CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION CHAPTER - I INTRODUCTION 1.1. Introduction Longacre (1991a: 10) says: "If we and our students do not undertake ethnoarchaeological research soon, future archaeologists would wonder how we could have been so short sighted. In that spirit, let me make a second call to action archaeology - a call with some urgency in the 1990's, because if we wait much longer, it will be too late." Archaeologists dig ancient settlements and recover the remains of material culture of past societies covering a period of several hundred thousand years. However, on archaeological sites only objects made of durable materials like stones, unbaked or baked clay, metal and bones are preserved, in rare situations plant remains like charred seeds and grains or pollen grains are preserved. Archaeological evidence is, therefore, in complete and fragmentary, to be able to understand the meaning of archaeological evidence and reconstruct the cultures of past societies, living societies or way of life of simple societies, that is non-industrialized societies. This branch of archaeology is called Ethnoarchaeology. In short, Ethnoarchaeology is the study of archaeology with the help of ethnography. With Ethnoarchaeological studies, Ethnobotanical researches are also necessary because the tribals/aboriginal societies or simple societies (that is, non-industrialized societies) practice a varied range of economies. These include hunting and gathering, fishing, pastoralism, plough agriculture, shifting agriculture and also terrace cultivation. Whatever may be their principal mode of subsistence, all of them collect and consume wild plant foods in varying degrees. Similarly their houses, tools, vessels. ornaments and objects of worship and rituals are also largely made from plant materials (Nagar 1982, 1985, 1990 with V.N. Misra, 1993, Murty 1985b). Because of this heavy dependence of the tribal societies on plants, their relationship with the vegetation of their environment is not purely commercial. They view plants and trees, as also other components of their environment with reverence. They begin harvesting their crops and collection of wild plant foods only after offering ceremonial worship. This study here gives a brief account of ^the exploitation of plant resources by the Southern Naga communities. My ethnoarchaeological study aims to understand the cultural traits of the Southern Nagas inhabiting the four hill districts of Manipur State, Northeast India. Such studies are an invaluable source of data for archaeologists, anthropologists, ethnobotanists and other scholars in related disciplines. Besides, because of the rapid changes taking place in our social ethos, recording the fast-vanishing cultural institutions and traditional practices of the tribal peoples has become a necessity. The documentation of these practices will lead towards better understanding of the archaeological record of this region. 1.1.1. A Brief History of the Southern Nagas Hodson (1911) carried out a laudable investigation on the traditional socio-economic, political and religious aspects of the Southern Nagas, Horam (1975, 1977, 1988), Shimray (1985) and Elwin (1969) did the same for both northern and Southern Nagas. Chakravartti (1986) carried out an anthropometric research, and a few scholars worked on selected aspects of some of the Southern Naga groups but no comprehensive work exists till date. Five decades of political unrest in the region and the consequent cultural amalgamation and changes have led to many realignments, specially in Manipur region. Thus, groups like the Aimol, the Anal, the Chiru, the Chothe, the Lamgang, the Monsang, the Moyon, and the Tarao were earlier not classified as those belonging to the Naga group. Hence, my aim here is to update the previous work done in this region. Also, an attempt is being made to comprehend the complex cultural attributes of the different Southern Naga communities in the light of the existing social and political system. 1.2. THE CONCEPT OF ETHNOARCHAEOLOGY According to Schiffer (1978: 230), "Ethnoarchaeology is the study of material culture in systematic context for the purpose of acquiring information, both specific and general that will be useful in archaeological investigation." Tringham (1978: 170) defines it as the "structure for a series of observations on behavioral patterns of living societies which are designed to answer archaeologically oriented questions." In short we can say that ethnoarchaeology is a study of archaeology with the help of ethnography which needs multi-disciplinary approach. The ethnographic approach, which stresses not only the understanding of socio-economic and linguistic aspects of the society, but also the physical manifestation of these aspects is what is called, 'Ethnoarchaeology' . The approach has emerged as a useful means in the interpretation of archaeological materials, by which contemporary socio-cultural behavior are seen from an archaeological perspective (Kramer 1979). Studies on material culture of living communities are used as an aid for understanding the past cultural system, unearthed by archaeological work. Thus, ethnoarchaeology, which creates linkages between archaeological and ethnographic materials, can also be termed as "action archaeology" (Kleindienst and Watson 1956), "living archaeology" (Gould 1968, 1974), "archaeoethnography" (Oswalt 1974), and "ethnographic archaeology" (Pastron 1974). Ethnoarchaeology has emerged as a useful approach to the study of archaeological remains (Kramer 1979: 1), whereas Stanislawski (1978: 2t)4) defines it as, " the participant or direct observation field study of the form, use, meaning and function of the artifacts within their institutional setting in a living society." While advocating the usefulness of ethnoarchaeology, these reasons were embodied: (1) recording material culture which are fast disappearing, (2) studying the relationship between material culture and human behavior, (3) testing traditional inferences about such relationships which may have been generated in archaeological theory, and building up of a body of new archaeological theory which will help in the interpretation of the remains of long extinct people, and (4) the expansion of mental horizons (Rahtz 1985). 1.2.1. Short History of Ethnoarchaeology Binford (1968) accepted the role of ethnography in providing the background information for model building in archaeology. The introduction of the use of analogy for aiding archaeological studies can be traced back to the classical evolutionary ideology, and this is more than a century old (Ascher 1971, Orme 1973, Stiles 1977) . In fact from 1723, De Jussieu compared the prehistoric stone tools in France with the similar forms still in use at that time in the New World. By 1865 John Lubbock had already used the term "Modern Savages" in his book The Prehistoric Times for getting some light of the ancient race that inhibited the subcontinent. Taylor (1865) made the acceptance clearer by stating that, "...in judging how mankind may have once lived, it is great help to observe how they are actually found living". The utility of insights into past behavior derived from observations of contemporary behavior is greatest when they can be framed as hypotheses and tested (Kramer 1979: 1-2). In the Stone Age studies, Sollas (1924) compared the Mousterian, Aurignacian and Magdalenian with the Tasmanians, the Bushmen and the Eskimos respectively. He even postulated a direct relationship between them. The formulation of Julian Steward's direct historical approach (1942) has further activated the importance of ethnographic study in archaeology. Thus, Desmond Clark finally stresses that ethnographic study can help to reexamine the archaeological works, and it is one of his articles entitled "Folk Cultures and European Prehistory", published in 1951, that has served as the main source of inspiration to the growth of ethnoarchaeological studies (Clark 1951). In fact, by the mid 1960's, several ethnoarchaeological projects around the world are made on several hunting-gathering communities which are still in existence. Some of these include the works of Lee (1963, 1968), Gould (1967, 1968), Binford (1968), Stanislawski (1969). In India, the scope of ethnoarchaeological study is tremendous, mainly because the country possesses traits and traditions which have acquired a deep rooted force in the overall cultural aspects, and has survived among many communities from the very ancient times with remarkable permanency (Nagar 1975: 14). Reliance on ethnoarchaeolo-gical approach in the country began from the days of the British, when scholars like Alexander Cunningham instructed their officers on duty to look out for ancient objects still in use in the countryside (Cunningham 1873, as cited in Allchin 1994: 5), and James Fergusson in 1876 applied it well in his introduction to History of Indian Architecture, which he derived from his travel and study in the field. This approach continued to be followed with refinement. In the recent decades, with the development of proper archaeological studies in the country, ethnographic analogy has therefore played a very important role. This advantage can, therefore, be taken not only for understanding human culture with knowledge of only his material in the socio-economic set up, but man as a whole in his entirety. Such realization has not only brought about an improvement or expansion in the discipline of archaeology, but at the same time facilitated new ideas in the light of ethnographic