Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Reviews in Anthropology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713649311
To cite this Article Frankel, David(2003) 'Encounters and Enclosures: Archaeological Approaches to Social Identities in the
Past and Present', Reviews in Anthropology, 32: 1, 37 49
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/00988150308451
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00988150308451
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Reviews in Anthropology, Vol. 32, pp. 3749
Copyright 2003 Taylor & Francis
0093-8157/03 $12.00 + .00
DOI:10.1080/00938150390183460
David Frankel
37
38 D. Frankel
appropriation of ancient peoples may also affect the ways in which ar-
chaeologists approach the technical or methodological problems in con-
structing archaeological evidence and giving it social meaning. So it is that
Daz-Andreu (Daz-Andreu and Champion, 1996, p. 58), for example, sees
the use of culture in archaeology as ethnocentric presentism and suggests
that perhaps we should eliminate it from our vocabulary and try to start
from scratch in order to develop our understanding of the history of hu-
manity in a much more open and flexible way than we have done, while in
a similar vein Jones argues that a distinction should be made between ar-
chaeological groupings (cultures) and ethnicity.
Downloaded By: [Romanian Ministry Consortium] At: 12:16 22 February 2010
mission come to the fore, approaches to material culture seen, for example,
in ceramic ecology (Arnold, 1993) or underpinning Schiffers (1992) be-
havioral archaeology can be viewed as overly mechanistic when they em-
phasize efficiency, and influences of environment, raw material, and func-
tion on technology at the expense of the social context of learning. Similarly,
implicit evolutionary models of technological change should be re-evalu-
ated within an understanding of the social construction of knowledge and
technology (Lemonnier 1993; Loney 2000). The development of new ma-
chines, equipment, and technological approaches to achieving functional
ends are generally conservative, drawing on older strategies and concepts.
Often the first successful new tool or machine will be adopted as the arche-
type for all later developments, even though it might be far from the opti-
mum solution (Lemonnier, 1992, 1993). Design principles and associated
motor habits rapidly become identified as conceptually correct and nor-
malized as self-evident and obvious, inhibiting change. This applies as much
to highly complex and sophisticated modern technologies as to any others.
Similarly, numerous factors impede the spread of new technologies (Rogers,
1983; Laudan, 1984; van der Leeuw and Torrence, 1989) which may also be
seen as inherently more stable or conservative than other dimensions of
variation and therefore more likely to be useful as markers of long-term
social systems (Stark, 1999). Closer to home, we may equally see early
technological solutions to organizing and explaining the past (the Three
Age System and the culture concept) as similarly apparently self-evident but
in reality historically contingent constructs which are neither necessarily
optimal nor universally appropriate.
Reinforcing entrenched representations of what things should be like
are the contexts of teaching and learning. The transmission of skills and
attitudes between generations or between communities takes place through
complex patterns of learning and technology transfer (Pelissier, 1991). This
is neither a simple nor unproblematic process. In manyperhaps we should
say allsocieties people learn through informal observation rather than
through formal structured systems, separated from real-world practice. Such
Encounters and Enclosures 43
REFERENCES
Abu el-Haj, N. (2001). Facts on the ground: Archaeological practice and territorial self-fash-
ioning in Israeli society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Anthony, D. (1990). Migration in archaeology: The baby and the bathwater. American An-
thropologist, 92, 895914.
Arnold, B. (1990). The past as propaganda: Totalitarian archaeology in Nazi Germany. Antiq-
uity, 64, 464478.
Arnold, D. E. (1993). Ecology and ceramic production in an Andean community. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Banks, M. (1996). Ethnicity: Anthropological constructions. London: Routledge.
Downloaded By: [Romanian Ministry Consortium] At: 12:16 22 February 2010
Barth, F. (Ed.). (1969). Ethnic groups and boundaries: The social organization of cultural
difference. Boston: Little & Brown.
Barth, F. (2002). An anthropology of knowledge. Current Anthropology, 43, 118.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burmeister, S. (2000). Archaeology and migration: approaches to an archaeological proof of
migration. Current Anthropology, 41, 539568.
Byrne, D. (1996). Deep nation: Australias acquisition of an indigenous past. Aboriginal
History, 20, 82107.
Champion, T. C. (Ed.). (1989). Centre and periphery: Comparative studies in archaeology.
London: Unwin Hyman.
Chapman, J., & Hamerow, H. (Eds.). (1997). Migrations and invasions in archaeological
explanation. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports 664.
Clark, D. L. (1978). Analytical archaeology (2nd ed.). London: Methuen.
Creamer, H. (1993). Aboriginal perceptions of the past: The implications for cultural resource
management in Australia. In P. Gathercole & D. Lowenthal (Eds.), The politics of the past
(pp. 130140). London: Routledge.
David, N., & Kramer, C. (Eds.). (2001). Ethnoarchaeology in action. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
DeAtley, S. P., & Findlow, F. J. (Eds.). (1984). Exploring the limits: Frontiers and boundaries
in prehistory. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports 223.
Dever, W. G. (2001). What did the Biblical writers know and when did they know it? Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Daz-Andreu, M., & Champion, T. C. (Eds.). (1996). Nationalism and archaeology in Europe.
London: UCL Press.
Dobres, M.-A. (2000). Technology and social agency. Oxford: Blackwell.
Dobres, M.-A., & Hoffman, C. R. (1994). Social Agency and the dynamics of prehistoric
technology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 1, 211258.
Dobres, M.-A., & Hoffman, C. R. (1999). Introduction. In M.-A. Dobres & C. R. Hoffman
(Eds.), The social dynamics of technology: Practice, politics and world views (pp. 119).
Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Dothan, T., & Dothan, M. (1992). People of the sea: The search for the Philistines. New York:
MacMillan.
Emberling, G. (1997). Ethnicity in complex societies: archaeological perspectives. Journal of
Archaeological Research, 5, 295344.
Finkelstein, I., & Silberman, N. A. (2001). The Bible unearthed: Archaeologys new vision of
ancient Israel and the origin of its sacred texts. New York: The Free Press.
Frankel, D. (1978). Pottery decoration as an indicator of social relationships: A prehistoric
Cypriot example. In M. Greenhalgh & J. V. S. Megaw (Eds.), Art and society: Studies in
style, culture and aesthetics (pp. 147160). London: Duckworth.
48 D. Frankel