Thoughts on a Method for Zooarchaeological Study of Quotidian Life

View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE

provided by Revistes Catalanes amb Accés Obert

Interpreting household practices Barcelona, 21-24 november 2007 Treballs d’Arqueologia 13 (2007): 5-27

THOUGHTS ON A METHOD FOR ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY OF QUOTIDIAN LIFE

Diane Gifford-Gonzalez

Abstract: The emerging focus on the structures and practices everyday life in archaeology allows us to envision the full range of occupations, activities, and actors involved in social and ecological maintenance and reproduction. Despite this, archaeological interpretation still tends to be framed in terms of grand narratives, in which the "story" is about the agency of large-scale processes as they play out in human existence. This paper offers some comments on these problems from the perspective of a zooarchaeologist analysis, exploring more deeply the articulation of middle-range archaeological theory to practice theory. Resumen: El creciente interés de la arqueología en las estructuras y prác- ticas cotidianas permite contemplar la amplia gama de ocupaciones, actividades y actores que participan del mantenimiento y reproducción social y ecológico. A pesar de ésto, las interpretaciones arqueológicas siguen tendiendo a estructurarse en términos de las grandes narrativas, en las cuales la narración prima los procesos a largo plazo sobre la exis- tencia humana. En este artículo se comentan estos problemas desde una perspectiva zooarqueológica, explorando con mayor profundidad la articulación de la teoría arqueológica de rango medio con la teoría de la práctica y con otras aportaciones teóricas de orden general. Resum: L’interés creixent de l’arqueologia en les estructures i pràctiques quotidianes permet la contemplació de l’ampla varietat d’ocupacions, activitats i actors que participen en el manteniment i la reproducció social i ecològica. Maltrat això, les interpretacions arqueològiques ten- deixen encara a estructurar-se en termes de processos a llarg termini sobre la existència humana. En aquest article es comenten aquests prob- lemes des d’una perspectiva zooarqueològica de nivell mig amb la teoria de la pràctica i amb altres aportacions teòriques d’ordre general.

5 Thoughts on a method for zooarchaeological study of quotidian life

Henry James repeats an incident which the writer Prosper Mérimée described, of how, while he was living with George Sand, he once opened his eyes, in the raw winter dawn, to see his companion in a dressing-gown, on her knees before the domestic hearth, a candle-stick beside her and a red madras round her head, making bravely, with her own hands the fire that was to enable her to sit down betimes to urgent pen and paper. The story represents him as having felt that the specta- cle chilled his ardor and tried his taste, her appearance unfortunate, her occupation an inconsequence, and her industry a reproof – the result of all which was a lively irritation and an early rupture (James in Shapiro (ed.) 1963:157-58). Adrienne Rich, On Lies, Secrets, and Silence, 1979

Introduction past. The dislocation of these small practices, their prevention or post- Household maintenance activities ponement, is one of the aims of ter- are intrinsically social, involving rorism, in its mission to destabilize various divisions of labor and sup- the sense of security and normalcy porting relationships among the possessed by everyday people, and members of domestic groups and thereby to discredit the power of the larger communities of which states of ensure such conditions for they are part. Moreover, only a lit- their citizens. We see about us, tle reflection will indicate that the regardless of pronouncements and small maintenance practices of grand gestures by heads of state, daily life – making the morning cup that the common person’s resist- of coffee, collecting and reading the ance to terrorism is to continue daily newspaper, or logging on to those everyday practices in the face the online version, feeding a pet, of heightened risk in doing so. feeding the children – are themselves rituals, which make our quo- This paper is an essay, in the sense tidian lives feel safe and secure. As of “un ensayo,” an attempt, to Bourdieu would have it, we struc- explore conceptual linkages within ture our new day through these archaeological method and theory. small acts that arise from the struc- My attempt here begins with my tures of everyday life as lived in our fundamental belief that archaeo-

6 Diane Gifford-Gonzalez logical interpretation must be still in the process of developing a based in a verifiable body of evi- clear understanding of how we dence from which plausible inter- evaluate the archaeological data pretations are made. By “evidence,” and interpretations are embedded I do not mean a positivist view of in arguments, that is, how and why “facts speaking for themselves,” but we believe some to be plausible and rather, as Wylie (1992) has insist- others less so. This area of inquiry ed, that arguments for the occur- has largely been overshadowed by rence of past events, everything debates over processual versus from the collapse of an economy to postprocessual theory. However, instances of spousal abuse, must be as archaeology moves onward from based upon the existence of inter- this confrontation –or in the case of pretable evidence upon which much of Europe– in parallel with it, there is some agreement among it becomes clear that, when archae- observers. ologists of any theoretical persua- sion make arguments about what By “interpretable evidence upon went on in the past, the plausibili- which there is some agreement,” I ty or “truth claims” of specific evi- mean those meanings of the evidence, is absolutely essential to the dence (counting here both inter- process. The intention of this essay pretations of objects and of pat- is to focus on such issues, with terning in data drawn from objects respect to studying households, as evidence) that most archaeolo- social relations, and gender. gists are willing to accept as strongly warranted “givens.” By It may be good to specify a bit more “plausible,” I mean commonly about my own theoretical leanings agreed upon touchstones to which and why I have felt the need to we can resort when developing draw from several theoretical and arguments that account for methodological sources. I write changes (or lack of them) over time and speak from the position of a in the human lives we wish to zooarchaeologist with strong study. This area of evaluating plau- interests in building theory and sibility pertains to what David method in my own subfield for Clarke (1973) called “archaeologi- studying social relations, including cal metaphysics.” I believe we are gender. If only because I view

7 Thoughts on a method for zooarchaeological study of quotidian life human subsistence as intrinsically pels me to view pastoralists in the social, I have long believed that ani- context of regional ecosystems and mals and their use by people must the non-negotiable demands that be viewed in a social matrix. the weather and the herd animals make upon these people. Likewise, For some thirty-five years, I have my own experience compels me to analyzed faunas from African sites see pastoral people as actors in with early pastoral livestock complex political, economic, and (Gifford et al. 1980; Gifford- ideological webs that both mediate Gonzalez 2000, 1998). I also have and clash with environmental spent time with contemporary pas- trends, and that structure their toralists, and have read widely on choices in managing their live- pastoral peoples in various set- stock, households, and social rela- tings. In the process, I have tionships. Finally, I have seen first- assessed a range of theoretical per- hand and read about how men and spectives for their utility in think- women negotiate their lives from ing about the issues that concern very different social positions in me. I have found three only partial- pastoralist groups, where age as ly compatible fields to be useful. well as gender delegates to a per- First, there is evolutionary ecology son specific rights, responsibilities, (including behavioral ecology), and limitations. which views human choices and actions over the long term as mak- Sometimes these theoretical ing sense in evolutionary terms. worlds are remarkably compatible, Second, there is structural Marxist for example, as when behavioral theory, which focuses on relations ecological and Marxist paradigms of social power, of resource control take a fundamentally economic and acquisition, of production and approach. Both share a concern distribution, on a shorter-term with the costs and benefits of time scale. Finally, there is femi- efforts humans exert to achieve nism, addressing other aspects of goals within a social context, albeit difference and power, and the viewed from very different stand- observer/interpreter’s position. points and calibrated with different currencies. Likewise, feminist My own personal experience com- and Marxist theory share preoccu-

8 Diane Gifford-Gonzalez pations with power, ideology, and historic continuities with textually the position of the viewer/investi- documented groups. I am not here gator, but their commitments suggesting new theory and sometimes diverge. These method. Rather, I am bringing into approaches occasionally contradict juxtaposition extant ones that thus each other in troublesome but far, to the best of my knowledge, interesting ways. I believe that the have not been explicitly related to friction itself is a context for defin- one another. My hope is that this ing in more detail what is needed thought-experiment might pro- to work productively with archae- voke others to consider the possi- ological materials. bilities of multiple approaches to investigating this vital area of However, when I resort to these archaeological research. bodies of theory, what is consistent is drawing perspectives and expec- Zooarchaeology and Domestic tations from them and then of Maintenance Activities assigning meaning to actual archaeological materials, with A brief note is necessary here which to confront and assess those regarding my use of the word, expectations. This process involves “zooarchaeology.” This increasing- the application of what Clarke ly favored in U.K. (Mulville and (1973) called “interpretive theory” Outram 2005), North America, and and is essential to all archaeologi- segments of Latin America cal analysis. I believe this area is (Mengoni 2004), rather than more complex than the term “mid- “archaeozoology,” to refer to the dle range theory,” which has per- archaeological study of animals haps become a bit of a catch-all cat- remains. I am most accustomed to egory, would imply. This essay use this phrase and am in agree- seeks to explore possible links in a ment with the argument, advanced system of theory and method for by other Anglophone authors, that understanding “maintenance activ- “zooarchaeology” more clearly ities” and other socially mediated implies the archaeologically activities, and for addressing the focused nature of our research with difficult problem of how to study animal remains. In any case, I will gender in the absence of cultural or use this term as interchangeable

9 Thoughts on a method for zooarchaeological study of quotidian life with the continental European register and from a very different “archaeozoology” here. perspective, feminist poet and essayist Adrienne Rich (1979), The use of animals obviously artic- addressed the ideological under- ulates with the physical and social pinnings of a view of “significant” reproduction of domestic groups history which excludes the activi- and of communities. The most ties normally assigned to women in banal and pervasive construal of Western cultures –childcare and zooarchaeology in the general maintenance activities. Archaeo- archaeological literature is that it logical frameworks that relegate deals with a kind of “natural” evi- faunal and floral evidence solely to dence, parallel to archaeobotanical “subsistence and environment” materials, pollen rain, and geologi- reveal a particular, and I would cal sediments, non-artifactual, and argue unconsciously androcentric, germane only to environment or political economy of archaeology, subsistence. According to this which refracts the depreciation of time-honored model for archaeo- such activities by Western soci- logical interpretation, shared by eties as a whole. members of culture-historic, processual, and postprocessual In reality, the anthropological liter- camps, only artifacts, architecture, ature shows that animals are both and space-use can shed light on food and, to paraphrase Lévi- social and symbolic worlds past. Strauss (1963), food for thought. However, it has been stressed by Animals nearly invariably possess several workshop participants high symbolic and economic value (Gifford-Gonzalez 1993; Montón in human societies and are the foci 2002, 2005) and by others (e. g. of much human attention and ener- Claassen 1991; Hendon 1996; Moss gy. They are either highly desired 1993), to conceptualize household as living creatures and food, or maintenance and subsistence avoided as both (Tambiah 1969). activities as outside the realm of Among human foragers, farmers, the social and the cultural is alien- pastoralists, and members of com- ates a central part of human plex societies, animals and their endeavor from society and culture. products are pivot points of con- Thirty years ago, in a very different flict as well as a major means of

10 Diane Gifford-Gonzalez mediating it. Among documented place in past social contexts from human societies, access to animals the archaeological evidence. and animal foods is intensely Although we can expect that dif- socially mediated and subject to ferential control of animals, their economic manipulation and, often, effort, and their products existed in of asymmetrical access, determined the past as it does now, specifying by age, gender, or social standing. who exercised that control is not a Ingold (1980) has delineated the simple matter of applying unifor- differences in the extension of mitarian principles. What faces us, humans’ allocative power over ani- now that we have opened up the mals, depending upon whether hitherto closed door to the kitchen they are wild, when power of allo- and houseyard, is how to write cation commences at the death of human history using these archae- the animal, or domestic, when it ological documents. The next sec- begins at the birth of the animal. tion addresses some aspects of the- Given ethnographic documenta- ory and method relevant to this tion of wide variations in the gen- endeavour. I seek to maintain a del- der of those holding allocative icate balancing act in this essay. On power over animals in both con- the one hand, I will explore ways to texts, we may imagine that in the push the limits in giving agency, past similar variability would have and perhaps gender, to persons existed. For example, among the who lived in archaeologically docu- Navajo, women own and allocate mented pasts, while at the same living herds of sheep, and among seeking to remain conservative and the Nunamiut, once the carcasses self-conscious in the application of of prey reach the residential camp, plausible “middle-range,” interpre- the senior women of households tive theory. control the distribution of their parts (Waugespack 2002). Practice Theory and Middle Range Theory: Is there a For zooarchaeologists the problem Relationship? is not whether animals are woven into human social relations in Bourdieu’s theory of practice offers important ways, but how we might archaeologists a valuable concep- obtain information about their tual tool for understanding the

11 Thoughts on a method for zooarchaeological study of quotidian life material outcomes of everyday life archaeologists that “the structures of that form the preponderance of everyday life” are flexible, subject to archaeological deposits. The con- improvisation, and symbolic renego- cept of habitus provides a way of tiations through the very practices understanding the redundancies, “set up” by the structures of prior or “patterning,” of evidence in experience (Dietler and Herbich archaeological sites and samples as 1998; Joyce and Lopiparo 2005; Stahl the outcomes of the activities of 2001). everyday life. We suppose that rep- etitions of acts, either as intention- From my point of view, two issues al, evocative gestures or as unself- emerge from this broad acceptance conscious, everyday activities, cre- of practice theory as a conceptual ate the traits “constantly recurring tool for understanding archaeolog- together” (Childe 1929: v) that ical sites and materials. These may archaeologists have long studied. be phrased as questions. First, With specific reference to the what is the relation of the view of archaeology of household and com- archaeological materials produced munity maintenance activities, by habitus and the body of theory practice theory is especially useful. normally called middle-range theo- As Hendon (1996:46) puts it: ry? Second, does the perspective on It is the practice [in Bourdieu’s … archaeological materials enabled sense of the term] of the household – by practice theory have implica- what people do as members of a tions for the construction of his- domestic group and the meaning toric narratives in archaeology? assigned to their actions – that is This section discusses the first critical to an understanding of house- question, while reserving brief hold dynamics.” An ever-growing remarks on the second for a later number of archaeological studies section. have deployed aspects of Bourdieu’s work, while remaining attentive to Middle-range theory, as defined by the dynamic nature of structure and Binford (1977, 1981); focuses on spe- agency (Joyce 2003; Lightfoot et al. cific, redundant sets of evidence 1998; Stahl and Das Dores Cruz that are considered “uniformitari- 1998). Several sophisticated archaeo- an” in the sense that they are pro- logical discussions have reminded duced by known processes which

12 Diane Gifford-Gonzalez have consistent outcomes, or “sig- Gonzalez 1991) have stressed that natures,” in many times and places. middle-range stipulations of mean- According to this perspective, mid- ing are most powerful when they dle-range theory is essential for include strong relational analogies archaeologically addressing gener- between modern “source-side” al-level research questions, because contexts (Wylie 1989) and the it permits the reliable assignment archaeological evidence. Animal of meaning to evidence. Such mean- bodies and their constituent ele- ings may implicate human activi- ments have been viewed by Binford ties, natural processes, or specific and many zooarchaeologists as emergent processes, such as “popu- supremely useful “uniformitarian lation growth.” It can certainly be materials” (e.g. Gifford 1981; Lyman argued that, before Binford’s articu- 1987) that permit us to access the lation of the distinction between deep past because they have not middle-range and general theory, altered in their physical properties archaeologists were implicitly or over many millennia. explicitly assigning meaning to patterning in archaeological evi- Middle-range theory encompasses dence that readily falls under the evidence produced by non-human heading of middle-range theory. actors and processes, such as carni- For example, many argued and vore gnawing or subaerial weather- more accepted that an increase in ing. However, the purview of mid- the number and/or size of sites per dle-range theory also includes unit time in a specific area reflects classes of evidence produced by population growth. However, people that are certainly the prod- explicit recognition and construc- ucts of habitus. To give a zooar- tion of middle-range theory has chaeological example, Binford’s permitted a more critical evalua- detailed descriptions of Nunamiut tion of the “terms of engagement” of butchery and meal preparation in archaeological data with such gen- Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology (1978) eralizations, as well as specification and Bones: Ancient Men and Modern of the relative strength of the inter- Myths (1981), describe repetitive pretive linkages. actions which are in part driven by regularities in the anatomy of the Several researchers (e.g. Gifford- prey species but which are also

13 Thoughts on a method for zooarchaeological study of quotidian life embedded in Nunamiut expecta- Although all practice is culturally tions and practices of everyday life. and psychologically embedded, Thus, these are simultaneously some practices are more deter- functionally and culturally struc- mined by the exigencies of the tured activities. materials than others. Some materials – clays, metal ores, animal Herein, I believe, is a linkage bodies, plant structures, etc. - between these two disparately require specific ranges and derived types of theory. Despite the sequences of handling to produce widely different notions of agency desired outcomes. These determi- in processual and postprocessual native relationships of practice – writings, the value of analogical sets when materials dictate human is accepted, as much in Shanks and action to one extent or another, Hodder’s (1995) “universal material and sometimes to a specifiable processes” as in Binford’s (e.g. 1981) degree –are important because “uniformitarian relationships,” but they permit us to delimit other out- these specific utility of these has sel- comes of habitual practice which dom been clearly articulated in rela- are not, in any obvious way, driven tion to specific arguments. It is fair by the same “uniformitarian” con- to say that the plausible meanings straints. In the process, what we assigned in middle-range theory, the can plausibly know about the deep sequences of actions laid out in past – the challenges any human descriptions of chaînes opératoires being would face in handling cer- (Lemonnier 1986), in Schiffer’s tain materials, regardless of the (1987) “beha-vioral chains” or in the details how they rise to those chal- analyses of sequences of actions at a lenges – allow us to construct a greater temporal and landscape more densely textured “lived past” scale, chaînes de travail (Joyce & (cf. Stahl 2001:19-40). Lopiparo 2005) are the “anchor points” that allow us explore the One might, for example, seek to more subjective aspects of cultural- more closely specify the material ly specific practices we encounter parameters of each aspect of culi- archaeologically. nary practices, as outlined by Montón (2005), to specify the Why are these “anchor points”? “material worlds” inhabited by per-

14 Diane Gifford-Gonzalez sons engaged in the procurement, (Wylie 1985). Interpretation is processing, preparation, preserva- thus not dictated by uniformitarian tion, and presentation of foods. relationships, it is enabled by them. While no one can ever pretend to The understanding that some such inhabit a culturally mediated relations are the enacted outcomes world identical to that of ancient of everyday practice further enrich- persons, some of the material con- es our interpretation. siderations of the everyday lives they experienced can be appreciat- From such a standpoint, as Joyce ed in some detail. This opens our and Lopiparo (2005:369) state, eyes to the possible trade-offs that “Recording and analysis [of archae- members of households must have ological materials] are transformed had to make in their quotidian from a description of products of existence, between satisfying basic unexamined action to sequences of demands of the human body, of action that can be recognized as animals and plants under manage- traditional or innovative, inten- ment, and of materials manipulat- tional or unreflective.” Lacking the ed, on the one hand, and personal direct historic analogies mobilized or corporate social projects requir- by Joyce and Lopiparo in their ing an investment of energy and Maya research, many archaeolo- time, on the other. gists may feel themselves to be a considerable distance from the Figure 1 attempts to portray in sim- engagements with material and ple form the “interpretive space” meanings. However, I believe that enriched by inferences based upon the synthetic study of the Vallès such relational analogies. The region of Catalonia by Colomer et denser such certifiably “middle- al. (1998) represents a permutation range” sets of analogical relation- of the strategy advocated here, in ships are, the richer is our sense of which various forms of evidence the practical environment in which are first analyzed from a chaîne past persons experienced their opératoire perspective, then moni- lives. Equipped with a web of such tored over time, when certain analogic relationships, we mobilize classes of evidence (settlements, bodies theory to explore the possi- levels of agricultural production) bilities of the “interpretive space” are seen to change radically, while

15 Thoughts on a method for zooarchaeological study of quotidian life others remain consistent over long weaving in her discussion, is either spans of time from Early Bronze “timeless” in its gender associa- Age to Early Iron Age times. These tions or always in the same struc- diachronic trends are then inter- tural position in a political econo- preted eith an approach that incor- my. As Brumfiel elegantly demon- porates aspects of theories of pro- strates, the physical act of produ- duction and gender. cing cloth has varied historically in terms of the relation of weavers to I stress that I am not advocating economic and political power, and the use of the formal characteris- weavers have used it differently in tics of productive activities to gen- response to the varied demands of eralize about their social and eco- those structural contexts. nomic associations, which would be a misuse of analogy. As has been To sum up, middle-range theory stressed by Brumfiel (2006), it is includes some types of evidence entirely unwarranted to assume that can be assumed to also fall that a given activity, Mesoamerican within the realm of habitus. The

Fig. 1. Schematic showing the relationship of “uniformitarian” analogical materials and processes to the “interpretive space” of the study of the past, given present knowledge of material properties, chaînes opératoires, and other forms of relational analogies.

16 Diane Gifford-Gonzalez advantage that such “uniformitari- Modeling the relationship between an” properties offer to archaeolo- material culture and social construc- gists is simply that they help us tion, however, represents the most think creatively about the choices serious challenge for archaeology. that past people would have had to Where should we look for analogies make in coping with the demands to help us interpret out archaeologi- of certain materials as they handled cal remains? Archaeologists able to them and ask further questions of draw on visual imagery or historical- the evidence. What kinds of ener- ly specific written documentation getic demands, human, animal, have been readiest to talk about other, does fabrication or use of a social actors such as male and female, specific material impose? How adult and child, and to interpret the many person-hours are needed? cultural system of value that informs Can the energy and time invested domestic relations… The benefits of be broken up into installments, or these sources are not unalloyed, how- must they all be invested at one ever, and must not discourage time? Is there a better or worse archaeologists from dealing with time of the year to do so? Is there an issues of practice and meaning. age below which persons cannot reliably or safely accomplish these The richest and most detailed tasks? These are only a few of many archaeological studies of gender questions that implicate age, gen- have indeed been carried out with- der, the timing and social organiza- in a “direct historic” context, in tion of labor, and so forth, which which ethnographic, ethnohistoric, follow from thinking through or other textual sources provide a chaînes opératoires. rich web of associations of children, women, men, and, occasion- The Problem of Studying Gender ally, other genders, such as among in Deeper Time the Chumash Indians (e.g. Hollimon 1995) with specific social Archaeologists interested in the roles and occupations. Brumfiel’s study of gender in the lived past (e.g. 1991) elegant study of changes encounter special challenges in the in the nature of gendered work, use of analogy. As Hendon (1996: and its impacts of household activ- 56-57) has put it: ities, in Huexotla under Aztec rule

17 Thoughts on a method for zooarchaeological study of quotidian life rests upon Spanish-sponsored after twenty years’ gender research accounts of such gendered labor, in archaeology, some “archaeology written only a century after the of women” has produced equally Aztec takeover of this outlying unjustified associations of women area. Stahl’s (2001) analysis with certain occupations, activi- changes in the lives of women and ties, and social roles as produced men in the Banda chieftancy, as by earlier and equally suspect, this polity was affected first by the androcentric interpretations. Asante kingdom, and then by Assuming that women were British colonial rule, makes artful always potters, weavers, and so use of evidence to demonstrate forth flies in the face of a key pre- shifts in gender roles yet relies on cept of feminist theory: gender is many continuities of practice to social constructed and, as such, it make such well-grounded argu- is nearly infinitely mutable. This ments for social change (Stahl & point was also raised by Díaz- Das Dores Cruz 1998). Likewise, Andreu (2005) concerning the archaeologists of the southwestern assignment of tasks and activities United States have used colonial to specific genders. Having just and ethnographic sources to appre- returned from a visit to cousins in a hend what was different in ancient small village in northern Spain, it is Pueblo an gender relations, versus all the more clear to me that “main- those in the documented past tenance activities” are assigned to (Crown 2000; Habicht-Mauche both genders in a complex way in 2000). “traditional” settings. The common association of household mainte- For those of us dealing with times nance with women may be more beyond the reach of ethnography, the product of a 20th Century historic sources, visual representa- European and American view of tions, and other sources of meaning both “households” and gender roles for archaeological sites and materi- than a realistic one to impose on als, the problem is how to explore the past. gender without falling into the trap of essentializing gendered social Archaeologists who accept that all roles and everyday practices. societies of anatomically modern Conkey and Gero (1997) note that, humans structure their social lives

18 Diane Gifford-Gonzalez by age and gender but who reject female persons, is evolutionary and gender essentialism, face a pro- reproductive ecology. Simply be- found challenge. Rather than cause archaeologists who take a assume that any activity, even the constructionist view of gender find cooking of daily meals, is an intrin- some reductionist behavioral eco- sic property of one gender, we logical “explanations,” as applied by must treat any such assertion as a archaeological colleagues to be dis- research question to be studied. tasteful, they should not ignore the The problem is how to proceed sys- rich potential of the original stud- tematically, with the aim, to para- ies. Many such studies permit phrase Sarah Milledge Nelson archaeologists to consider factors (1998:287), not of “finding women” affecting women’s lives, such as the but rather of “discussing gender.” positive and negative sides of In this connection, the approach increasing numbers of children on that has been variously called “con- childcare, time allocation, and work textual” (Hodder 1986), epistemo- schedules in different of subsis- logical “tacking” (Wylie 1993, tence economies (e.g. Bird & Bird 1989), “multiple frames of refer- 2005, 2000; Homewood & Rogers ence” (Binford 2001, 1987), or sim- 1991; Kramer 2004; Vitzthum 1994; ply, “multiple independent lines of Wienpahl 1984). Because the day evidence” (Gifford-Gonzalez 1991; has twenty-four hours, because Lyman 1994) may be of special util- specific tasks (viz. chaîne opératoire) ity. To frame this as a question, are take time, because a pregnancy there lines of evidence that, inde- lasts nine months, because children pendently of one another, point to need a minimal level of nutrition to similar associations of a gender grow and thrive, because certain with an activity? Rather than types of food can only be consumed assume these associations, we if intensively processed and cooked, must stipulate them and make an this literature on workload, repro- evidence-based argument. duction, and household constitu- tion can provide archaeologists A major but largely untapped with at least general uniformitarian source of “middle-range” or unifor- parameters for studying the lives of mitarian lines of evidence pertai- children, women, and men in past ning to gender, and especially to times.

19 Thoughts on a method for zooarchaeological study of quotidian life

My advocacy that archaeologists ward or vice-versa. Such “multi- seriously consider this literature scalar” approaches acknowledge should in no way be interpreted as that in human affairs, causality - a statement that, for women, “biol- both that which supports continu- ogy is destiny.” The ethnographic ity in practices and that which and historical literature show that encourages change- may reside at women negotiate the physiological any of several levels of scale (Joyce constraints of childbearing and & Lopiparo 2005; Lightfoot et al. child-rearing quite variably in dif- 1998). Toward the end of his life, ferent societies, in concert with a James Deetz noted that only by wider circle of cooperating per- studying a second colonial enter- sons. These arrangements as well prise in South Africa, separated by as energetic and workload time as well as space from the demands, must be appreciated to North American colonies he had construct textured narratives of initially researched, did he appre- change or continuity at the house- hend the role of global-scale hold and community level. processes in both (Deetz & Scott 1995). Agency, Narrative Structure, and an Archaeology of Everyday Life A metaphysical question, in the sense of David Clarke’s (1973) use Having raised a number of issues of of the term, emerges: what consti- method and theory already, I will tutes a satisfying narrative, once only lightly touch on one final topic one acknowledges that so much of that I must confess is not an area of the archaeological evidence is con- expertise for me, but one of consid- stituted by repeated acts of quotid- erable concern. This are the impli- ian living? In developing our multi- cations of notions of agency scalar narratives, does one skip grounded in practice theory for over the sameness and look for dis- writing archaeological narratives. junctures, because that is what his- As stressed by Joyce and Lopiparo tory has been about, traditionally? (2005), many archaeological narra- Do we feature the micro-scale tives now focus at multiple scales, account of past lives and underplay beginning with the individual or the effects of regional or global- the household and moving out- scale processes on local lives? Does

20 Diane Gifford-Gonzalez one privilege, as most archaeolo- meals and keeping the household gists have previously, a simplified abound, and sometimes architec- narrative of “prime movers,” at the ture, as well. However, even the most general level, processes such term “household” should be quali- as climate change or commodity fied and used with circumspection market collapse, or –in the case of (cf. Hendon 1996; Wilk 1989; some postprocessual narratives– Yanagisako 1979). Likewise, facile enduring cultural mindsets that linking of specific tasks with age work themselves time human and gender classes may say more agents through long spans of time? about our own cultural context Is history as qualified in our pres- than it does about that of the ent archaeological analyses still ancient people studied. Archaeo- about large-scale causes? Is it logists with lacking direct historic “thick description” at the local analogies drawn from documen- level? What is its narrative struc- tary evidence, representations, and ture? What does “continuity” in the like confront special chal- material practices mean? Is it lenges, but they are also usually actively produced or unconsciously more aware of the dangers of over- enacted? Certainly, one probably extended and simplistic formal does not wish to write narratives analogies. The problem of imputing that resemble Andy Warhol’s film gender to specific activities, of the Empire State Building chaínes opératoires, or social roles through twenty-four hours, the is especially difficult in situations film itself being twenty-four hours that lack cultural continuities with long. However, how do we sort out documented groups. everyday practice and narrative? I have argued that the conceptual Conclusion and methodological tools exist for approaching such challenges in the On the surface, the study of main- study of social relations in the past. tenance activities appears to be a I have advocated constructing straightforward enterprise. research frameworks that Archaeological animal bones, plant acknowledge that humans’ mainte- remains, hearths, broken pots, dis- nance activities are structured carded tools for processing daily within habitual yet variable prac-

21 Thoughts on a method for zooarchaeological study of quotidian life tices, and that some of these As a final point, I suggest that, in involve materials that respond to attending to the role and study of manipulation in uniformitarian maintenance activities, it is well to ways. Moreover, I have endorsed recall the other part of Braudel’s the view that aspects of human book title, “le possible et l’impossi- physiology structure human action ble.” By this, and in contrast to but that, far from biology uniform- Braudel’s meaning, I refer to ly dictating destiny, these con- archaeologists and their projects. straints are negotiated variably in When exploring the possibilities of different societies. When prac- studying the lived past, we must ticed from a critically self-con- honestly accept “the limits of the scious viewpoint, I think the prac- possible” with archaeological data. tices outlined here can be consid- I do not advocate a defeatist posi- ered a form of the archaeological tion, but rather echo the point that hermeneutic advocated by Hodder Bruce Trigger raised in several (1991). The more or less uniformi- chapters of his recent book (2006): tarian aspects of materials and if the information needed to biology serve as the guarantors of answer a certain question is lack- the “guarded objectivity” Hodder ing, archaeologists should admit delineates as part of the self-con- the problem and move on to other scious process of interpretation. questions that they can answer. As This process is precisely the terrain we approach these challenges, may described by Wylie in her 1992 dis- we have the insight and the cussion of the role of “evidential courage to do so. constraints” in archaeological interpretation. Acknowledgments

I have also suggested that, as It was an honor to be asked to par- archaeologists work through these ticipate in a conversation among issues, they attend to the implica- distinguished scholars of several tions of approaches focused on “the intellectual traditions in the work- structures of everyday life” shop, “Interpreting household (Braudel 1981) for the nature of his- pracices: reflections on the social torical narrative, as has Stahl (1999 and cultural roles of maintenance and 2001). activities,” and I wish to thank the

22 Diane Gifford-Gonzalez organizers of the Sandra Montón, BINFORD, L.R. 2001. Constructing Paloma González Marcén, and Frames of Reference: An Analytical Marina Picazo, as well as the spon- Method for Archaeological Theory sors of the event for their generous Building Using Hunter-Gatherer and invitation. I thank as well all par- Environmental Data Sets. Berkeley: ticipants for a fascinating and University of California Press. enjoyable set of sessions. I am espe- BIRD, D.W. & BIRD, R.B. 2000. cially grateful to Liz Brumfiel for The ethnoarchaeology of juve- suggesting that I read her paper on nile foragers: shellfishing strate- weaving and also Marga Sánchez gies among Meriam children Romero for sending me her articles (Eastern Torres Strait). Journal of and book, Arqueología y Género, after Anthropological Archaeology 19: the conference. 461-76. BIRD, D.W. & BIRD, R.B. (ed.) References Cited 2005. Martu children’s hunting strategies in the Western BINFORD, L.R. 1977. For Theory Desert, Australia. In Hunter-gath- Building in Archaeology: Essays on erer Child-hoods: Evolutionary, Faunal Remains, Aquatic Resources, Developmental, & Cultural Spatial Analysis, and Systemic Perspectives: 129-46. New Bruns- Modeling. New York: Academic wick, N.J, Aldine Transaction. Press. BRAUDEL, F. 1981. The Structures of BINFORD, L.R. 1978. Nunamiut Everyday Life: The Limits of the Ethnoarchaeology. New York: Possible. New York: Harper & Academic Press. Row. BINFORD, L.R. 1981. Bones: Ancient BRUMFIEL, E.M. 1991. Weaving Men and Modern Myths. New York: and cooking: women’s produc- Academic Press. tion in Aztec Mexico. In BINFORD, L.R. 1987. Researching Engendering Archaeology: Women ambiguity: frames of reference and Prehis-tory: 224-51. Oxford, and site structure. In (ed.) Blackwell. Method and Theory for Area BRUMFIEL, E.M. 2006. Cloth, Research. An Ethnoarchaeological gender, continuity, and change: Approach: 448-512. New York: fabricating unity in anthropolo- Columbia University Press. gy. American Anthropologist

23 Thoughts on a method for zooarchaeological study of quotidian life

108:862-77. Society Papers 79:110-15. CLAASSEN, C.P. 1991. Gender, DÍAZ-ANDREU, M. 2005. Género shellfishing, and the Shell y arqueología: una nueva sínte- Mound Archaic. In Engendering sis. In Arqueología y Género: 13-51. Archaeology: Women and Universidad de Granada. Prehistory:276-300. Oxford, DIETLER, M. & HERBICH, I. Blackwell. 1998. Habitus, techniques, style: CLARKE, D.L. 1973. Archaeology: an integrated approach to the loss of innocence. Antiquity 47: 6- social understanding of material 18. culture and boundaries. In The COLOMER, L.; GONZÁLEZ, P. & Archaeology of Social Boundaries: MONTÓN, S. 1998. 232-63. Washington, D.C: Maintenance activities, techno- Smithsonian Institution Press. logical knowledge and con- GIFFORD, D.P. 1981. Taphonomy sumption patterns: a view of and paleoecology: A critical northeast Iberia (2000-500 Cal review of archaeology’s sister BC). Journal of Mediterranean disciplines. In Advances in Archaeology 11:53-80. Archaeological Method and Theory: CONKEY, M.W. & GERO, J.M. 365-438. San Francisco: 1997. Programme to practice: Academic Press. gender and feminism in archae- GIFFORD, D.P., ISAAC, G.L., et al. ology. Annual Review of 1980. Evidence for predation Anthropology 26:411-37. and pastoralism at Prolonged CROWN, P.L. (ed.) 2000. Women Drift, a Pastoral Neolithic site in and Men in the Prehispanic Kenya. Azania 15:57-108. Southwest: Labor, Power & Prestige. GIFFORD-GONZALEZ, D. 1991. Santa Fe, NM: School of Bones are not enough: ana- American Research Press. logues, knowledge, and inter- DEETZ, J. & SCOTT, P. 1995. pretive strategies in zooarchae- Documents, historiography, and ology. Journal of Anthropological material culture in historical Archaeology 10:215-54. archaeology. The Written and GIFFORD-GONZALEZ, D. 1993. the Wrought: Complementary Gaps in zooarchaeological Sources in Historical Anthropo- analyses of butchery. Is gender logy. Kroeber Anthropological an issue? In Bones to Behavior:

24 Diane Gifford-Gonzalez

Ethnoarchaeological and Experimen- American Antiquity 56: 7-18. tal Contributions to the Interpreta- HOLLIMON, S.E. 1995. Gender in the tion of Faunal Remains:181-99. archaeological record of the Santa Carbondale: Southern Illinois Barbara Channel area. California. University Press. HOMEWOOD, K.M. & ROGERS, GIFFORD-GONZALEZ, D. 1998. W.A. 1991. Maasailand Ecology. Early pastoralists in East Africa: Pastoralist Development and Wildlife ecological and social dimen- Conservation in Ngorongoro, sions. Journal of Anthropological Tanzania. Cambridge University Archaeology 17: 166-200. Press. GIFFORD-GONZALEZ, D. 2000. INGOLD, T. 1980. Hunters, Animal disease challenges to the Pastoralists, and Ranchers. emergence of pastoralism in Cambridge University Press. sub-Saharan Africa. African JOYCE, R.A. 2003. Making some- Archaeologi-cal Review 18: 95-139. thing of herself: embodiment in HABICHT-MAUCHE, J.A. 2000. life and death at Playa de los Pottery, food, hides, and Muertos, Honduras. Cambridge women: labor, production, and Archaeological Journal 13: 248-61. exchange across the protohis- JOYCE, R.A. & LOPIPARO, J. toric Plains-Pueblo frontier. In 2005. PostScript: doing agency Archaeology of Regional Interaction: in archaeology. Journal of Religion, Warfare, and Exchange Archaeological Method and Theory across the American Southwest and 12: 1072-5369. Beyond. Tempe: 209-231. KRAMER, K.L. 2004. Reconside- HENDON, J.A. 1996. Archaeolo- ring the cost of childbearing: the gical approaches to the organi- timing of children’s helping zation of domestic labor: house- behavior across the life cycle of hold practice and domestic rela- Maya families. Research in tions. Annual Review of Economic Anthropology 23:335-53. Anthropology 25: 45-63. LEMONNIER, P. 1986. The study HODDER, I. 1986. Reading the Past. of material culture today: Cambridge: Cambridge Toward an anthropology of University Press. technical systems. Journal of HODDER, I. 1991. Interpretive Anthropological Archaeology 5: 147- archaeology and its role. 86.

25 Thoughts on a method for zooarchaeological study of quotidian life

LÉVI-STRAUSS, C. 1963. Totemism. MOSS, M.L. 1993. Shellfish, gender, Boston: Beacon Press. and status on the Northwest LIGHTFOOT, K.G.; MARTINEZ, Coast: reconciling archaeologi- A. & SCHIFF, A.M. 1998. Daily cal, ethnographic, and ethnohis- practice and material culture in torical records. American pluralistic social settings: an Anthropologist 95: 631-52. archaeological study of culture MULVILLE, J. & OUTRAM, A. change and persistence from (eds.) 2005. The Zooarchaeology of Fort Ross, California. American Fats, Oils, Milk and Dairying. Antiquity 63:199-222. Proceedings of the 9th LYMAN, R.L. 1987. Zooarchaeo- Conference of the International logy and taphonomy: a general Council of Archaeozoology, consideration. Journal of Durham, August, 2002. Oxford: Ethnobiology 7: 93-117. Oxbow Books. LYMAN, R.L. 1994. Vertebrate NELSON, S.M. 1998. Reflections Taphonomy. Cambridge on gender studies in African and University Press. Asian archaeology. In Gender in MENGONI GOÑALONS, G.L. African Prehistory: 285-294. 2004. Introduction: An (ed.). Walnut Creek: AltaMira overview of South American Press. zooarchaeology. In Zooarchaeolo- RICH, A. 1979. On Lies, Secrets, and gy of South America: 1-9. Oxford: Silence. Selected Prose 1966-1978. BAR International Series. New York: Norton. MONTÓN, S. 2002. Cooking in SCHIFFER, M.B. 1987. Formation zooarchaeology: is this issue Processes of the Archaeological still raw? In Consuming Passions Record. Albuquerque, NM: and Patterns of Consumption: 7-15. University of New Mexico (ed.). Cambridge: McDonald Press. Institute for Archaeological SHANKS, M. & HODDER, I. 1995. Research. Processual, postprocessual, and MONTÓN, S. 2005. Las prácticas interpretive archaeologies. In de alimentación: cocina y arque- Interpreting archaeology: finding ología. In Arqueología y Género: meaning in the past: 3-33. (ed.). 158-175. Universidad de New York, Routledge. Granada. STAHL, A.B. 1999. Perceiving vari-

26 Diane Gifford-Gonzalez

ability in time and space: the New York Academy of Sciences. evolutionary mapping of African WAUGESPACK, N. 2002. Caribou societies. In Beyond Chiefdoms: sharing and storage: refitting Pathways to Complexity in Africa: the Palagana Site. Journal of 39-55. Cambridge University Anthropological Archaeology Press. 21:396-417. STAHL, A.B. 2001. Making History in WIENPAHL, J. 1984. Women’s Banda. Cambridge University roles in livestock production Press. among the Turkana of Kenya. STAHL, A.B. & DAS DORES Research in Economic Anthropology CRUZ, M. 1998. Men and 6: 193-215. women in a market economy: WILK, R.R. (ed.) 1989. Household gender and craft production in Economy: Reconsidering the West-Central Ghana c 1775- Domestic Mode of Production. 1995. In Gender in African Boulder: Westview Press. Prehistory: 205-226. Walnut WYLIE, A. 1985. The reaction Creek: CA, AltaMira Press. against analogy. Advances in TAMBIAH, S. J. 1969. Animals are Archaeological Method and Theory 8: good to think and good to pro- 63-111. hibit. Ethnology 8:423-59. WYLIE, A. 1989. Archaeological TRIGGER, B.G. 2006. A History of cables and tacking: the implica- Archaeological Thought. tions for practice for Bernstein’s Cambridge University Press. “Options beyond objectivism WYLIE, A. 1992. The interplay of and relativism”. Philosophy of evidential constraints and polit- Social Science 19: 1-18. ical interests: recent archaeolog- WYLIE, A. 1993. A proliferation of ical research on gender. American new archaeologies. In Archaeolo- Anthropologist 57:15-35. gical Theory: Who Sets the Agenda: VITZTHUM, V. 1994. Causes and 20-26. Cambridge University consequences of heterogeneity Press. in infant feeding practices YANAGISAKO, S.J. 1979. Family among indigenous Andean and household: the analysis of women. In Human Reproductive domestic groups. Annual Review Ecology: Interactions of Environment, of Anthropology 8:61-205. Fertility, and Behavior: 221-224.