Definition and Scope
There are over 50 definitions of Ethnoarchaeology. Some of the commonly used definitions include the following: Ethnoarchaeology is the direct observation field study of the form, manufacture, distribution, meaning and use of artifacts and their institutional setting and social unit correlates among living, non-industrial peoples for the purpose of constructing better explanatory models to aid archeological analogy and inference (Stanislawski, 1974). It is an ethnographic research for an archaeological purpose linking material remains to the human behaviour from which they resulted (Gould, 1978). It is neither a theory nor a method, but a research strategy embodying a range of approaches to understanding the relationships of material culture to culture as a whole, both in a living context and as it enters the archaeological record exploiting such understandings in order to inform archaeological concepts and to improve interpretation [… it is] the ethnographic study of living cultures from archaeological perspectives (David and Kramer, 2001). In other words, Ethno archaeology is the study of living societies to aid in the understanding and interpreting of the archaeological record. By living in, say, an Eskimo hunting camp and observing the activities of its occupants, the archaeologists hopes to record archaeologically observable patterns, knowing what activities brought them into existence (Fagan, 2001). Archaeologists have actually lived in San campsites, then gone back later and recorded the scatter of artifacts on them or have excavated them (Yellen, 1977). The term was first used by Jesse Fewkes about 1900, but the early forms of ethnoarchaeology were freely applying modern cultural data to the past. In recent decades, archaeologists have taken a more serious view of the direct application of anthropological data, still using ethnographic data, but arguing for caution. The earliest ethno-archaeological work focused on studies of hunter-gatherer camps that might provide ways of interpreting the early human campsites of Olduvai Gorge (Fagan, 2001). But a major focus of later work has been to develop archaeological methods of inference that bridge the gap between the past and present (Cameron and Tomka, 1993). Today, a wide range of subject matters has been examined by ethnoarchaeologists, including different technologies of artefact manufacture; the nature, meaning and spatial consequences of artefact discard; the social and symbolic structuring of space; the locus and meaning of artefact style; and processes of site maintenance, abandonment and decay.
Use of Analogy and Direct Historical Approach
Analogy is the process of reasoning that assumes that if objects have similar attributes, they will share other similarities too (Fagan, 2001). Analogy in archaeology is applying observed behavior to non-observed behaviour. It is perhaps one of the most used research tools in archaeological interpretation. Analogies can best be drawn between those cultures who share similar environments. More importantly, these cultures must interact with their habitats in ways that are comparable to one another (Ascher, 1961). This is central to archaeological research (Hodder, 1999). Analogies used in archaeology can be formal or relational. Formal analogies are based on the assumption that since two artifacts share a similarity in appearance or shape, they are likely to share other properties as well (Lane, 2014). In a 1971 study, Gould and his team (Gould, 1971) compared working edge angle of Mousterain Quina scrapers and modern Western Desert Aboriginal scrapers and found the Mousterain angles to be steeper. Gould reasoned this was due to the Western Desert Aborigines retouching the scrapers further than the Hominids of the Mousterian. They concluded that this Interdisciplinary Approaches of Archaeological Anthropology 5 2 method of studying ethnographic tool use for comparison could be employed to determine what tools were used for. Relational analogies are different from formal analogies. Here, instead of just drawing the conclusions, one must prove the relationship between the ethnographic artifact and the archaeological artifact (Lane, 2014). Archaeologists develop analogies in many ways. One approach is the direct historical approach, using the simple principle of working from the known to the unknown. This approach relies on living cultures that may be closely related to the archaeological culture of interest in order to form analogies that may be used to explain findings. Gould (1971) explains how archaeologists should be able to measure the degree of differences between the tools found with the ethnographic material and the artifacts.
Examples of Ethnoarchaeology
i) Kung San of Kalahari Desert:
The !Kung San of the Kalahari has been studied by many including Richard Lee (1976), and John Yellen (1977). Richard Lee spent many years studying the human ecology of the San hunter-gatherers. Lee (1976) observed the food collecting and hunting habits of the San. John Yellen (1977) observed house and camp arrangements, hearth locations, census information and bone refuse. He pointed out that a San camp develops through conscious acts, such as the construction of windbreaks and hearths, as well as through incidental deeds as the discarding of refuse and manufacturing debris. He recognized communal areas in the campsites, often in the middle of the settlement, which belonged to no one in particular and family areas focused on hearths that belonged to individual families. The communal activities of the camp members such as dancing and the first distribution of meat take place in the open spaces that belong to no family. Such activities leave few traces in the archaeological record. Cooking and food processing as well as manufacturing of artifacts normally take place around family hearths. Yellen (1977) pointed out some interesting variation in this pattern – (a) Manufacturing activities that take place at one hearth will sometimes involve people from other families; (b) large skins will normally be pegged out for treatment away from main living areas because of vermin and carnivores; (c) activity areas are sometimes shifted around on hot days to take advantage of patches of heavy shade; and (d) such activity areas can be identified on recently abandoned sites where a scatter of discarded nuts and charcoal fragments lies outside the encampments.
ii) Nunamiut Eskimo: Lewis Binford (1978) and his students studied the Nunamiut Eskimos of Alaska, 80 per cent of whose subsistence comes from hunting caribou. He tried to find out all aspects of the procurement, processing, and consumption strategies of the Nunamiut Eskimos and relate these behaviors directly to their faunal consequences. He made a detailed study of their hunting methods, butchery, and distribution of meat, storage and re-distribution. The study revealed the following: (a) Local adaptation results in variation in the archaeological sites; (b) Interregional variations within a culture could also occur; (c) Adaptive strategies and factors affecting the people’s decision making may remain constant, even if the archaeological remains show great variation; (d) Changes in stone tool frequencies or pottery forms may reflect no significant change in adaptation at all. The study of hunter-gatherers proves that archaeologists can no longer assume that all variation in the archaeological record is directly related to cultural similarity and difference. Binford and others mainly made a functional, behavioural and ecological study.