Essay On Ethnoarchaeology

1174 Words3 Pages

Since its first introduction and application to archaeology in the late-nineteenth and early- twentieth century during the classic evolutionary ideology era where it was heavily utilized to

establish the human origin of prehistoric artifacts (Shelley 1999), analogy has always held a

central role in archaeological thought. While in archaeological thought it functions on the base

of broad and generalized comparisons that are documented across many cultural traditions; in

anthropological practice as a whole, analogy is the reasoning based on the notion that if two

things are comparable in some values then they must be comparable in other values. It refers to

the structure which describes and attempts to explain the cultural processes
Although ethno-archaeology has been under severe criticism since the late-1980s

it can nevertheless be useful to archaeologists. Hole’s 1979 work is a success story of

ethnoarchaeology whereby his usage of ethnography on the Baharvand—Iranian pastoral

nomadic group—shows the beneficial aspects of using ethno-archaeology. His work had aimed

to help explain the issues of distinguishing nomads archaeologically, and consequently allow the

assessment of the role carried out by the pastoral nomads in the Near Eastern prehistory. Ethno- archaeology’s benefits to archaeological research have been outlined by Stark (2003) in form of

Near Eastern ceramics. She also calls for ethnoarchaeology to be seen as a research strategy than

of a sub-discipline of archaeology, and reasons that because archaeology is heavily dependent

on inferences reasoning, ethnoarchaeology and its data serves to build stronger archaeological

explanations, especially in oppose to commonsense explanations of culture. Ethnographic

Despite its abundant employment in archaeological thought time and time again,

FIRST EXAMINATION IN ARCHAEOLOGY

DAY II: RELATING THEORY TO RESEARCH
Archaeologists have recovered numerous Clovis

projectile points and chipped-stone tools in the New World. Archaeological evidence shows that

Clovis hunters were able to obtain these projectiles and chipped-stones from mammoths (Frison

1989). Together with analogues and given that mammoths and elephants are physiologically

comparable enough to make confident statements on the possibility of this type of stone tool,

Frison experimented with elephants in Hwange National Park in Zimbabwe to test replicas of

Clovis tools and weaponry.

Apart from ethnographic, historic, and experimental analogues, there are general,

relational and specific analogues to consider in archaeology. Formal analogy is justified by

similarities in the formal attributes, hence the name, of archaeological and ethnographic objects

and features. Relational analogy explained on the basis of close cultural continuity between

the archaeological and ethnographic cases, while specific analogy is used in archaeological

interpretation based on specific comparisons documented within a single cultural tradition. Last,

general analogy is based on broad and generalized comparisons that are documented

Open Document