Ethnoarchaeology (Methods) (original) (raw)
Related papers
Ethnoarchaeology (with Kathryn Weedman)
Handbook of Archaeological Methods, edited by Herbert Machner, AltaMira Press. , 2005
Ethnoarchaeologists use the living context as a recipe for stirring up the past-in more formal terms, we appreciate the definition provided by David and Kramer Ethnoarchaeology is neither a theory nor a method, but a re search strategy embodying a range of approaches to under standing the relationships of material culture to culture as a whole, both in the living context and as it enters the archaeo logical record, and to exploiting such understandings in order
Ethnoarchaeology: critic, consolidator and contributor
World Archaeology, 2016
The papers that make up this debate section acknowledge the fact that ethnoarchaeology has increasingly been marginalized by archaeology, but deserves a central role in the evaluation and development of archaeological theory. The interactions of ethnoarchaeologists with functioning societies and real people make it hard for them to ignore the complex and multi-faceted interrelationships between humans and material culture that frequently make archaeological interpretations challenging. Lyons and Casey rightly point out that ethnoarchaeology should be thought of as a methodologyone engaged in studying the complex relationships between material culture and living peoples. Following Hicks (2003), they (and similarly Cunningham and MacEachern) argue that the role of ethnoarchaeology is to broaden the experiential understanding of other cultures that we use to interpret archaeological situations. For instance, the expansion of concepts like 'landscape' and 'environment' to encompass such ideas as 'viewscapes', 'soundscapes', 'sense-scapes' and 'affordances' reflects a growing awareness in archaeology that humans live in a multi-sensory world. Working with people and focusing on their 'lived experience' in dealing with material culture, ethnoarchaeology is well positioned to contribute to archaeological understandings of the diverse perceptions, filtered by culture and biology, through which people interact with their physical and social environment. As Sillar and Ramón Joffré and other contributors point out, analogies have always been a foundation of archaeological theory. Ultimately, all archaeological interpretation is based on analogy, and archaeologists who have attempted to deny this are fooling themselves. We were not there, we did not see the people act, we cannot ask them to explain the underlying intangible rules that structured what they did and made. We can understand the past only by reference to something we do know, even if it is as removed as an ethnographic report on a culture we have never visited or a common-sense understanding of how people somewhat similar to ourselves might be likely to act. Obviously, we should avoid the assumption that our ways are the only ways or the imposition on the past of a familiar analogy without consideration of alternatives. Perhaps the most important function of ethnoarchaeology is the study and evaluation of archaeological theory. Ethnoarchaeology has the potential to challenge even our most fundamental ideas, as Brady and Kearney demonstrate in their discussion of the living nature of rock art. Archaeologists who believe that they are interpreting the past in the absence of reference to the present are deluding themselves. This is true, as Lyons and Casey point out, for theory as well as
Ethnoarchaeology: A Non Historical Science of Reference Necessary for Interpreting the Past
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 14, No. 2, June 2007, 153-178., 2007
Ethnoarchaeology appears nowadays as a poorly formulated field. However, it could become a real science of reference for interpreting the past if it was focused upon well-founded cross-cultural correlates, linking material culture with static and dynamic phenomena. For this purpose, such correlates have to be studied in terms of explanatory mechanisms. Cross-cultural correlates correspond to those regularities where explanatory mechanisms invoke universals. These universals can be studied by reference to the theories found in the different disciplines they relate to and which are situated outside of the domain of archaeology. In the domain of technology, cross-cultural correlates cover a wide range of static and dynamic phenomena. They allow the archaeologist to interpret archaeological facts-for which there is not necessarily analogue-in terms of local historical scenario as well as cultural evolution. In this respect, it is shown that ethnoarchaeology, when following appropriate methodologies and focussing on the universals that underlie the diversity of archaeological facts, does provide the reference data needed to climb up in the pyramid of inferences that make up our interpretative constructs.
The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, 2012
Ethnoarchaeology fundamentally addresses how archaeologists interpret ancient remains. Keywords: agriculture; anthropology; archaeology; ecology; technology; agriculture; anthropology; archaeology; ecology; technology
Unpacking Ethnoarchaeology, 2022
Ethnoarchaeology is discussed here as an indispensable tool for archaeological interpretation. The link between archaeology and socio-cultural anthropology is analyzed. The conclusion is that ethnoarchaeology is the ideal link between archaeology and socio-cultural anthropology. +Erratum: Figure 3 Caption: should read "hunting", not "hinting".
Ethnoarchaeology or simply archaeology?
2016
In this comment I argue that ethnoarchaeology is not the only means for an archaeological engagement with living traditional communities. I suggest that some practices can be better labelled ‘archaeology of the present’, due to their lack of interest in providing analogical frameworks of inspiration for archaeology. Instead, the archaeology of the present aims to better understand living societies by using archaeological methods and theories. Rather than pitting one sub-discipline against the other, however, I suggest that they are both necessary and complementary.
2015. Reflections about Contemporary Ethnoarchaeology
This article discusses some of the central topics in ethnoarchaeology and approaches them from a Latin American perspective. The development of the subdiscipline is summarized and analyzed, and case studies in the region are provided. Moreover, since ethnoarchaeology in Latin America cannot be detached from the stateof the discipline in the rest of the world, there are references to global developments that aim to contextualize thesecase studies. Some of the criticisms made against the subdiscipline are included as well, and they are discussed in the light of the current situation. Ethnoarchaeology’s contributions to the interpretation of the archaeological record and to theory building in archaeology are examined. It is concluded that one of the main contributions of ethnoarchaeology is the mitigation of the ethnocentrism that permeates the archaeological view of the people in the past and the interpretation of long-term human processes. With its particular look upon contemporary societies, ethnoarchaeology is making a great input, not only to the understanding of human behavior ,but also to archaeological theory.
Reflections on contemporary ethnoarchaeology
2015
This article discusses some of the central topics in ethnoarchaeology and approaches them from a Latin American perspective. The development of the subdiscipline is summarized and analyzed, and case studies in the region are provided. Moreover, since ethnoarchaeology in Latin America cannot be detached from the state of the discipline in the rest of the world, there are references to global developments that aim to contextualize these case studies. Some of the criticisms made against the subdiscipline are included as well, and they are discussed in the light of the current situation. Ethnoarchaeology’s contributions to the interpretation of the archaeological record and to theory building in archaeology are examined. It is concluded that one of the main contributions of ethnoarchaeology is the mitigation of the ethnocentrism that permeates the archaeological view of the people in the past and the interpretation of long-term human processes. With its particular purview on contemporar...
Ethnoarchaeology today: actions and actors
Ethnoarchaeology: Current Research and Field Methods, F. Lugli , A. Stoppiello and S. Biagetti (eds.), BAR IS 2472, 2013
Two principal views of Ethnoarchaeology collide since the term was coined. The basic difference is between who considers Ethnoarchaeology just a live study of archaeological deposit formation and who takes into consideration wider relations existing between Ethno-Anthropology and Archaeology. Both of them are useful, the first perspective specifically regarding actions, of which archaeological traces remain, the second one particularly studying (collective) actors, which acted in the past.