Ethnoarchaeology and Interpretati

Ethnoarchaeology and Interpretations of the Past Author(s): Gloria London Source: Near Eastern Archaeology, Vol. 63, No. 1, Ethnoarchaeology I (Mar., 2000), pp. 2-8 Published by: The American Schools of Oriental Research Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3210803 Accessed: 29/04/2009 04:08 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asor. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Near Eastern Archaeology. http://www.jstor.org Ethnoarchaeology and Interpretations of the Past By Gloria London, Issue Editor The Place of Ethnoarchaeology in Near Eastern Archaeology OST ARCHAEOLOGISTS STUDY DEAD AND BURIED SOCIETIES, but some of us work among the living as well. One might think that ethnographers are best qualified to study contemporary communities, but this is not necessarily so. Ethnoarchaeology involves fieldwork among people today by archaeologists who inves- tigate questions relevant for analyzing ancient artifacts and material culture. This fills a gap that traditional ethnography, in the main, has not addressed. Ethnographers are best known for their work on religion, politics, and sex. It is not that archae- ologists lack interest in these subjects, but the stuff of excavation is stones and bones, pots and sherds, buildings and tombs filled with things that ethnographers overlook as they record social and sexual mores often more engaging than the mundane objects of everyday life. Therefore, by living in traditional societies, observing and recording what we see, archaeologists can col- lect the data needed to help understand ancient artifacts and the people who made them. In earlier ethnographic fieldwork, informant interviews pro- vided most of the data collected. Often the interview occurred over a traditional drink. In accounts of Himalayan communi- ties, every interview began with an obligatory cup of tea embellished by a layer of sour yak butter floating on top. As the story of each interview approaches, the reader can virtu- ally taste the rancid butter and experience its slimy mouth feel, but one could not feel the cup in which it is served. As archae- ologists, all we find is the cup. There is no one to interview. Perhaps the cup was wooden, glass, ceramic; of local manu- facture or imported; reserved for guests or an ordinary utensil: yet no details are provided by the researcher. Studies of ancient peoples rely on inferences derived from the material culture, the non-perishable remains of the past. These neglected aspects of ethnographic studies can best be addressed by archaeolo- gists who purposefully collect data to investigate specific details concerning ancient artifacts. Ethnoarchaeological research is not an attempt simply to record the number of pots, goats, or threshing boards in a community, but starts with a ques- tion, a hypothesis to be tested in a systematic manner using techniques such as quantitative analysis, sampling strategies, and observations. Early Ethnoarchaeology The first person to designate himself as an "ethnoarchae- ologist" was Jesse Walter Fewkes (1900: 578-79) who worked among the Hopi in the American Southwest investigating the organization of early twentieth century Native American soci- eties. After learning the Hopi migration myths associated with various places in the Southwest, Fewkes excavated sites where important events of the journey along the migration route were thought to have occurred. Excavations revealed noth- ing related to the myths. There was no evidence of meetings, encampments, battles, etc Early nineteenth century research of the American Southwest also induded detailed descriptions of pottery manufacture, but to a great extent ethnoarchaeol- ogy disappeared from the anthropological vocabulary It re-emerged over fifty years later, as "action archaeology," "living archaeol- ogy" or, as known today, ethnoarchaeology. The revived interest among American archaeologists arose from a new concern with social complexity, variation in material culture, and the real- ization that traditional societies were disappearing. Early Studies in the Levant Sporadic observations of traditional industries in the eastern Mediterranean and in the Levant in particular can be traced back to the late eighteenth century. These early studies, carried out by people trained in disciplines other than anthropology or archaeology, provide the only record of ancient technologies. German scholars expressed the greatest inter- est, following the early work of Gatt (1885 a and b) who recorded the work of potters in Gaza. Einsler (1914) and Dalman (1902, 1971) produced the only systematic record of local crafts and industries. The excavator of Beth Shemesh described the work of Ramallah potters as "very suggestive" in terms of under- standing ancient pottery, but went no further (Grant 1931:34). In publishing the Lachish pottery, Tufnell (1961) incor- porated her observations of traditional potters from Saudi Arabia and the Levant. Grace Crowfoot (1932, 1940,1957) refers to local potters in her Samaria pottery publications, and Hankey (1968) studied and recorded local potters. Bade (1931) photographed Palestinian pottery manufacture to better under- stand the pottery from Tell en Nasbeh, but did not publish this data before his premature death. To a large extent, little effort was made to use the infor- mation as an aid in elucidating the diversity of ancient pottery. Given the archaeological focus on homogeneity in the pottery corpus from each site, the better to secure Near Eastern Archaeology 63:1 (2000) 2 might encounter people engaged in a tra- ditional activity relevant in some way to ancient lifestyles. While interesting and useful information can result, there is no guarantee that the data are applicable to the ancient community under investi- gation. For example, what is the value of comparing hand made Early Bronze Age pots with wheel-thrown wares shaped today, even if they are made of the same days? The comparison is especially weak if the potters work at different lev- els of organization, for example, household potters versus craft specialists. The direct historical approach, or the idea that peo- ple living and working in the region are the best model for understanding the arti- facts made by the ancient people of the region, is untenable. The correlation between social, political and economic circumstances of the ancient and con- temporary societies far outweighs the importance of the same locale. Coil built pottery of ancient Israel has more in com- mon with traditional coil made pottery in Cyprus today and elsewhere than it has with wheel thrown pottery from Gaza. Ethnoarchaeology leads investigators to all aspects of the Near Eastern and M The images accompanying this artide evoke the many settings that have been chronological correlation among intersite artifacts, diversity was disdained. There were few attempts to make use of the frag- mentary and limited ethnographic observations collected during short encounters with the potters. Some of the work falls into the category Longacre (1991a:6) describes as "fortuitous eth- noarchaeology" Not far from a site under excavation, archaeologists Recent Ethnoarchaeological Research in the Eastern Mediterranean and Levant As in the United States, renewed inter- est in traditional middle eastern pottery industries is attested after 1950 in the work of Matson (1974), Johnston (1974), Clock (1975) and Rye (1981), in addition to unpublished studies. Although largely based on brief visits to the potters, these studies represent the only documenta- tion of an industry that has all but ceased. Whereas it is almost too late for ceramic ethnoarchaeology in Jordan (see Franken 1986:244-48 and Mershen 1985), studies related to other aspects of traditional tech- nologies provide insightful data. Subjects include bread and cooking oven tech- editerranean lifestyle nology (McQuitty 1984), architecture explored. (Aurenche and Desfarges 1985; Layne 1986; Khammash 1986), agriculture (Fuller 1986; Palmer 1998a; 1998b), Bedouin camp sites (Suleiman 1986; Simms 1988) and tent construction (Banning and K6hler-Rollefson 1986), and animal husbandry (Geraty and LaBianca 1985; LaBianca 1984; K6hler-Rollefson 1988). Studies in adjacent countries are not listed here, although reference should be made to one of the earliest field projects undertaken in the name of "action archaeology," that of Patty Jo Watson Near Eastern Archaeology 63:1 (2000) 3 (1979) in Iran, 1959 to 1960, and her review of work in the Near East (1980). Several other ethnoarchaeological studies from Iran relate to population estimates, domestic architecture, and house- hold composition (Kramer 1979, 1985, 1997). Seeden (1987) recorded her observations in Syria regarding settlement dis- tribution, building, recycling and household contents. In Cyprus, where a small number of potters continue to produce tradi- tional coil built shapes, observers have recorded their work over the decades (see Hample and Winter 1962; London, Egoumenidou and Karageorghis 1989:18-20). Yon (1985) published a collection of articles related to various aspects of Cypriote material cul- ture, past and present. There are many other studies of traditional Cypriote lifestyle and technologies (see references in this issue), but few have been carried out with the explicit purpose of understanding ancient artifacts as their primary goal. Subjects Renewed emphasis on ethnoarchaeology in the past sev- eral decades creates an exciting field with great potential for addressing a wide array of issues related to all types of mate- rials and activities. Studies from various places all around the world are designed to focus on diverse issues arising from archae- ological concerns, incuding the case studies from the eastern Mediterranean and the Levant presented here. For example, in ancient sites we excavate the remains of structures and their contents. What can we infer from the material culture about the social status, age, and number of people who used the struc- ture? By analyzing households in a Syrian village, Kamp examines how architecture and artifacts are useful to establish the socio- economic characteristics of household structure, size, and relative wealth, today and in the past. Archaeologists excavate settle- ments on small arid islands of the Mediterranean and ponder why people settled there and how they coped with insufficient water sources, two issues raised by Kardulias in his work on the island of Dokos. Grain agriculture, an important element of ancient economies, is usually attested archaeolog- ically by seeds, yet threshing floors and sledges with their associated lithic technology were also essential components of grain production. Whittaker and Yerkes examine Cypriot thresh- ing floors to provide data on their use, size and distribution as well as knapping areas where the flint teeth for the threshing sledges were manufactured. Yerkes also examines the relationship between site size and population numbers to address population estimates based on roofed floor space, a long debated issue in the archaeological literature. In addi- tion, the way in which culinary systems act to interpret and implement food production systems can be approached with ethnographic data, as Grantham illustrates with his work with the Druse of the Golan Heights and it application to archaeo- logical remains from Qazrin. The worldwide emphasis on ceramic ethnoarchaeology is understandable given that pottery is the single most abun- dant artifact excavated from sites in many parts of the world. Studies of ceramics in Turkey, Greece and Cyprus published here focus on different issues of archaeological concern. Kalentzi- dou compares the ethnic diversity in the population of Thrace 4 Near Eastern Archaeology 63:1 (2000) Near Eastern Archaeology 63:1 (2000) 5 with that of the material culture. Bicken records the work of traditional Turkish potters in terms of manufacture and dec- oration techniques to show that the days and techniques in use today are almost identical to those of the past. I consider short term stylistic continuity in pottery decoration among Cypriot potters to determine if individual or village styles changed over a twelve year period. These studies reflect the broad use of pottery as indicative of cultural change through time. Methodology : Implementing a successful ethnoar- .k- chaeology project requires planning and purpose, and addressing issues debated. in the archaeological literature must be a key objective of the research. Rather * than a fortuitous study of people using a traditional technology in the vicinity of an excavation site, a well-planned project involves selection of a suitable commu- nity that will provide material to address the issue at hand, be it animal slaugh- tering with associated patterns of distribution and discard of the bones, house size and contents in relation to family status or population size, etc Long- term field work is preferable to brief visits, ! j j - for only the former affords a researcher the possibility of observing variation within a particular community. Whereas one might observe women potters for weeks, and deduce that an industry is j, entirely in the hands of females, by the fourth week, a few men might start to work, as was the situation in my first eth- noarchaeological study among the potters of Paradijon in the Philippines and then later in Cyprus. Seasonality of the indus- try can be observed only through long-term field work. Many potters confine their work to the summer dry seasons for several reasons. At the beginning of the season they could focus on a particular type of pot and then turn their attention to a wider repertoire of shapes. Long-term field work might also involve research with a regional focus rather than a study restricted to a single community. In Cyprus, for example, traditional potters of Kornos produce few jars, whereas in the Troodos Mountain commu- nities, a three-hour drive away, jars are an essential element of the repertoire, given the different needs of the more rural and isolated cientele (London 1989:221). Regional studies are rare in ethnoarchaeology, in part due to time constraints. Notable exceptions are the work of Longacre (1991c; Longacre and Skibo 1994) and Kramer (1997) who explore regional patterns of pot- tery manufacture, decorations and distribution. Long-term field projects that enable the ethnoarchaeologist to live in the community, rather than commuting, provide the opportunity to observe and record aspects of the work that occur infrequently or at odd hours. For example, the rare trip to a military zone to excavate day early in the morning before the truck driver goes about his regular work, happens only once or twice during the pottery making season in Kornos. Cus- tomers did not frequent the Kornos workshop, but when they did visit in search of a special type of pot, it provided a rare occasion to interview the cients of craft specialists. Since most 6 Near Eastern Archaeology 63:1 (2000) wares of these potters are sold through middlemen or directy to shops, craft specialists normally do not meet their clients. Nor would I, had I not lived in the village. Kiln load- ing can begin as early as 6:00 am. In one village the ethnoarchaeologist was identified as a tax collector, for who else would get up so early day after day to watch a kiln being unloaded and then count the pieces? An extended field season serves to counter the "cautionary tale" and results in more complete documentation of cultural processes. Short term field work often lacks any discussion of sampling strategy and is frequenty not much more than a brief encounter between the archaeologist and the subject under study. Such reports contribute to negative conclusions in the form of how not to interpret the artifacts. No single short visit can provide the type of cross-cultural data archaeologists need to reconstruct ancient societies. Long-term, systematic studies, however, can provide the data base from which hypothesis can be derived and human behavior can be inferred. An adequate sampling strategy requires that a represen- tative sample of artifacts and people be included in an ethnoarchaeological study. Above all else this requires time in the field to observe and record the work of different people, be they potters, herders, weavers etc. It is useful to include males and females of all ages, origin, and familial status (sib- lings, parents, children, cousins, etc), as well as the full repertoire of the object under study. In this way, sufficient data can be col- lected to identify the social factors and patterns of human behaviors contributing to the variations archaeologists detect in artifacts. Quantitative data rather than impres- sionistic observations are vital for i |t X ethnoarchaeological research. Observing, : i measuring and recording rather than inter- viewing are the preferred strategies for gathering information. At times inter- Fi ,J X . . -views are essential, but too often the l t answers can be whatever the infor- mant thinks the archaeologist has time or endurance to record. Measurements collected in a systematic manner facili- |i' tate comparison with other data in contrast to descriptive and impressionistic data . .i.i: I recorded in a haphazard manner. The emphasis on quantitative methods enables i l similar studies to be carried out and tested elsewhere. Current Research The work described in this collection of ethnoarchaeological studies contributes . to the data base not only for Greece, Cyprus, Israel, Syria, and Turkey where the studies were carried out, but for all those interested in understanding ancient material culture worldwide. Urgency of ethnoarchaeological research is dear as plastic, electricity, and imported goods threaten to overtake tra- ditional materials. Ethnoarchaeological research is one of the most powerful tools to aid in recognizing the relationship between human behavior and material culture. To conduct this type of research requires a carefully constructed research design, selection of an appropriate community, an extended time in the field, knowledge of the language, keen skills of observation, and experience with ancient material culture. The rewards are many. Rather than speculate on the use of fragmentary arti- facts or buildings, one sees the comple