The Contributions of the Ethnosciences to Archaeoastronomical Research WILLIAM BREEN MURRAY 1 William Breen Murray is Professor lo the Deparement of Social Sciences, Universidad de Monterrey (Mexico). He has been | an active participant in the Oxford Conferences on archaeoastronomy since their foundation, and has served on the International Steering Committee for the Oxford Conferences. He has written over 30 publications on northeast Meslean rock art and was awarded the Kenneth Castleton Award of the American Rock Art Research Associaton. ARCHAEOASTRONOMY Abstract Inthe 1960s, anthropological theory vered sharply fiom pestvstic description (etc) to textual analysis (emic). The ethnosciences developed as apart and proddact ofthis shife and now reconftont the "hand science" challenge. [Achough they derive from the same theoretical end, edhnomathematcs and cahnoastonoeny have very diffzent origins. Fehnomathematcs stems from dhe efforts of teachers to incorporate non-Western umber concepts ito mathemat- jes education. Ethnoastsonomy derives from 2 deeper appreciation ofthe knowledge of nature posted by small-scale societies, Ech has developed its comm perspective and methodology bue both shate an interest inthe evidence of| catles traditions uncovered by archaeoastronomy. “This paper will review selected recent research in both fields in order to define the potential contribution ofeach to resolving questions of achatoaszonomical incerpretation efe unanswered by archacclogical evidence alone. Resumen (Espafiol) En la déeada de los 1960s la eoraanopogia gb rueamene de la descrip positivist tc hacia el ads texts (emi) Las eorenci, producoy partiipes en este cambio, ahora vue a nlcrar leo de la ‘ie dr La eenomatemica yl etoastronomi tienen oigenes may istiuny, ata y cuando dervan del misma base tefcice. La etnomatemitca desaroll por los ‘afuerzn de edcadres que intent incorporst ls concepts matensicos po-oecdentles en el curculam escolar. En cambio, la emoastronomia deriva de tin preci enogrfico més profund del conocinien aca que poseen as tociedadeshamanas de pq exala. Cada capo pose su propia pespetivay smeodologia, pero comparten un nets en a evidenca de tadicont antsores aque reve a investiga srqunasondeni. Ee mbjo pretende comentar alguns invexgaones reienes en ambos campos cone objetivo de dein su conaibucin poten 2 as preguntas de incerpreacién anueoastronGenea que no pueden ser esuclas pot a evidincin arqueologicaasolas, {©2000 by the University of Texas Press, P.0. Box 7819, Austin, TX 78713-7819The New Wars of Words “The end of the second Christian millennium and the beginning of the third seem to be marked by a renewed war of words in both science and society. Just as nations and peoples are reconfigured by global economics and the world system, so postmodem cultural globalization also reshapes the dimensions of knowlkdge, erasing and. rearranging disciplinary boundaries, as well as creating new disputed territories. In academia, a new confrontational style of discourse takes over pitting rival paradigms in intellectual combat. Words are charged with new meanings, and competing theories are converted into argu- nts aimed at winning converts. Paradigm conflict may be resolved by a conversion experience in which the repentant scholar abandons any past errors or doubts and professes adherence to the new credo. Thisiis the eerrain I must cover today, and J admit at the outset that Tlead you onto dangerous ground. In attempting to capture an overview of the relations between ethnoastronomy, ethnomathematics, and archaeoastronomy, I learned not only how litle [know about all three fields, but also how difficult it is to pull together inquities pursued in isolation. I soon discovered that a systematic review of the accumulated literature was not only impos- sible but probably ircelevant, and I offer instead 2 scouting report from a part of no-man’s-land in the terrain of knowledge. Today, it seems the skies of living peoples are most often obscured by the clouds of intellectual warfare. How can this be? Let me explain. Anthropology’s Divided House My scouting report begins in the anthropologists’ camp because —despite their many differences—archaeoastronomy, ethno- astronomy, and ethnomathematics all originate in anthropology’s commitment to holism, the notion that human cultures are best ‘understood as parts of an integrated whole. This commonsense deastill remains atleast a theoretical ideal for most anthropologists, embodied in what is known as the “fourfield approach,” but in practice, it has always been an impossible dream. Nowadays, hyper-specialization and competing paradigms divide che antheopological house and make claims of holism sound more hollow than ever: Inthe last decade, two factions have formed, the -emicists and the -cticists, and they compete for control of the field. Their split has developed into two mutually unintelligible languages—spreading confusion in the camp, and leading many to flee the anthropological tent entieely Although a full transcript of the emic/etic controversy is welll beyond the scope of this report (see Harris 1976 for its origins), the Vounse XV 2000 us4 ARCHAEOASTRONOMY central issue in this debate is inescapable. As their names indicate, ethnomathematics, ethnoastronomy, and archaeoastronomy are all, rooted in sciences to which some dash of anthropology isadded. The status of science as asystem of knowledge is critical to their discourse. Not surprisingly, the emic/etic clash was dramatically illustrated in my reading (particularly, Eglash 1997b, for ethnomathematics) ‘What battle cries identify the warring factions? The -eticists claim that science speaks a universal language, and until recently, -eticists had complete control of the field. They worked to translate cultural differences into categories that showed an underlying order, and their best efforts comprise what's known asthe “ethnographic record.” The -emicists, on the other hand, read this record and found it wanting. When they went to the field, they found that scientific categories merely cloaked other realities they encountered. Critical analysis led them to see science as a specific product of Western culeure only. To capture this “othemess,” they intsoduce native voices into ethno- graphic description and pursue a broadly humanistic approach to culture that goes beyond scientific terms and concepts. Tn terms of the emic/etic debate, ethnoastronomy and ethnomathematics are just about in the middle, while archaeoas- tronomy provides some of the juiciest bones of contention. Lecme illustrate by contrasting two recent approaches to a cassie archaeological conundrum: deciphering the mysterious Incan khipus. “These unique artifacts were identified as record-keeping devices by Spanish chroniclers in the sixteenth century, but fell quickly into disuse once the Inca State collapsed. When archaeologists found khipus later, their messages were tantalizing but unreadable, and they became a classic test case for different types of analysis. “The modern study of khipus dates to the 1960s, when Marcia and Robert Ascher began to assemble comprehensive documentation of allknown examples. Their final results (Ascher and Ascher 1997)use this database to make a systematic analysis of the khipu code and to identify meaningful patterns derived ftom their use, Moreover, these patterns can be described in the same mathematically precise terms shared with other sciences. I take the Aschers’ work on Inca math- cematics as a fair example of the -etic approach, an identification that ‘Marcia Ascher makes even more explicit in her recent synthesis of the field (1994). Ethnomathematics as there developed differs from earlier synthe ses of the two fields (Iftah 1985; McGee 1900; Menninger 1969) because it goes beyond numerical and arithmetical concepts and no longer associates simple societies with simple minds. Ascher (1995) finds complex geometries in the stick charts of Caroline Islandsnavigators, and uses Boolean algebra to analyze Malagasy sand drawings (Ascher 1997). Even so, the same ethnographic examples may suggest different mathematical solutions. Quite by accident, Eglash (19972) finds similar sand figures used by Bamana diviners in Dakar, Senegal, but analyzes them as examples of mathematical recursion and the Cantor set. In either case, sophisticated higher mathematics is involved, and the conclusion is the same: other cultures used these concepts too on occasions, and were not so dumb as previously painted. The -etic approach clearly predominates in ethnomathematics because it uses the full resources of mathematics to harmonize the noise from outside the scientists’ tent. In so doing, it may sometimes test the limits, but itrarely questions the universality of fundamental mathematical concepts. Please note also that the Aschers (Ascher and Ascher 1989) do not find archaeoastronomy or ethnoastronomy in the khipus, even though these are well-known facets of Andean culture (Haddingham 1987; Urton 1981); rather, they see patterns reflecting Inca social institutions. Astronomy is only one of many possible organizing systems reflected in number patterns, and ethnomathematics requires the freedom to explore all the options. In many ways, Gary Urton's most recent work, The Social Lf of ‘Nuanbers (1997), begins where the Aschers leave off, and well repre- sents the -emic challenge. It takes the khipu problem in a totally different direction by searching for the stories these devices may tell, and his analysis is based on an ethnographic look at counting activities and the use of number in modern Quechua communities in southern Bolivia. By helping farmers with their planting and in learning to weave, Urton discovers numerical order underlying each of these activities and the roots of an ancient Andean conceptual system intimately tied to birth order, kin relations, and a concept of {generation rather than quantity. This is the radically different “other” of the -emic anthropologist, and Urton is not afraid to face it. Urton uses no mathematical language in his exposition, and argues instead that even the most basic number concepts are culturally relative. He even coins the term “ethnonumbers” to underline this distinction. To puste the differences he found in the Quechua mathematical system, he locates ethnomathematics as a branch of ethnophilosophy. Indeed, the Quechua system does seem strikingly alien to those of Ludwig Witegenstein and Bertrand Russell, but when Urton questions the universality of basic mathematical concepts, -emic ethnomathematies becomes the devil’s advocate. Is chere really some place where 2+2 does not = 4? Most ethnomathematicians carefully avoid this extreme (Crump 1990), but Uston takes cultural relativism Vou XV 2000 us116 ARCHAEOASTRONOMY to its ultimate consequences. Unfortunately, his insights also take him ‘outside the scientists’ camp, and further removed from archaeologists seeking light on the khipu records Ethnoastronomers are more comfortable with the -emic approach, and often discover hidden knowledge unexpectedly during their fieldwork. Stacy Schaefer (1989) also worked as an apprentice weaver among the Huichols of western Mexico, but her instruction pointed to ethnoastronomy rather than ethnonumbers. She discov- cred that the back loom was a symbol of power, in many ways the woman's equivalent to the power symbols used by the marakane, the Hiichol shaman. The loom translates into a model of the sky, with the shuttle as the path of the Sun. The top batten (where the design begins) marks the east where the Sun rises, and the bottom isthe west “The passing of the shuttle underneath the loom represents the nightly journey of the Sun through the underworld, Using the powers the loom symbolizes, the weavers reproduce the cosmic origin myths of their ancestors, often inspired by dreams or visions. Unfortunately, interdisciplines like ethnomathematics and ethnoastronomy may be last ditch efforts to keep anthropological holism alive, but they cannot solve the underlying problem. As cultural globalization advanced, the “ethnos" whom anthropologists once studied have disappeared and left the discipline without a mutually acceptable unit of study. This may be remedied intellectu- ally by simply invoking the ethnographic present, as Marcia Ascher does, or by continuing the search in spite of the evident transforma- tions of “traditional” identity (one of Urton’s key informants is a university professor). In either case, the critical reevaluation of the ethnographic record often creates new definitions of words longused as part of a common disciplinary language, spreading further confa- sion in the ethno-camp. For ethnoastronomers and ethnomathematicians, this noise is disturbing, but for many archac- ologists, it simply covers their escape to firmer ground outside the anthropological tent. Archaeology Under Attack Intellectual warfare depends first on defining disputed territory, preferably an areaabout which we know very litle, but which hashigh emotional appeal. Unfortunately, the “land of prehistory,” as Alice Kehoe (1998) has called it, fits both these requirements perfectly. Fantasies of time travel are almost as popular as space travel in modem science fiction, and stir up ancient memories that come like ghosts to haunt the archaeologists’ diggings.“There was a time when archaeology was a pleasant way to get out of the office on weekends, and for a few, it still is. Inthe last half century, however, intensive exploration and an array of new tech- niques have tumed it into a much more serious business. The traditional tools—exploration and excavation—still provide the raw ‘materials, but the new tools of the trade are draws? from the entire scientific arsenal, and the key work often takes place ina laboratory. Increased access to scientific tools has produced steadily more sophisticated, more precise, and much more comprehensive informa- tion about prehistory than ever before, as well as a few surprises that have led to paradigmatic “revolutions.” Like Indiana Jones, archae- ologists have become tough warriors in the terrain of knowledge, whose words carry weight far away from academia into the public forum and the mass media, True, there are a few inconveniences. Each increment of sophisti- cation is obtained at an additional cost, and the best weapons are now quite expensive. A normal radiocarbon date costs $500; trial sample for an experimental technique that may not work is $10,000, Nevertheless, the results seem almost miraculous to a general public avid for any news about a hidden past capable of providing guidance toward an uncertain future. Another inconvenience is that more often than for most other scientists, archaeologists’ answers depend on the questions they are asked by a public rarely versed in scientific language or methodology (Sabloff 1998). Archaeologists must constantly defend science against non-science in any and all arenas of debate and are regularly exposed to the “lunatic fringe” (Williams 1991). Although the archaeological lines of defense sometimes incorporate anthropologi- cal notions, they ultimately rest on the material evidence. Anthropo~ logical archaeology can never reveal the conceptual world surround- ing artifacts in the same depth as ethnography can, so ethnic labeling of archaeological remains is always avoided unless the evidence is overwhelming. Bitter experience has also taught archaeologists that the ethnographic record is often a poor guide to the land of prehistory, and they depend on it as litte as possible and always with caution (Butzer 1990; Wobst 1978). ‘Small wonder, then, that many archaeologists seek to escape from the anthropological tent completely and search for order in the frequency of pollen spora, phytoliths, and house mounds rather than in the peculiar characteristics of unique artifacts like those stadied by “cognitive archaeology” (which now includes most archaeo- astronomical objects). Those few remaining behind are viewed with ‘Vout XV 2000, 718 ARCHAEOASTRONOMY righteous skepticism and subject to additional questioning about their motives. If clearly scientific, they may still be admitted to the discussion, but methodological principles are critical and stringent and exclude any excursions to the -emic camp. ‘Archaeoastronomy thus appears on the fringe of the fringe from the archaeolagists’ point of view. It depends entirely on cultural context and content to explain material remains and relies heavily on ethnographic and ethnohistoric analogies to do this. All its evidence must make anthropological sense firsc, but ultimate credibility rests ‘on mutual approval by the parent science, whose acceptance is the acid test. The results of this matchup range from near-perfect fits, through various grades of probability, to negative cases in which astronomy can be effectively ruled out asan explanation. Yet even the tightest casesare treated by archaeologists with some degtee of reserve and suspicion —and perhaps for good reasons f we examine the latest skirmish around the archacologists’ camp. The Battle of Shamania {As the archacologists penetrated deeper into the past, they began to discern an original ghost haunting the land of prehistory, now identified as the shaman. Ethnographers first found him/her living only in Siberia and speaking only Chuckchee, but more recently she/he has appeated elsewhere in so many different guises that ethnographic origin is long forgotten (Atkinson 1992). Perhaps this adds a measure to his/her archaeological fascination. “The shaman’s first appearance outside Siberia was fostered by.a new Don Juan (Carlos Castaneda) filled with dreams of Mircea Eliadeand D. T. Suzuki, who invaded Sonora. His past was unknown and ultimately he turned out to be a fraud, but he raised a vital ‘question by confronting magic and science in open debate. Thereaf- ter, shamans, who were first classified as witch doctors and later psychotics, took on a new role, They became key figures in ethno- graphic studies, first as psychotherapists, and later as repositories of archetypal wisdom transcending time and space, having thus come full cicle in their cultural transformation. Archaeologists remained largely unaware of this transformation until ethnophatmacology linked neurophysiology to iconography and provided a new mirror of the shaman's magic (Lewis-Williams and Dowson 1988). Its fundamental assumption is that the entoptic imagery produced by drugged hallucinations isa cultural constant that permits identification of the shaman's earlier manifestations in the archaeological record. Those who see these images find a universal key to early human cognition and a heritage so ancient that it links thepresent to the beginning of human existence. They do so, however, by raking a leap in time often considered suicidal by archaeologists. For this reason, Paul Bahn recently identified their territory as “Shamania,” much to the discomfort of the “Shamaniacs” present. Unlike the Shamaniacs, most archacologists believe that only a ‘magician can really step back in time into a dead shiman’s head and know what he/she did and why he/she did it. As a heuristic device, shamanism is always a possibility but is very difficult to prove conclusively. Thus, the more “cognitive archaeologists” adopt sha- ‘anism as an all-inclusive explanation, the further they move from the camp of scientific archaeology, and they become mired in endless speculation out on the lunatic fringe. The battle of Shamania is the latest skirmish in the emic/etic war, and sets the terms for any future developments in archaeoastronomy. Archaeoastronomy falls uncomfortably in the middle ofthis debate, f00. Onthe one hand, ethnoastronomers have often confirmed that one of the shaman’s powers included a more intimate and detailed know!- ‘edge of the sky and its relation to natural phenomena. On the other hand, proofs often depend on leaps of faith no less formidable than the shaman's voyage, when viewed in the time spans contemplated by archaeology. Shamanism seems to bea chimera from its very birth, and its methodological proofs dissolve all 100 easily into a question of tastes. Under these circumstances, archacoastronomers summon up reinforcements from the ethnosciencesto strengthen their position, but cannot ignore the contradictions generated when the same material cevidence can be explained in two different ways. Conclusions T hope it is now easier to see that the land of prehistory, where archaeoastronomy divells, provides a perfect projective screen on which each human generation and culture can reflect its own anxieties. To get beyond this screen, one needs a healthy dose of skepticism about the appearances of things to avoid the path marked “found exactly what I expected.” Instead, one needs to find the path that says, “This way to new questions,” even though it points to an unknown destination, References Ascher; Marcia 1994 | Elnemulonatice A Mokidwral View of Mamaia Mes. Chapman 8 Hall, New York 1995 Models and Maps from the Marshall Islands: A Case in Ethnomathematis Hisoria Matematica 2247-370. 1997 Malagasy Skid: A Cae in Bthnomathematies. Hors Mathai 24:376-395. YVouwe XV 2000, ns120 ARCHAEOASTRONOMY “Ascher, Marcia, and Robere Ascher 1989 Are There Numbers in the Sky? In Tine and Calenders nth Tus Engi, edited by M, Zialkowski and R. Sadowski, pp. 35-48. B.A.R., Oxford. England. 1997 Mathai ofthe Dar Cade f be Quis Reprinted. Dover, New York. Oxiginally published 1981, University of Michigan Press, Ann Azbor Atkinson, Jane M. 1992 Shammanjemn Today. Annual Review of Anibrepolyy 24307330. Baczer, Ka 1990 A Pluman Ecosystem Framework for Archaeology. In Th Zianstom roan Antraplg, edited by E, Moran, pp. 91-130, University of Michigan Ptess, ‘Ann Arbor (Crump, Thomas 1990. The Antbreplgy of Numbers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Fglash, Ron 19972, Bamana Sand Divination: Recursion in Ethnomathematics. American Antropol 99(T):1 12-122 1997 When Math Worlds Collide Intention and Invention in Eshnomathematics. Scie, Tabeley ard Haman Values 22(1):79-97, Haddingham, Evan 1987 Lins tothe Monin Got Nas andthe Myers of Pr Randdorn House, New York. Harris, Marvin H. 1976 History and Sigaificance of the Emic/Etic Distinction. Anal Reiew of Antreplgy 5329-350. ah, Georges 1985 From One Zero, Viking Penguin, New York. Kehoe, Alice 1998 The Land of Peter. Routledge, New York Lewis: Walliams, J.D.,and Thomas A. Dowson 1988 Signs of All Times: Entoptic Phenomena in Upper Paleolithic Art. Curr Anthreplegy 29:201-245. ‘McGee, William J. 1900 Primitive Numbers. Bara of Amarin Ebalegy Annual Reor 195821851. Menningsr, Kael 1969. Naner Words and Nude Syne (A Calsral History of Nuns). MIT Press, Boston. Originally published in German 1958, Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, Geeringen, Germany. Sabloff, Jeremy 1998 Communication andthe Furor of American Archacology. Arran Antropol git 100(4):869-875 Schaefer, Stacy 1989 ‘The Loom and Time in the Hlichol World Jornal of Latin Areian Ler 15(2}179-194, Union, Gary 19BI. Atte Crourone of he arth ade Shy (An Andean Cermelagy). University of Texas Press, Austin, 1997 The Sec Lfeof Nurses (A Quechua Oly of Numbers ar Piosopy of Aries Universiey of Texas Press, Austin Williams, Stephen 1991 Fantasie Ancurigy: The Wald Sie of Nerb American Prditor. University of Pennsylvania Pees, Philadelphia. Wobst, H. Martin 1978 | ‘The Atchaso-ethnology of Huntet-Gatherers, or the Tyramy of che Ethnographic Record, Aeericar Antiquity 43:303-309,