The Present Past: An Introduction to Anthropology for Archeologists
By Ian Hodder
4.5/5
()
About this ebook
Related to The Present Past
Related ebooks
Archaeology and Anthropology: Understanding Similarity, Exploring Difference Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsAn Archaeology of Prehistoric Bodies and Embodied Identities in the Eastern Mediterranean Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsCurrent Approaches to Tells in the Prehistoric Old World: A cross-cultural comparison from Early Neolithic to the Iron Age Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsNeolithic Stone Extraction in Britain and Europe: An Ethnoarchaeological Perspective Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsAn archaeology of innovation: Approaching social and technological change in human society Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsLandscape in the Longue Durée: A History and Theory of Pebbles in a Pebbled Heathland Landscape Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsBronze Age Landscapes: Tradition and Transformation Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Economic Zooarchaeology: Studies in Hunting, Herding and Early Agriculture Rating: 2 out of 5 stars2/5Exploring Prehistoric Identity in Europe: Our Construct or Theirs? Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsHandbook of Archaeological Theories Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Hunter-Gatherer Ireland: Making Connections in an Island World Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsPrinciples of Archaeological Stratigraphy Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Behaviour Behind Bones: The Zooarchaeology of Ritual, Religion, Status and Identity Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Dawn of Human Culture Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Exotica in the Prehistoric Mediterranean Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Development of Pre-State Communities in the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honour of Edgar Peltenburg Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsArchaeology Meets Science: Biomolecular Investigations in Bronze Age Greece Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsLandscape Beneath the Waves: The Archaeological Exploration of Underwater Landscapes Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsEscaping the Labyrinth: The Cretan Neolithic in Context Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsEnclosures in Neolithic Europe: Essays on Causewayed and Non-Causewayed Sites Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Antiquarianisms: Contact, Conflict, Comparison Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsBack to the Beginning: Reassessing Social and Political Complexity on Crete during the Early and Middle Bronze Age Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe King in the North: The Pictish Realms of Fortriu and Ce Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Life on the Edge: Human Settlement and Marginality Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Diversity of Hunter Gatherer Pasts Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Death of Archaeological Theory? Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Prehistoric Men Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5An Anthropology of Landscape: The Extraordinary in the Ordinary Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsBell Beaker Settlement of Europe: The Bell Beaker Phenomenon from a Domestic Perspective Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5
Wars & Military For You
Sun Tzu's The Art of War: Bilingual Edition Complete Chinese and English Text Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Resistance: The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Last Kingdom Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Masters of the Air: America's Bomber Boys Who Fought the Air War Against Nazi Germany Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Art of War Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Art of War & Other Classics of Eastern Philosophy Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Only Plane in the Sky: An Oral History of 9/11 Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Killing the SS: The Hunt for the Worst War Criminals in History Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Making of the Atomic Bomb Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5A Daily Creativity Journal Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5The Forgotten Highlander: An Incredible WWII Story of Survival in the Pacific Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The Girls of Atomic City: The Untold Story of the Women Who Helped Win World War II Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Blitzed: Drugs in the Third Reich Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Band of Brothers: E Company, 506th Regiment, 101st Airborne from Normandy to Hitler's Eagle's Nest Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Art of War: The Definitive Interpretation of Sun Tzu's Classic Book of Strategy Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Unit 731: Testimony Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The God Delusion Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Faithful Spy: Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the Plot to Kill Hitler Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933–45 Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Idaho Falls: The Untold Story of America's First Nuclear Accident Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Unacknowledged: An Expose of the World's Greatest Secret Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The Heart of Everything That Is: The Untold Story of Red Cloud, An American Legend Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5
Reviews for The Present Past
2 ratings0 reviews
Book preview
The Present Past - Ian Hodder
THE
PRESENT
PAST
AN INTRODUCTION TO ANTHROPOLOGY
FOR ARCHAEOLOGISTS
Ian Hodder
For the joy of little Greg
First published in Great Britain in 1982 by
B.T. Batsford Ltd
Reprinted in this format in 2012 by
PEN & SWORD ARCHAEOLOGY
an imprint of
Pen & Sword Books Ltd
47 Church Street
Barnsley
South Yorkshire S70 2AS
Copyright © Ian Hodder, 1982, 2012
ISBN 978 1 78159 172 7
The right of Ian Hodder to be identified as author of this work has been
asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988
A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in
any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying,
recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without
permission from the Publisher in writing.
Printed and bound in England by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
Pen & Sword Books Ltd incorporates the imprints of
Pen & Sword Aviation, Pen & Sword Family History, Pen & Sword Maritime,
Pen & Sword Military, Pen & Sword Discovery, Wharncliffe Local History,
Wharncliffe True Crime, Wharncliffe Transport, Pen & Sword Select,
Pen & Sword Military Classics, Leo Cooper, Remember When,
The Praetorian Press, Seaforth Publishing and Frontline Publishing
For a complete list of Pen & Sword titles please contact
PEN & SWORD BOOKS LIMITED
47 Church Street, Barnsley, South Yorkshire, S70 2AS, England
E-mail: enquiries@pen-and-sword.co.uk
Website: www.pen-and-sword.co.uk
Contents
Acknowledgements
List of Illustrations
Introduction
Preface
1 The use of analogy
Problems with analogies
The proper use of analogy
Context
Conclusion
2 Ethnoarchaeology
Relations with experimental approaches in archaeology
History of the use of ethnographic analogies in archaeology
Ethnoarchaeological field methods
3 The formation of the archaeological record
Post-deposition
Deposition
Conclusion
4 Technology and production
Formal analogies
Relational analogies based on natural processes
Cross-cultural relationships
Relational analogies and cultural context
Conclusion
5 Subsistence strategies
Hunters and gatherers
Pastoralists
Agriculturalists
Bones and seeds
Conclusion
6 Social organisation
Settlement
Burial
Exchange
Levels of societal complexity
Conclusion
7 Ritual
Conclusion
8 Art, decoration and style
Art
Decoration
Style
Conclusion
9 Looking at ourselves
10 Conclusion: archaeological anthropology
Interpreting the past
A theory of material culture
Bibliography
Index
Acknowledgements
The following publishers are acknowledged for permission to reproduce the illustrations appearing in this book.
Academic Press: fig. 22 from Steensberg A. 1980 New Guinea gardens.
George Allen and Unwin: fig. 41c from Heyerdahl T. and Ferdon E.N. (eds) 1961 Archaeology of Easter Island. Volume 1.
Athlone Press: fig. 41d from Evans J.D. 1971 The prehistoric antiquities of the Maltese Islands: a survey.
Barrie and Jenkins: figs 35, 36 and 37 from Rapoport A. (ed.) 1969 Shelter and Society.
Cambridge University Press: fig. 29 from Hugh Jones C. 1979 From the milk river.
Chapman and Hall Ltd.: fig. 16 from Clark J.G.D. 1952 Prehistoric Europe: the economic basis.
Jonathan Cape: fig. 41b from Renfrew A.C. Before Civilisation. The radiocarbon revolution and prehistoric Europe.
Hutchinson: fig. 39b from Phillips P. 1975 Early farmers of West Mediterranean Europe.
International African Institute: figs 33 and 34 from Africa Volume 50.
International Louis Leakey Memorial Institute for African Prehistory: fig. 21 from Leakey R.E. and Ogot B.A. (eds) 1980 Proceedings of the 8th Panafrican Congress of Prehistory and Quaternary Studies.
Kroeber Anthropological Society: fig. 11 from Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers, Volume 37.
Michigan Discussions in Anthropology: fig. 28 from Smiley F.E. et al (eds) 1980 The archaeological correlates of hunter gatherer.
Prehistoric Society: from the Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, figs 2a and 3a from Volume 6, fig. 27 from Volume 5, fig. 3 from Volume 37, fig. 5 from Volume 32, fig. 40 from Volume 44.
Prentice Hall: fig. 41a from Sahlins M.D. 1968 Tribesmen.
Rex Features Ltd.: fig. 47 from York P. 1980 Style Wars.
Society of Antiquaries: fig. 39c from Antiquaries journal, Volume 51.
Thames and Hudson: fig. 1a from Megaw J.V.R. (ed.) 1976 To illustrate the monuments; figs 5 and 6 from Willey G.R. and Sabloff J.A. 1974 A history of American Archaeology; figs 42 and 43 from Clark J.G.D. 1967 The Stone Age hunters.
I wish also to thank Francoise for her help in surveying the relevant literature and for her advice. Parts of the typescript for this book were produced while a visiting Professor at the Van Giffen Institute of Pre-and Proto-history of the University of Amsterdam, and my debt to the patience and generosity of the members of that Institute is warmly acknowledged.
The illustrations
1
Archaeological and ethnographic stone axes
2
Circles of post-holes and round houses
3
The interpretation of four-post arrangements as granaries
4
Relationship between computer simulation, experimental archaeology and ethnoarchaeology
5
Burial ceremony of south-eastern American Indians
6
Major John Wesley Powell consulting an Indian, near the Grand Canyon
7
Hut collapse in Baringo district, Kenya
8
Pulling out posts in Mbunda village, western Zambia
9
Mud wall decay in Ghana
10
Pits in various stages of infill, western Zambia
11
Disposal of bones by scavengers and natural agencies
12
Interior of abandoned hut, Baringo district of Kenya
13
A broken pot used to collect rainwater, from western Zambia
14
Gypsy encampment in east of England
15
Interior of two Mesakin Nuba compounds where dirt and refuse are allowed
16
Clark’s comparison of wooden arrowheads
17
Different types of arrowheads, used by Lozi groups in western Zambia
18
Iron age artifacts termed ‘weaving combs’
19
Hair comb from Kenya
20
Making clay pots in Baringo district, Kenya
21
Ethnographic and archaeological evidence of iron smelting
22
Stone axes from contemporary New Guinea and Neolithic Denmark
23
House construction in Baringo district, Kenya
24
Njemps house in Baringo district, Kenya
25
Contemporary artifacts from Baringo district, Kenya
26
Uniform artifacts of the Tugen, Baringo area, Kenya
27
Typical camps and house types among Wikmunkan tribe, Australia
28
Wikmunkan seasonal use of the environment
29
Pirá-paraná long house
30
Different structures based on posts in a square
31
Granaries around edge of Lozi village, western Zambia
32
Pots produced by women in Lozi village, western Zambia
33
Symbolic dimensions of the Swazi homestead
34
Schematic summary of Swazi symbolic dimensions
35
The Pueblo
36
The Hogan
37
Schematic depiction of structural differences between Hogan and Pueblo
38
Axes from main quarries in New Guinea Highlands
39
Artifacts and behaviour termed ‘ritual’ by archaeologists
40
Neolithic causewayed-camp in east England
41
Easter Island as an analogy for prehistoric Europe
42
Palaeolithic cave painting from Ariege
43
Bison from Ariege
44
Historical analogy for a rock painting in South Africa
45
Examples of Nuba decoration
46
Child play in refuse
47
Johnny Rotten
Jacket illustration
Modern Baka pottery manufacture in Western
Equatoria. The decoration is made with the broken
ends of straws and is carried out prior to completing
the lip of the pot. All the objects around the potter are
used in the potting processes. (Reproduced by kind
permission of David Phillipson, Museum of
Archaeology and Anthropology, Cambridge)
Introduction
Ian Hodder 2012
Ethnoarchaeology has experienced a number of transformations and iterations since 1982 when this book was first published. For some it has come to be associated with a troubling set of assumptions and ethical considerations. To study contemporary societies in order to make comparisons with the past seems to place present-day societies in the past, to equate them with ‘the prehistoric’. This, of course, was the strategy of early European archaeologists who from the 16th century onwards came to the realization of the ‘antiquity of man’ through comparison with Native Americans and other aboriginal groups encountered through colonial and imperial expansion. The post-colonial critique today allows us to comprehend the dangers and unwarranted assumptions that lie behind any attempt to draw parallels between past and present. Understanding of cultural diversity requires in-depth historical and contextual study. From this perspective, any attempts to draw comparisons between past and present must be open to reflexive scrutiny in order to understand the assumptions that are imposed and in order to evaluate the impact on living communities. So, from this point of view, ethnoarchaeology is a difficult and often suspect pursuit that must be tied to careful reflexive evaluation (eg Nicholas and Kramer 2001) and a thorough understanding of context. The emergence of calls for ‘archaeological ethnography’ (eg Meskell 2005) provides a neat inversion of ethnoarchaeology. Rather than ethnography being used in the service of a colonial archaeology, archaeology and ethnography are re-balanced in relation to each other. The focus is placed on contributing to the understanding of contemporary peoples through archaeological research. Archaeological ethnography involves studying present and past in relation to each other, using both archaeological and ethnographic techniques within a frame strongly committed to ethical considerations.
For some, then, the troubling aspects of ethnoarchaeology have led to a flourishing of new types of relationships between past and present and between archaeology and ethnography. For others, however, ethnoarchaeology has gained traction precisely because it allows cross-cultural statements that contribute to a more secure understanding of the past. This trend has been especially prevalent within those approaches that espouse general theoretical frameworks based on ecology and optimization. Thus, for example, Human Behavioral Ecology has proved a rich vein of theoretical resources that can be mined to build general models that can be ‘tested’ in ethnographic contexts (eg Bird and Bird 2000). Behavioral Archaeology too has proved hungry in its search for ethnographic data that could prove or disprove its general assumptions (Skibo 2009). Research on contemporary technologies has allowed broader understanding of operational sequences (Stark 2003; Roux 2007; Beyries and Pétrequin 2001). These approaches are less troubled by the issues raised in post-colonial critiques and they remain firmly grounded in attempts to understand the past.
Thus many of the tensions that I raise in this book continue in more recent work, but more starkly. It remains the case that there are two dimensions of relationality in the use of analogies – the contextual and the universal. In the book I try to steer a course between a blinkered focus on specific relationships within social and cultural systems and a reductionist focus on general ecological or technological constraints. This tension has dogged recent developments in the subfield leading to marked differences between, for example, archaeological ethnography and a behaviorally oriented ethnoarchaeology.
It seems that ethnoarchaeology has increasingly become associated with more behavioral and ecological approaches in archaeology. In order to make broad comparisons between past and present it becomes necessary to isolate some aspects of culture (the economic or the technological in particular), separate them off from other aspects, and assume general optimizing relations. It can, of course, reasonably be argued that simplification and reduction of complex issues is necessary for science to proceed. The danger, as noted above, is that contemporary societies become fossilized – parts of their culture have to be seen as separate and somehow outside the dynamic complexities of daily life. Certain aspects of contemporary complex systems have to be separated out as ‘traditional’, less impacted by processes of modernity, in order for past and present to be drawn in relation to each other.
Other approaches focus on the complex web of interactions in which material artifacts get caught in the contemporary world. To some degree the burgeoning of material culture studies in anthropology since the 1980s was contributed to by dissatisfaction with the limited scope of ethnoarchaeological studies. To do detailed contextual studies of modern material culture involved doing a full ethnographic analysis. An enormous wealth of research, for example as found in the Journal of Material Culture, has developed based on theoretical writings of those such as Miller and Tilley who initially conducted material culture studies closely tied to ethnoarchaeology (Miller 1987). Today such research has been strongly influenced by anthropologists such as Gell and Ingold such that archaeologists can refer to a broad set of theoretical perspectives about material agency, materiality and objectification (Miller 2005).
So, on the one hand, ethnoarchaeology has had an increasingly strong role amongst those archaeologists devoted to cross-cultural comparison of isolated aspects of socio-economic systems in their behavioral and ecological contexts. On the other hand, it has been transformed or subsumed into archaeological ethnography and material culture studies by those archaeologists and anthropologists committed to detailed contextual accounts and to the ethical difficulties of comparing past and present. To some degree it can be argued that both trends have something to offer contemporary archaeology. The ecological, behavioral approaches provide information about subsistence and technological constraints. Knowing about how pottery can be made and how different cooking methods require different amounts of fuel is of importance to interpretation of the past. But the material culture approaches are also necessary so that the complex ways in which material culture can be manipulated to achieve social ends are also taken into account. The material culture and archaeological ethnographic approaches are also important in so far as they train a critical eye on the assumptions that are being made in making the past present and the present past.
Recommended Reading
Adams, Ron L. 2005. Ethnoarchaeology in Indonesia Illuminating the Ancient Past at Çatalhöyük?
American Antiquity 70(1): 181–8.
Agrosah, E. Kofi. 1990. Ethnoarchaeology: the search for a self-corrective approach to the study of past human behaviour.
The African Archaeological Review 8: 189–208.
Beyries, Sylvie and Pierre Pétrequin. 2001. Ethno-Archaeobgy and its Transfers: Papers from a session held at the European Association of Archaeologists Fifth Annual Meeting in Bournemouth 1999. Oxford: BAR International Series 983
Bird, D.W. and R. Bliege Bird 2000. The Ethnoarchaeology of Juvenile Foragers: Shellfishing Strategies among Meriam Children. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 19: 461–476.
David, Nicholas and Carol Kramer. 2001. Ethnoarchaeology in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hayashida, Francis. 2008. "Ancient Beer and Modern Brewers: Ethnoarchaeological Observations of Chicha Production in Northern Peru." Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27: 161–74.
Hudson, Jean. 2010. Ethnoarchaeology in a Personal Context.
The SAA Archaeological Record 10(1): 8–11.
Meskell, Lynn. 2005. Archaeological Ethnography. Conversations around Kruger National Park.
Archaeobgies 1(1): 81–100.
Miller, D. 1987. Material Culture and Mass Consumption. Oxford: Blackwell.
Miller, D. (ed) 2005. Materiality. Durham: Duke University Press.
Roux, Valentine. 2007. Ethnoarchaeology: A Non Historical Science of Reference Necessary for Interpreting the Past.
Journal of Archaeobgical Method and Theory 14(2): 153–78.
Skibo, James M. 2009. Archaeological Theory and Snake-Oil Peddling.
Ethnoarchaeology 1(1): 27–56.
Stark, Miriam. 2003. Current Issues in Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology.
Journal of Archaeobgical Research 11(3): 193–242.
Wylie, A. 1985. The Reaction against Analogy.
Advances in Archaeobgical Method and Theory 8: 63–111.
Preface
The past is the present in the sense that our reconstructions of the meaning of data from the past are based on analogies with the world around us. The aim of this book is to achieve a more comprehensive review than is at present available of the use of ethnographic data and anthropological concepts by archaeologists. However, I have not attempted to refer to every relevant piece of work. Even if that would have been possible, though I doubt it given the vast area of study involved, the concern has been more to provide a critical appraisal of the use of analogy in archaeology by the assessment of a representative range of examples. The purpose has been to make a number of simple points in, as far as I can, an accessible manner.
All archaeology is based on analogy and the process of analogical reasoning can be explicit and rigorous. But we cannot, as has often been claimed, strictly test the analogies and the hypotheses which result from their use. Archaeologists cannot prove or falsify their hypotheses on independent data. All they can achieve is a demonstration that one hypothesis or analogy is better or worse than another, both theoret-ically and in relation to data. In Chapter 1, a range of ways of supporting or criticising analogies which are applied to archaeological data is discussed.
Our ‘choice’ of what is a pursuasive analogy depends at least partly on our own preconceptions. This statement does not imply that theories are unaffected by data because they clearly are. But it does imply that our knowledge of the past is based on the present and that the task of the rigorous and conscientious archaeologist is to remove the scales of assumptions and to achieve critical self-knowledge, particularly in relation to ideologies of material culture – the material archaeologists dig up from the past. Archaeological anthropology, a generalising science of human culture, is concerned to examine material culture in modern western societies and traditional non-industrialised societies in order that through interpreting these data we may achieve a greater knowledge of ourselves and more accurate reconstructions of the past.
I would hope that the term ‘the present past’ would also refer to a current view of the role of archaelogy. The discipline is defined not so much by its concern with the past and with chronological change since this is also the domain of historians. Rather, it is distinguished by its preoccupation with material culture. Our aim as archaeologists, as members of society and as writers of the past, is to achieve critical self-awareness in relation to material culture. Such a programme of research does not involve confusing our methods with our aims. Rather, the programme is concerned to identify, in dissatisfaction with the evolutionary approaches seeking laws of societal change, new aims for archaeology.
1
The use of analogy
When an archaeologist digs an object out of the ground and says ‘this is an axe’, how does he know? He may have dated the site from which the object comes to millenia before the first written records, so how does he know it is an axe? The answer is, really, that he doesn’t. All he can do is make a reasonable guess based on the fact that the object he has in his hand from the past looks like axes he has seen in his own or in other contemporary societies. In the first half of the nineteenth century, the Danish scientist P.W. Lund sent back polished stone axes from Brazil to be compared with Danish antiquities (fig. 1a). This information supported early Scandinavian archaeologists such as Nilsson in their notion that similar artifacts found on their soil were indeed ‘primitive’ axes. Polished stone objects found widely in Europe (fig. 1b) have the shapes of axes with sharp edges; they are called axes on analogy with modern objects.
To support the axe interpretation the archaeologist might examine the edge of the artifact with a microscope to show that it has traces of wear from cutting; he might conduct experiments to show that it is possible to cut down a tree with such an object; and he could conduct pollen studies of the environment of the prehistoric site where the object was found to show that trees had been cut down in the vicinity. Yet all these subsidiary studies are developed to support or weaken the initial analogy.
Much the same could be said for nearly every other interpretation that the archaeologist makes about the past. He is rarely shown directly what prehistoric objects were used for. He has to guess, using analogies. So, when he finds a circle of post holes in the ground and says ‘this is a house’, he is influenced by evidence of modern round houses lived in by many Africans and American Indians (fig. 2).
Many such interpretations may seem obvious to the archaeologist and he may be unaware that he is using an analogy at all. It needs no specialist knowledge to describe an object as an axe, pin, dagger, sword, shield or helmet. And the notion that circles of post-holes indicate houses is so deeply enshrined in archaeological teaching that the archaeologist may not question the ethnographic origin of the idea. Other uses of ethnographic analogies are more conscious and calculated. When an attempt is made to reconstruct from fragments of archaeological evidence the organisation of prehistoric social relations, exchange, burial ritual and ideologies, the archaeologist searches among traditional societies today, in Africa, Asia and America, or in historic Europe, for suitable parallels and analogies.
1 Archaeological and ethnographic stone axes, a Polished axes from Brazil sent by Lund to the Royal Society of Northern Antiquaries in Copenhagen (Klindt-Jensen 1976).
So, in nearly every interpretation he makes of the past, the archaeologist has to draw on knowledge of his own or other contemporary societies in order to clothe the skeleton remains from the past in the flesh and blood of living, functioning and acting people. The drawing of analogies would thus seem to play a central role in archaeological reasoning. Yet recently, many archaeologists have tried to diminish the use of analogies because they are unreliable, unscientific and limiting. Why is this?
Problems with analogies
An interpretation of the past using an analogy is thought to be unreliable because, if things and societies in the present and past are similar in some aspects, this does not necessarily mean they are similar in others. As an example of this difficulty we might take Grahame Clark’s (1954) reconstruction of life at the Mesolithic site of Star Carr in Yorkshire, England. Clark suggests (1954, 10–12) that the evidence of skin-working at Star Carr argues for the presence of women on analogy with the hunting peoples of North America and Greenland. Amongst the Caribou Eskimos women are mainly responsible for flaying the kill and preparing the skins for use, and Clark suggests the same for his Mesolithic hunter-gatherers from Yorkshire. On the basis of the presence of women, Clark further postulates the number of people living at Star Carr, and the form of subdivision of labour. The environment, technology and hunting-gathering economy of the Star Carr inhabitants and the Eskimos are, very vaguely and broadly, comparable. But are these general similarities in some spheres sufficient to allow us to infer correlations in others? There seems no reason to suppose that skin working amongst modern Eskimos and at 7200 BC Star Carr was carried out by the same sex just because they both had broadly the same economy and environment. Clark’s interpretation seems highly unreliable.
b Neolithic stone axe from Cambridgeshire, England
Clark, in the Star Carr example, seems to be assuming a deterministic ‘uniformitarianism’; he supposes that societies and cultures similar in some aspects are uniformly similar. Such a view is unreliable, especially given the great spans of time over which the comparisons are being made and given the great diversity of present-day cultural forms. Clark happened to use the North American Eskimos, but he could have chosen other societies where men prepare the skins.
If analogies are unreliable, they must also be unscientific. Or so the argument goes. It has been implied by many archaeologists recently that we can never check or prove analogies because we can always find alternative analogies which would fit the data from the past equally well. Because similarities in some aspects do not necessarily, certainly or logically imply similarities in others, we can never prove interpretations such as Grahame Clark’s at Star Carr. Such archaeological interpretation is seen as subjective story-writing, pure speculation without any scientific basis.
While it will be explained below why charges of unreliability and anti-science are only really relevant to the misuse of analogy, a charge that analogical reasoning limits and restricts our knowledge of the past also needs to be considered. It seems logically to be the case that, if we interpret the past by analogy to the present, we can never find out about forms of society and culture which do not exist today (Dalton 1981). We are limited in our interpretation to our knowledge of present-day societies. Since these societies, industrialised and non-industrialised, represent a highly specialised set of interlinked economic, social and cultural adaptations, it seems unlikely that they adequately represent the full range of social forms that existed in the past. So