Download - Cazzella-Ethnoarchaeology Today-Actions and Actos

7/23/2019 Cazzella-Ethnoarchaeology Today-Actions and Actos

1/4

Two principal views (each of them with many internalvariations on the theme: a recent synthesis in VIDALE2004) of Ethnoarchaeology collide since the term wascoined widely adopted in 70s (BINFORD 1978;DONNAN, CLEWLOW 1974; GOULD 1978; KRAMER1979, STILES 1977). As it is well known, the basic

difference is between who considers Ethnoarchaeology justa live study of archaeological deposit formation as regardsactivities carried out by human groups using unusualtechniques and who takes into consideration various kindsof relations existing between Ethno-Anthropology andArchaeology concerning the cultural choices applied invarious situations.The first perspective (which was the most innovative whenit was proposed) pointed out correct explanations ofarchaeological traces as effects of past actions. It has a morelimited, but also a more precise application. So humanactions leaving physical traces are the target of this kind ofstudies, but they are studied more as natural phenomena(the changes on the physical world caused by humanactions: BINFORD 1983: 22) than as human phenomena(the cultural meaning of those actions). The use of termmeaning by Binford is very different from Hodders one(HODDER 1987) and regards the former aspect (whathappened in the past to bring into being the forms of

patterning that archaeologists have observed?, BINFORD1983: 77), not its semiotic implication (CAZZELLA 1990-91). In this perspective Ethnoarchaeology (andExperimental Archaeology) takes shape more of an analysisof the natural laws explaining how specific actions becomespecific archaeological traces (considering factors as

dimensions and physiology of human body, features of thematerials used, location in space of makers, etc.) than astudy of cultural choices and intentionality in action. Theconstant feature of natural laws makes us sure that the

results of a single ethnoarchaeological research of this kindhave a general value in similar situations (it is, same naturallaws acting). In my opinion this perspective is still of greatimportance: there is much to be understood on theformation processes of archaeological record from a natural

point of view. So Ethnoarchaeology is a necessary method

to avoid misinterpreting archaeological traces.As this kind of perspective obviously does not concern theethno-anthropologists, the field activity of archaeologistsin exotic and traditional contexts is essential. Obviously ithas to be linked to the studies of naturalists having interestin Archaeology too.In any case this perspective cannot go beyond thementioned target, even if it is very important.

Nevertheless within the New Archaeology itself (forexample considering cross-cultural studies) the problem ofanother kind of relations with the results of the ethno-anthropological research arose. It is an aspect absolutelydiffering from that abovementioned: it derives from anadaptive behaviouristic perspective. According to this

principle, in various contexts, conditions being similar,human groups behave in a similar way. Also behaviourswith a high symbolic content, as funerary customs (see theclassical Binfords study: BINFORD 1971), can beincluded in this perspective.The necessary prudence once highlighted by Binford (wedo not excavate societies, but actions fossilized in thearchaeological deposits) was often forgotten, sometimes byBinford himself, directly passing from actions to theircultural meanings in name of an adaptive perspective.For example, Binfords study of sleeping areas (BINFORD

1983: 160-163, fig. 97,98) aims at getting to socialimplications on features of the groups and sex and kinrelationships of individuals linked to (possibly)archaeological traces of beds in Palaeolithic contexts.

Ethnoarchaeology today: actions and actors

Alberto Cazzella

Abstract

Two principal views of Ethnoarchaeology collide since the term was coined. The basic difference is between who considersEthnoarchaeology just a live study of archaeological deposit formation and who takes into consideration wider relationsexisting between Ethno-Anthropology and Archaeology. Both of them are useful, the first perspective specifically regardingactions, of which archaeological traces remain, the second one particularly studying (collective) actors, which acted in the

past.

KEYWORDS:Ethnoarchaeology, actions, actors, ew Archaeology, Agency Theory.

Rsum

Deux principal vues de lethnologie saffrontent depuis le terme a t invent. La diffrence fondamentale est entre ceux

qui considrent lethnologie une tude de la formation vivant du dpt archologique et qui considrent les relations plus

larges qui existent entre larchologie et lethnologie. Les deux perspectives sont utiles: le premier concerne principalement

les actions qui sont transforme dans vestiges archologiques, la deuxime tude en particulier des acteurs (collectifs) quiont agi dans le pass.

MOTS CLS:Ethnoarchologie, actions, acteurs, ouvelle Archologie, Thorie de lAction.


2/4

These are just interesting hypotheses in a traditional sensederiving from recurring ethnographic analogies.In my opinion this second part of the New Archaeologys

proposal is not so convincing and useful as the first one. Itseems to be very hazardous: adaptation in similarconditions could imply different cultural responses and the

general value of laws of human behaviour (the principleof least effort being the clearest of them) was rightlycriticised by Post-Processualists (HODDER 1986). AlsoBinford highlights some fine distinction, but his idea of

principle of inertia is not so different from least efforts one(BINFORD 1983: 200-202, 221 A system will remainstable until acted upon by forces external to its organizationas a system). In fact we can never exclude the culturalchoice taken in a specific archaeological case study takeninto consideration differs from the statistically prevailingtrend of reaction provoked by a stimulus.Within a more limited context (the Schiffers behaviourlaws regarding the formation processes of archaeologicalrecord, implying the effect of cultural aspects together withnatural ones: SCHIFFER 1976), the research ofgeneralizations concerning the efficiency of refuse removal(an important theme in Settlement Archaeology, Pompeiandestructions being generally lacking) runs the risk ofschematizing various historical situations too: the Hodderscritique founded on the cultural and contextual feature ofthe concepts of dirt and clean can be successful (HODDER1982).Also avoiding a strictly behaviourist position, in any casethe attempt to pass directly from specific archaeologicaltraces to their cultural meanings is hazardous all the same:

neither recurring ethnographic comparisons nor referencesto schematic patterns of social and economic organization(as band, tribe, and chiefdom) can be convincingly used inthis sense.The (past and contemporary) ethno-anthropologicalresearches can inform us about behaviours recurring invarious contexts, giving us interpretive cues, not certainties.In any case, ethnoarchaeological field studies, broadlyspeaking considered as studies carried out by archaeologistsin ethnographic contexts, are not so abundant and theycannot much help us in this target of creating suggestionsfounded on a large record of pertinent cases. Otherwise we

return to unsystematic analogies founded on randomethnographic comparisons.At last convenient generalizations (i.e. archaeologicalindicators), founded more on common sense than onethnographic data, can be included in this category ofscientific hazards too. Many of us, more or lessconsciously, use them. For example they are adopted tooutline the level of social complexity (a childs grave witha lot of grave goods indicates the existence of a systemimplying inherited social positions) or other social aspects(male/female couples graves are interpreted as marriedcouples and linked to a patrilinear kin system). They are

plausible hypotheses, but we cannot take for granted they

are true in a specific context without further archaeologicaldata supporting them. As in the abovementioned case ofethnographic comparisons as source of inspiration, in my

opinion various steps (from the hypothesis proposal to itsstrengthening or refuse by independent data) ought to befollowed.

New archaeologists false hope of explaining all thebehaviours on the basis of efficient adaptation or least effortbeing vanished (at least in the opinion of the scholars do

not recognize themselves in that theoretical framework), alarge range of archaeological questions remains withoutanswer. So other methodological tools are to be considered.This second perspective is not in contrast with the first oneabovementioned: they can be complementary, their targets

being different. Once it has been understood (byEthnoarcheology, Experimental Archaeology and NaturalSciences applied to Archaeology) which kinds of actionswere carried out in a specific archaeological situation, thefollowing step is interpretation of their cultural meanings inthe framework of a global context. If their reason is notalways the least effort, but there is the possibility to solvein different ways the problems arising from the relationswith nature and human groups, the cultural choices and theactors making them become the real centre of interest.Obviously in this perspective the links with the AgencyTheory (for example DOBRES, ROBB 2000; GARDNER2004) are very close, but it comprehends different pointsof view too. The principal difference concerns the objectof study: it can be either single individuals or groups ofindividuals sharing the same social position (BLANTON,FARGHER 2008: 5-14; CAZZELLA, RECCHIA 2008).The former possibility is apparently easier: it is undeniablethat single individuals are makers of specific actions.

Nevertheless this fragmentary situation of manifold actions

implying a range of variations oscillating from thoughtlesshabits to fully conscious choices is difficult to outline inArchaeology (especially in Prehistoric Archaeology) andin any case is perhaps of major interest as object of studyin other disciplines (for example RICOEUR 1977).The collective feature of cultures and the social feature ofhuman collective organizations (including internaldivisions and competitions too) make it more meaningfulanalyzing actions carried out by corporate groups orcategories of individuals by their archaeological traces.Even if it is not so easy, in my opinion it is feasible inseveral cases.

Avoiding both the abstract rationalization of the effortminimization and the absolute imponderability of thehuman spirit, we can deal with the problem of culturalchoices reminding us of a Polaniys proposal: targets ofcultural behaviours are social; means to get to them arerational.More recently the problem was taken again intoconsideration in the framework of the Cognitive Theory(RENFREW 2004 included): mechanisms of human (atleast of Homo sapiens) thought are uniform and rational,

but the mental maps, i.e. the filters allowing perceptions ofreality and interventions in it, are culturally contextual. Thetheme is much more accurately discussed in the Prof.

Gallays paper in this volume.So in the perspective of Agency Theory, after the step ofrecognition of the specific actions made in the past starting


3/4

from the explanation of their archaeological traces, thereare the divergences from New Archaeology (A) and insideAgency Theory too (B).A. The recognized actions are not directly to be consideredbehaviours, as it happens in New Archaeology (in which,if they exist, they have an adaptive function), but they are

to be contextually interpreted.B. As abovementioned, insideAgency Theory two principaltrends collide. 1) The supporters of the active individual(Hodder is the most famous of them: HODDER 1986)highlight his free will and the negotiation of his social

position in the relationships among the individualsconstituting a community: every action can be a part of thisvery complex process of social interaction. 2) Thesupporters of the centrality of human groups and socialcategories of individuals emphasize the importance ofrecognizing recurring patterns of actions, as regards boththeir morphological and functional aspects: this positionreminds us of the Childes socially accepted behaviours.Asit is well known, the same term behaviour has a verydifferent meaning in the Childes proposal and Binfordsone.Developing particularly the point B2, we must avoid moretraditional approaches and their methodological weakness:cultures and societies (also in Prehistory) are complex, nothomogeneous entities; we have to be particularly interestedin their internal articulation; there is no directcorrespondence between styles and ways of production anduse of artefacts on one hand and peoples on the other hand,

but phenomena of transmission of information and culturalmodels among individuals and groups highly

interconnected are a noteworthy theme of research.Obviously the related analysis aims at recognizing the pastcultural patterns and social interactions in an emic

perspective. In this perspective both stylistic and functional(practical and symbolic) aspects, inserted in their spatialframework, are equally important. The boundaries betweenthem are perhaps less strict from some years: technicalways of production and use of artefacts (technical styles:for example, in regards to pottery production,GOSSELAIN 1992 and DE CRITS 1994) are object ofstudies on the characterization of cultural traditions, asstylistic aspects can give data on information exchange and

social interaction (are they so different? Can they coexist,as it happens as regards intentional actions and thoughtlesshabits? HILL 1985). By these tools perhaps we can try toidentify both groups of individuals acting together andcategories of individuals separately acting, but followingsocially shared patterns of behaviour. As abovementioned,every culture and every related society sharing it are notuniform entities, each of them including sub-cultures andinternal social groups. Factors as location, kin, gender, age,activity, etc. can play a role in these phenomena of internalvariability and we can aim at recognizing them andstudying processes of interaction (from cooperation tocompetition) among the various social sub-groups, besides

the relationships with the natural environment and theexternal human groups, which are object of a moreconsolidated tradition of research.

Can be useful the interaction with ethno-anthropologicalanalyses in this kind of archaeological studies? How to linkup specific ethnoarchaeological studies with this wider, butmore indefinite perspective of research? What does itremain besides the explanation of relationships betweenarchaeological traces and related actions, limited just at the

first step of study, if the cross-cultural analysis of world-wide recurring trends is refused within a contextualtheoretical framework?In my opinion an important point (emphasized also bysome new archaeologists) to be taken into consideration inregards to Ethnoarchaeology is the need to wide the rangeof plausible hypotheses in the study of cultures verydifferent from ours. Recovering that terminology (derivingfrom Hempels thought, once appreciated by some newarchaeologists: HEMPEL 1965), we have to distinguish thecontext of hypotheses proposition from that of theirvalidation (or refuse) made by specific archaeological data.Ethnoarchaeology, broadly speaking including (asabovementioned) every research carried out byarchaeologists in ethnographic (and traditional) contexts

bearing in mind archaeological problems, brings us intocontact with different ways of solving (unusual for us)

problems. So it can be a valuable aid in suggesting newhypotheses. Obviously we can never exclude furtherhypotheses, besides those suggested by ethnoarcheologicalresearches.Another contribution of Ethnoarchaeology, seen as a sourceof cautionary tales, is just apparently the opposite of theformer one: it warns us of the danger linked with the trendto project our contemporary experience or our knowledge

of historical societies onto prehistoric cultures. Cautionarytales do not suggest directly new hypotheses, but induce usnot to be satisfied just with one hypothesis.At last I think that is briefly noteworthy another kind ofrelationship between Archaeology and Ethno-Anthropology, even if in this case rarelyethnoarchaeological studies were so wide to be included inthe perspective of the comparative studies. The modernorigin of these studies, as well-known, is in the frameworkof the neo-evolutionary school, specially starting fromSteward. They are distinguishable from the traditionalgeneralizing evolutionary ones by the research of

similarities and differences between every couple ofcompared situations, in order to better understand thespecific features of each of them and not to fill gaps in ourknowledge or to purpose cross-cultural laws. So in thiscase, if we would like to use for a comparison a prehistoricarchaeological situation, it should be enough known. Thesame goes for an ethnoarchaelogical research with this aim:the data collected must regard many cultural aspects.This kind of comparative perspective seems to be far fromthe New Archaeologys nomothetic trend: for exampleBraidwood (a Stewards follower) and Sahlins werestrongly criticized by Binford (1968; 1983: 215-220), buttheir comparative inclination was apparently ignored as

uninteresting. Nevertheless the idea of emphasizingdifferences and similarities among various culturalsituations, specially looking for the reasons of differences,


4/4

is recurrent in Binford himself with a specific value: ifreactions to stimuli are uniform, why does culturalvariability exist?Particularly his broad-spectrum ethnoarchaeologicalstudy on Eskimo groups (BINFORD 1978, 1983) seems toexpress his will to go beyond an analysis of spatial

distribution of bone and stone residues to reconstructspecific activities archaeologically recorded, location ofhearths and sleeping areas to suggest hypotheses on socialstructure of seasonal groups and Nunamiuts land useduring one persons lifetime to create a real cautionarytale versus the Bordes hypothesis of Mousterianterritoriality (BINFORD 1983: 114-117). The complex

picture he gives of that cultural ethnographic situation asan archaeologist should have been perfectly fit for allowinga comparison with glacial climate Palaeolithic hunters andgatherers, if we had enough archaeological data on one ofthose societies (as we hope it will happen one day). In anycase, obviously, none of them could have had all the samefeatures of a Nunamiut community and from thesedifferences the question why? arises. Binford (1983: 203)

particularly emphasizes the environment features as theprincipal cause of cultural differences, but his master Whiterightly mentioned also the importance of adaptation tohuman environment. So, keeping in mind again AgencyTheory, we can highlight the phenomena that derive fromhuman relationships are not uniform, so they have to becontextually interpreted.

References

BLANTON, R. E., FARGHER, L. F. (2008) CollectiveAction in the Formation of the Modern States. New York:Springer.BINFORD, L. R. (1968) Post-Pleistocene adaptations. In:S. R. Binford and L. R. Binford, (eds). New Perspectivesin Archaeology. Chicago: Aldine, pp.313-341.BINFORD, L. R. (1971) Mortuary practices: their studyand their potential. In: J. Brown, (ed). Approaches to theSocial Dimension of the Mortuary Practices. Memoirs ofthe American Archaeological Society, 25, pp.6-69.BINFORD, L. R. (1978) Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology.

New York: Academic Press.

BINFORD, L. R. (1983) In Pursuit of the Past. Decodingthe Archaeological Record. London: Thames and Hudson.CAZZELLA, A., RECCHIA, G. (2008) Marxism andAgency Theory. Paper presented to the EAA 14th AnnualMeeting, 16-21 September, Valletta.CAZZELLA, A. (1990-91) Pu servire a qualcosa laSemiologia per la Paletnologia? Origini, 15, pp.23-34.DE CRITS, E. (1994) Style et technique: comparaisoninterethnique de la poterie subsaharienne. In : Terre cuite etsocit. La cramique, document technique, conomique,culturel. Juan les-Pins : Editions APDCA, pp.343-350.DOBRES, M. A., ROBB, J. (eds) (2000) Agency inArchaeology. London: Routledge.DONNAN, C. B., CLEWLOW, C. W. (eds) (1974)Ethnoarchaeology. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology,University of California, Monograph 4.

GARDNER, A. (ed) (2004) Agency uncovered:Archaeological Perspectives on Social Agency,Personhood, and Being Human. London: UCL Press.GOSSELAIN, O. P. (1992) Technology and style: pottersand pottery among Bafia of Cameroon. Man. 27, pp.559-586.

GOULD, R.A. (ed) (1978) Explorations inEthnoarchaeology. Albuquerque: University of NewMexico Press.HEMPEL, C. G. (1965) Aspects of Scientific Explanation.

New York: Free Press.HILL, J. N. (1985) Style: a conceptual evolutionaryframework. In: B. A. Nelson (ed). Decoding PrehistoricCeramics. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press,

pp. 362-385.HODDER, I. (1982) Symbols in Action. Cambridge:University Press.HODDER, I. (1986) Reading the Past. Cambridge:University Press.HODDER, I. (1987) The Archaeology of ContextualMeanings. Cambridge: University Press.KRAMER, C. (ed) (1979) Ethnoarchaeology: Implicationsof Ethnography for Archaeology. New York: ColombiaUniversity Press.RENFREW, C. (2004) Towards a cognitive archaeology.In: C. Renfrew, E. Zubrow, (eds). The Ancient Mind.Cambridge: University Press, pp.3-12.RICOEUR, P. (1977) La smantique de laction. Paris :Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.SCHIFFER, M. B. (1976) Behavioral Archaeology. NewYork: Academic Press.

STILES, D. (1977) Ethnoarchaeology: a discussion ofmethods and applications. Man. 12, pp.87-103.VIDALE, M. (2004) Che cos lEtnoarcheologia. Roma:Carocci Editore.