Ethnoarchaeology - Blending Cultural Anthropology and Archaeology

What is That Archaeologist Doing in My Anthropology Field Work?

What Could This Khomani San Woman from the Kalahari Desert Tell Us About Ancient Hunter-Gatherers?
What Could This Khomani San Woman from the Kalahari Desert Tell Us About Ancient Hunter-Gatherers?. Dan Kitwood / Getty Images News / Getty Images

Ethnoarchaeology is a research technique that involves using information from living cultures--in the form of ethnology, ethnography, ethnohistory, and experimental archaeology--to understand patterns found at an archaeological site. An ethnoarchaeologist acquires evidence about ongoing activities in any society and uses those studies to draw analogies from modern behavior to explain and better understand patterns seen in archaeological sites.

Archaeologist Susan Kent defined ethnoarchaeology's purpose as "to formulate and test archaeologically oriented and/or derived methods, hypotheses, models and theories with ethnographic data". But it is archaeologist Lewis Binford who wrote most clearly: ethnoarchaeology is a "Rosetta stone: a way of translating the static material found on an archaeological site into the vibrant life of a group of people who in fact left them there."

Practical Ethnoarchaeology

Ethnoarchaeology is typically conducted by using the cultural anthropological methods of participant observation, but it also finds behavioral data in ethnohistorical and ethnographic reports as well as oral history. The basic requirement is to draw on strong evidence of any kind for describing artifacts and their interactions with people in activities.

Ethnoarchaeological data can be found in published or unpublished written accounts (archives, field notes, etc.); photographs; oral history; public or private collections of artifacts; and of course, from observations deliberately made for archaeological purposes on a living society.

Archaeologist Patty Jo Watson argued that ethnoarchaeology should also include experimental archaeology. In experimental archaeology, the archaeologist creates the situation to be observed rather than taking it where he or she finds it: observations are still made of archaeological relevant variables within a living context.

Edging Towards a Richer Archaeology

The possibilities of ethnoarchaeology brought in a flood of ideas about what we can say about the behaviors represented in the archaeological record: and a corresponding earthquake of reality about the ability of archaeologists to recognize all or even any of the societal behaviors that went on in an ancient culture. Those behaviors, ethnology tells us, are undeniably reflected in the material culture (I made this pot this way because my mother made it this way; I traveled fifty miles to get this plant because that's where we've always gone). Tantalizingly, that underlying reality may only be identifiable from the pollen and potsherds if our techniques allow us to capture it, and our careful interpretations appropriately fit the situation.

Archaeologist Nicholas David described the sticky issue pretty clearly: ethnoarchaeology is an attempt to cross the divide between the ideational order (the unobservable ideas, values, norms and representation of the human mind) and the phenomenal order (artifacts, things affected by human action and differentiated by matter, form, and context).

Processual and Post-Processual Debates

Ethnoarchaeological study really reinvented the study of archaeology, as the science edged into the post-World War II scientific age.

Instead of simply finding better and better ways to measure and source and examine artifacts (a.k.a. processual archaeology), archaeologists could now make hypotheses about the kinds of behaviors those artifacts represented (post-processual archaeology). That debate whether you could actually study human behaviors at archaeological sites polarized the profession for much of the 1970s and 1980s: and while the debates have ended, it became clear that the match is not perfect.

For one thing, archaeology as a study is diachronic--a single archaeological site always includes evidence of all the cultural events and behaviors that might have taken place at that location for hundreds or thousands of years, not to mention the natural things that happened to it over that time. In contrast, ethnography is synchronic--what is being studied is what happens during the course of the research.

And there's always this underlying uncertainty: can the patterns of behavior seen in modern (or historical) cultures really be generalized to ancient archaeological cultures, and how much?

History of Ethnoarchaeology

Ethnographic data was used by some late 19th century/early 20th century archaeologists to understand archaeological sites (Edgar Lee Hewett leaps to mind), but the modern study has its roots in the post-war boom of the 1950s and 60s. Beginning in the 1970s, a huge burgeoning of literature explored the potentialities of the practice (the processual/post-processual debate driving much of that). Today, ethnoarchaeology is an accepted, and perhaps standard practice for most archaeological studies.

Sources

Charest M. 2009. Thinking through living: experience and the production of archaeological knowledge. Archaeologies 5(3):416-445.

David N. 1992. Integrating ethnoarchaeology: A subtle realist perspective. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 11(4):330-359.

González-Urquijo J, Beyries S, and Ibáñez JJ. 2015. Ethnoarchaeology and functional analysis. In: Marreiros JM, Gibaja Bao JF, and Ferreira Bicho N, editors. Use-Wear and Residue Analysis in Archaeology: Springer International Publishing. p 27-40.

Gould RA, and Watson PJ. 1982. A dialogue on the meaning and use of analogy in ethnoarchaeological reasoning. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1(4):355-381.

Hayashida FM. 2008. Ancient beer and modern brewers: Ethnoarchaeological observations of chicha production in two regions of the North Coast of Peru. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27(2):161-174.

Kamp K, and Whittaker J. 2014. Editorial reflections: teaching science with ethnoarchaeology and experimental archaeology. Ethnoarchaeology 6(2):79-80.

Longacre WA, and Stark MT. 1992. Ceramics, kinship, and space: a Kalinga example. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 11(2):125-136.

Parker BJ. 2011. Bread ovens, social networks and gendered space: an ethnoarchaeological study of Tandir ovens in Southeastern Anatolia. American Antiquity 76(4):603-627.

Sarkar A. 2011. Chalcolithic and modern potting at Gilund, Rajasthan: a cautionary tale. Antiquity 85(329):994-1007.

Schiffer MB. 2013. Contributions of ethnoarchaeology. The Archaeology of Science: Springer International Publishing. p 53-63.

Schmidt P. 2009. Tropes, materiality, and ritual embodiment of African iron smelting furnaces as human figures. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 16(3):262-282.

Sullivan III AP. 2008. Ethnoarchaeological and archaeological perspectives on ceramic vessels and annual accumulation rates of sherds. American Antiquity 73(1).