Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:46:47.991Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

To hell with ethnoarchaeology!

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2016

Olivier P. Gosselain
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper is a charge against ethnoarchaeology. Deliberately provocative, it aims at highlighting the flaws and ideological pitfalls of a sub-discipline whose actual contribution to archaeology remains hardly decipherable. Beside a methodological deficiency and the frequent narrow-mindedness of the research agenda, ethnoarchaeology suffers from two major problems. First, it carries implicitly an old evolutionary – and racist – ideology that divides the world between modern Western societies (inappropriate for ethnoarchaeological research) and premodern exotic societies (well fitted for ethnoarchaeological research). Second, the quest for universal models of interpretation leads ethnoarchaeologists to play down historical contingency and cultural specificities, which not only deprive them of a good understanding of the ethnographical contexts, but also contribute to restricting ethnoarchaeological applications to a mere quest for similarities (or dissimilarities) in the material record. The problems are too profound to justify an umpteenth salvage of the sub-discipline. Rather, the proposition is to get rid of ethnoarchaeology once and for all, and join forces with other, more serious, disciplines.

Keywords

ethnoarchaeologyarchaeological method and theoryideologyhistorymaterial culture
Type
Provocation
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , December 2016 , pp. 215 - 228
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bahn, P., 1989: Bluff your way in archaeology, Horsham.Google Scholar
Balfet, H. (ed.), 1991: Observer l'action technique. Des chaînes opératoires, pour quoi faire?, Paris.Google Scholar
Barndon, R., 1996: Fipa ironworking and its technological style, in Schmidt, P. (ed.), The culture and technology of African iron production, Gainesville, FL, 58–74.Google Scholar
Bartholeyns, G., Gogoroff, N. and Joulian, F., 2010: Cultures matérielles. Anthologie raisonnée de techniques & culture, 2 vols., Paris.Google Scholar
Bonnot, T., 2002: La vie des objets. D'ustensiles banals à objets de collection, Paris.Google Scholar
Bowser, B.J., 2000: From pottery to politics. An ethnoarchaeological study of political factionalism, ethnicity, and domestic pottery style in the Ecuadorian Amazon, Journal of archaeological method and theory 7, 219–48.Google Scholar
Bowser, B.J., and Patton, J.Q., 2008: Learning and transmission of pottery style. Women's life histories and communities of practice in the Ecuadorian Amazon, in Stark, M., Bowser, B. and Horne, L. (eds), Cultural transmission and material culture. Breaking down boundaries, Tucson, 105–29.Google Scholar
Cunningham, J., 2009: Ethnoarchaeology beyond correlates, Ethnoarchaeology 1 (2), 115–36.Google Scholar
David, N., 1992: The archaeology of ideology. Mortuary practices in the Central Mandara Highlands, northern Cameroon, in Sterner, J. and David, N. (eds), An African commitment. Papers in honour of Peter Lewis Shinnie, Calgary, 181–210.Google Scholar
David, N., 1998: The Mandara Archaeology Project 1994–98, Nyame Akuma 49, 7–10.Google Scholar
David, N., and Kramer, C., 2001: Ethnoarchaeology in action, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Debureaux, M., 2005: De l'art d'ennuyer en racontant ses voyages, Paris.Google Scholar
De Heusch, L., 1993: Maintenir l'anthropologie, Social anthropology 1 (3), 247–84.Google Scholar
Franchet, L., 1911: Céramique primitive, Paris.Google Scholar
Gallay, A., 1990: L'ethnoarchéologie. Science de référence de l'archéologie, Coloquio internacional arqueologia hoje 1, 282–302.Google Scholar
Gallay, A., Huysecom, E., Honegger, M. and Mayor, A., 1990: Hamdallahi, capitale de l'Empire Peul du Massina, Mali. Première fouille archéologique, études historiques et ethnoarchéologiques, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Gallay, A., Huysecom, E. and Mayor, A., 1998: Peuples et céramiques du Delta Intérieur du Niger (Mali). Un bilan de cinq années de missions (1988–1993), Mainz.Google Scholar
Giddens, A., 1991: Modernity and self-identity. Self and society in the late modern age, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Gosselain, O.P., 1999: In pots we trust. The processing of clay and symbols in sub-Saharan Africa, Journal of material culture 4 (2), 205–30.Google Scholar
Headland, T.N., 1992: The Tasaday controversy. Assessing the evidence, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Huffman, T.N., 2000: Mapungubwe and the origins of the Zimbabwe culture, in Leslie, M. and Maggs, T. (eds), African naissance. The Limpopo Valley 1000 years ago, Cape Town, 14–29.Google Scholar
Ingold, T., 2007: Materials against materiality, Archaeological dialogues 14 (1), 1–16.Google Scholar
Joiris, D.V., 2003: The framework of Central African hunter-gatherers and neighbouring societies, African study monographs 28, 57–79.Google Scholar
Kauffman, J.-C., 2004: L'invention de soi. Une théorie de l'identité, Paris.Google Scholar
Klieman, K., 2003: ‘The pygmies were our compass’. Bantu and Batwa in the history of west Central Africa, early times to c.1900 C.E., Portsmouth.Google Scholar
Kramer, C., 1997: Pottery in Rajasthan. Ethnoarchaeology in two Indian cities, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Lane, P., 2005: Barbarous tribes and unrewarding gyrations? The changing role of ethnographic imagination in African archaeology, in Stahl, A. (ed.), African archaeology. A critical introduction, London.Google Scholar
Lane, P., 2006: Present to past. Ethnoarchaeology, in Tilley, C., Keane, W., Küchler, S., Rowlands, M. and Spyer, P. (eds), Handbook of material culture, London, 403–24.Google Scholar
Latour, B., 1993: We have never been modern, Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar
Lemonnier, P., 1992: Elements for an anthropology of technology, Ann Arbor, MI. Google Scholar
Livingstone Smith, A., 2001: Bonfire 2: The return of pottery firing temperatures, Journal of archaeological science 28, 991–1003.Google Scholar
Longacre, W., 1991: Ceramic ethnoarchaeology. An introduction, in Longacre, W. (ed.), Ceramic ethnoarchaeology, Tucson, 1–10.Google Scholar
MacEachern, S., 1996: Foreign countries. The development of ethnoarchaeology in sub-Saharan Africa, Journal of world prehistory 10 (3), 243–304.Google Scholar
Mayor, A., 2010: Ceramic traditions and ethnicity in the Niger Bend, West Africa, Ethnoarchaeology 2 (1), 5–48.Google Scholar
Mayor, A., Huysecom, E., Gallay, A., Rasse, M. and Ballouche, A., 2005: Population dynamics and paleoclimate over the past 3000 years in the Dogon Country, Mali, Journal of anthropological archaeology 24, 25–61.Google Scholar
Nance, J., 1975: The gentle Tasaday. A Stone Age people in the Philippine rain forest, London.Google Scholar
Pétrequin, A.-M., and Pétrequin, P., 2006: Objets de pouvoir en Nouvelle-Guinée. Approche ethnoarchéologique d'un système de signes sociaux, Saint-Germain-en-Laye.Google Scholar
Pinçon, B., 1999: Propos sur la technique, in Journées de réflexion sur les finalités et l'avenir du modèle de société occidental, Neuchâtel, 1–9.Google Scholar
Roux, V., 1990: Le tour du potier. Spécialisation artisanale et compétences techniques, Paris.Google Scholar
Roux, V., 2007: Ethnoarchaeology. A non-historical science of reference necessary for interpreting the past, Journal of archaeological method and theory 14 (2), 153–78.Google Scholar
Roux, V., Bril, B. and Dietrich, G., 1995: Skills and learning difficulties involved in stone-knapping. The case of stone-bead knapping in Khambhat, India, World archaeology 27 (1), 63–87.Google Scholar
Sadr, K., Bon, F., Fauvelle-Aymar, F.-X., Gronenborn, D. and Bosc-Zanardo, B., 2006: Pour un nouveau comparatisme en Afrique australe–Europe occidentale. Regards croisés de l'archéologie, de l'histoire et de l'ethnologie des chasseurs-cueilleurs Bushmen, in Astruc, L., Bon, F., Léa, V., Milcent, P.-Y. and Philibert, S. (eds), Normes techniques et pratiques sociales. De la simplicité des outillages pré- et protohistoriques, Juan-les-Pins, 403–16.Google Scholar
Schmidt, P., 1997: Iron technology in East Africa. Symbolism, science, and archaeology, Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar
Sigaut, F., 1991: Un couteau ne sert pas à couper, mais en coupant. Structure, fonctionnement et fonction dans l'analyse des objets, in 25 Ans d’études technologiques en préhistoire. Bilan et perspectives, Antibes, 21–34.Google Scholar
Stahl, A.B., 1993: Concepts of time and approaches to analogical reasoning in historical perspective, American antiquity 58, 235–60.Google Scholar
Stahl, A.B., 2013: Archaeological insights into aesthetic communities of practice in the western Volta basin, African arts 44 (3), 54–67.Google Scholar
Thomas, N., 1991: Entangled objects. Exchange, material culture and colonialism in the Pacific, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Veyrat, N., Blanco, E. and Trompette, P., 2007: When shape does not induce function. Why designers must not lose the big picture (of use), paper presented at the International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED’07, 28–31 August 2007, Cité des sciences et de l'industrie, Paris, France, available at https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00184068, accessed 25 May 2016.Google Scholar
Wright, M., 2002: Life and technology in everyday life. Reflections on the career of Mzee Stefano, master smelter in Ufipa, Tanzania, Journal of African cultural studies 15 (1), 17–34.Google Scholar
Zeebroek, R., Gosselain, O.P. and Decroly, J.-M., 2008: Casseroles, légumes et Halloween. Une approche multiscalaire des phénomènes de diffusion, Techniques & culture 51, 50–73.Google Scholar