Our Search for the "Real Thing"
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Fennoscandia archaeologica VI (1989) Richard A. Gould ETHNOARCHAEOLOGY AND THE PAST: OUR SEARCH FOR THE "REAL THING". Abstract Recent attempts by ethnoarchaeologists like Hodder and Binford to explain past human behavior lack credibility because they fail to identify or control for a wide enough range of relevant context. An alternative framework based upon "first order" and "higher or der" questions is proposed to provide a better approximation of the realities of past behavior represented in the potential archaeological record. This hierarchical approach permits ethnoarchaeologists, who normally observe fleeting and momentary behavior in present-day human societies, to recognize and evaluate the widest possible range of rel evant variables that structure the long-term historical reality referred to by Braudel as the longue duree. Richard A. Gould, Department of Anthropology, Brown University. Providence, RI 02912, USA. Ethnoarchaeology is an ethnographic approach an overall framework that belongs to the histor to the study of contemporary, living human ical sciences (geology, paleontology, paleoecol societies that seeks to identify behavioral reali ogy and astronomy) which assume that the prin ties that structure the potential archaeological ciple of uniformitarianism can serve as a bridge record. To do this, it combines with other ap to the past. That is, processes in nature observed proaches that have increasingly come to play a in the present can be assumed to have operated similar role with respect to natural factors that uniformly in a similar manner in the past. To do affect archaeological deposits and associations. this, these sciences require that the widest pos These latter include studies in processes of sedi sible range of relevant variables be identified, mentation and deposition, in the decay and dis measured and controlled for within the context persal of bone remains in geo-archaeological of the particular "past" being studied. By apply context (taphonomy), geochemistry, and other ing general uniformitarian principles such as, for approaches that Schiffer (1987) groups under the example, neo-Darwinian concepts of natural heading of "natural formation processes" in the selection and evolution in biology, or more re archaeological record. Schiffer's distinction be cently, plate tectonic theory in earth history, tween such natural processes - earlier referred general syntheses can be subjected to a continu to in his writing as "N-transforms" - and beha ous process of empirical testing, usually via vioral factors ("C-transforms" in Schiffer's ter lower-level operational principles that facilitate minology) has important implications for the this testing process. An example would be the way archaeologists attempt to infer past human array of operational theories in use today within behavior from archaeological materials. evolutionary biology and ecology - such as opti First, it implies that the same degree of scien mal foraging theory, succession theory, pre tific control is needed in data collection and dation theory, limiting factor theory, input-out analysis for ethnographic materials as is already put studies relating to energy flow, and others - widely in use in geo-archaeology, taphonomy, which provide controlled frameworks for empir and other explicitly "scientific" approaches ical testing of the more comprehensive theories within archaeology. These approaches fit within that stand behind each discipline. 3 So a second implication is that there is a viewed by (Earle and Prencel, 1987). This trend necessary and complementary relationship be has provided some stimulating ideas and debate, tween theory and empirical research. While this but it could also damage the scientific credibility relationship has been caricatured as a simplistic of the discipline. So far, such interpretations kind of Positivism by some of our leading theor have not figured prominently in publications on ists in archaeology (Binford, 1985: 583-9; Hod Finnish archaeology, but students here are (quite der, 1986), it continues to be a key component rightly) asking questions about this trend and in the process of archaeological inference. It is a what it might mean for archaeology. Some arch truism in the historical sciences, as in science aeologists are dissatisfied with what they per generally, that the credibility of a theory or gen ceive to be the narrowly constrained and even eral principle depends upon its ability to account antihumanistic direction to scientific archae parsimoniously for the observed data in particu ology. They regard scientific approaches and lar cases and, that, in each case, the theory must assumptions, particularly uniformitarian assump be able to withstand the test represented by that tions, as inadequate to explain all of the com data. plexities of human expressive behavior as they In short, the operating principles of the his often appear in the archaeological record. Such torical sciences provide a starting-point for con dissatisfaction is understandable, and nothing I sidering the place that ethnoarchaeology occu might say here is intended to discourage arch pies within archaeology. Uniformitarian prin aeologists from attempting innovative approa ciples and assumptions are widely shared in Fin ches to overcoming the apparent limitations of nish archaeology today, as witnessed by articles the archaeological record. We should always try that have appeared in the journal on subjects to generate the ful1est possible explanations for such as paleoenvironmental reconstruction and the variability represented by material associ prehistoric plant use, especially by means of ations in the archaeological record. But neither fossil pollen studies (Siiriliinen, 1982; Donner, can we ignore the limitations imposed by a scien 1984; Hicks, 1985 ; Tolonen, 1985), and are part tifical1y controlled approach to the archaeologi of a long-standing Scandinavian scientific cal record if we want to produce credible ex tradition of paleoenvironmental research related planations of past human behavior. to Pleistocene geology (including glaciology and varve studies) and palynology. However, there is a third implication to Schiffer'S view that under Competing "Ideas" of History lies all of these studies and makes it especially important for achaeologists to view their discip Ethnoarchaeological research initial1y consists of line first and foremost as a historical science. observing and recording the flux of everyday hu This is the assumption that there is a credible, man activity. In many respects, it resembles the knowable past - a historical reality that lies kind of participant-observation study of human outside the domain of individual, subjective im behavior carried out by sociaUcultural anthropol pressions and opinions. It is the domain of beha ogists, and it calls for many of the same skills. vioral realities that I referred to earlier, and it Above aU, there is a need to control for ethno applies equal1y to our concept of the human past centrism. For the ethnoarchaeologist, there is a as structured by natural factors and those of a kind of "double ethnocentrism" that must be more culturally constructed nature. It is the "real recognized and controlled for. First, there is the thing" that we seek to know through our achaeo ethnocentrism imposed by one's own culture and logical studies. Such knowledge requires an or personal experiences within that culture, and. ganized, controlled approach to the archaeologi second, there is the temptation to view past hu cal record (and, I would add, to the materials of man behavior in relation to the cultural categor historic archaeology as well as those of prehis ies and experiences of the culture being studied. tory). The Critical Theorists are not wrong when they Not al1 archaeologists, however, share this point out how our ideas of the past are strongly view. Right now we are seeing a surge of interest conditioned by the cultural1y and historically in subjective and intensely particularistic modes dominant assumptions of the present. Learning of archaeological interpretation, as evidenced by the language of the society being studied and the recent ethno-archaeological studies of Hod residing within that society so as to experience der (a leading proponent of this view), Paleo and understand the dominant cultural assump lithic cave art research (Conkey, 1984), and the tions of that society are both essential elements subject of Critical Theory in archaeology re- in this process of what I term "interactive ethno- 4 archaeology." It is not enough to measure and true in some quarters. But if we wish to choose control for such variables as diet, refuse and dis intelligently among these alternatives, a shared card patterns, technological materials and skills, framework for evaluating these different com settlement patterning and other similar sorts of peting ideas of the human past is needed. I am "external" forms of behavior, although I con suggesting that the opportunity and ability to sider these to be an essential part of ethnoarch choose intelligently rather than speculation, aeological field research. The ethnoarchaeologist however ingenious, logical or sincere, it may be, must also experience and control for different is a more appropriate kind of intellectual free ideas of history and the human past that arise in dom for archaeology. different cultural contexts. The philosophical objection to science as Collingwood's