Critically Assess the Contribution of Ethnoarchaeology - Case Study Example

Critically Assess the Contribution of Ethnoarchaeology to the Study of Lithic Artefacts Introduction Ethnoarchaeology uses modern behaviour observations as a guide in the understanding of archaeological patterning (Kelly and Thomas 2009, p197). The ancestors had their own way of making tools, houses, containers and other artefacts. How they made them, used them and disposed them can be interpreted by archaeology. Stones, lithic artefacts give the most important information about the human behaviour in the early period. Stone is the most commonly used component for understanding prehistoric cultural behaviour. Stones are the only artefacts found and mostly used in the prehistoric period. Their functions according to archaeologists dictate the past human behaviours. Archaeologists believe that these artefacts can tell us more about our ancestors (Jurmain, Kilgore and Lewis 2008, p186). The paper will critically explore the contribution of ethnoarchaeology in the study of lithic artefacts. Ethnoarchaeology Ethnoarchaelogy is a sub-branch of archaeology and it involves the study of contemporary societies in order to gain more insights into the past human behaviour. It is very crucial in forming middle level theory by (a) focusing on the aspects of ethnographic data that can be observed archaeologically, and (b) attempting to explain why the relationship between observable archaeological remains and behaviour should in any case be true (Kelly and Thomas 2009, p196). The field of ethnoarchaeology has been extensively studied by ethnoarchaelogists and some of the researched areas include; hunting and butchering, stone tool production and pottery, architecture, plant gathering, trade, burial rituals, and trash disposal. These researched areas have been carried out across various societies across the world. The studies assist the archaeologists to produce better ways of understanding human behaviour from the archaeological remains (Kelly and Thomas 2009, p196). An in-depth research is done by the ethnoarchaelogist among a living group such as Australian aborigines, Kung San in southern Africa, urban America or the Nunamiut peoples of the Alaskan Arctic (Jurmain, Kilgore and Lewis 2008, p186). Lithic Artefacts These are artefacts whose raw material is stone. They are manufactured by grinding, chipping or battering. Other artefacts included in this category are those that have been identified by the existence of observable cultural modifications on them such as the battering on the cobble hammer. There are other lithic artefacts that served a unique cultural function such as polished pebbles, fossils, and crystals. This type of artefacts are not utilitarian meaning they do not perform a practical function (San Juan College 2008, p1). Ethnoarchaeology use in the Identification of Artefact Function Ethnoarchaeology on its own cannot fully identify the functions of archaeology artefacts. The identification is usually achieved by combining ethnohistorical, ethnographic and other means such as the accounts of early travellers from Herodotus (David and Kramer 2001, 142). Several examples will be given to show the contribution of ethnoarchaeology in the study of lithic tools. The identification of yilugwa functions by James O’Connell; he had collected yilugwa during a survey in Central Australia. The description of the functions of yilugwa depended upon the testimony of Alyawara Aborigines, the critical reading of ethnographic descriptions, and the observations of use wear. James O’Connell concludes that the tools were used by women as their knives, as spoons for eating roasted or baked tubers and for light scraping (David and Kramer 2001, 142). From this survey conducted by James O’Connell in 1974, it is evident that ethnoarchaeology can not by itself conclusively give the functions of lithic artefacts in the prehistoric period. Michael Deal uses a number of methods and techniques in the study of the functions of the Maya vessels with appliqué spikes. He combines his monumental art, archaeological record, and ethnoarchaeological observations with the verification of Maya codices. From his study in 1982 he concludes a number of things; he confirms the use of these vessels for ritual purposes and other functions that were not previously known (David and Kramer 2001, 142). In this case, ethnoarchaeology plays a significant role in the study of lithic tools. Brian Hadley also investigates the functions of lithic artefacts in Australia. He combines various sources of evidence to investigate the functions of lithic artefacts. He concludes that the majority of the flaked stone tools served the purpose of wood-work activities. Chipped stone tools were rarely used for the processing of vegetable foods. Digging sticks and wooden clubs were and are still being used for the procuring of small animals. A single flake was used for the killing and butchering of large game such as emus and kangaroos. The groups he studied had significant methods using their lithic tools. The Western Desert groups did not skin their animals; he found that the Aborigines had little interest in stone tools. In other parts Australia, the use of bifacial points and well-made knives was common. In a nutshell, the Aboriginal stone toolkits closely resembled those of the paleoindian. This is in contrast to the style rich and upper paleolithic inventories of the European (David and Kramer 2001, 142). Ethnoarchaeology plays a role in the understanding of the functions of the lithic artefacts in Australia. Grinding hollows are artificial depressions from boulders and slabs and are commonly found in the African landscape. Detailed account of their functions is non-existent. ND carried out a study on a community in the Mandara mountain of Sukur in Nigeria. In his study of the grinding hollows, he used two approaches to understand this type of artefact; field archaeology and ethnoarchaeology. He obtained all the information about the grinding and related activities that were carried out in the past and presently using stone tools. There are two sets of equipment: (a) handstones (manos) and flat querns (mutates, grinding slabs) were used for grinding staple millet, and (b) small blocks with grinding hollows which are presently used with elongated or rounded pestles as mortars for pounding, crushing, grinding and threshing of minute quantities of grain or beans or as troughs for domestic animals and at certain periods as altars. The original grindstone-mortars are ancient and people that use them believe that they were made by God. ND was able to classify and describe the functions of the grinding hollows into basin hollows, rounded mortar hollows, fining hollow complexes, grinding groove complex and informal facets and complexes. The classification was based on oral testimonies concerning the use of hollows in iron production and field census of 182 complexes of hollows and hollows. The functions of basin hollows were further described in reference to ethnoarchaeology (David and Kramer 2001, 143). ND got more information on his study from other archaeological, ethnoarchaeological and experimental research. The synergy between the three approaches was productive (David and Kramer 2001, 145). Hayden conducted a study on stone tools and the study was concerned with the possible prehistoric and present uses of the stone tools. The study was conducted on the Maya highlands. Hayden shows that metal tools replaced lithic cutting tools and he goes further to investigate more functions of the cutting tools and refers to the archaeological records for their functions. Hayden finds that hardwood billhooks may have been used frequently for bush cutting (David and Kramer 2001, 145). Jeff Walker did a study on the functions and manufacturing techniques of lithic artefacts at a Sugar Factory Pier site in St. Kitts. The archaeology analysis was done by incorporating information from experimental archaeology and ethnography. Walker used the flint tools for grating and peeling tubers, whittling and planting wood, sawing, and engraving shells. He further used data from ethnohistory and ethnography and this data provided him with more functions of the stone tools. The combination and use of different data sets have brought new ideas on subsistence patterns, site activities, and potential trade networks (Hofman and Hoogland 2008, p10). Robert Carnerio study shows the contribution of ethnoarchaeology in the understanding of the functions of lithic artefacts. He concluded that the Yanomamo community used stone axes for cutting down trees. Other examples of ethnoarchaeology contribution to the understanding of the functions of lithic artefacts include: (a) Hiro Kurashina and Desmond Clark study on the use of obsidian scrapers in the work of a tanner in Ethiopia, and (b) Ramon Silvestre’s study of basketry in Philippines using ethnoarchaeology (David and Kramer 2001, 145). According to Hardy and Sillitoe (2003, p1), stones are very vital in the understanding of prehistoric archaeology as it is the only cultural evidence to means of survival. A study on the modern day community is a reflection of the role that was played by the stone tool-making in the material culture. Wola horticulturists of the highland Papua New Guinea were still using flake stone tools in the early 1980s. Flaked stones formed an integral but secondary part of the material culture of Wola community. The stone tools played no direct role in food production and stone working was given no status. The lithic artefacts were viewed on the basis of their use, and storage and abandonment did not form any regular pattern. Men were the major makers and users of these lithic artefacts (stone tools) although at times women made and used them (Hardy and Sillitoe 2003, p1). From the study it was found that the Wola community rarely discarded their lithic tools in the working areas. This example gives an understanding of the use of lithic artefacts in the past and present day Wola community; living lithics. Ethnoarchaeology has been used to extensively in the study of these lithic artefacts; their use in the present day and their link to the past human behaviour (Hardy and Sillitoe 2003, p3). According to Gould (1980, p113), there might be some linkage between living human societies archaeological payoff and the patterns of abandonment in reference to the earlier period human behaviour in relation to the acquisition, manufacture, use and abandonment of stone artefacts. Some scholars suggest that stone tools give little information or understanding of the human behaviour. The suggestion can be examined through the understanding of human behaviour and the various requirements people had on their tools. The evolution of the Wola lithic tools can be accounted by: (a) the fact that Wola people did not entirely depend on stone as the primary raw material; (b) the fact that Wola highlanders were capable of meeting their food requirements in an easy way and without much reliance on the use of lithic artefacts, (c) the use of other tools such as polished stone axes for extractive and maintenance tasks; these tools had a long life span, some lasting an individual’s whole life. This suggests that the polished axes eliminated the need to rely on many specialized tools (Hardy and Sillitoe 2003, p6). Conclusion Archaeologists for many years have been trying to understand the human behaviour in the prehistoric period. Much of the evidence at that period has been the use of lithic artefacts (tools made from stone materials). The human behaviour has been linked to the functions of these lithic artefacts at that time. Ethnoarchaeology has come in handy in the study of human behaviour in the prehistoric era. How much ethnoarchaeology contributes to the study of lithic artefacts is of great importance in the study of past human behaviour. The contribution of ethnoarchaeology in the study of lithic artefacts can be said to be half. Much of the studies done on lithic artefacts do not wholly depend on ethnoarchaeology. There has to be combinations of various archaeological techniques and methods in order to get more insight on lithic artefacts. Some of these combinations as described in the paper include; ethnohistorical, ethnographic and other means such as the accounts of early travellers from Herodotus. In other cases, ethnoarchaeology has been successfully used on its own in describing lithic artefacts. A good example is the study conducted on the Wola community of Papua New Guinea. It is imperative to understand that, not in all cases will ethnoarchaeology contribute to the study of lithic artefacts. There are isolated cases where a combination of archaeological means must be applied. In other words, the contribution of ethnoarchaeology to the study of lithic artefacts is limited. References David, N. & Kramer, C. (2001) Ethnoarchaeology in action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Hardy, K. & Sillitoe, P. (2003) Living lithics: Ethnoarchaeology in highland Papua New Guinea [online], BNET. Available from: < http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3284/is_297_77/ai_n29033122/> [Accessed 13 January 2011]. Hofman, C. L. & Hoogland, M. L. P. (2008) Crossing the borders: New methods and techniques in the study of archaeological materials from the Caribbean. Alabama: University of Alabama Press. Jurmain, R., Kilgore, L. & Lewis, B. (2008) Understanding humans: Introduction to physical anthropology and archaeology. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. Kelly, R. L. & Thomas, D. H. (2009) Archaeology. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. San Juan College. (2008) Methodology [online], New Mexico: San Juan College. Available from: < http://www.sanjuancollege.edu/pages/2132.asp > [Accessed 12 January 2011]. Read More