘Printed a the United Kingdon atthe University Press, Cambridee ‘Dpeface ‘ramp Medieval 1p System: QuaricXPress™ [4] A catalogue recor fer tis book i vallable fom the Beith Libeary ibrar of Coneess Catatoguing in Piication data David, Nichols, 1987 ‘Bdssoarchaeloge ation / Nickolas David, Carol Kremer rp. (Cambridge word archeeohgy! indader bbhowraphica erences and inte. ISBN @ 321 ssiea 60321 66779 8 (pb {Esknoarchacology-E Kramer, Caro, 1942-1 Tite IL. Series, SCrs:ERS 36 9001 980.1ede2100-D65127 ISHN 0821 56105 6 hardback ISBN O21 66779 8 paperback For the ‘great-great-grandchildren of those with and amongst whom. wwe have collectively researched,ee CONTENTS List of lgares and credits Page xii List of tables xviii Prefece a Acknowledgments wali 1 Ethnoarchaeology: its nature, origins, and history 1 ‘Why ethnoarchacology? 1 The plan of this book 4 ‘The birth and definition of ethnoarchacology 6 A brief history of ethnoarchacology 4 The attractions of ethnoarchacology au Further reading 2 2. Theorizing ethnoarchaeology and analogy 33 Explanation in social science 34 ‘Processual and contextual schools and styles of analysis 36 Analogy “8 Ethnoarchaeology and postprocessualism ea Further reading én 3. Fieldwork and ethics 63 ‘Types of ethnostchacologieal research, 64 ‘Assessment of field methods 70 Challenges 7 Professional ethics end the ethnoarchacologist 84 Further reading 90 4 Human residues: entering the archaeological context a1 ‘Middle range theory from S to A a Deposits and sites 95 Cycling, curation, lifespan 97 ‘Natural garbage and discarded meanings 103 ‘Abandonment 10 Concluding remarks us Further reading na10 Convents Fauna and subsistence Fauna and their emaine Subsistence Conclusion: the importance of ethnograph Further reading manny Studying artifacts: fumetions, operating sequences, taxonomy Archaeologica] and ethnoarchaeological approaches Mentification of arface fametions “Techniques of manufacture ‘Taxonomy, emics and eties Anote on change Further reading Style and the marking of boundaries: contrasting regional studies Style Style at work Conelusions Farber reading Settlement: systems and patterns Settlement patterns and subsistence-seztlement oysters Hunters and gatherers Pastoralists Cultivators plus Concluding contrasts, mobility and sedentism Further reading Sive structures and activities Huater-gatherer studies Nomadie pastoralists Mobile populations with domesticated szimals Cultivators Engendered activities, engendered spaces? Concluding remarks Farther reading Architecture “Vernacular” architecture Why the Willow Lake Dene build log cabins and tipis, Architecture in che Islamie world Sukur: the chiefly production of space ne uw? 127 138 136 138 138 142. 145, 187 165, 166 168 170 189 28 25 225 28, 239 242 250 254 255 258 267 270 278 282 283, 284 284 286 291 297 n 2 B 7 Contents Conclusions Further reading ‘Specialist craft production and apprenticeship ‘Specialise exalt production ‘Organization of cralt production ‘Learning and apprenticeship Examples of craft specialization ‘The ethnoarchacology of iron smelting in Africa Blacksmiths and brasscasters Concluding remarks Purther reading ‘Trade and exchange Exchange, trade, and distribution Concluding remarks Further reading ‘Mortuary practices, status, ideology, and systems of thought Mortuary practices, status, and ideology ‘deology, domination, and resistance in other arcas Linking technologies, objects, and social representations CCanctusions Further reading Conelusions: ethnoarchaeology in context Ethnoarchaeology as contributor to archaeological theary and practice ‘Career passages and the centrality of ethnoarchaeology Lack of institutionalization, increasing maturity The future Reflexivity Bibliography Index 300 302 303 305, 3h 321 347 356 58 360 360 376 376 278 379 397 401 408, 410 4ul 413 415. 418 422 469[EERE ERE Maps: qd 12 13 14 1s 16 7 18 2A 22 23 3a 32 FIGURES AND CREDITS Ethnoarchaeology in the Western and Eastern hemispheres: selected peoples, regions, and communities. ‘page xvi “Warren DeBoer with an African-Eeuadorian assistant in Esmetaldas province, Ecuador, 1988, Photo Cisire Allum, 3 “Maxine Kleindienst and Susant Dunbar, 1953, Photo courtesy of the Arizona State Museum. Patty Jo Watson, 1959, Photo Frank Hole, courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 18 ‘The place of ethnoarchaeology in anthropology. 10 Susan Kent with informants in « sedentary hunter gatherer community in Botswana, 1991, Photo courtesy of 8. Kent. n Duguin Dani of the Grand Valley build 4 new compound, 1963, Photo Karl Heider. ey E. Kofi Agorsah with « Basia of Tutubuka, 1997. Photo courtesy of B. K. Agorsah. 2 ‘William Longacre with Kabinga potters, Luzon, Philippines, 41976. Photo Raberto Tima, courtesy of the Arizona State ‘Museum, University of Arizona. ar Exhnoarchaeologists at 2 School of American Research seminar in Santa Fe, 1985. Photo courtesy of the Schoo! of “American Research, 30 ‘The cultural domain and its relationship to interpretive approaches and analytical styles ao ‘The remains of an excavated structure at Bé, northern ‘Cameroon, 1968, and a contemporary ut in the same village. Photos ND. 46 Richard Could with Neatarjara informants at Puoturjarpa Rockshelter, Westem Australia, 1967. Photo Andrew Lawson, a Ngotatjaza, courtesy of R. Gould. 49 ‘Robert janes and a Dene friend stretch a black bear skin, 1974, Photo Priscilla Bickel Janes, o firian Hayden and members of his team in San Mateo, Guatemala, 1979. Photo courtesy of B. Hayden. 6 33 a4 38 36 41 42, 43 44 45 46 sa 52 53 54 53 56 61 62 63 64 List of figures and eredits xiti Judy Sterner and ND with their Cameroonian Geld assistants, 1989. Eom james O'Connell and a Hadza hunter, Tanzania, 1986, Photo Kristen Hawkes. a ‘Maasai elders with Kathleen Ryan and Paul Nkuo Kunoni, Kenya, 1991. Photo, republished from Ryan et al (1991) swith the permission of MASCA, courtesy of K. Ryan a2 Jan Robertson apprentices in a Wandata forge, northern ‘Cameroon, 1986. Photo ND. a2 Flow chart for durable elements. 95 ‘Alain Gallay and Anne Mayor draw pottery in the Infand Niger Delta, Mali, 1989. Photo MAESAO, courtesy of A. Gallay. 101 ‘b casted potter prepares to decorate a vessel, Sra northern Cameroon, 1986. Photo Judith Sterner 102 Factors influencing compound-associated refuse. 106 Discard in an Ichamus compound. 109 “Augustin Hol plans an abandoned Shuwa compound, ‘ponthem Cameroon, 1988. Photo courtesy of A. Holl 1d Richard Lee with a !Kung San hunter, Botswana, 1965. Photo Irven DeVore, Anthto-Photo File. ns ‘The Nunamnjut village of Anakravak Pass, Alaska, 1971 Photo C. Milo MeLeod. 19 “The University of New Mexico Reld crew and Nunamivt assistants at Anaktavak Pass, 1971, Photo C. Milo MeLeod. 120 Maori attending an eel-weir, North Island, New Zealand, in 1984, Photo Yvonne Marshall. 108. The complex processing pathway of sorglrum harvested by eutting the stalks a¢ the base. Reproduced by permission of Soetha Reddy and Academie Press (Journal of “Anthropological Archaeology 16(2): 162-87 (1997). 131 ‘The analysis of processing pathways applied to the site of Babar Rot, Gujarat, India, Reproduced by permission of Seetha Reddy and Academic Press (journal of “Anthropological Axchaeology 1612} 162-87 [1997I. 138 ‘Michael Diedder takes notes on Luo pots at Oriang market, Kenya, 1982, Photo Ingrid Herbich. 139 ‘Grinding hollows on a granite block at Sukur, Nigeria, 1996. Photo ND. 1 African techniques of forming pots. Figure by Yvette Paquay, courtesy of Olivier Gosselain. 199 Olivier Gosselain replaces fuel on a Banen potter's bonfire65 66 67 68 69 620 7 72 73 74 78 76 77 78 79 List of figures and credits afver inserting thermocouples, southem Cameroon, 1991. Photo Philippe Lavachery, courtesy of 0. Gosselain. asi ‘Temperature ranges for five kinds of fring, based on Gosselain’s (1992b] thermametric data, Figure by Yvette Paquay, courtesy of 0. Gosselain, 152 ‘Lewis Binford assists Alyawara men in quarrying a quartzite block, Norther Territory, Australia, 1974, Photo James O'Connell, 184 Distributions of raw materials and of polished stone tools in east-central Irian Jaya. 155 Anne-Marie Pétcequin with Wano men in a rockshelter close o the Yeleme ax quarries, Irian Jaya, 1985, Photo Pierre Pétrequin. 186 lla, «pot for cooking beans, as identified to W. Kempton by a 28-year-old Mexican woman, 1961, Reproduced from W, Kempton |1981], The folk classification of ceramics: a sundy of cognitive prototypes, Fg. 3.3, by permission of the author and of Academic Press. 159 Daniel Miller with Dangwara villagers, Madhya Pradesh, India, 1980. Photo courtesy of D. Miller. 163 Ingrid Hezbich with women of a Luo potting community at a clay source, Kenya, 1981. Photo Michael Diedler. 174 Martin Wobst, aged eighteen, wearing a Serbian fur hat, 1962. Photo courtesy of M. Wobst. 11 Polly Wiessner and wo "Kung San iJu/-hoansi}, Namibia, 1999. Photo Jean-Philippe Rigaud, courtesy of P. Wiessner. 184 A Kalahari San arrow and examples of arrowheads made by. ‘ung, Ko, and G/wi, Reproduced by permission of . Wiesmer end of the Society fox American Archaeology (American Antiguiey 482} 253-76 {1983}, 186 Jan Fodier and assistants interview a Pokot woman near Lake Baringo, Kenya, late 1970s, Photo courtesy of Hodder, 190 Decorative bands on Kalinga pots, showing variation in designs. 196 Pierre Lemonnict and an assistant visit an Ankave Anga hamlet, Papua New Guinca, 1990. Photo G. Anian [Papua New Guinea Institute of Medical Research}, courtesy of P. Lerunnier. 202 ‘Northern, intermediate, and southern groups of Anga tribes, 204 Edhnolinguistic groups and larger towns of the northern Mandara mountains and nearby plains, Nigeria and northern Cameroon, 19808, 206 7.10 vad 72 81 82 33 84 85 86 ar 88 91 92 93 24 28 96 97 List of figures and credits Plan of the compound of Dokwaza, a Mafa smith, northern ‘Cameroon, 1986. Field plan by Ian Robertson. Photo and reconstruction by ND of an iton smelting furnace ‘ae Sukus, Nigeria, last used in the 1950s. Shipibo-Conibo designs spplied to multiple media: the thuman face, eotton textiles, and ceramic vessels, Ucayali region, Peru, 1970, Photos W. DeBoer. John Yellen interviews !Kung San about kill sites, Botswana, 1968, Photo irven DeVore, Anthto-Photo Fil. Routes taken and camps occupied by two !Rung San ‘brothers and their families, January to July 1968, Lewis Binford's characterization of a logistical subsistence- settlement system associated with collectors, Reproduced by permission of L. R, Binford and of the Society for ‘American Archaeology (American Antiquity 45{1|: 4-20 (980). Frank Hole and Luri nomadic pestoralists during their spting migration, western Iran, 1973, Photo courtesy of F Hole, ‘Marcha Graham in Rasdnri costume, N. Mexico, 1987, Photo T. J. Ferguson. Lee Home in Baghestan, noztheastern Iran, 1977. Photo courtesy of L. Home, Kotyar farmstead scttlement pattern in Natu district, Plateau state, Nigeria, 1985. Map by and courtesy of Glenn Davis Stone [see Stone 1992, 1996}, ‘Batak local group settlement, Palawan Island, Philippines, in 1981 Ring model of a !Kung camp. ‘An Alyawara woman prepares to roast red Kangaroos in. embers, Northem Territory, Australie, 1974. Photo Tames O'Connell, Disposition of a typical Kel Tamasheq camp on a sand dune during the wet season. ‘Simplified map of Aliabad village, Iranian Kurdistan, 1975. Floor plan of a two-storey house in Aliahad, Iranian Kurdistan, 1975, Plan by CK and Claus Breede. ‘Aliabad women standing beside a grain bin, Iranian Kurdistan, 1975, Photo CK. ‘Home and workshop of two married Udaipuri brothers, Rajasthan, India, 1982-3. Reproduced from Kramer 1997: ‘Appendix 1, pp. 184, 188, by permission of the author. 20 aa 222 28 236 241 249 253 268, 272 274 275, 276xvi 98 99 lot 102 103 104 wt na 13 List of figures and credits ‘A potter in Jodhpur, Rajasthan, india, throws small vessels off the hump, 1982. Photo CK. Hadza men in a communal area on the periphery of a camp, northem Tanzania, 1986, Phoeo james OfConnell Robert and Priscilla Janes with Willow Lake Deue children, North West Territories, Canada, May 1974, Photo Father elix Labat, OML, courtesy of R. Janes. Plan of Baghestan, ran, showing overlapping distributions of summer “living rooms” and stozerooms. Reproduced from Horne 1994a: 95, by permission of the author. An Aliabad villager plasters a wall, 1975. Photo CK. Plan and east-west section of the compound of the chief of Sukur, showing compound sectors, Nigeria, 1993. Plan by ND, modified after Smith and David 1995: Fig. 4. A female member of India’s potter caste paddles a lid, Rajasthan, 1982. Phato CK. The 11-year-old daughter of a Hindu potter in Udaipur, ‘Rajasthan, paints pots during the first season of her apprenticeship, 1982. Photo CK. A portion of a band design by an adult Shipibo-Conibo artist and designs painted by 7-year-olds from a differene and the same village. Reproduced by permission of the author and Cambridge University Press from DeBoer 1990: Fig. 9.3 Diagrammatic summary of design transmission among the Shipibo-Conibo. Reproduced by permission of the author and Cambridge University Press from DeBoer 1990: Fig. 9.15. Valentine Roux arrives at a potter's workshop in Uttara Naga, New Delhi, 1986, Photo Daniela Corbetta, courtesy of ¥, Roux. An apprentice is instructed by Roux’s assistant before a test of his ability to maintain identical left- and righthand pressure on bulbs of Jaquet manometers, Ustam Nagar, 1986, Photo Daniela Corbetta, courtesy of V. Roux. Kuldeep X, Bhan and. Mark Kenoyer document heated beads, Khambhat, Indis, 1989-90 season, Photo courtesy of JM. Kenoyer. ‘A Haya smelt in a low shaft furnace, W. Tanzania, 1976, Photo Peter Schmid. Donald Avery inserts a thermocouple into a tall induced deafe frnace built fora reconstruction of smelting at the Cewa village of Chula, Malawi, 1982. Photo David Killick, 217 280 289 293 295 298 309 310 a aia 316 319 322 331 332 110 iret) 112 1113 ad a 122 13 124 125 1B 132, 133, 14 135, 14 List of figures and credits xvii ‘Smelting iron: a reenactment by the Mofu of Mawasl, northern Cameroon, in 1983. Sketch by Christian Seigaabos 336 David Killick selcets charcoal for dating froma the base of a furnace, Junde Jaabe site, Senegal, 1993. Photo Hamady Bocoum, courtesy of D. Klick 337 ‘Van der Merwe and Avery watch as Cowa smelters remove “sintered sponge” for resmelting in a small forced draft furnace, Malawi, 1982. Photo David Killick. 339 A reenacted Mafa smelt near Mokolo, northern Cameroon, 1989. Photo ND. 343 (Chapurukha Kusimba interviews a Giryama master smith, Kilifi District, Kenya, 1992, Photo Anne Franoise Woitchik, courtesy of C, Kusimba. 349 Inter-grade citculation of spears among the Loikop of northern Kenya, 1984. 363 ‘Miriam Stark and field assistant Josephine Bommogas interview a Kalings potter in Luzon, Philippines, 1987, Photo courtesy of M. Stark. 369 Plan by CK of Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India, showing locations of potters and vendors of pottery in the carly 1980s. 373 Distribution of external sources supplying Jodhpur and ‘Udaipur with utilitarian earthenwares in the early 1980s, Map by CK, av Imeraction between pottery suppliers and vendors in Jodhpur, broken down by potter subcaste. Diagram by CK. 375 ‘The cost of funerals in Cambridge, England, in 1977. 383 Grave monuments of English Gypsies, Norwich, England, 1999, Photo Peter Shinnic. 384 ‘Mesakin Qisar compound interior showing appliqué and painted decoration, and the entrance toa granary, Nuba Hills, Sudan, 1978. Photo Ian Hodder, 387 A Hertzian view of mortuary practices, 390 ‘Tombs and graves, Mandara mountains, northern ‘Cameroon, 1980s, Reproduced with permission of the University of Calgary Press from David 1992b: Fig. 5. 393 Judy Sterner shares pictures of Canada with artisans in Sitak, northern Cameroon, 1989, Photo ND. 420xvii Ab 12 1a 14 1s 24 au a2 4a 42 43 7A 72, 73 74 81 82 TABLES Definitions of ethnoarchaeclogy page 12 Initial period ethnoarchaeological publications by prime topic and geographic arca 7 ‘New Ethnoarchaeology period ethinoarchaeological publications by prime topie and geographic area 20 Recent 1 period ethnoarchaeological publications by prime topic and geographic area 25 Recent 2 period ethnoarchacological publications by prime. topic and geographic area 2 “Models of the association of lithic and faunal remains at archaeological sites in Olduvai Gorge, Bed I, and the sorts ‘of evidence used in their evalustion by Fotts (1984) 53 Information required for assessment of fleld methodology. and methods. TO Sampling strata suggested in the recent ethnoarchaeclogical literature (Deal 1994} 78 Processes intervening after house site ahandonment in the New Guinea highlands {adapted from Gorecki 19854) 7 Percentage frequency distribution of iocations used for refuse disposal, by village and refuse type (Hayden and Cannon 1983 104 Percentages of aztfact categories found in abandoned residences of Bolivian agro-pastoralists by type of abandonment {data from Tomka 1993) uz ‘Message content in stylistic behavior (after Wobst 1977] 179° Decorative features characteristic of the Kalinga potters of Dangtalan 197 ‘The Anga tribes distinguished by Lemonnier (1986) 203, ‘Technical traits and cheir association with Anga tribes according to Lemonnter (1986) 203 Camps occupied by co 'Kung brothers and sheir families during the main rains, auturan and early winter of 1968, (data from Yellen 1977a} 232 Site types and activities associated with foraging and 9. 9 101 na ua us 16 AT HB us 1a 131 132 133 List of tables collecting strategies, and their archaeological characteristics (after Biniotd 1980) ‘Tabulation of publications in ethnoarchacology relating t0 site structure and activity areas, domestic space and architecture, and combined Refuse-producing activities at a Hadza camp by sex of actor and type of area (data from O'Connell et al. 1991) Levels of veriation of architectural traits of the Anga Baruya house trom Coudart 1992) ‘Typology and characteristics of modes of production, smodified after van der Leeuw (1977) Comparison of Costin’s and van der Leeuw's typologies of specialist production Distribution of reachers of all crafts in three Mesoamerican villages (data from Hayden and Cannon 19846} ‘Traite which distinguish the wheel chrowing technique froma the coiling technique [Roux 1989] ‘The production of beads in Khambhat, Gujarat, India (data from Kenoyer 2¢ al, 1991 and 1994} Selected examples of African smelting observed by echnoarchaeologists and others Inuences affecting furnace building after Childs 1991) Partial census taken in 1986 of iron objects in the house of @ Mala man and his wife ‘Variations in selected variables among lost model brasscasters, India (after Horne 19946) “The state of the Loikop age-grade system on 1 January 1984 (data from Larick 19872) Some contrasting characteristics of Moro and Meszkin communities and cultures (data from Hodder 19824] ‘Variations by Moro and Mesakin communities in body position and items placed in and on graves (data from Hodder 19872) Diffcrentiation of categories of persons in various dimensions of Mandara mortuary practices xix 235 257 281 287 30s 308 a4 ai 324 30 352 387 30 388 389 395,PREFACE When in early 1997 we decided to start writing the book about ethnoarchacol- ‘ogy that we had talked about for years, we both naively thought that this could be achieved by little more than putting our course notes together and filing in some blanks. Our experience has been very different. We never intended to ‘write a text for beginning students but rather a stocktaking of # subdiscipline of anthropology some 45 years after its inception, and to do this we have had to think through our understandings of the topic, and to expand them by much further reading, In this we were greatly assisted by the Bibliography of ethno- archaeology and related studies David et ol. 1998) that Nicholas David hence. forth, except in references, NDj had been compiling and developing for several ‘years, However, the magnitude of the task and the inevitability of our failure to do a thorough job is apparent in its accumulation, as of the day this is written, of 883 items classified primarily as ethnoarchaeology. We wished not to produce a catalogue, 2 collation, or an encyclopedia, but rather, via a ezitical reading of case studies, to guide the reader towards an informed understanding cf theoretical, methodological, snd substantive issues in ethnoarchacclogy at the tum of the millennium. Decisions had to be made The first was to adopt a restrictive deBnition of ethnoazchacology, one that requires the involvement of ethnographic fieldwork in elucidation of relation- ships between material culture and culture as a whole. The second was to seek out and use a very broad range of published materials while refraining from detailed consideration of theses and dissertations, since these cannot easily be consulted by mnany readess, Third, we have attempted to diseuss the work of a¢ ‘wide a range of authors as possible, although this has meant relegating some important contributions to "Further readings” or even omitting them entizely, ‘We are conscious that, despite our best efforts, we have not done fall justice #0 work published in languages other than English. Fourth, and admittediy in ‘Partial contradiction to the third, we agreed not to be shy about discussing our ‘own research, which has been conducted over a period longer than either of us ‘cares to contemplate. And lastly about ourselves: we are both practicing ethnoarchacologists with extensive archaeological and ethnearchaeological experience primarily but not Guitc exclusively in the Old World, Carol Kramer henceforth CR} in Southwest Asia and India, ND in Europe and Africa. Both of us have worked at various scales from the village to che regioa or so cities and their hinterlands. In terms xxixxii Preface of theory, CK is more inclined to “naturalist” and ND to “antinaturalist” approaches, but neither is an ideologue. Thus our perspective cmb bon the procenualism of the New Archilecogy and fost] postprocessualism the 180 an 1990, We are, ak regards theory, commited to 4 policy. f not oF ACKNOWLEDGMENTS synthesis, at least of cohabitation, ‘Very many pcople and institutions have consributed to this work. We jointly - thank colleagues and friends who have read and commented on various chap- ters, We have benefited from the advice of Wendy Ashmore, Cathy Cameron, ‘Warren DeBoer, T. J. Ferguson, Kathy Fewster, Olivier Gosselain, Natalie Kampen, Jane Kelley, David Killick, Barbara Mills, Gerry Octelaae, Pierre Pesrequin, Ann Stahl, Molly and Ray Thompson, Polly Wiessner, and several of our students, notably Charles Mather and Kim Jones, and from the thought- ful suggestions of the Press's reviewers, Carla Sinopoli and Patty Jo Watson. We also thank other distinguished colleagues who provided us with their CVs, and regret that in the end constraints of space prevented us from including thursb- nail biographies of leading practitioners of ethnoarchacology. Many colleagues have provided us with photographs of themselves or others “in action” that, taken in their entirety, constitute the beginnings of a portrait galery of histor. scal value. They are recognized in figure captions, but we wish to thank them here for their willingness to hunt through old files and boxes, and for looking up details of expeditions long past. Their efforts add significantly to the book, Gerry Newlands of the Archacology Department, University of Calgary, has been invaluable in the transformation of slides, prints, and files into our ilus- trations, Inasmuch as documentation of che work of the ethnoarchaeologist has never been a priority and rarely a desidcratum, he is to be especially thanked for transforming smudged and fly-blown slides and other media into something (at least remotely| publishable. Robin Poitras of the Geography Department constructed elegant maps of the two hemispheres, We also wish to thank Claire Allum, Naney DeVore aad Anthro-Photo, irven DeVore, Carol Gifford, George Gumerman, Frank Hole, Kathy Hubenschmidt, C. Milo McLeod, Peter and Ama Shinnie, Matt Stolper, Bill Summer, and Patty Jo Watson for help with obtaining photos, and Annick Geoffroy for assistance wit translation, Our very special thanks to Christian Seigaobos for allowing us to use his lively sketch of iran smelting at Mawasl, northern Cameroon, for the front cover. ND thanks the National Science Foundation (USA) and the Social Science ‘and Humanities Research Councst of Canada for major support over the years of zesearch that has qualified him to co-author a hook on ethnoarchaeology. The University of Calgary granted him a sabbatical fellowship for the first six months of 1999, and the Calgary Institute of the Humanities a year’s fellow- ship beginning in September 1999. Roth offered the essentia) resource of time xxiiiZEESSEEESSA HE xxiv Acknowledgments for writing, and the latter much stimulus from successive directors, ene Kelley and Rosemary Ommes, and co-fellows. ND also thanks the responsible xov- etamental authorities of Cameroon, Nigeria, and Gana that have permitted him and his otedents to work in their countries, especially Mubaramnadou Eldridge and the defunct but amuch regretted Cameroonian Institute of Human ‘Studies, and L. Izuakor and Musa Hambolu and the National Commission for ‘Museums and Monuments of Nigeria. ND’s great debt to them pales besides that he owes to the people with and among whom he has worked as an eth- noarchacologist over the past 32 years, especially the Fulbe of Bé, the Mafa, Hide, and others of the Mokolo region of northern Cameroon, and the Sukur and their neighbors across the border in Nigeria. He pays special tribute to a succession of assistants, Souaibou Barkindo, Isa Emmanuel Kawalde, John Habga, Philip Emmanuel Sukus, Markus Ezra Mkarma, and Isnga Dali Suku, ‘whose contribution to this work is inestimable. ‘Above all, be thanks Judy Sterner, companion, wife, and colleague, dedicat- {ng to her his part in this joint entexprise. CK thanks the National Science Foundation, the Smithsonian Institution's Foreign Currency Program, the City University of New York's Research Foundation, and the University of Arizona's Social and Behavioral Sciences Research Institute, for their support of research in Iran and Indis, and subse- quent data analyses. She is grateful to representatives of the governments of tan and India who helped her obtain research permits, In india, Komal Kothari, Vijay Verma, and, especielly, Manchar Lalas, her assistant, greatly facilitated het work. Many graduate students and colleagues frst in New York City and later in Tueson assisted in various phases of data analysis; they are identified in the acknowledgments of her 1982 and 1997 monographs. Here, she notes her particular indebtedness to Linda Brown, John Douglas, and Glenn Davis Stone for help with the analysis of her Rajasthani data, Working with and learning from villagers in pre revolutionary Iranian Kurdistan and potters and vendors in Rajasthan were diverse fascinating, humbling, and formative experiences, and CK is ever grateful for the good humor, patience, and generosity shown by the many franians and Indians of whom she asked what must have seemed an ‘unending series of pointless or tedious questions. Their place is, truly, empty.‘sonmmnurenog pu ‘aitoyfox‘sa4doad porsoyas ‘suaydowuiny wiorseg pur wiaisaq4 atp ur FopooeyTeoKT,CHAPTER 1 Se ETHNOARCHAEOLOGY: ITS NATURE, ORIGINS, AND HISTORY ‘The problem for archacologiets, it appears, fs that they are always too lite. (lira Ingold 1999; ix) Clearly «bout with ethnography is neither possible nor nessssacy for everyone, ‘Susan Rus 1997: 209, after research among the Merina of Madagascar) We begin by explaining why and how ethnoarchacology came to be, and give an example from Pera a6 an illustration of what itis, Then, after explaining the plan ofthis book, we define the subject and offer « periodized history, eonclud ing the chapter with a glimpse of what itis o be an ethnoarchaeologist Why ethnoarchaeology? Archacological interpretation is founded and ultimately depends upon analogy 72 form of inference that holds that if something is ike something else in some respects it is likely to be similar in others. We use it to recognize a flint flake past, to approaches to understanding the patterning in artifact assemblages that ‘would fead beyond cultural chronologies and time-space systematics, the Pmanisstion of cultural variety into convenient temporally and spatially limited packages such as phases and cultures (Willey and Phillips 1958) But ay archacologists turned to stady cultural evolution and to the reconstruction of buman behavior and past environments, they realized that common-sense reflection on their own experiences and on the wealth of historical and ethno, graphic information on Use world’s peoples could no longer be held to conse, fe anadequate basis for analogical inference. Why! Because the cultural range of Us was too limited for plausible analogical extrapolation to peoples living i distant times, places and contexts, and because descriptions of Others either paid tle attention to their material culture or emphasized the typical, 12 BTHNOARCHAEOLOGY IN ACTION ‘wherees archaeological remains constantly confront us with Vetiation in space and time that provides clues to past sociocultural behavior. The inadequacy of cethnographies to provide the information needed by archaeologists can readily be tested by meane of an exercise euggested by Karl Heider (1961: 62} im which ‘one first reduces “a documented living culture into archaeological remains,” and thon asks someone else to “develop a reconstructed culture from these remains.” Such experiments, while useful in rendering apparent the analyst’s assumptions, lead always to a reconstruction of the original so patchy and impoverished as to be unrecognizable.! Recognition of the need for ethnographic material on which to base analogies agave rise to a new subdiscipline: ethnoarchaeology, the ethnographic study of living cultures from archaeological perspectives? Ethnoarchacology is neither a theory nor a method, but a research strategy embodying a range of approsches to understanding the refationships of material culture to cultare as a whole, both in the living context and as it enters the archaeological record, and to exploiting such understendings in order to inform archaeological concepts and to improve interpretation. This is but one of many definitions. A socioceltural anthropologist might focus on a rather different aspect: ethnoarchacology as 2 form of anthropological inquiry that gives a privileged position to the evidence of material culture and behavior relating to it. An example from the Ucayali River, Peru Warren DeBoer (Fig, 1.1/ started his cthnoarchacological work among the Shipibo and their closely related neighbors the Conibe in 1970 2s part of Donald Lathtap’s long-term research program on the culture history of the Upper ‘Amazon basin. The :wo collaborated to write “The making and breaking of Shipibo-Conibo ceramics” (DeBoer and Latheap 1979}, in which they are pri- marily concerned to specify the nature of the relationship between Shipibo- Conibo behavior, especially that relating to ceramics, and its representation in the archaeological record produced in the course of the Indians’ daly lives After briefly introducing the Shipibo-Conibo and telling us that most women make pots and that most pottery is made for domestic use, DeBoer and Lathrap givous the Indians! names for their pot types and describe their uses. The native {folk clessifcation is accompanied by an analytical table that shows the clays, tempers, and atzributes of form, surface treatments, and size that, according to the Shipibo-Coniho, characterize different types. The authors go on to show hhow the raw materials for meking pots are procured, clays and temper gener- © Ashorce ba il msructive exc is included in ND's (1971 paper “The Ful compound and te archarlop Denne + Rubisepline or au el approactes, constietes & sreeolgy srchecology, despite ts philasoehucal dwsione and muleplesty of sipline for subaiscplie of enthropologr), then so does ethno. Ethnoarchaeology: its nature, origins, and history 3 Fig. 1.1 Warren DeBoer, seen here not on the Ucayali in Peru but with an ‘Africau-Ecuadorian assistant, Benito Palacios, on the Rio Santiago uring an archaeological field season in Esmexaldas province, Ecuador, 1988. ally locally but ocher materials, and especially pigments, sometimes from dis tances of several hundred kilometers. Special expedicions are not made £0 acquire such materials; they are obtained in the course of social visits and travel for temporary employment. Exotic materials are thus not necessarily expen- sive. One kind of temper consiste of pulverized sherds (grog) obtained from. archacological sites, and for this reason “the presence of an archaeological saidden is one factor governing settlement Jocation” fp. 111). Pottery manufacture is generally an individual enterprise earried out in the house or & special shed; pots are fred nearby, often singly in a bottomless pot shat may be specialiy made for this puzpose, Besides the sequence of forming, decorating, and firing, we learn thet, although potters gencvally agree on the proportions of clays and tempers that should go into different types of vessels, there is in practice enough variation for it to be extremely unlikely that an archaeologist could use the sherds recovered from a midden to reconstruct ‘community ideals. On the otherhand, although details diicr, surface finish and dlecoration of pots appear quite standardized, varying with vessel form, ‘A census carried out by DeBoer of pors in 17 Shipibo-Conito households from five villages provides a solid basis for a study of the use of ceramics. A lack of correlation between the size or composition of a houseleld and the nuzaber4 ETHNOARCHAEOLOGY IN ACTION of vessels present is explained in terms of differential replacement of pots by aluminum and enameled containers, and social factors. Pots ate a focus of cul- tural elaboration among the Shipibo-Conibo and a woman’s reputation as a ‘good wife depends in part on her having new beer “mugs” available for guests ‘As pots grow old, break, or are damaged, they and their parts often come to be cused in different ways, for example a8 pot supports or as chicken coops. Pots are eventually discarded but at different rates, relatively fragile and frequently ‘used food bowls and beer mugs having the shortest life spans. The frequencies ‘of such types in the archaeological record will therefore be higher than theitfre- quencies in use. The paper ends with a study of discard that reveals pattems and processes of which the archacologist should be very much aware: the ‘general lack of coincidence of use and discard locations, for example, and the accumulation of refuse along fences and, as middens, in areas of minimal other activity, This wide-ranging case study nicely demonstrates that natural, economic, and sociocultural factors are all involved in the production, distribution, and consumption of material culture, and itis one of the relatively zare pieces that cexplicily describes the transformation of behavior and material culcure into an archaeological record, Such direct observation makes possible the generation of models for the interpretation of the typology, distribution, and other aspects of archaeological remains where the long-past behavior that produced them is ‘unobservable and must therefore be inferred. It should also be noted that while several of DeBoer and Lathrap's observations are applicable far beyond the Shipibo-Conito context, others are culturatly specific. Deciding which analo- sies can reasonably be applied in a specific archaeological context and which cannot isa critical theoretical question taken up in chapter 2 ‘The plan of this book It is not our aim to provide an encyclopedic account of ethnoarchaeology but rather to promote development of a critical understanding of theoretical, ‘methodological, and substantive issues. How may observations of present ‘materials be used co eonstruct the pest? What are ethnoarchaeological data How do we observe them; how do we choose what to record, and by what ‘means? How should we snelyze our data? Who and what have ethnoarchacol- ‘ogists studied, what have they achieved? How has the subject developed? And so what? Are archaeologists making use of ethnoarchaeological insights? Ts anyone paying attention? These are the themes of this book, and if they are comprehended then the reader will understand why this book cannot be ‘manual for the application of ethnoarchaeological results to archaeological data. 9 Our coverage of research in languages othes than Baglsh and French is scanty. However, et Soazsacolagy i primary onten to thee languages, and eepecaly in Eoglsh. Ethnoarchaeology: its nature, origins. and history 5 ‘We begin by situating ethnoarchaeology within the context of related subdis- ciplines of anthropology. This is followed by a historicel sketch ofits develop. rent that charts its relationship to larger theoretical movements within and beyond archaeology. In chapter 2 we take a theoretical view of our subject, showing how cthnoarchacology partakes of the sciences, the soctal sciences, ‘and the humanities. Consequenely the range of approaches to problems that can be accommodsted under the banner of ethnoarchacology is very large. ‘There is room both for the processualist and for the post- or anti-processualist. ‘we show what they have in common and how different styles of ethnoarchac~ logy ate appropriately geared to different sorts of research questions. Different approaches require different rescarch competencies and methodol- ‘gies in order to produce valid results. Archaeologists in recent decades have at ‘times shown themselves to be pedantically concerned with methodology and eld methods, providing statistical juseifcation of their sampling designs and specifying the mesh of their sieves to the nearest millimeter. It is remarkable how often those same researchers when doing ethnoarchaeslogy have been almost entirely reticent about their qualifications and methods. Our third chapter therefore deals with research design, fleld methods, and techniques, It also includes a discussion of ethies and of the ethmoarchaeologist’s responsibil- ity to the people with whom she or he works. Thus chapter 3 relates rather to the feld component of ethnoarchaeology than to the analytical and interpretive phase; it is a necessary prerequisite to consideration of the main problem areas that ethnoarchaeologists have tackled, These form the subject matter of chap. ters 4 through 13 in which we begin with the most geners! of issues, the study of site formation processes, and proceed to ones relating to progressively more complex kinds of societies. Thus, although our treatment is by subject area, ‘most of the material regarding foragers will appear earlier and that concerning state societies later in the book. It may be objected that, by taking a topical approach, we are in effect desystematizating culrure wholes. In a sense, yes. It ‘is sometimes nevessary to parse a sentence, deconstruct a text, before it ean be ‘understood, and the fact is that ethnoarchaeology is often guilty of studying material with inadequate consideration of context, Nevertheless we intend to emphasize interzelationships and the embeddedness of material culture in peoples’ economies, social lives, and systems of thought. The chapters thus reflect the constitution of the literature, but they also comment on it and in dloing so may contribute to its restructuring. Most conclude with a reflection ‘on the contributions tothe topic addressed and on ethnoarchaeology’s relation- ship vo archacology. ‘Our approach emphasizes critical analysis of cases, and wherever possible we contrast processual and postprocessual studies in terms oftheir approaches and their ability to "see" certain dimensions of the behavior they study. We append to each chapter 2 list of further readings. In the final chapter, rather than drawing up « balance sheet of ethnoarchaeoiogy’s successes and failures, we6 ETHNOARCHAEOLOGY IN ACTION attempt to place it in the Jarger context of archaeology and anthropology, con- sidering the extent to which it has achieved the aims of its practitioners and hhow those alms rlete to developments in anthropology. We consider the lack of inssitutionslication of ethnoatchacology, Anding te no bad thing, and look into the future through the lens of receat Ph.D. theses before, lastly and reflex- ively, considering the impact of ethnoatchacology on our students, on our- selves, and on the people amiong whom we work, ‘The birth and definition of ethnoarchaeology ‘The term “ethno-archseologist” was coined 100 years ago by Jesse Fewkes (1900: $79) in a paper on Native American migration traditions. He used it to ‘mean an archaeologist “who can bring as preparation for his work an intensive Knowledge of the present life” of the people whose prehistory is under investi- gation. While it is expected that the moder ethnoarchacologist should have mastered those aspects of the ethnography of the people studied that are rele- ‘vant to the research question, itis often the case that there is no direct histori- cal elationship between the ethnographie source and the archaeological subject of investigation. Analogies can he much broader in their scope. Bryony Orme (1974)has surveyed entiquarians’ and others’ use of ethnographic parallclsin the period both before and alter Fewkes wrote. Frank Cushing (1886) and the ‘Mindeleff brothers [e.g, Mindeletf 1900) working in the American Southwest ‘were ethnoarchacologists in the Fewkesian sense. Donald Thomson's (1939| papet on The seasonal factor in human culture” is the frst that, retrospec: tively, can be classified as ethnoarchaeology in the modern sense of the term. ‘Thomson showed that tools, settlement patterns, and other cultural character- {stics associated with the contrasting wet and dry season adaptations of the Wik Monkan tribe of Australian Aborigines differed so greatly that archaeologists would be likely to interpret their material remains as representing separate cultures. The formal emergence of ctlnoarchseology as a subdiscipline of anthropol- ay is best dated to the appearance in 1956 of a paper by Maxine Ricindienst and Patty Jo Watson entitled “Action archaeology: the archaeological inventory of a living community" (Fig. 1.2}. This called om “the archaeologist to take ro the field of living communities with his own theoretical orientation and gather the necessary information” (p. 77}. This would include data on artifact function and typological variation, butchering techniques, subsistence, social structure, and an “attempt to define where and in what degree the tots! non-material culture af the community could be inferred from the information gathered.” Although their ides caught on, the name and nature of the subdiscipline was for a while disputed, In 1957 Joseph Rauxar had been the first to use, but in Fewkes's sense, the term ethnoarchacology in the title of a paper (1957a and bl, ‘whereas Richard Gould (1974: 29) used “living archaeology” to refer to “the Ethnoarchaeology: its nature, origins, and history 7 Fig. 1.24 Marine Rleindienst (lft) and Susan Dunbar, students at che University of Arizona's Point of Pines Seld school in 1983, actual effort made by an archaeologist or ethnographer to do feldwark in living human societies, with special reference to the ‘archaeological’ patterning of the behavior in those societies.” For him and others je, Janes 1983: 4) ethno- archaeology was "a much broader framework for comparing ethnographic and atchacological patterning,” It is stil commonly used in this sense by German, scholars (see Veit 1997: 292-3), but only rarely so by North Americans (e.8., Staski and Suero 1991: 2}, Indian researchers (see Allchin 1994] also define eth- noarchacology very broadly, some weating India’s tribal peoples as representa tives of relict cultures.ETHNOARCHAEOLOGY IN ACTION ‘Fig. 1.2B Patty Jo Watson in traditional Laki garb with a Laki woman and her baby, iran, 1959. Ethnoarchacology: its nature, origins, and history. 9 Jn the same collection, itself entitled Bthnoarchacology (Donnan and Clewlow 1974], in which Gould’s paper had appeared, Oswalt (1974: 6) pro- posed the term “archacoethnography” for the eliciting of ethnographic infor- nation relevant to the interpretation of archaeological finds, while Pastron 1974] refezted to “recording the types of data regarding living peoples chat can bbe used as comparative material by archaeologists” as “ethnographic archae- ology.” Despite the vnlortunate asymmetry between ethnoscience - study of the science of people who are not part of a world civilization ~ and ethnoar- chaeclogy - which all agree is nor the study of native archaeclogies - the term ethnoarchacology prevailed though with continuing disagreement as to its scope. ‘Ethnoarchaeology’s relationships, as seen from a typically American anthro- pological perspective, to archacology, ethnography, linguistics, and ethnosci- ence are represented in Figure 3, borrowed with modifications from Raymond ‘Thompson (1991: 233}. Ethnoarchaeology is seen here as a combination of archaeological and ethnographic approaches. It may be undertaken informally, involve systematic study ofa single domain of material culture, or involve “the study in depth of significant parts of a living culture or even of an entize culture.” Ethnoscience, partaking of ethnography and Linguistics, contributes 0 ethnoarchaeologica! research by taking account of native categories and con- cepts. Thompson did not include physical anthropology in his diagram, perhaps because ethnographic studies that involve research into human biological char- acteristics are better characterized as human or evolutionary ecology even if they arg highly relevant to archacologists ata theoretical level e.g, Hurtado et al. 1985), Susan Kent (1987: 33-43], an ethnoarchaeologist who has specialized in activ- ity area research fret in the American Southwest and later in the Kalahari (Fi, 14), distinguishes between: 1 anthropological archaeology - “a holistic approach that utilizes the ‘Various fields of anthropology in order to obtain a description of am archaeological group thet is as complete as possible ... Is goals vend to be culture historical m mature ...” 2 achacoloial etnorzapy (ef, Watson 19794) < the provision of " usefut et satenat for analogs 25 aids in the denudcston of gchsclepealdeseaprions_ copeceliyvaatless ‘source of non-ethnoveneric analogies and identifications,” and 8 ethnoazchaeology ~ the formalation and testing of “archacologically ofiented and/or derived methods, hypotheses, models, and theories ‘wich ethnographic data. Ideel!y, one starts with archaeological esearch interests, goes to ethnographic data for formulation and/or testing of hypotheses, models, and/or cheoties about these interests, ‘and then retumnsto the archacological record to implement the under- standing gained from the ethnographic data.”10 ETHNOARCHAROLOGY IN ACTION ‘Aichasciogical research without concem for ott Ehnographic sudy of a craft or technology for an gachgeoloaiea! pur ram> a90zE4M ‘Nofive cufural and material view of natural ‘and material worlds b>} i9zn-9HOZTAm na-30-COz-F Tinguistics without ‘concem for relation focuhsre Fig. 1.3 The place of ethnoarchacology in anthropology (aiter R. H. ‘Thompson 1991: 233}. Ske also defines tee ots 4 4 ethnographic analogy a5 “observations of historic groups used to ‘deny the sschasslogel cra” whether bed upon Mchsclo. cal, ethnographic or otter accounts, ‘We regard the first three definitions as too restrictive and the Last as mislead: ingly phrased in that analogy isa form of inference}, Anthropological archacol- gy is better defined more broadly as archaeology that allies itself with the social sciences rather than with science or the humanities. Kent's archaeolog- ical ethnography and ethnoarchaeology can be seen as aspects of a single research orientation, and ones that are in practice difficule to keep separate. Afterall we use “archeology” to include both workin the feld and subsequent analysis. While her distinetion is analytically valid, when archaeological eth- Ethnoarchaeology: its nature, origins, and history = 11 ography provides material for ethnoarchacology, it makes itcle sense to insist ton the use of both terms if, in the course of a single day, field or analytical work thas to be conceptualized as switching back and forth between the two modes. Rather than legislate terminalogy, we prefer to follow current usage, and in this ‘book, conflating Kent’s two categories, use ethnoarchaeology to mean what Robert Ascher {1962} called “ethnography for archaeology,” research that includes an ethnographic component and is carried out with the analogical needs of the archaeologist in mind.* Such a reading conforms with the usage of the majority (see Table !.1), “Thus ethnoarchacology as here defined includes neither the ust and apalica- tion to the archaeological record of ethnographic parallels wheve these ate drawn ézom the literature, nor seudies of ethnographic objects in museums undertaken with archaeological aims in mind e.g., Weniger 1992}, nor descrip- tions of material culeure or processes such as, for example, might be recorded by and for potters je, Carew 1952). Nor do we include ethnography carried ‘ut by archacological means as in the case of William Rathje's (1978, 1985) Garbage Project, Some other studies claiming ethnoarchaeological status are better elassed 2s ethnohistory (e.g,, Adams 1978; Kelley 1982) or as ethnology (eg, Tripathi and Tsipashi 1994) or as historical archaeology, with the history “ mactacher 1996 247-5} provides a useful daconson ofthe range and lini of he “fay Ee tonic eckcaecaelogy lageBw ETHNOARCHAEOLOGY IN ACTION Table 1.1 Definitions of ethnoarchaeology ‘Michael Stanislawski [1977: 379) the direct observation or participant obsezvation. ‘shady of the form, manufacture, istripurion, meaning, and use of artifacts and cheir {nstivutional sexting and social uni correlates among living {generaliy ‘noninchstalal| peoples. ‘Richard Gould (1978: vil): ethnographic research for an archaeological purpose, Tinking material remains to the Buman behavior irom which they resulced. ‘Miche! Schiffer 1978: 280 the study of material in systemic context for the purpose ‘of acquiring information, bth specific and general, that will be useful in archacological investigation, (Christopher Hanks (1983-351): the application of archaeological methods to cechnogeaphic data . Alain Gallay and Enc Huysecom (1989: 49, our eranclation:srchacology's science of teference, While archaeology allows one ta reconstruct historical scenarios and tries ‘rom them to deduce typological regularities, ethnoarchacology tries to discover through observations made in the present the cause ofthe observed regularities by ssudying the mechanisms that lie at their origin. ‘Edward Staski and Livingston Sucro {19912}: the study of ethnogcaphic or historical situations, either through fizthan observation or documentary research, 0 extract information useful for understanding the relationships between patterns of human bbebavior and material culeure in all times and places. Williars Longacre 1991b: Ik: the study by archaeologists of variabilicy in material ‘culture and its eelation to human behavios and organization among extant societies, for use im archaeological interpretation. [adiger Vossen (1992: 4,5, our translation} the connecting link between the cultural sciences of ethnology and archaeology... From a methodological perspective cethnoarchseology embraces two differen: research approaches; “tving archaeology" andl “experimental archaeology.” ‘Farid Khan (1994: 82: study of modem |contemporary| and traditional processes ‘sthich result in specific phenomena which might also be observable archacologicaly. ‘Scott MacEathera (1994: 245): the inte:saction of ling people and archaeological onstruetions Victor Fernander Martine: (1994; 137, oar translation): There presently exist two ‘efinitions of ethnoarchaeclogy: one in a broad and the other sn a restricted sense. ‘The first includes all the connections between anthropology and archaeology ‘The sezond definition refers exclusively to ethaographic flekdwork carried out by archaeologists [or by anthropologists with archaeological training) with the same "purpose asthe former, that is to sry to assist in archeological interpretation... in practice both approaches intermingle ‘Carol Kramer (1996': ethnographic fieldwork carried out with che express purpose of ‘enhancing azchacological research by documenting aspects of sociocultural Ibckavior likely te leave identifiable residues in the archaeological record, Ethnoarchavology: its nature, origins, and history 13 frequently including the testimony of previous occupents of the site or their close relatives (e.g, Oswale and van Stone 1967; Enloe 1993} ‘Often of considerable relevance to but distinct from ethnoarchaeology are sume modern studies of material culture and, to a far lesser extent, culturat scudies. A subset of the former is the anthropology of technical systems Lemonnier 1986: 147}, “which considers techniques in and of themselves, and not solely their material effects... . or only the circumstances and social con: sequences of their application." "The stress,” as Sander van der Lecuw putsit, ‘jg very clearly on techniques as social phenomena, and is meant to encompass everything irom Mauso's. .. ‘ways of using che body’ to industrial manufacture anu all that it entails.” & concept of considerable ethnoarchzeological rele- ‘vance, to be discussed in chapters 6 and 7, is the chaine opératoite, “the series cf operations which transforms a substance from a raw material into a manu- facrured product” (van der Leeuw 1993: 239~40). Cultural studies on the other hhand may be defined, according to the flyer for a new European fournal of Cultaral Seudies, as “interdisciplinary research... necessary to understand the contemporary relations between culture, power, everyday life and their sterial conditions.” Paper titles such as “The cosmopolitanism of commerce and the allure of difference: Selfridges, the Russian Ballet and the tango of 1911" {Nava 1998}, while suggesting that authors are having fun, hold little ‘promise for the archaeologist. Ethnoarchecology can be subsumed within che wider category of “actualis tic studies," « term used by archaeologists to refer to cesearch aimed at provid- {ng material for analogy that involves a field or near-field component, and that {s not catried out under laboratory or quasi-laboratory conditions with rela- ‘ively strict control of variables. {Because experimental archaeology is chatac- terized by such theoretically aculenral and atemporal conditions it is not classed within actualistic studies, although individual experiments may trans- ‘gress boundaries.) Actualistic studies encompass the replication of Clovis points by modern knappers and Glynn Isaac's |1967} fcld experiments directed at understanding site formation processes. Where the letter concern “processes that operate on organic remains after death to form fossil deposits” (Gilford 1981: 366] they can also be categorized as taphonomy, literally the laws of burial see Koch 1989), Again, actualistic studies include what we might call “etho-archaeology,” the study of animal behavior that can inform archacolog- ical interpretation, the accumulation of bones by hyenas, for example, or Jeanne Sept’s (1992) study of chimpanzee nesting behavior and its potential for ‘generating hominoid archaeological sites. All the above approaches that we have characterized as non-ethnoarchacological can and do provide analogical ‘ist forthe archacological mill. Furthermore the logic of the application to the archacological record of the snalogies generated from them differs not at all fam that which applies to analogies developed through ethnoarchaeology. If ‘therefore we do not consider them in any detail in this book, itis on account“4 ETRNOARCHASOLOGY IN ACTION of differences in the sources of analogy rather than in the way they are applied to the archaeological record. A brief history of ethnosrchaeology A bibliography of ethnoarshaeology and related studies (David et a2. 1999| has for some years been posted in various versions on the World Wide Web. As of ‘August 1999 there were 822 ethnoa:chacology listings, 968 items from zelated disciplines, and 29 from the philosophy of science. The bibliography has become «too! for study ofa history divisible into three main periods: an Initial period running from 1956, the year of Kleindieast and "Watson's" Action archaeology,” te 1967 4 New Etanoarchacology period starcing in 1968 and ending in 1981 4 Revent peviod starting In 1982 and conveniently subdivided into ‘wo sub-periads: Receat 1, from 1982 to 1989, and Recent 2 from 1990 to 1989. ‘The Initial period, 1956-67 If che following discussion emphasizes cthnoarcharology’s relations to archae- ology rather than to ethnography and anthropology, this reflects the concerns of its practitioners. Developments in anthropology during the sixties, for ‘example structuralism and the symbolic anthropologies of Clifford Geertz and Victor Turner {see Ortner 1984), went unnoticed in the carly years. ‘The first decade saw discussion of the role of “analogy in archaeological interpretation, ” the title of an important paper by Robert Ascher |L964i, and, on a broader canvas, of the interrelationships af archaeological, ethnological, ‘ethnographic, and historical approaches to the past. Karl Heider's (1961) “Archaeological assumptions and ethnographic fact: a cautionary tale for New Guinea” made a considerable stir because it brought home to archacolo- gists how poorly we were prepared to conceptualize the rich variety of life lived in very diffcrent cultures, Because “common sense” - an understanding of the world based upon ethnocentric premises ~ far too often misleads would-be eth- nographers of the past, it is worth considering Heider's work in some detail. Inthe early 1960s, Heider, then a Ph.D. candidate in anthropology at Harvard, worked for 26 months among the Dugum Dani of the highlands of Irian Jaya (or ‘West Papua, Indonesia} (Fig. L5). When he first arrived, they were “not under the influence of goverment or missionaries,” and “elxcept that they lacked pottery, Br the devcription of « typical neolithic culture” {p. 84). They traded for the ground stone blades that they hafted cither as axes or adzes. Their typo- logical distinctions tended to refer rather ta the whale tool than ta its parts, variations in raw materials and sizes were reflected in theis classificatory 5 The WWW ethnosrehaeology bibliography URL is: hey /eww sce. scalgoey.ca-adavid Ethnoarchaeology: its nature, origins. and history 15 ait ae eee Fig. L5 Dugur Dani of the Grand Valley build a new compound, vith + round women’s house ready to thatch, Irian Jaya, Indonesia, 1963. system only toa limited extent and in sometimes unexpected ways. The intro- uotion of iron tools, which occurred while Heider was in the feld, hed no rev- ‘olutionary effect, or at least none that he was able to detect. ‘In a secrion on sertlements, Heider noted that as a result of the reuse of ma- terials and the digging of old house sites to make sweet potato gardens, litle ‘would remain of individual compounds. Neither do middens form; and because people move frequently from one compound to another, “there are at least twice as many houses and compounds as are being used at any one time” (p. 58}, Sturdy wooden fences and ditches around compounds have to do not with, defense ~ though the Dani raid and fight battles ~ but rather with drainage and the enclosure of pigs. Again, on the subject of inter-area relations, Heider shows how, while archaeologists could quite correctly infer the existence of an exten: sive tade network on the basis of the distributions of shell and stone, specific trade relations could not be reconstructed since much of the traffc is indirect and consists of perishable items. Despite such trade and other contacts, many items of material culgure well known to the Dani and their neighbors fail to diffuse ftom one group to another. Heider’s paper reflects the archaeological assumptions of its day. How these hhave changed! While we have by no means resolved all the interpretive. prob- Jems posed by the Dani case, ethnoarchacologicel work on lithics and classif- cation le, White and Thomas 1972}, on the abandonment of housebiokis and16 ETENOARCHAZOLOGY IN ACTION settlements [e.g,, Camezon and Tomka 1993}, on the social construction of technology jeg. Dietler and Herbich 1998, Gosselain 1998}, and on inter-gr0up relations (eg, Hodder 1979), has endowed archaeologists with a iar larger and better-contiolled analogical fund for applying to the past. On cade and ‘exchange, another topic discussed by Heider, we used to have rather less to offer, lagely because most ethnoarchecologists work at a sub-regional scale, but this is now changing (e.g,, Mohr Chavez 1991; Stark and Longacre 1993; Kramer 1997) “Heider had subtitled his paper "a cautionary tale,” and the term was subse- quently applied by archaeologists, sometimes dismissively, to other ethnosr- chacological case studies.* Perhaps they were frustrated by the continuous challenging of che assumptions on which they based their reconstructions, perhaps they were hoping for universally applicable laws ot regular correlations between material and total culture, If so they remained disappointed. ‘Cautionary tales, like other ethnoarchaeclogical case studies, alert atchaeolo- gists to the existence of a variety of models, an¢ invite them to sharyen their analytical tools and develop new ones. ‘Echnoarchaeology got off toa slow startin this first decade with only 1.4 pub- ications per annum (Table 1.2). The geographical range wes restricted, while ‘Mesoamerica, with its glamorous archaeology and highiy visible Indian popu- lations at America’s back door, attracted researchers, it may be that a compar- atively rich early ethnographic record led North Americans to believe that cethnosrchaeological research was unnecessary. In any ease that area produced no publications that meer our definition of ethnoarchacology. The majority of papers are exploratory in nature, several discussing @ range of artifact eypes. Raymond Thompson's (1958) monograph Modern Yucatecan Maye potiery ‘making differs by juxtaposing ethnographic description and a simulated archae- logical collection in an extended study of the nature of archacological infer- ‘ence, Héléne Baliet’s (1965) contribution to Frederick Matson’s volume Ceramics and man, a valuable collection {despite its inappropriately sexist title, broke new ground in showing how the quality, forms, and decoration of pottery in Maghrebin North Africa varied with the mode of production. In the Same volume George Foster (1965|, one of whose earlier papers |1960a] on the archaeological implications of ceramic production in Mexico had initiated a long-running debate on the significance for archaeology of the differensial life spans of utilitarian pottery types see chapter 4), reflected on his research, sug- ‘esting thar psychological conservatism of potters helps to account for conti- mmuity in pottery atyles. Although chis conclusion was later to be dismated (David and Hennig 1972), it raised, as had Balfet, interesting questions about the factors that structure material culture and the archaeological record. Kramer wrote (1976: 6 of “the eather bleak lve of cautionary tes...” Ethnoarchaeology: its nature, origins, and history 7 ‘fable 1.2 The distribution of Initial period (1956-67) éthnoarchaeological publications by prime topte and geographic area, based upon the David et al Keyword bibliography of ethnoarchacology and related topics as of August ~ 1999 ‘Subsah. SW ‘rime topic andarea VAR MAM NAFR AFR ASIA ASIA_AUST N_% fine tepicandare VAR MAM NA Orn Theory, method 2 1s Fauna, bones. 1 159 Foraging 1 oo1 88 Lithies| 1 1 59 Ceramics 34 4235 (Other artifacts and 1 1 1 8) 6 85a ‘ypology ‘oxg. production and 2 2 us learning, N 2 6 1 2 1 1 4a? 1009 % 1g 33 59 1185959 235 1000 Bo 14 publications per annum Nowe: In chese and the succseding tables, the statistics must be regarded as impressionistic. Novall sources were available for consultation, and we have been generous in our definition of ethnoarchacologs. Thus while not every publication |manograpd, edited ‘yoluime, chapter, article, paper, video, etc) that claims co be ethacarchaeolegy is Included, others that contain 2 msjor ethnoarcharological component are reported in the counts. ‘Geographic codes and areas are as follows: VAR More than one or no areas NAM North America MAM Mesoamerica and the Greater Antilles SAM South America and the Lesser Anulles north to Antigua AFR North Africa: Meroceo, Algeria, Tunisia, Libye, Faypt SubSah. AER. the remainder of Africa and Madagascar EUR Europe and the formes Soviet Union east to the Urals and Caspian Sea SWASIA the Near East neluding Turkey and Irn ASIA. Afghanistan and the former Soviet Union east of che Urals and the Caspian Sea to 90° east. SASIA India, Pakistan, Benglalesh, and Sri Lanka EASIA Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan, PRC, Japan, Kores, Mongolia, and Siberia cast of 0 east SEASIA Burma east to Vietnam, including the islands of the Sunda shelf AUST ‘Auscralasia, including the islands of the Sabu shelf ock Oceanis ‘The primary topics of publications are distributed among: ‘Theory and method Formation processes18, ETHNOARCHAEOLOGY IN ACTION ‘Note: jou} ‘Faups and faunal remains Foraging, hunting and eathering ‘Other subsistence practices Lidice ‘Ceramics ‘Metallurgy (Other artifact classes, including consideration of taxonomy and typology Settlement and community pavterns Activity aeas, domestic space, and architecture, including related considerations of demography ‘Organization of production, apprenticeship, and the transmission of technologies Distnbution, rade, and exchange Style and ethnicicy ‘Mortuary practices Ideology, systems of thought, symbolism ‘The New Ethnoarchasology period, 1968-81 In 1962 Lewis Binford’s “Archacology as anthropology” ushered in the epach of what came to be called the “New Archeology,”” with its insiscence that culture, conceived of as humans’ extrasomatic means of adaptation, consisted cf material remains that could be studied without reference to the ideas that hhad once existed in the heads of the makers of the artifacts. Ar about the same time the cultural ecological approach associated with Julian Steward, Marshall Sablins, Elman Service, and others was exerting an important influence on archaeology. An overly enthusiastic adherence to Hempelian logico-deductive positivism and to systems theory {Salmon 1975, 1978) came to underlie what ‘was claimed by some to be an explicitly scientific approach to archaeological interpretation and explanation (Watson et al. 1971|, As deduction is 2 form of teasoning that extracts information from premises, it might seem to be anti- thetical to analogical inference, which goes beyond them ~ though always at some risk of being wrong. But the New Archaeologists realized that they required models of human behavior from which to generate hypotheses that could be tested against the archaeological record. As CK put ic in 1979: Ttis assumed chat some behavioral elements of socéocultoral eystems have aiaterial cor. relates; chey are incorporated in the archacological record, such residues may be Used to develop inferences about, the behaviors with which they were associated Observations of contemporary behavior can facilitate the development and reflnement of insights into past bekviers, particuasly sehen strong simlanees can be sown to exist between the envizonnients of the pabt and contemporery socioeulcaral systems being compared. [2979b: 1, * Otten tyliically difereatited fom “cur historical archaeology" by abandoumert ofthe ‘ld-Eshionrs ignite, «legacy eetained by Azeerera Antica. Ethnoarchacology: its nature, origins, and history 1s “Thus ethnoarchacology wes rather encouraged than discouraged by ¢ change in paradigm in some ways more apparent than real. Resides the two canonical texts of the New Archaeology, Analytica) archae- ology by David Clarke and New perspectives in archaeaiogy, edited by Sally {and Lewis Binford, Richard Lee and Irven DeVore’s edited volume, Man the hnuntet, also appeared in 1968. The combination, which expressed the New “Archacology's emphasis on adaptive systems end long-term processual change, complemented an international movement in palacosathropology that had found its voice in a collection edited by Sherwood Washbura {1961], Social life of eatiy man. Together these stirmulated the research on foragers that is one of the hallmarks of the New Ethnoarchecology period (Table 1.3). While only 4 percent of a much larger total number of ethnoazchacological publications were actually about foraging as a subsistence technique, initially mainly in Australia ‘where Gould {e., 1967, 1965] was an early and produetive exponent, research into other topics, including lithics jeg, White 1968), was also frequently con- ducted among hunter-gatherers. ‘There isin this period a near tenfold increase in the rate of publication to 13.4 por annum, and ethnoarchaeology expands almost to its current geographical range ~ only East Asia and Central Asia are missing, and in both it has still scarcely begun, While state societies are poorly represented, the range of soci- ties amongst which ethnoarchacological work is carried out becomes much. ‘wider, to inclade village agriculeuralists and pastoralists in a variety of environ- ments, The modern range of topics, less only ideology, here used in the general sense to include symbolism andsystems of thought, is attained. Africa, and par ticularly Sub-Saharan Africa, becomes the most popular area in which to carry ‘out ethnoarchaeological research, Decolonization of the continent haé led to & ‘demand for archacological rescarch on later periods, and the political interests, ‘of the United States of America led to the support of much Africanist research. Work in Mesoamerica and Southwest Asia including Iran, but among the Arab countries only isolated studies in Syria and jordan} was similarly favored by the Americans who a¢ this time formed the butk of those who practiced ethno. archaeology. Asmight be expected in a recently developed subject area, a spate of theoret- ical articles is mainly devoted to specification of the subdiscipline and its relationships with others. In the larger bibliography there are a score of publi- cations relating specifically to analogy, ineluding the latter part of the Binford-Munson debate on the function of “smudge pits," and Gould's |1978a} vigorous but misjudged claim in “Beyond analogy in ethnoarchacalogy” that the use of analogies would deny us the possibility of discovering new things in ‘the past, The applicability of applying to the Pleistocene period models of the past detived froma the study of modern bunter-gatherers receives special atten- tion, and the title of Martin Wobst’s {1978} paper, “The archaeo-ethnography ‘of hunter-gatherers or the tyranny of the ethnographic record in archaeology,” eez SES3GR Zar easaes § | 2l/seeress a | [ssnwenavennese- ef er 3 | gl.- 62 + 2 Ie 3 as - mam a |= z at - + - BBs) 2+ cageecos « = 2 S| eB we ee a | 2 i Blas as oa - = z & cs nr = | fis : pe ES] 2s] 3 Bea: s S|.8 ¢ Fageee a) ana ea 23| £)2ba2838225 28253 3 7 2% 1 87 1000 75 16 4 ey 4 4 20 43 N % 139 08 1900 37, W748 78 QL BS 16 230 13.4 publications per annum, Ethnoarchaeology: its natute, origins, and history 21 dramatizes a supposed incompatibility of scales in archaeological and ethnoar- chaeological research. {nthe area of material culture, ceramics, the testing ground for so many archae- logical ideas, isthe most popular single topical area, with 15 percencof total pub- Iications, including the frst truly ethooarchaeological study by anon Westerner, “Traditional pottery technology at Krobo Takyiman ..." by the Ghanaian Elias Gyaméi{ 1986), who sadly died shoruy thercalter. Ceramicsarc followed by lithics with, a long way behind, other artifacts (the Keyword “arti” also includes consi zations of typology and classification}, Artifact classes that are unlikely to preserve in the archaeological record have been undeservedly shunned by ethno- archaeologists. On the positive side, more intensive interrogation of archseo- logical sites as the loci of human activities, and in Southwest Asia the incressingly sophisticated excavation of tells (settlement mounds, was leading woademand for models for interpreting domestic space and architecture, and thus to the first publications based on ethnoarchaeological feldwork by authors such, 4s Patty Jo Watson (1979a, 1979), whose monograph Archaeological ethnogra- ‘phyin Western fran appeared in 1979, and CK (1979, and in Africa by ND (1971, Roderick Moinzosh (1974), and, in the first year of the next period, E. Kofi ‘Agorsah’s [1982] "Spatial expression of traditional behavior . . .” (Pig, 1.6] ‘Another popular area, stimulazed in part by the wark of Michae! Schiffer (1976}, and more generally by the demands of a processual archaeology for understand- ing the nature of archaeological components, isthe study of site formation pro cesses, of which John Yellen’s [19772] work among the 'Rung San of the Kalahari is the most sustained example, Gould |1978b) was indeed arguing that ethnoar. chacology was the “anthropology of human residues.” ‘There were at this time no researchers who categorized themselves as eth- noarchzeologists but only archseclogists and occasional others who did eth- noarchzeology, mostly occasionally, and mostiy for short periods on delimited topics. There are only four ethroarchacological monographs, Watson's (1979a} con village life in Iran, and the remaining three all on foragers: Yellen (1977s| on the !Kung San, Binford |1978a] on the Nunamiut caribou hunters of Alasks, and ‘Gould (1980) on the Neatatjra Aborigines of the Australian Western Desert. Theoretical discussion during this period tended to focus om specific topics sather than on broader questions (e.g, Gould 1978}. However, retrodiction of the past through deduction from laws of culture was 2 major preoccupation Processualists jas adhezents of the New Archaeology later came to be called) hungered for general laws, and were critical of ethnoarchaeologists for not sup- lying them, Schiffer (1978) commented unfavorably on the particularistic nature of most ethnoarchaeological studies, eiting the following statement from ND's work among the settled Fulbs (Fulani) of northern Cameroon as one that conveyed the structure of a law: “The less the capital outlay or labour required to construct a building or complex of buildings, the greater the fit between it and its personnel over the useful life of the building. Conversely, the2 ETHNOARCHAEQLOGY IN ACTION Fig. 16 E, Ko Agorsh with Basa of Toebulka illage ofthe 15:16 Tamaan Margon of Suan 1987, Basa Ske tied in the Savamakan plieal tanking sytem after Gangcan and Kabicn, more permanent the building, the less the degree of fic" (David 1971: 11714 Tt ‘was because of the incressing frequency of such statements that Schiffer felt able to write in 1978 that "Ethaoarchaeology seems at last on the verge of becoming « respectable Held of endeavor within archacology” (1978: 229). “Already,” he consinued, “ethnoarchaeological findings aze appreciably affect- ing analytical methods and leading to revised interpretations of the archaeolog- ical record.” However, although ethnoarchacologists came more and more to consider the wider implications of their material, the bunger for laws was to remain unsatisfied or, rather, tofade away, largely because "there simply are no universal laws in archaeology thac are neither too general nor too specific 0 be of any interest” ( Kelley and Hanen 1988: 232). ‘The Recent period Recent 1, 1982-9 “Recent” is used by analogy to the Holocene or Recent Period in which we hive, and because the term “modern” now carries with it considerable baggage, only | yp'e plese a being ths singled aut was eanpered by Schifer's characterisation of the aate- teu imprecie and proRaMy aceusate™! Ethnoarchaeology: its nature, origins, and history 23. a small portion of which we are concemed to unpack, We date the start of the period to the pablication of fan Hocider's(1982a) Symbols in actfon, a book that, in a series of ethnoarchacological essays, explores the relations between ass0- ciations of matérial culture items in living contexts and archaeological con. cepts of culture. Whereas the prevailing archaeological view of the time was that “Material culture patterning is a distoreed but predictable reflection of hbuman bebaviour” (p. 11], Hodder concluded that material culture does not retely reflect culture, but serves actively to constitute it. Is in this sense that adtifacts are symbols in action? Although we have reservations about the field ‘methods of Hodder and his team (see chapter 3}, this was a new and tremen- dously exciting view of material culture and of the role of eshnoarchaeclogy. Symbols in action questioned and found wanting some of the fundamentals of interpretation, the existing archaeotogical concept of culture and the inter- action theory of style, which held chat the degree of seylistic similarity between ‘wo components or assemblages was a measure of the intensity of social inter action between them. Moreover, in treating material culeure as an active clement in communication ~ as had Martin Wobst {1977} though from a systems theory perspective -Hodder also challenged a fundamental tenet of the New Archaeology: that for heuristie purposes the human mind can be ade- quately conceptualized as a rational, economizing processor of information, and can therefore be ignored in the relationship between environmental stim. ulus and buman behavioral response. The opposing view, that mental processes intervene in more complex, transformational, manner between input and output, changes the nature of explanation by reinstating human agency as a foctarin culture. Hodder was developing a new theoretical postion, influenced by the ideas ofa very different set of scholars from those who had inspired the processualiste, most notably by Giddens’s theory of srucruration and Bourdicu’s theory of practice, and he could and did cite ethnographic chapter and verse in its support. Two decades later, the last patagraph of Symbols in action makes fascinating reading: ther is «need for archaeologists to integrate theories and idess from a wide range of studies concemed with steucture, meaning and social action, The prospect is for & Gebste i archaeology conceming sevctorelisa [Piaget 1971, Levi Strause 1963} and its various cniques (Bourdieu 1977, Pewee 1975), post etrocturalism (Ardenes_ 1978, Haistrup 1978), sructural Marxism {Godelier 1977, riedan and Rowlands 1977) and conternporary social theory [Giddens 1979, Marsh, Rosser and Face 1976). Whee is ‘meant by such concepts as Ideology, iegitimation, power, symbol and social structure ‘must be argued within the aschecoiogealliteretare and the concepts must be incorg: sated into interpretations ofthe past. (2.229) There are some names and concepts missing - most notably Michel Foucault and reflexivity — but the paragraph presages the proliferation of postprocesstual * Th wort feo cio min a which es primary tam Tah eg ehh sey oe24 ETHNOARCHAEOLOGY IN ACTION and, in some cases, postmodern, theoretical positions that characterize “hot theory” in the eighties and early nineties. “Hlodder’s ideas had not been without precursots in archaeology generally and ‘etnoarchacology in particular jeg., Gould 1978, and indeed the years 1977 through 1990 saw an ongoing debate over the definition, uses and nature of style in archaeology involving James Sackett, Lewis Binford, and on the eth- ‘noarchaeological side notably Polly Wiessner, who was active in the Kalahari uring the 1970s {chapter 7}. In 1986 the publication in the journal of “Anthropological Archaeology of a paper by Pierre Lemonnicr that featured his ‘work on the material culture of the Anga of Parua New Guinea introduced the Freach “anthropology of techniques” school to Anglophone readers. ‘Symbols in aetion advanced ethnoarchacology but scarcely resulted in an immediate transformation of the field. Processualismn remains a strong force ~ ‘and some "pre-processualist” papers continue to appear. An intense argument carly in the Recent period between Gould and Watson (1982) and the philoso- pher Alison Wylie (1982| on the concept and use of analogy was effectively ter inated by Wylie’s magisterial “The reaction against analogy” of 1985. Orherwise theoretical debate tended to become less separate and more an {mtrinsic feature of papers right across the range of topics and classes of material coalture treated. ‘The statistics for the period reveal certain trends (Table 1.4]. The mumber of publications nearly wriples to 35.5 per antnum and for the Srst time includes ‘substantial number of items in French, Sub-Saharan Africa, with 29 percent of all publications, is increasingly the mast popular geographic area, in large part Jecause that continent is peresived as having the most peoples practicing “tra ditional” life styles, ic, lives less obviously affected by industrialization and slobalization, though Ann Seabl (1993) and Scott MacEachern (1996)~ and the ‘Kalahari Bushmen Debate” (Smith 1996) — have warned us against acceptiris such views and of the dangers of essentializing the African in a mistaken search for the pure and pristine, ‘The most popular topicai area, with 18 percent of publications, concerns domestic and community space and architecture, relating directly to interpre- tation of activity areas and site layouts sometimes including their demo- ‘paphic implicstions}. While Southwest Asia still dominates here [et Kramer 1982a}, Africa is well represented. Susan Kent begins publishing African ma- terials in this period. Her processualist monograph Analyzing activity areas [Kent 1984), although set in North America rather than Airica, contrasts vividly and in a manner typical of the period with Henrictta Moore's (1986) postprocessualist Space, text and gender: an anthropological study of the ‘Marakwet of Kenya, the latter being the first ethnoarchaeo)logical entry in the bibliography with “gender” in its title” 10 We distinguish between sex ubich te prmarily biological] and gender hicks deolgicl an? ‘uluall Space, evr and gender isnot sicly speaking eoarchacsogy. Although More was ‘Table 1.4 The distribution of Recent 1 period (1982-9) ethnoarchaeological publications by prime topic and geographic area SE. s sw EUR ASIA ASIA ASIA AUST OCE N ‘Subsah. VAR NAM MAM SAM NAFR ATR % Prime wpic sndarea ‘Theory, method Other subsistence Formation processes Fauna, hones | Foraging tithiee Ceramis , 2 3 Other artifacts and typology Settlement patterns Org. production and learning Diseribution, trade, exchange Style and ethnicity Morruary Space and architecture Ideology Metallurgy ma wm 19 7 12388 2 6725 35 135.6 publications per annum26 ETHNOARCHAEOLOGY IN ACTION Ceramics /16 percent of publications} is now the second most popular topical area, especially when we consider that many publications categorized in the table under other headings, for example organization of production, are in fact developed in terme of ceramics. While papers conceraed primarily to deseribe technology continue to be published, a new range of concerns involving com- parative studies and ficldwork at the regional scale is becoming evident in the [rerature. Gallay and Huysecom (1989} take a regional approach to pottery pro- duction and distribution in ¢ multiethnic part of Mali, Dean Arnold (1985] writes from a comparative systems and ecological perspective on Ceramic theory and cultural process, In a very different mode Daniel Miller's {1985} Artefacts as categories relates variability in Indian ceramics to variability in society as a whole, and is a precursor to his later work on consumption (e.g, 1987) and interdisciplinary studies of material culture and cultural processes (eg, 1998). Other publications ate concerned with the functions of style, and, responding to a challenge laid down by Hodder, the generation of its content and meaning within specific cultural contexts [¢g,, David et al. 1988}. ‘Also detectable for the first time are the impacts of large-scale, longer-term cethnoarchaeological projects involving numbers of students and native assist: ants. Brian Hayden’s Coxoh Ethnoarchacology Project was based in the Mays highlands between 1977 and 1979, focusing on household variability, lithics {Hayden 1987s, 1987b, 1987c, 19874) and ceramics (Nelson 1981; Deal 1998} Teis notable for the clarity with which its methodology is specified Hayden and Cannon, 1964a: 1-39). In the Philippines, William Longacre’s Kalinga Project, begun in the 1970s, interrupted by political untest, and reactivaced in the late 1980s, hes focused productively on ceramics from a variety of perspectives including the transmission of ideas, the organization of production, tzade and exchange, and materials science {Longacre and Skibo 1994) (Fig. 1.7). This project’s publications first become numerous in the succeeding period. In Cameroon and Nigeria, ND's Mandara Archacological Project has since 1984 conducted seven field seasons, all but the Est devoted to ethnosrchacology and ‘with up to seven researchers in the feld at the same time, emphasizing ques- sions of style, eshnieity, symbolism, and systems of thought (e.g, David etal. 1991}, and including video programs among its ourput jeg, David and Le Bléis 1988}. The Swiss Ethnoarchacological Mission in West Africa has been produc- ing a substantial, and beautifully strated, set of publications primarily on footnote 10 cont) tte of Hodes stadents and went to Kenya to camry aut ethnosrchacologial research on ‘bbls, ehe returned with an explenation ofthe idealogiel construceian of gender. Tae book ‘velop tor ber soratom sas to subuile insists ea antaropolopce! stay. Nevertheless ‘hnaatchaeologets an ensonably csi residual gb te chapter on sb, enioal dung, and ‘he organization of domestic spate teres fo tie etincarcharclogical fons of the Work, AR {nteeview of Mike Pater Psceon published om the Web ies eof £097}is wall wordhrealing Gh pe he ara cae of 7, oder “ow lat ata subvert ‘meer, Areiats ae oatagorite by Daniel Miler 1968) another of Hodter® student, occupies or distr inercloeipingy postion. Ethnoarchaeology: its nature, origins, and history 27 Malian ceramics, but ineluding historical archaeology ie.g, Gallay ee af. 1996) and Huysecom and Agustonis {1997} remarkable film of ston smelting among the Dogon. In part because of these programs there is @ definite increase in the still relatively smna‘l number of publications that deal with the organization of production and with the distribution, trade, and exchange of artifacts, ‘Mention of iron working reminds us also that, in large pat because bloomery techniques of smelting iron continued to he practiced very late in Sub-Saharan Aftics, the subcontinent holds a virtual monopoly of ethnoarchaeological works ‘on metallurgy {chapter 11), These begin in the New Ethnoarchsealogy period (Schmics 1980), becoming mnoze common through time, although we should not forget the many earlier scudies that are berter characterized as technological or ‘ethnological. In the 1990s interest in smelting extended, though much less than might be expected, to smithing (eg, Robertson 1992; Childs ané Dewey 1996} 13s in the Recent | period that, as noted above, we can begin to appreciate some broader topical trends within ethnoarchaeology. One otheris worth men- tioning here; categories concemed with subsistence (Fauna/Foroging/Other subsistence techniques} increase from 133 percent in the New Ethno. archaeology periéd to 16,9 percent in this period and to 18.6 percent in Recent 2,13 good part because of the work done from the University of Ueah by Kaistin Hawkes, James O'Connell, and their associates. Their fine-grained research among the Aché of Paraguay leg, Hawkes, Hill, and O'Connell 1982! and the Hadza of Tanzania (eg, Hawkes, O'Connell, and Blurton Jones 1991) adds28 ETHNOARCHAEOLOGY IN ACTION significantly to the range of uopical and sub-tropical foragers studied, though shey would cercainly label most of their work human ecology or optimal forag- ing research rather than ethnoarchaeology. Pastoralists become more of a focus ‘of attcation in the succceding period. Recent 2, 1990-8 “The Recent? period is tobe celebrated for the increasing productivity of non- Western ethnoarchaeologists. They include Kofi Agorsah eg., 1993) and Kodzo Gavua {1990} of Ghana, Nigerians Kolawole Aiyedun (1995), C. A. Folorunso and . O. Ogundele {1993}, the Franco-Cameroonian Augustin Holl (1993), Chapurukche Kusimbs (1996) from Kenya, Soklina Gueye (1998} from Senegal, the Franco-Algerian Hassan Sidi Maamar (Chaix and Sidi Maamar 1992), “Turkey's Fisua Ertuj(1996), India's Seetha Reddy (1991, 1997], Japan’s Masashi Kobayashi (1994), and, from Szichuan in the People's Republic of China, Enzheng Tong (1990). itis curious that with rare exceptions (eg, Eduardo Williams 1994, 1995) Latin. Americans have not been attracted to ethnoarchae- logy. Almost all those named above were trained in the Western anthropolog- ical tradition and, especially as several have worked amongst peoples other than their own, most of their contributions are as yet litle differentiated from those of their Western colleagues. Thus the ethnoarchaeological potential of the combination in a single individual of native and Western perspectives remains to be fully realized. However, a Master's thesis by Rovland [Caesar] Apentiik (19971, “Bulsa technologies and systems of thought,” achieves pre- Gisely this synthesis. ‘Que statistics for this sub-period are calculated up to and including 1998 and are no doubt incomplete, as is suggested by the very minor apparent increase in the rate of publication t0 37.1 items per annum (Table 1.5). Aftica’s excessive dominance at 39 percent of publications is also likely to be a sampling artifact ‘though political factors are also at play, rendering parts of Mesomerica and Southwest Asia less attractive, particularly to researchers from the States, The lange mumber of papers on theory, boosted by an important conference organized by Frangoise Audouze 1992} in Antibes in 199), includes several that deal, more cor less effectively and from a variety of perspectives, with the processual/post- processual relationship. Space and ceramics remain popular subjects, and there ate significantly more publications on broader and on more abstract topics. CR’s 1997] book on ceramics in two Indian cities is notable for its treatment of the ‘organization of production, distribution, and exchange in a complex society, subjects alse treated in the context of Longecre’s long-running Kalinga project (e.g, Graves 1991, Stark 1994], ND (2996) argues from an ethnohistoric and ‘ethnoazchaeological perspective that the chiefdom of Sukur in the Mandara ‘mountains of northeastern Nigeria was in the nineteenth century a “classless industrial society,” and Peter Schmidt |1996a) and Michael Dietler and Ingrid Herbich |1993} discuss the nature oj time among the Haya and Luo respectively. E 37.1 publleations per annum, § sw SE EUR ASIA ASIA ASIA ASIA AUST OCEN % 2 2 3 1 3 2 1 4 ‘SabSah, VAR NAM MAM SAM N ATR AFR ‘Table 15 The distribution of Recent 2 period (1990-8) ethnoarchacological publications by prime topic and geographic Other artifacts and eypology Formation processes Fauna, bones Settlement patterns Foraging Prime topic and area ‘Theory, method Other subsistence Lithies Cen Mecelhurgy Iealogy N Disinibution, ede, exchange Style and ethnicity (Org, production and learning Mortuary Space and architecture30 ETHNOARCHAFOLOGY IN ACTION 1.8 Eihnoarchacologiste gathered atthe Schl of American Research Fe acloaan Sana Fes March 1985 cht Led tote pubiaon of Longacre’ 19919) Ceramic eshnoarchacolng From feta right Font row Gloria London, Michael Graves, Wiliam A, Longacre, and Raymond Thompson, bck sow lan Fodder, Sander van der team, Margaret Hain, Warten Dele, Ben Nelion, and CK. Other developments in archaeological thought are detectable in the emer- gence or rapid expansion of topics. A Gusry of ethnoarchacological publications con various aspects of fauna, including several in Jean Hadson’s {1993a} edited volume From bones to behavior, are evidence of, among other things, a desire 10 identity incontrovertible archaeological signatures of hominid activicies and particularly hunting, Such cellections of papers on special ropies, for example fon ceramic ethnoarchaeology {Longacre 199Lal (Fig. 1.8), abandonment {Cameron and Tomka 1993), or approaches to mobile campsites and the eth- noarchacology of pastoralisma (Gamble and Boismier 1991} have replaced the broadly based compilations of earlier Years. There are also more comparative seudies seeking, but not necessarily finding, underlying uniformities, for cexaruple Ben Nelson's |1991) study of ceramic trequency and uselife in cross- cculeural perspective ‘A newly flourishing category, that of ideology, though remaining for the moment largely Afvican in its geographic scope, deserves special notice. While specific artifact classes and topics range from izon to calabashes, and from Etbnoarchacology: its nature, origins, and history 31 switcheraft 10 symbolic reservoirs, we are gaining new insights into the world ‘of metaphor ~ “forging symbolic meaning,” “pots as people" ~ that underlies material culture, This is a world that, while it may seem unscientific and even. anciful to some, is in fact critical to understanding how technologice ate con- tyolled and transmitted within and between generations, When such questions, te related to the division of labor and modes of production, itis apparent that they are fundamental to archacology’s explication and explanation of cultural continuities, change and development. ‘There can be no doubt that during the Recent period there have been signifi- cant improvements in the doing and writing of ethnoarchaeology, the quickie ‘yateh-a-native-fell-a-tree kind of study is no longer acceptable. Scholars who, like the authors of this book, identify themselves moze as ethnoarchaeologists, than as archaeologists may remain few and far between, but the mavement of individuals back end forth between subject areas is no had thing. It would be ‘unrealistic to clsim that ethnoarchacology has achieved maturity a8 a subdis- cipline of anthropology ~ unless, as the recent history of archaeology suggests, maturity may he characterized by progressive incorporation into the discipline of a variety of viewpoints within a broadly agreed philosophical framework, a ange of lively approaches to diverse subject matter, and the appeazance of second-generation studies that group and synthesize individual case studies. All these developments augur well for the future. ‘The attractions of ethnoarchacology “Tike to Keep my archaeology dead,“ Devid Clarke once said to ND, and there 4s no doubt that many of those axtracted to archaeology as a profession prefer to maintain a certain distance between themselves and the people they are ~ indirectly — studying, Some like objects, the tangible past, and there can be few of us who were not moved when they held for the fest time an Acheulian hondax made a quarter of 4 million years ago, Others, and Clarke (e.g, 1968] was @ prime example, obtain a pure enjoyment, similar if not identical to that olthe mathematician, in the discovery of patterning at a multiplicity of sales ~an the archaeological record. The empathetic thrill fele by the first group and. the intellectual excitement of the second are both experienced by the archae- ologist at a safe distance. Ethnoarchacologists feel them too; but they also have 10 enjoy the in-your-face experience (the vulgarity is intentional} of interacing. intimately on a day to day basis with people, usually from other cultures, from whom they have come to learn, and whose actions they do not control. This is ‘hot to say that many of us follow Karl Heider into lield situations untamed by ‘the modem world. We normally work under the protection of a state, and our esearch funding (however limited} usually confers upon us the power of rela- tive wealth, Nonetheless there is an excitement to waking up in the field, ‘not knowing precisely what one will be doing that day, being there, seizing32 ETHNOARCHAEOLOGY IN ACTION pporcunities ~ even if at times there is che downside of coping with frustra tion, boredom, physical discomfort, hunger. One is never so aliveas in the field, Allresearch proceeds from percepts to inference of structuze and process. The Inka developed a teshnique for permeating gold with copper end treating the alloy go that the gold showed on the surface [Lechtman 1977: 8|, The surficial gold is evident it is the task of the metallurgist to infer the structure and the processes that produced it. Ethnoarchaeologists are xescarchers who observe and appreciate things and the information encrusted in chem, who like learn- ingfrom and laughing with Others, and who delight in the discovery of pavteras and explanation of the underpinnings of bebavior and ite material correlates. For some of us this is now an end in itself, foc most the sim is to apply their ndings to the archaeological record ‘Many of those who practice ethnoarchaeology also enjoy digging and che pleasure of being a member ofa teams [asually, it should be remembered, largely composed of people of one’s own culture or station in life], but there can be few echnoarchacologists who regret the tedious tasks of archacology, most notably the interminable washing, weighing, counting, recording, labeling, and bagging of specimens, Unlike archaeology, ethnoarchacology is not aber mtensive, nor ddoes it destroy data in the process of recovery, nor are its data unique. We have recursive access to artisans and other informants, archacologists can ouly dig the same ground once. Ethnoarchaeology is less threatening to authorities than archaeology. So far at least, its results have been far less subject to political manipulation, Like archaeology, it contributes to the understanding of human ‘behavior but without losing the immediacy of bumaa interaction, For all these reasons, we expect the numbers of etimoarchaeologists to increase and the subject to continue to flourish. Further reading Successive reviews of ethnoarchaeology testify to varying conceptions of the field and its development. These include papers by Stiles {1977], Longacre (2978), Atherton (1983) on Africa and MacEachern |1996) on sub-Saharan Africa, Griffin and Solheim {1988-9} on Asia, Sinopoli (3991) on S, Asia, and Allen {1996}, who takes a broader ethnographic. perspective, on. Australia. Griffin, Solheim, and Sinopoli construe ethnoarchaeology very broadly, includ- ing many references to surveys of crafts that we would classify as material culture studies. Vossen |1992) offers a German perspective on ethnoazchseol- ogy and Fernandez Martinez (1994) a Spanish one. For a French view rich in historical insights see Coudart (1992a). The editors’ introductions to the cal- lections mentioned in the chapter also provide historical perspective. Sherry Ortner’s (1984) “Theory in anthropology since the sixties” is a percep- tive and readable description of developments in anthropology coincident with that of ethnoarchacology in the tnitial and New Archaeology periods CHAPTER 2 THEORIZING ETHNOARCHAEOLOGY AND ANALOGY sti partcualy bese human being delegate artfets, eo exch ac toterhnia arta ange pat olin consrtom and consesaton Oi thei sxial es hat human societies constvte stable fameworks contzdistnction eo the ancetes of ciker primates that tonnes because they lack Sings require ca he continoouy ekemaucetd by diret conta touches looks soc stl) andy tepals, ete and condauows active Involvement ofthe paripante nich Coda: 19720 203, oa canst. ‘What recourse is therefor the imaginatively challenged? (Bruce Tigger 1998: 30) ‘The vast majority of publications on ethnoarchaeology take no explicit theo. retical position = which does not mean that they are atheoretical. In this chapter we offer the reader a basic toolkit with which to examine the theory, implicit or explicit, expressed in the ethnoarchaeological Literature that we will be considering in the course of this book. For two reasons the toolkit we offer 42: this stage is a minimal one. First, most of us prefer to deal with theoretical complexities as they arise and in a factual context. Second, this is not the place to attempt to survey the wide web of theoretical positions taken by archaealo- sists (and to a lesser extent ethnoarchaeologists) following an influx of theory reaching anthropology in the 1970s and 1980s from a variety of sources includ- ‘ng the philosophy of science, literary theory, and sociology. First however we should consider what Kind of a world it is that we are attempting to understand and whether it is possible to regard ethnoarchaeo!- gy as a coherent subdiscipline of anthropology. Then, since a major purpose of thnoarchacology is to provide links between present and past, we turn to the question of argument by analogy, What is iti How does it work? Ie there any solution to the paradox that, whereas archaeologists are interested in long. term change, che ethnoarchaeologists who desire to assist them are Himited to short- term observations even of their own societies? Finally we will summarize some Postprocessial developments in archaeological theory that are of particufar rel- vance to ethnoarchaeology. 33pO 34 ETHNOARCHAROLOGY IN ACTION Explanation in social science! Echnoarchacologists are generally mute as to their philosophical perspective. Noneshcless, all anthropological endeavor takes place in « theoretical context in which answers to the following questions are implied. What are the “things” swe study? What constitutes “explanation” of our data? How do we “verify” our explanations? Are there “laws of human social life"? Realist philosophy of science in ite “subrle” form provides answers to these questions that serve to orient scientific enquiry without cither overly constraining its scape or forcing tas into bogus intellectual gymmastics. The realist research program in social seience has been conveniently set out by Guy Gibbon (1989: 142-72), from whom the following summary of what are for our purposes its essential ele- ments is derived. ‘Realists distinguish between three domains: | the real sseuctures and processes, which are often unobservable and ‘may be complex stratified composites fe.g., genes, migration); any- thing ha can bing bon change natal shing ea 2 the actual: observable events and phenomena, compounds and con- runceares formed by the realy and 3 the empirical: experiences and facts generated by our theory-laden perception of the actual ‘To take an example, the sun is a real thing; it is observable in many forms, as light, heat, solar winds, sun spots, ete., that we experience and record in ‘various ways, including as photons, as changes induced on photographic plates ‘and on our own skin, and 2s radio waves. Photons can be empirically recorded, ‘but are they particles or waves? Is sunstroke a purely physical effect of expo- sure, or is there no such thing as a purely physical effect? Might sin or witch- craft be causal factors? Answers depend both upon how the sun is observed and Spantcbte et pss hs eee wesenicalioc "they ‘ttc coca end admin sine ost of the real. We approach the real through our empirical reading of the actual, and according to the scientific knowledge of the day. It follows that theories about the real world, even if true, can never be proven, they are always “under- determained” by the evidence. Herein lies the distinction between “subtle” and “naive” realism. Naive realists fail to recognize the theory-laden auality of descriptions and explanations; they believe they can have direct contact with veinfasintec laws cee “ance npg ttn “Regen rte ae iy ker sams fant unpeatosof whi fo stare me ot moi Theorizing ethnoarchaeology and analogy 35 Society, a concept essential for our purposes, is held really co exist as a complex structure irreducible either to its effects or to people, consisting of the sum of relations, imcinding relations with material culture and the envi- jonment, within which individuals and groupe stand. Society exiote by virtue fof the intentional activity of people. It can only be detected by its effees, it sgeneraves social life, is manifest in cultural behavior and its products, and is conceptualized in the experience of its beaters. The causal power of social forms is mediated by people — and by cultural things ~ and social forms are a necessary condition for social action. However, human behavior cannot be dexermined by or completely explained by reference to social forms and rnlles, because people are purposeful and possess intentionality and sel consciousness, Psychological and physiological as well as social reasons con. ‘bute to intentional human behavior. Thus, unlike wichin the closed system of a thermostat, people act in what are termed open systerns that are co- determined by a vatiety of mechanisms of which the social is one. Societies are continuously being transformed in practice, are only relasively enduring, and are thus irreducibly historical planation of octal phenomena proces by the ame general proces as in the natural sciences: 1 Recognition of a pattem and cesolution of events into their compo- nents. Events ate viewed 3 conjunctures, resulting from the com- ‘ined effects ofa variety of real things, forces or dynamie seructuriags of materials, 2 Redeseription of events in one of the many dialects (economics, ‘human scomapy. to the language of soci science, 2 Creative mofel-building, the search for generative mechanisms that aight produce the observed pattern. Thisis an inductive, or mare pre- cisely renroductive, attempt to lay out the structural cendivions that must have existed for the evens to be present. 4 Testing and theory construction, Candidare mechanisms are reduced to one as the reality of their postulated struccures and powers is checked, in part by evaluation of each mechanism in terms of its plausibility and credibility in the light of other theories, especially those that we currently take to be beyond reasonable dowht, in part by gathering of independent evidence that will subject the theory to ‘mximal threat, Ifthey pase these tests, structures and their workings ‘may then be atleast provisionally accepted as explantions. But two problems must be faced. First, because of human intentionality and the openness of cultural systems, statements describing the way real social things operate must de regarded as regularities or expectations rathor than ae laws. Second, because societies exis se the outcome of particular historical uajectories, the houndary conditions withia ‘which such a regularity may hold may restrict its applicasion toa very small range of societies, -ven limiting it vo the one from which it was, derived. Such expectations may then contribute tothe understanding,=_a ee eee a ae 36 ETHNOARCHAEOLOGY IN ACTION of particulat cases but be trivial from a generalizing cross-cultural perspective.® 5 However this may be, exploration of the stratum of reality revealed Sn the previnus steps can now begin. ‘As social structures are only manifest in open systems that exist in particu lar historic contexts, decisive tests of theories are impossible. We may be able +0 explain past events precisely and accurately, but our capacity to predict remains rudimentary. While the validity of claims is subject to stringent eti- teria of assessment, proposed definitions of the real and theories about the ‘nature of society and its past are ultimately accepted or rejected on the basis of their explanatory fruidfulness or power, It is this rather than predictive of, in the case of archaeology, retmodictive accuracy that decides which of a set of ‘competing models becomes, for the time being, theory. ‘To this partial and abbreviated account of realist philosophy in social science, ‘we should add a rider of great relevance. Although humans live in open systems, certain aspects of their behavior are more constrained than others and can be conceptualized in terms of, f not closed, at least restricted systems, some of which are quite simple. Much of the behavior studied by ethnoarchae- ologists and archaeologists, the manufacture of tools for example or subsistence techniques, can be viewed in such terms — which does not imply that ather per- spectives will not also be revealing, The simpler the system and the more it approximates to the closed condition, the greater the predictability of the ‘behavior associated with it. Thus, depending on the natures of the things and systems under investigation, different approaches and methodologies may be appropriate, and predictability greater or less. Processual and contextual schools and styles of analysis, ‘eis in large part because ethnoarchaeology and archaeology deal with material things and their relations to both the natural and the social environments that there is such disagreement berween authorities as to what we should be doing and how we should do i, to the following discussion we follow Kosso {2991} in ‘treating Lewis Binford and [an Hodder, both of whom have carried out important archaeological and ethnoarchaeological fieldwork, as archetypal protagonists of the New Archaeology and “contextual” (later “interpretive”) schools. Note that while the New Archaeology and processual schools are synonymous, and while the contextual school as described by Hodder |1986: 118-46, 1987b and c} in the late 1980s can be eategorized as postprocessual, postorocessualistn is a much broader category that accommodates a variety of poststructuralist, neo- or post- Marxist, postmodern iJameson 199%}, and other viewpoints recently surveyed by Robert Proucel 1995), some of which wil! be touched on later inthis chapter." 2 See Reley and Hanen [1986 227-28] fora ditamion of lows and lawitko statements in archaeology. + Bovimacerism is anstistorc and dus opposed othe aims of arcacslegy,thoagh it may be Said that Shake aad Talley relest tbe pomsmovdeen crisis in historicity ta thelr mote exteme ‘Theorizing ethnoarchaeology and analogy a7 Rinford (¢.g, 1977, 1982, 1987b) believes that archaeology should be more like a natural than 4 social science and advocates the use of “middle range theory" t0 relate the statics of the archaeological record to the dynamics of the living, systemic context, while Hodder, who sees archaeology as historical social science, recommends 4 contextual approach in which context-specific srructuring principles replace cr0ss-culturally applicable middle range theories. ‘Bat es Kosso (1991) has shown, there is lieele difference in the epistemic struc- ture of their analyses * Middle range theories relate the empirical, the perceived actual, to the real, so do Hodder’s structuring principles, which may indeed be roparded as middle range theories. Both approaches proceed by working back aad forth berween data and theary. Where Binford and Hodder and other {ethnolarchaeologists primarily differ ts in 1 the activities, economic, cognitive-symbolic, or other, relating to less ‘or more open, simpler or more complex, systems in which they are most interested, 2 their views of the real things that structure these activities, 3 their understandings of what constitutes explanation and verifica- on, and 4 the corresponding naturalist versus antingvusatist styles oftheir argu: ‘The terms “naturalist” and “antinaturalist,” borrowed from the philosophy of the social sciences (Martin and Meintyre 1994: xv-xvil, are here used to con- tnast styles of analysis, Each encompasses a range of philosophical and method- ological positions, and individual studies often show blends of the two. The naturalist approach is modeled after the natural sciences, Analyses are charac- terized by a focus on behavior and its practical effects on the warkd, an empha- sis on the verification of hypotheses rather than on their discovery, on direct confirmation by experience, and the preferential use of quantitative approaches and statistical inference. While an earlier view that explanation consists of sub- suming pavternings of data under covering laws is now seen as overdetermin- istic, there is still a concern to obtain results that can be used in cross-cultural comparison and for generalizing about culture process. Similarly, the view that scchaeologists are not equipped to study the human mind has given way to new studies of human cognitive capacities and modes; but naturalists are con cerned, ifat all, only with the structure of meaning, ‘Antinaturalist studies emphasize inducrive and qualitative approaches to the selaivist statements in which cher angue tay dere is ao wry to choose betwoen alterna bss exzopr on xseaillypoisielgronncs (1D87" 13] Trae postoecermy in archaclogy fobs found inthe conumoaiied pasiches of he pase served up on television, whether hey Durport n be scence (he pre-Pre-Dynaste age of che Sphinx} or enteramument (Zena: WerHor Faces * infor’ philosophy of science and mote obsiously his thetoris have developed over the years. fom logis emplceismy/ositviam eowatiy the rvliom hie practice has always tended 10 erhibit see Wylie 1989) Hodder views, approaches and itteeats have changed even tore ‘aly ot heve wnt pees they likely tes bet Ravecontite sesamin hae