EthnoarchaeologyWhat if we want to

Ethnoarchaeology
What if we want to know about ancient kinship, social, or political organizations that no longer exist? These questions are the sort that archaeology in the 1960s wished to answer; unfortunately, the answers require a type of behavioral inference that archaeologists at the time had no ability to make. Binford Takes Off for Points North In the 1960s, the ways to infer social behavior from archaeological remains were little more than simple rules of thumb that were often culturally biased. Archaeologists began to test them through ethnoarchaeology, with the understanding that if generalizations cannot cover contemporary behavior, then they cannot be used tointerpret the evidence of ancient behavior. Binford was concerned with this inferential problem and, to help solve it, he conducted ethnoarchaeological research in the 1970s among the Nunamiut Eskimo of Alaska. Binford’s real interest lay in the Middle Paleolithic archaeology of Europe, especially France. Why would he study living Eskimos in Alaska if he were interested in the 200,000-year-old archaeology of France? Recall from Chapter 6 (see “The Frison Effect”) that the French archaeologist François Bordes argued that different stone tool Mousterian assemblages were products of different Neanderthal cultures. These assemblages often alternated throughout the strata of some key French sites, and Bordes argued that this meant that different “tribes” of Neanderthals alternately used the caves. Binford saw things differently. He suspected that the different assemblages were the by-products of different activities, not different tribes. He argued that Bordes’s inference (different tool assemblages = different Neanderthal tribes) needed to be evaluated. But we cannot evaluate an inferential argument using archaeological data, because the systemic context (the behavior) cannot be observed independently of the archaeological data. Binford had to find a place where he could observe living hunting peoples and see what residues their activities left behind. The Nunamiut’s Arctic environment was somewhat analogous to the French Middle Paleolithic environment,and the Nunamiut hunted large game (caribou and sheep), as had the Neanderthals. But Binford was not as interested in animal bones or the Nunamiut as he was in evaluating the concepts that archaeologists of the time employed to understand the past.
Binford accompanied Nunamiut hunters on their hunting trips, recording what they did at each locality and what debris was left behind. In so doing, he demonstrated that the same people—the same individuals, in fact—leave different kinds of tools and bones at different locations on a landscape. What Nunamiut hunters left behind were not just products of their culture, but also of tasks being performed, the season of the year, the distance back to camp, the availability of transportation, the amount of food already in camp, the weather, and other factors. Although culture plays a significant role in determining what kinds of artifacts are left behind, Binford demonstrated that archaeologists couldn’t uncritically assume that a difference in artifacts reflects only a difference in culture. Other hypotheses, such as site function, have to be tested and discarded before inferring that different tool assemblages in a site’s strata indicate use of the site by different cultures. Ethnoarchaeologists have frequently provided such cautionary tales. But ethnoarchaeology can also be a powerful tool for creating middle-level theory. It can do so (1) if it focuses on aspects of ethnographic data that arearchaeologically observable, and (2) if it attempts to explain why a relationship between behavior and archaeologically observable remains should necessarily hold true. As we will see, however, the principle of uniformitarianism is harder to implement in ethnoarchaeology than in taphonomy or experimental archaeology. Here we describe one ethnoarchaeological project that author Kelly conducted in Madagascar.
Ethnoarchaeology in Madagascar
Kelly was trained as an archaeologist working in western North America. He was particularly interested in how nomadism factored into people’s lives. In some cultures, especially hunting-and-gathering societies, people are highly nomadic, moving as often as every week. In others, especially part-time farming cultures, people change their residence less frequently, perhaps only once or twice a year. Some people return seasonally to a settlement for several years in a row, and some stay year-round in sedentary villages. Kelly wanted to discern different levels of nomadism archaeologically, so he looked for an ethnographic situation in which he could see variation in nomadism and study its material consequences. He finally learned of the Mikea, a little-known society in the forest of southwestern Madagascar whose people grow maize and manioc, raise cattle, and do some hunting and gathering. If you know anything about Madagascar, it probably involves lemurs leaping through a tropical forest, but such forests actually make up only a small part of Madagascar. The southwest part of the island, where the Mikea live, is drier and more open. It has distinct wet and dry seasons, and the wet season is blisteringly hot. The forest contains dense vine-covered thickets, stands of 5-meter-high cacti, and baobab trees. There are no rivers in the Mikea Forest and only a few wells. Bordering the forest on one side is the Mozambique Channel and on the other, a vast savanna. Mikea live in four major kinds of settlements that differ in how long they are occupied (see Figure 7-7). Many have houses in large, permanent villages of 1000 people or more located on the edge of the forest. Here, they grow manioc and other crops and raise cattle, pigs, and chickens. These villages frequently host weekly markets that people attend from many miles around. Other Mikea live most of the year in forest hamlets, in kin-related groups of about 40 people. Most people who live in these hamlets also maintain a house in the larger villages. Around these forest hamlets are slash-and-burn maize fields. As the arable land around the settlement becomes exhausted, the hamlet is moved, about every 3 to 10 years. Some Mikea who live in the villages also occupy seasonal hamlets in the forest during the growing season so that they can tend to their maize fields. These are much like forest hamlets, but they are generally occupied for a much shorter period of time—only during the growing season. Finally, Mikea who live in the forest hamlets as well as some who live in the villages move away from their homes and into the forest during the dry season. Here they live in foraging camps of a few families, staying in camp for a week or so. While in these camps, people collect tubers and honey and search tree hollows for estivating hedgehogs.

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

EthnoarchaeologyWhat if we want to know about ancient kinship, social, or political organizations that no longer exist? These questions are the sort that archaeology in the 1960s wished to answer; unfortunately, the answers require a type of behavioral inference that archaeologists at the time had no ability to make. Binford Takes Off for Points North In the 1960s, the ways to infer social behavior from archaeological remains were little more than simple rules of thumb that were often culturally biased. Archaeologists began to test them through ethnoarchaeology, with the understanding that if generalizations cannot cover contemporary behavior, then they cannot be used tointerpret the evidence of ancient behavior. Binford was concerned with this inferential problem and, to help solve it, he conducted ethnoarchaeological research in the 1970s among the Nunamiut Eskimo of Alaska. Binford’s real interest lay in the Middle Paleolithic archaeology of Europe, especially France. Why would he study living Eskimos in Alaska if he were interested in the 200,000-year-old archaeology of France? Recall from Chapter 6 (see “The Frison Effect”) that the French archaeologist François Bordes argued that different stone tool Mousterian assemblages were products of different Neanderthal cultures. These assemblages often alternated throughout the strata of some key French sites, and Bordes argued that this meant that different “tribes” of Neanderthals alternately used the caves. Binford saw things differently. He suspected that the different assemblages were the by-products of different activities, not different tribes. He argued that Bordes’s inference (different tool assemblages = different Neanderthal tribes) needed to be evaluated. But we cannot evaluate an inferential argument using archaeological data, because the systemic context (the behavior) cannot be observed independently of the archaeological data. Binford had to find a place where he could observe living hunting peoples and see what residues their activities left behind. The Nunamiut’s Arctic environment was somewhat analogous to the French Middle Paleolithic environment,and the Nunamiut hunted large game (caribou and sheep), as had the Neanderthals. But Binford was not as interested in animal bones or the Nunamiut as he was in evaluating the concepts that archaeologists of the time employed to understand the past.Binford accompanied Nunamiut hunters on their hunting trips, recording what they did at each locality and what debris was left behind. In so doing, he demonstrated that the same people—the same individuals, in fact—leave different kinds of tools and bones at different locations on a landscape. What Nunamiut hunters left behind were not just products of their culture, but also of tasks being performed, the season of the year, the distance back to camp, the availability of transportation, the amount of food already in camp, the weather, and other factors. Although culture plays a significant role in determining what kinds of artifacts are left behind, Binford demonstrated that archaeologists couldn’t uncritically assume that a difference in artifacts reflects only a difference in culture. Other hypotheses, such as site function, have to be tested and discarded before inferring that different tool assemblages in a site’s strata indicate use of the site by different cultures. Ethnoarchaeologists have frequently provided such cautionary tales. But ethnoarchaeology can also be a powerful tool for creating middle-level theory. It can do so (1) if it focuses on aspects of ethnographic data that arearchaeologically observable, and (2) if it attempts to explain why a relationship between behavior and archaeologically observable remains should necessarily hold true. As we will see, however, the principle of uniformitarianism is harder to implement in ethnoarchaeology than in taphonomy or experimental archaeology. Here we describe one ethnoarchaeological project that author Kelly conducted in Madagascar.Ethnoarchaeology di MadagaskarKelly was trained as an archaeologist working in western North America. He was particularly interested in how nomadism factored into people’s lives. In some cultures, especially hunting-and-gathering societies, people are highly nomadic, moving as often as every week. In others, especially part-time farming cultures, people change their residence less frequently, perhaps only once or twice a year. Some people return seasonally to a settlement for several years in a row, and some stay year-round in sedentary villages. Kelly wanted to discern different levels of nomadism archaeologically, so he looked for an ethnographic situation in which he could see variation in nomadism and study its material consequences. He finally learned of the Mikea, a little-known society in the forest of southwestern Madagascar whose people grow maize and manioc, raise cattle, and do some hunting and gathering. If you know anything about Madagascar, it probably involves lemurs leaping through a tropical forest, but such forests actually make up only a small part of Madagascar. The southwest part of the island, where the Mikea live, is drier and more open. It has distinct wet and dry seasons, and the wet season is blisteringly hot. The forest contains dense vine-covered thickets, stands of 5-meter-high cacti, and baobab trees. There are no rivers in the Mikea Forest and only a few wells. Bordering the forest on one side is the Mozambique Channel and on the other, a vast savanna. Mikea live in four major kinds of settlements that differ in how long they are occupied (see Figure 7-7). Many have houses in large, permanent villages of 1000 people or more located on the edge of the forest. Here, they grow manioc and other crops and raise cattle, pigs, and chickens. These villages frequently host weekly markets that people attend from many miles around. Other Mikea live most of the year in forest hamlets, in kin-related groups of about 40 people. Most people who live in these hamlets also maintain a house in the larger villages. Around these forest hamlets are slash-and-burn maize fields. As the arable land around the settlement becomes exhausted, the hamlet is moved, about every 3 to 10 years. Some Mikea who live in the villages also occupy seasonal hamlets in the forest during the growing season so that they can tend to their maize fields. These are much like forest hamlets, but they are generally occupied for a much shorter period of time—only during the growing season. Finally, Mikea who live in the forest hamlets as well as some who live in the villages move away from their homes and into the forest during the dry season. Here they live in foraging camps of a few families, staying in camp for a week or so. While in these camps, people collect tubers and honey and search tree hollows for estivating hedgehogs.