THE PRESENT PAST: An Introduction to Anthropology for Archaeologists

240 Pages·2013·23.32 MB·English

by  Ian Hodder

THE
A
CLASSIC TEXT WITH A NEW INTRODUCTION AND
RECOMMENDED READING LIST FROM PROFESSOR IAN HODDER
--1 PRE ENT
PROVIDES A CLEAR INSIGHT INTO ANTHROPOLOGY FOR
I
ARCHAEOLOGISTS, EMPHASISING THE NEED FOR A
m
HUMANISTIC VIEW OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD
PA T
DETAILS THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSIGHTS WHICH MAY BE lJ
GAINED THROUGH A DETAILED HISTORICAL AND CONTEXTUAL
]J
UNDERSTANDING OF PRESENT DAY SOCIETIES
m
AN INTRODUCTION TO ANTHROPOLOGY
INCLUDES UP TO DATE BIBLIOGRAPHY OF (J)
m FOR ARCHAEOLOGISTS
RECOMMENDED NEW WORKS WITHIN THE AREA.
Z
This updated edition of Professor Ian Hodder's original and
--1
classic work on the role which anthropology must play in the
interpretation of the archaeological record.
lJ
»
PROFESSOR IAN HODDER is a Bristol born British archaeologist
who was a pioneer of post-processual archaeology, (j)
emphasising the social dimensions of archaeological
--1
interpretations, an approach which has heavily influenced
both his students and his own work since the 1980s. Hodder
also conducted ethnoarchaeological field research in East
Africa where he explored the social roles of material culture in
modern societies. Ian Hodder now works in the US where
archaeology and anthropology hold a close relationship. He
has held his position in the Department of Social
»
Anthropology at Stanford University since 1999 where he is
z
Dunlevie Family Professor.
I
o
o
1'r'l""
o
m
::IJ
.,...-
UK £ 1 2.99 9 781781591727 Jacket Design: IAN HODDER
us $19.95 www pen-and-sword (0 uk Dominic Allen ,.......-
THE PRESENT PAST
AN INTRODUCTION TO
ANTHROPOLOGY FOR ARCHAEOLOGISTS
Ian Hodder
For the joy of little Greg
First publishedin GreatBritainin 1982by
B.T. BatsfordLtd
Reprintedin thisformat in 2012by
PEN& SWORDARCHAEOLOGY
animprintof
Pen &SwordBooksLtd
47Church Street
Barnsley
SouthYorkshire S702AS
Copyright© Ian Hodder, 1982,2012
ISBN978 1781591727
Theright ofIan Hodderto be identified asauthorofthiswork has been
asserted byhim inaccordancewith the Copyright,DesignsandPatentsAct
1988
A CIPcatalogue recordfor this book isavailablefrom the British Library
Allrights reserved. No partofthis bookmaybe reproducedor transmittedin
any form or by any means, electronic or mechanicalincludingphotocopying,
recordingor by any information storage andretrieval system, without
permissionfrom the Publisherin writing.
Printedandboundin Englandby CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CRo4yy
Pen &SwordBooks Ltdincorporates theimprints of
Pen & SwordAviation, Pen & Sword FamilyHistory, Pen & Sword Maritime,
Pen &SwordMilitary, Pen &SwordDiscovery,Wharncliffe Local History,
Wharncliffe True Crime, Wharncliffe Transport, Pen & Sword Select,
Pen &SwordMilitaryClassics, Leo Cooper, RememberWhen,
The Praetorian Press, SeaforthPublishingand Frontline Publishing
Fora completelistofPen & Swordtitlesplease contact
PEN& SWORD BOOKS LIMITED
47Church Street, Barnsley, SouthYorkshire, S702AS,England
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: www.pen-and-sword.co.uk
Contents
AcknowledgeDlents 4
ListofIllustrations 5
Introduction 7
Preface 10
1 Theuse of analogy 11
Problemswith analogies 12 The properuse ofanalogy 16 Context 24
Conclusion 27
2 Ethnoarchaeology 28
Relationswith experimentalapproaches in archaeology 29 Historyofthe use of
ethnographicanalogies in archaeology 31 Ethnoarchaeologicalfieldmethods 41
3 TheforDlation ofthe archaeologicalrecord 47
Post-deposition 47 Deposition 56 Conclusion 65
4 Technologyandproduction 68
Formalanalogies 68 Relational analogies basedon naturalprocesses 72 Cross
culturalrelationships85 Relational analogiesand culturalcontext 89 Conclusion 92
5 Subsistence strategies 93
Hunters and gatherers 93 Pastoralists 104Agriculturalists t06 Bones and
seeds III Conclusion 113
6 Socialorganisation 117
Settlement 117 Burial 139 Exchange 146 Levelsofsocietal complexity 152
Conclusion 157
7 Ritual 159
Conclusion 171
8 Art, decorationandstyle 173
Art 173 Decoration 182 Style 191 Conclusion 195
9 Lookingat ourselves 197
10 Conclusion: archaeologicalanthropology 210
Interpretingthe past 210 Atheoryof material culture 212
Bibliography 217
Index 233
Acknowledgements
Thefollowingpublishers are acknowledgedforpermission to reproduce
the illustrations appearingin thisbook.
Academic Press:fig.22from SteensbergA. 1980NewGuineagardens.
George Allen andUnwin: fig.41cfrom HeyerdahlT. and Ferdon E.N.
(eds) 1961ArchaeologyofEasterIsland. Volume I.
Athlone Press:fig.41dfrom EvansJ.D. 1971 Theprehistoricantiquitiesofthe
MalteseIslands:asurvey.
Barrie andJenkins: figs35,36 and37from RapoportA.(ed.)1969Shelter
andSociety,
Cambridge UniversityPress:fig.29from HughJones C. 1979From the
milkriver.
ChapmanandHall Ltd.: fig.16from ClarkJ.G.D. 1952 PrehistoricEurope:
theeconomicbasis.
Jonathan Cape: fig.41bfrom RenfrewA.C. Before Civilisation. The
radiocarbon revolution andprehistoricEurope.
Hutchinson: fig.39bfrom PhillipsP. 1975 EarlYfarmers ofWest
Mediterranean Europe.
InternationalAfrican Institute: figs33and34from AfricaVolume50.
InternationalLouis Leakey MemorialInstituteforAfrican Prehistory:
fig.21 from Leakey R.E. and OgotB.A.(eds) 1980Proceedingsofthe8th
Panafrican CongressofPrehistory andQyaternary Studies.
KroeberAnthropological Society:fig.II from KroeberAnthropological
SocietyPapers, Volume 37.
MichiganDiscussionsinAnthropology: fig.28from SmileyF.E. et al
(eds)Ig80 Thearchaeologicalcorrelatesofhuntergatherer.
Prehistoric Society:from the ProceedingsqfthePrehistoricSociety, figsza and
3afrom Volume 6,fig.27from Volume5,fig.3from Volume 37,fig.5
from Volume 32,fig.40from Volume44.
Prentice Hall: fig.41afrom Sahlins M.D. 1968Tribesmen.
Rex Features Ltd.: fig.47from York P. 1980Style Wars.
SocietyofAntiquaries: fig.3gcfrom Antiquariesjournal, Volume 51.
Thames andHudson: fig.ra from MegawJ.V.R. (ed.)1976Toillustrate
themonuments; figs5and 6from WilleyG.R. and SabloffJ.A. 1974A
historyofAmericanArchaeology; figs42and43from ClarkJ.G.D. 1967The
StoneAgehunters.
Iwishalsoto thankFrancoisefor her help in surveying the relevant
literature andfor heradvice. Parts ofthe typescriptfor thisbook were
producedwhile avisitingProfessor at the Van GiffenInstitute ofPre
andProto-historyofthe University ofAmsterdam, andmy debt to the
patience andgenerosity ofthe members ofthatInstituteiswarmly
acknowledged.
The illustrations
page
Archaeologicalandethnographic stone axes 12-13
2 Circles ofpost-holes androundhouses 15
3 The interpretationoffour-post arrangements asgranaries 17
4 Relationship between computersimulation,
experimentalarchaeologyandethnoarchaeology 3°
5 Burialceremonyofsouth-easternAmericanIndians 36
6 MajorJohnWesley Powell consultingan Indian,
nearthe Grand Canyon 37
7 Hutcollapse in Baringo district, Kenya 48-9
8 Pullingout posts in Mbundavillage, western Zambia 5°
9 Mudwall decay in Ghana 51
10 Pitsin various stages ofinfill,western Zambia 52-3
II Disposalofbones by scavengers andnaturalagencies 55
12 Interiorofabandonedhut, Baringo districtofKenya 57
13 Abrokenpotused to collect rainwater, from western
Zambia 57
14 Gypsy encampmentin east ofEngland 63
15 Interior oftwo Mesakin Nubacompoundswhere
dirtandrefuse are allowed 66
16 Clark's comparisonofwooden arrowheads 69
17 Differenttypes ofarrowheads, used by Lozi groups
in western Zambia 69
18 Iron age artifacts termed 'weavingcombs' 70
19 Haircombfrom Kenya 71
20 Makingclaypots in Baringo district, Kenya 73-7
21 Ethnographic and archaeological evidence ofiron smelting 78
22 Stone axesfrom contemporaryNew Guineaand
NeolithicDenmark 80
23 House constructionin Baringo district, Kenya 81-4
24 Njemps house in Baringo district, Kenya 85
25 Contemporaryartifacts from Baringo district, Kenya 87
26 Uniform artifacts ofthe Tugen, Baringo area, Kenya 89
27 Typical camps andhouse types among
Wikmunkan tribe, Australia 98-9
28 Wikmunkan seasonaluse ofthe environment 102-3
29 Pira-paranalong house 115
Differentstructuresbasedon posts in a square 118-9
3°
31 Granaries aroundedge ofLozi village, western Zambia 121
32 Pots producedby womenin Lozi village, western
Zambia 129-31
33 Symbolicdimensions ofthe Swazi homestead
34 SchematicsummaryofSwazi symbolic dimensions
35 The Pueblo
36 The Hogan
37 Schematic depiction ofstructuraldifferences
betweenHogan andPueblo 138
38 Axesfrom mainquarriesin New GuineaHighlands 148-9
39 Artifacts andbehaviourtermed 'ritual' by archaeologists 160-3
40 Neolithic causewayed-camp in east England 165
41 EasterIslandasan analogyfor prehistoric Europe 168-70
42 Palaeolithic cave paintingfrom Ariege 175
43 Bisonfrom Ariege 177
44 Historicalanalogyfor a rock paintingin SouthAfrica 180-1
45 Examples ofNubadecoration 186-8
46 Childplay in refuse 200-1
47 JohnnyRotten 205
Jacketillustration
ModernBaka potterymanufacture in Western
Equatoria. The decorationismade with the broken
ends ofstraws andiscarriedout priorto completing
the lip ofthe pot. Allthe objects aroundthe potterare
used in the pottingprocesses. (Reproducedby kind
permissionofDavidPhillipson, Museum of
ArchaeologyandAnthropology, Cambridge)
Introduction
Ian Hodder 2012
Ethnoarchaeology has experienced a number oftransformations and
iterationssince 1982whenthis bookwasfirstpublished. Forsome ithas
come to be associated with a troubling set ofassumptions and ethical
considerations. To study contemporary societies in order to make
comparisonswith the pastseemstoplacepresent-daysocietiesinthe past,
to equatethemwith 'theprehistoric'.This, ofcourse,wasthe strategyof
earlyEuropeanarchaeologistswho from the rfithcenturyonwardscame
to the realization ofthe 'antiquity ofman' through comparison with
Native Americans and other aboriginal groups encountered through
colonialandimperialexpansion.Thepost-colonialcritiquetodayallows
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
comparisonsbetweenpastandpresentmustbeopentoreflexivescrutiny
in ordertounderstandthe assumptionsthatare imposedandin orderto
evaluate the impact on living communities. So, from this point ofview,
ethnoarchaeologyisadifficultandoftensuspectpursuitthatmustbe tied
to careful reflexive evaluation (eg Nicholas and Kramer 200I) and a
thorough understanding of context. The emergence of calls for
'archaeologicalethnography'(egMeskell 2005)providesaneatinversion
ofethnoarchaeology.Ratherthanethnographybeingused inthe service
ofacolonialarchaeology,archaeologyandethnographyare re-balanced
in relation to each other. The focus is placed on contributing to the
understandingofcontemporarypeoples througharchaeologicalresearch.
Archaeologicalethnographyinvolvesstudyingpresentandpast inrelation
to each other, using both archaeological and ethnographic techniques
withinaframe stronglycommittedto ethicalconsiderations.
Forsome, then, the troublingaspects ofethnoarchaeologyhave led to
a flourishing ofnew types ofrelationships betweenpastandpresentand
between archaeology and ethnography. For others, however,
ethnoarchaeology has gained traction preciselybecause it allows cross
culturalstatementsthatcontributetoamoresecure understandingofthe
past. This trend has been especiallyprevalentwithin those approaches
that espouse general theoretical frameworks based on ecology and
optimization.Thus,forexample,HumanBehavioralEcologyhasproved
a rich vein oftheoretical resources that can be mined to build general
models that can be 'tested' in ethnographic contexts (egBird and Bird
2000). BehavioralArchaeology too has proved hungry in its search for
7
INTRODUCTION
ethnographic data that couldprove or disprove itsgeneral assumptions
(Skibo200g).Researchoncontemporarytechnologieshasallowedbroader
understandingofoperationalsequences (Stark 2003;Roux 2007;Beyries
and Petrequin 2001).These approaches are lesstroubled by the issues
raised in post-colonial critiques and they remain firmly grounded in
attemptsto understandthe past.
Thus manyofthe tensions that I raise in this bookcontinue in more
recent work, but more starkly. It remains the case that there are two
dimensionsofrelationalityinthe useofanalogies - the contextualandthe
universal. In the bookItrytosteer acourse betweenablinkeredfocuson
specificrelationshipswithinsocialandculturalsystemsandareductionist
focusongeneralecological or technologicalconstraints.Thistensionhas
doggedrecentdevelopmentsinthe subfieldleadingtomarkeddifferences
between, for example, archaeological ethnography and a behaviorally
orientedethnoarchaeology.
It seems that ethnoarchaeology has increasingly become associated
withmorebehavioralandecologicalapproachesinarchaeology.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 offfrom other aspects, and
assume general optimizing relations. It can, ofcourse, reasonably be
argued that simplification and reduction ofcomplex issuesisnecessary
forsciencetoproceed.Thedanger,asnotedabove, isthatcontemporary
societies become fossilized - parts oftheir culture have to be seen as
separate and somehow outside the dynamic complexities ofdaily life.
Certain aspects ofcontemporarycomplexsystemshave to be separated
out as'traditional',lessimpactedbyprocesses ofmodernity,in orderfor
pastandpresentto be drawnin relationto eachother.
Otherapproachesfocus on the complexweb ofinteractionsinwhich
materialartifactsgetcaughtinthe contemporaryworld. Tosomedegree
the burgeoningofmaterialculturestudiesinanthropologysincethe 1g80s
was contributed to by dissatisfaction with the limited scope of
ethnoarchaeologicalstudies.Tododetailedcontextualstudiesofmodern
materialcultureinvolveddoingafullethnographicanalysis.Anenormous
wealthofresearch,forexampleasfoundintheJoumalofMaterialCulture,
has developed based on theoreticalwritings ofthose such asMiller and
Tilley who initially conducted material culture studies closely tied to
ethnoarchaeology(Miller 1987). Todaysuch research has been strongly
influenced by anthropologists such as Gell and Ingold such that
archaeologists can refer to a broad set oftheoreticalperspectives about
materialagency, materialityandobjectification(Miller 2005).
So,on the one hand,ethnoarchaeologyhashadan increasinglystrong
roleamongstthosearchaeologistsdevotedtocross-culturalcomparisonof
isolated aspects of socio-economic systems in their behavioral and
ecological contexts. On the other hand, it has been transformed or
8
INTRODUCTION
subsumedinto archaeologicalethnographyandmaterialculture studies
by those archaeologists and anthropologists committed to detailed
contextualaccountsandto the ethicaldifficultiesofcomparingpastand
present. To some degree it can be argued that both trends have
somethingtooffercontemporaryarchaeology.Theecological,behavioral
approaches provide information about subsistence and technological
constraints. Knowingabouthow potterycanbe madeandhow different
cooking methods require different amounts offuel isofimportance to
interpretation ofthe 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
importantinsofarastheytrainacriticaleyeon the assumptionsthatare
beingmadeinmakingthe pastpresentandthe presentpast.
RecommendedReading
Adams,RonL.2005."EthnoarchaeologyinIndonesiailluminatingtheAncientPastat
Catalhoyuk?"AmericanAntiquiry70(1):181-8.
Agrosah,E.Kofi. 1990."Ethnoarchaeology:the searchforaself-correctiveapproachto
thestudyofpasthumanbehaviour." The4fricanArchaeologicalReview8:189-208.
Beyries,SylvieandPierre Petrequin.2001.Ethno-ArchaeologyanditsTransfers:Papersfroma
sessionheldattheEuropeanAssociationofArchaeologistsFjflhAnnualMeetinginBoumemouth
1999.Oxford:BARInternationalSeries983
Bird,D.W.andR. BliegeBird2000.TheEthnoarchaeologyofJuvenileForagers:
ShellfishingStrategies amongMeriamChildren.JoumalqfAnthropologicalArchaeology19:
461-476.
David, Nicholas andCarolKramer.2001.EthnoarchaeologyinAction.Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
Hayashida,Francis. 2008."AncientBeerandModernBrewers:Ethncarchaeological
ObservationsofChichaProductioninNorthernPeru."JournalofAnthropological
Archaeology27:161-74·
Hudson,]ean.2010."EthnoarchaeologyinaPersonalContext." TheSAAArchaeological
Record10(1):8-11.
Meskell,Lynn. 2005."ArchaeologicalEthnography.ConversationsaroundKruger
NationalPark."Archaeologies1(1):81-100.
Miller,D. 1987.MaterialCultureandMassConsumption.Oxford:Blackwell.
Miller,D. (ed)2005.Matenaluy,Durham:DukeUniversityPress.
Roux,Valentine.2007."Ethnoarchaeology:ANonHistoricalScienceofReference
NecessaryforInterpretingthe Past."JoumalqfArchaeologicalMethodandTheory14(2):
153-78.
Skibo,JamesM. 2009."ArchaeologicalTheoryandSnake-OilPeddling."
Ethnoarchaeology1(1):27-56.
Stark,Miriam.2003."CurrentIssuesinCeramicEthnoarchaeology."Joumalqf
ArchaeologicalResearchn(3):193-242.
Wylie,A.1985."TheReactionagainstAnalogy."AdvancesinArchaeologicalMethodand
Theory8:63-111.
9