Professional Documents
Culture Documents
t{tjil-u
l-ll:.,i.
rift
li) I iiC.."
d'Ethnologie et de Linguistique
Ephemeris lnternationalis
Ethnologica et Linguistica
P
T|TUTUM ANTHROPOS
vol.
s
72 -1977
Prehistoric rcaeology
and the Problem of Ethno Cognition.
Mlxrnnn K. H. Eoconr
Contents
In an earlier paper (Eccers 1976b) the author has shown that recent publica
on the problem of prehistoric cognition failed to provide methods suited for
cognitive information from archaeological data. The present paper addresses itself to
question whether or not such information can be obtained by prehistoric
It is argued that those who favor such an aim fell a victim of four major fallacies due
a misconception of scientific procedure, of the nature of archaeological data, of the
vs. entity problem, and of reality.
d,es
Ethno-Cognition
243
24+
-N[Nr'no K. H, EccBnr
Anthropos 72.1977
K. C. CseNe (1967a: 78), to cite but another example, has been similarly
explicit in this respect:
The "right" categories are those that reflect or approximate the natives' own
thinking about how their physical world is to be classified, consciously or unconsciously,
explicitly or implicitly, r.vithin which framework they accordingly act.
Ethno-Cognition
245
system under study, its internal and external relations, its conits function within the societ v I ts development OVEI time, etc. Again,
be achievecl by means of the nati VCS llt terpretation S, bu t
analysls cannot
framework
designed especially for that purpose.
a scientifi.c
v by
more
immediate concern, we may conclude that the
Returning to our
research have to be contrived lvithin a scientific frame
prehistoric
for
tegories
,Jf.r.n." according to the aims of the prehistorian; unmodified categories
as those once used by the prehistoric group under study - even if we
able to derive them from prehistoric remains - would not suit the pre's purpose (cf. Durvurw 7977: 134-135)
Having discussed the assumption basic to all attempts of deriving ethnofrom archaeological remains, I shall now proceed r,vith a brief outline
characteristics of the respective data.
important
some
has argued that the difierence between archaeological,
Tevr.on
Wr,rBn
and ethnographical data "is merely one of degree, not of kind"
AyLoR 1968:94; see also p. 111). Such statements are liable to provoke
extensive argument as long as their respective key terms have not been defined.
lVhatever one's decision in this case may be, the difference between archaeand historical-ethnographical evidence is a very important one so
far as the problem with which I am dealing here is concerned.
Some clarifying remarks about my use of the terms rcheologic|, histor'ical, and ethnogrhicl d,t seem necessary. It should be stressed that the
follolving statements about the nature or properties of these three kinds of
tlata do not claim to encompass and to be valid for the whole range of sources
which are subsumed under these terms. The term archaeological data, for
example, is restricted here to evidence or rehistoric times. Reference to
historical and ethnographical data respectively is usually not specified with
regard to the particular part of those data for which the arguments r am
advancing hold.
If we are willing to neglect some peculiarities of both ethnogra phical and
da ta,
t heir respec ti VE manner o f transmission, not m uch
246
nthropos 72.1977
quality and quantity of the respecti\/e clata, etc. All this, however, does e1
affect the indicated potential of (in the widest sense) documentary evidence.
The most salient characteristic of archaeological material in contradistinction to histolical-ethnogr:aphical data is its cornplete lack of immediate
conceptual information. It is often said that artifacts are "fossilized" or "5slidified ideas" (see, e. 9., DnETZ 7967:45; Cr-enxn 7968:20; Rousn 1970:9),
and one u'ould hardly argue r,vith this assertion. However, it should be stressed
that this property alone does not lead us very far: it is no more a part of
man-made objects than "being rational is part of being human" (Snrrrn 1971
173). That is to say, material forms which are not designed especially for
communicative purposes are too ambiguous to reflect in an unequivocal rvay
:
of
Prehistorlc
247
the
lhat
the whole range of his torical and for that matter ethnographto wit nonwrr tten rem alns I t 1S o bvio S, I think, t ha t t his
ln quanti ty en t ails restriction 1n q ualit v AS well
grounds that I cali t he atti tude behind demands such AS
IS on t h ese
should not consider tha t the limitations of their finds lmpose
tive strictures upon them any more than upon other students
class of
(r A YLOR
1 968
9+
in studying
it
sleeping behavior
of urban
248
MNpnn K. H. Ecornr
Anthropos 72.1977
Nenn 1972). This being so, how is one going to infer prehistoric cognitive
systems when the only possibility by which this could be accomplished is not
open to analysis ?
Ethno-Cognition
249
The method outlined above also permits a more precise reconstruction of a given
in terms of the templates used in production. We can more closely approxithe significant construct as it existed in the mind of the maker, rather than derive
may well be a totally artifrcial device (Dorrz 1968: 39).
of the
arguments concerning
systems from archaeological data put forward so far, it seems ad.ble to make some further comments as to
the general aspects of the problem
250
NI.q.Nrno
K. H. Eccrnr
ALrthropos 72.
1977
25r
ErouPS
involved'
2 The
concept
2s2
Menpnpo K. H. Econr
Anthropos 72.1977
5. Conclusion
In the foregoing discussion differently structured evidence has been adfutitity of transplanting the search for ethno-cognition into
Bibliography
AnNoro, DBIN E.
l97l Ethnominealogy
Anti.qui.ty
36:2040.
Beveno, Dor.x T.
L969
34:376-384'.
Brnwunrtr, EnNsr
l9I4
5th and 6th ed. Mnchen and Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.
BrNnono, LBwrs R.
t967
BroolmtBlo, Lroueno
1933
Lnguage.. New
York: Holt.
u'"$i.'JJ.logical
u.^i'trrhrrrg
B*t;:s' iJt::i
253
in
r, D,rvrl
L.
r97r
National Press.
Man's Incr'imt from tlte Past'. Readings im the Metltods of Archaeology. (T]he
Little, Bloivn Series in Anthropology.) Boston: Litile, Brown.
DnovsrN, J. G.
st967 Histovih:
Mnchen: Oldenbourg,
DurNru-, Roenr
797I
C.
Systetmat'ics
in
Preh.istory. New
press.
Eccpnr, nI,NnnBr K. H.
on the rnterrelationship of Pehistoric Archaeology ancl cultrual Anthropology. Pyciltistoy,sche Zeitschrift 51 : 56-60.
19760 Prehistoric Archaeology and cognitive Anthropology: A Review. Antl.rroos
71: 508 524.
r976a
Fono, J,Lrros A.
1954 Ttre Type Concept Revisitecl.
1954
5g_72.
1968
Jr., L.
G.
Ganorx,
J._C.
1965
GrrnoRo
, Jauns
1960
15,
2: 9-22.
The Type-variety Methocl of ceramic classiflcation as an rndicator of cultural Phenomena. Anteyican Antiquity 25 : 34I-347.
l\,INpnpo K. H. Eccpnr
25+
Q.q_
bridge, Mass.
G.
I. M.
1962 Historical Aspects of Genealogies in Northern Somali Social Struct:ure.
of Afri.can History 3: 35-48.
LBU'rs,
LoNc.tcnn, \tr'/rnrnrt A.
1972 Comment on "Archaeologi,cal, Analysis of Prehistori,c Soc'iety"
SronnBursr. Norwegi.an At,chaeolog'ical Reuieu 5 : 7-9.
LouNseunv, F.
Journal
by
Benre
G.
1955 The Variety of l\{eaning. In: Rurn lfrnscn W.rxsrn.rr. ledit.f, Reort
onlhe
Books,)
MnnroN, Rosnnr K,
Mrrrn, S. l[.
1952 The Participant
Press.
17: 97-99.
Nenn, Kanr J.
1972 Das lndividuum
in der
Pur, BpNJrrrrq D.
1953 Interview Techniques
Antlr.roology Tody:
An
25s
Ton
P|I
The
Rationality of
Social Sc'iences
l:
173-194.
ING, ALBERT C.
Statistical Techniques for Discovery of Artifact Types. In: DBBrz l97l: 43-57
Ig54 Reply to Ford. Anterican Anti,tuily 19:391-393.
, Jauns P
1972a Cultuve nd Cognition: Rules, Mas, nd Plans. (Chandler Publications in
Anthropology and Sociology.) San Francisco: Chandler.
L9l2b dapttve Strategies of Uban Nomads. In: Spneornv 1972: 235 262.
lg13
, Wnrreu
tg64
Yorl<: Aldine.
[edit.],
tl,t,e
WarrBn \M.
A Study oJ Arclteology. (Arcturus Books.) Carbonclale and Edwardsville :
Southern Illinois University Press. fFirst published in 1948 as No. 69 of the
titles in the Memoir Series of the Amelican Anthropological Association.]
1969 Review of Senv R. Brxono and Lnwrs R, BrNnono [edit.], Neu Persectiues
1968
7972
SrpnBN A. [edit.]
1968 Cognitiue Anlhroology: Readings. New Yorh: Ho1t, Rinehart ancl Winston
, Rorcor
1969 Archciologische Interretation wnd, ethnograhischer Befunct: Eine Analyse anlt,nd, yezentey Keram,ih des uestli,chen Atmazomasbechens,. 2 Bde. (Harnburger
Reihe zur Kultur- und Sprachwissenschaft.) llamburg.
1970 Klassifrkationsprobleme und Klassifikationssysteme in der arnerikanischen
Archologie. Acta Pyaeltistorica el Archaeolog'ic l: 29,79.
1925
, Arnnt Nonrn
Science and, the Mod,ern World,.