Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethnoarchaeology and Functional Analysis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Use-Wear and Residue Analysis in Archaeology

Part of the book series: Manuals in Archaeological Method, Theory and Technique ((MATT))

Abstract

Ethnoarchaeology and ethnoanalogical sources as a whole are crucial for the generation of interpretations in prehistory in general, and particularly in lithic functional analysis. These sources inform about the use of certain tools, operative chains and full technical processes, or about the different contexts in which production is carried out. Thus, we can obtain insights on the use and management of tools, production objectives, product management, the existence of other tasks or stages that are involved and/or avoided, the know-how displayed, the user’s gender, age and skill, access or ownership of the tools, the reasons for division of labour, social conditions of the workers, the working area, seasonality, socio-economic context, the ideological, symbolic or narrative aspect of the technical activity, and so on.

Ethnoarchaeological sources, however, present some limitations, which means they must be used with a critical perspective. No pristine references exist and it is risky to make direct inferences. These sources should be used in strategies to enrich the construction of hypotheses and the interpretation of results. The aim is not only to find an ethnographic analogue for an archaeological functional inference, but also an analogical framework in which similarities and differences are equally important and expressive.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Albasini-Roulin, P. A. (1987). Approche ethno-comparative des emmanchements de l’outillage lithique néolithique de quelques stations littorales du canton de Fribourg (Suisse occ.). In D. Stordeur (Ed.), La main et l’outil. Manches et emmanchements préhistoriques (pp. 219–228). Lyon: 15. G.S. Maison de l’Orient (Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient).

    Google Scholar 

  • Altinbilek, Ç., Coskunsu, G., Dede, Y., Lovino, M. R., Lemorini, C., & Özdogan, A. (2001). Drills from Çayönü: A combination of ethnographic, experimental and use-wear analysis. In I. Caneva, C. Lemorini, D. Zampetti, & P. Biagi (Eds.), Beyond tools: Redefining the PPN lithic assemblages of the Levant (pp. 137–143). Berlin: Ex-Oriente.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, P. C. (2007). Le travail à l’araire aujourd’hui en Tunisie, le point de vue d’une ethnoarchéologue. In R. Bourrigaud & F. Sigaut (Eds.), Nous Labourons. Actes du Colloque, Techniques de travail de la terre, hier et aujourd’hui, ici et là-bas (pp. 247–258). Nantes: Centre d’Histoire du travail.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ascher, R. (1961). Analogy in archaeological interpretation. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 17, 317–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barris, S., & Totelin, L. (2000). Un peigne pour des épis: Approche ethnographique des outils de la récolte. In G. Raepsaet & F. Lambeau (Eds.), La moissonneuse gallo-romaine (pp. 63–71). Brussels: Université Libre de Bruxelles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyries, S. (1993). Expérimentation archéologique et savoir-faire traditionnel: l’exemple de la découpe du cerf. Techniques et Culture, 22, 53–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyries, S. (1999). Ethnoarchaeology: A method of experimentation. In L. R. Owen & M. Porr (Eds.), Ethno-analogy and the reconstruction of prehistoric artefact use and production (pp. 117–130). Tubingen: Mo Vince.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyries, S. (2008). Modélisation du travail du cuir en ethnologie: proposition d’un système ouvert à l’archéologie. Anthropozoologica, 43, 9–42 (with CD-ROM).

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyries, S., & Petrequin, P. (Eds.). (2001). Ethno-archaeology and its transfers. British Archaeological Report, International Series 983. Oxford: Archaeopress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyries, S., Vasil’ev, S. A., David, F., D’iachenko, V. I., Karlin, C., Chesnokov, I. V. (2001). Ui1, a Paleolithic site in Siberia: An ethno-archaeological approach. In S. Beyries & P. Petrequin (Eds.), Ethno-archaeology and its transfer. British Archaeological Reports International series, 983 (pp. 9–22). Oxford: Hadrian Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binford, L. R. (1977). Forty-seven trips: A case study in the character of archaeological formation processes. In R. V. S. Wright (Ed.), Stone tools as cultural markers: Change, evolution and complexity (pp. 24–36). Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binford, L. R. (1978). Nunamiut ethnoarchaeology. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandt, S. A. (1996). The ethnoarchaeology of flaked stone tool use in southern Ethiopia. In G. Pwiti & R. Soper (Eds.), Aspects of African archaeology (pp. 733–738). Harare: University of Zimbabwe Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandt, S. A., Weedman, K. J., & Hundie, G. (1996). Gurage hide working, stone tool use and social identity: An ethnoarchaeological perspective. In G. Hudson (Ed.), Essays on Gurage language and culture (pp. 35–51). Berlin: Harrassowitz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brézillon, M. (1971). La dénomination des objets de pierre taillée. Paris: CNRS (IVe supplément à Gallia Préhistoire).

    Google Scholar 

  • Campana, D. (1989). Natufian and Proto-Neolithic bone tools: The manufacture and use of bone implements in the Zagros and the Levant. BAR, International Series 494. Oxford: Archaeopress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carneiro, R. (1979). Tree felling with the stone axe: An experiment carried out among the Yanomano Indians of Southern Venezuela. In C. Kramer (Ed.), Ethnoarchaeology: Implications of ethnography for archaeology (pp. 21–58). New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchill, S. E. (1993). Weapon technology, prey size selection, and hunting methods in modern hunter-gatherers: Implications for hunting in the Paleolithic and Mesolithic. In G. L. Peterkin, H. Bricker, P. A. Mellars (Eds.), Hunting and animal exploitation in the later Paleolithic and Mesolithic of Eurasia. American Anthropological Association, Archaeological Paper No. 4, pp. 11–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, J. G. D. (1953) The economic approach to prehistory. Proceedings of the British Academy, 39, 215–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, J. D., & Kurashina, H. (1981). A study of the work of modern tanner in Ethiopia and its relevance for archaeological interpretation. In R. A. Gould & M. B. Schiffer (Eds.), Modern material culture: The archaeology of us (pp. 303–321). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, J. D. G., & Thompson, M. W. (1954). The groove and splinter technique of working antler in Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Europe, with special reference to the material from Star Carr. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 19, 148–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clemente, I. (1997). Los instrumentos líticos de Túnel VII: una aproximación etnoarqueológica. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coudart, A., & Lemonier, P. (1984). Ethnoarchéologie et ethnologie des techniques. Techniques et culture, 3, 157–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, C. J. (1997). Factors influencing the use of stone projectile tips: An ethnographic perspective. In H. Knecht (Ed.), Projectile technology (pp. 37–78). New York: Plenum Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, J. W., & Strickland, H. C. (1989). Ethnoarchaeology among Efe pygmies, Zaire: Spatial organization of campsites. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 78, 473–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frison, G. C. (1978). Prehistoric hunters of the high plains. New York: Academic Press Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, R. A. (1977). Ethno-archaeology; or, where do models come from? A close look at Australian aboriginal lithic technology. In R. V. S. Wright (Ed.), Stone tools as cultural markers: Change, evolution and complexity (pp. 163–168). Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Prehistory and Material Culture Series No.12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gusinde, M. (1931/1982). Los indios de Tierra de Fuego. Buenos Aires: CAEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayden, B. (1977). Stone tool functions in the Western Desert. In R. V. S. Wright (Ed.), Stone tools as cultural markers. Change, evolution and complexity (pp. 178–188). Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Prehistory and Material Culture Series No.12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkes, K. (1993). Why hunter-gatherers work: An ancient version of the problem of public goods. Current Anthropology, 34, 341–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, K. R., Walker, R. S., Bożičević, M., Eder, J., Headland, T., Hewlett, B., Hurtado, M. A., Marlowe, F., Wiessner, P., Wood, B. et al. (2011). Co-residence patterns in hunter–gatherer societies show unique human social structure. Science, 331, 1286–1289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holl, A. F. C. (2003). Ethnoarchaeology of Shuwa-Arab Settlements. Lanham: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, S. (1998). Getting to the point: Evolutionary change in prehistoric weaponry. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 5, 345–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchings, W. K., & Brüchert, L. W. (1997). Spearthrower performance: Ethnographic and experimental research. Antiquity, 71, 890–897.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibáñez, J. J., & González Urquijo, J. (1996). From tool-use to site function: A new methodological strategy applied to Upper Paleolithic sites in the Basque Country. BAR International Series, 658. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibáñez, J. J., & González Urquijo, J. (2002). Cesteros en la Jebala, Rif occidental, Marruecos. El Pajar, Cuaderno de Etnografía canaria, 13, 88–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibáñez, J. J., González Urquijo, J., Peña-Chocarro, L., Zapata, L., & Beugnier, V. (2001). Harvesting without sickles: Neolithic examples from humid mountains areas. In S. Beyries & P. Petrequin (Eds.), Ethno-archaeology and its transfers. British Archaeological Report, International Series 983 (pp. 23–36). Oxford: Hadrian Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibáñez, J. J., González Urquijo, J., & Moreno, M. (2002). Le travail de la peau en milieu rural: le cas de la Jebala marocaine. In F. Audoin-Rouzeau, S. Beyries (Eds.), Le travail du cuir de la Préhistoire à nos jours (pp. 79–97). XXII rencontres internationales d’archéologie et d’histoire d’Antibes, Antibes, APDCA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamminga, J. (1988). Wood artefacts: A checklist of plant species utilised by Australian Aborigines. Australian Aboriginal Studies, 2, 26–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeley, L. H. (1983). Neolithic novelties: The view from ethnography and microwear analysis. In M. C. Cauvin (Ed.), Traces d’utilisation sur les outils néolithiques du Proche Orient (pp. 251–256). Lyon: Maison de l’Orient.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeley, L. H. (1988). Hunter–gatherer economic complexity and population pressure: A cross-cultural analysis. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 7, 373–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, R. L. (1995). The foraging spectrum: Diversity in hunter-gatherer. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimura, B., Brandt, S. A., Hardy, B. L., & Hauswirth, W. W. (2001). Analysis of DNA from ethnoarchaeological stone scrapers. Journal of Archaeological Science, 28, 45–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kusimba, S. (2005). What is a hunter–gatherer? Variation in the archaeological record of eastern and southern Africa. Journal of Archaeological Research, 13, 337–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupo, K. D., & Schmitt, D. N. (2003). Small prey hunting technology and zooarchaeological measures of taxanomic diversity and abundance: Ethnoarchaeological evidence from Central African forest foragers. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 24, 335–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansur-Franchomme, M. E. (1987). Outils ethnographiques de Patagonie: emmanchement et traces d’utilisation. In D. Stordeur (Ed.), La main et l’outil. Manches et emmanchements préhistoriques (pp. 297–307). Lyon: Maison de l’Orient.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marlowe, F. W. (2005). Hunter–gatherers and human evolution. Evolutionary Anthropology, 14, 54–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, K. (1970). A model for the use of ethnographic data in the analysis of prehistoric activities. Master Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murdock, G. P. (1967). Ethnographic atlas: A summary. Ethnology, 6, 109–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murdock, G. P., & Provost, C. (1973). Factors in the division of labor by sex: A cross-cultural analysis. Ethnology, 12, 203–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, L. R. (1999). Questioning stereo-typical notions of prehistoric tool functions: Ethno-analogy, experimentation and functional analysis. In L. R. Owen & M. Porr  (Eds.), Ethno-analogy and the reconstruction of prehistoric artefact use and production (pp. 17–30). Tübingen: Mo Vince.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen, L. R., Porr, M. (Eds.). (1999). Ethno-analogy and the reconstruction of prehistoric artefact use and production. Urgeschichtliche Materialhefte, 14. Mo Vince, Tübingen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelegrin, J., Karlin, C., Bodu, P. (1988). Chaînes opératoires: un outil pour le préhistorien. In Technologie préhistorique. Notes et Monographies Techniques 25. CNRS, Paris, pp. 55–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry, L. (2005). Reassessing the traditional interpretation of ‘Manioc’ artifacts in the Orinoco Valley of Venezuela. Latin American Antiquity, 16, 409–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrequin, A.-M., Petrequin, P. (1988). Ethnoarcheologie de l’habitat en grotte de Nouvelle-Guinee: une transposition de l’espace social et economique. Bulletin du Centre Genevois d’Anthropologie, 1988(1), 61–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrequin, A.-M., Petrequin, P. (1990). Flèches de chasse, flèches de guerre. Le cas des danis d’Irian Jaya (Indonésie). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, 87, 484–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philibert, S. (2002). Les derniers sauvages. Territoires économiques et systèmes techno-fonctionnels mésolithiques. BAR International Series 1969. Oxford: Archaeopress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plisson, H. (1985). Étude fonctionnelle des outillages lithiques préhistoriques par l’analyse des micro-usures: recherche méthodologique et archéologique. Thèse de Doctorat, Paris I.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez, A. (1997). La tecnología de la piel y el cuero en la prehistoria de Canarias. Una aproximación etnoarqueológica. Museo Canario, 52, 11–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez, A. (1999). The reconstruction of ancient leather technology or how to mix methodological approaches: An example from the Canary Island prehistory. In L. R. Owen & M. Porr (Eds.) Ethno-analogy and the reconstruction of prehistoric artefact use and production (pp. 141–152). Tubingen: Mo Vince.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez, A., Jiménez, A. M., Zamora, J. M., & Mangas, J. (2006). El empleo de cantos rodados en la elaboración de la loza tradicional de la isla de Gran Canaria, implicaciones etnoarqueológicas. In I. Briz & A. Vila (Eds.), Etnoarqueología de la Prehistoria: más allá de la analogía (pp. 209–226). Treballs d’Etnoarqueologia, 6. Madrid: CSIC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rots, V., & Williamson, B. S. (2004). Microwear and residue analyses in perspective: the contribution of ethnoarchaeological evidence. Journal of Archaeological Science, 31, 1287–1299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roux, V. (1999). Ethnoarchaeology and the generation of referential models: The case of Harappan carnelian beds. In L. R. Owen & M. Porr (Eds.), Ethno-analogy and the reconstruction of prehistoric artefact use and production (pp. 153–169). Tubingen: Mo Vince.

    Google Scholar 

  • Semenov, S. A. (1964). Prehistoric technology. London: Cory Adams & Nackay.

    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, XIèmes. Rencontres internationales d’archéologie et d’histoire d’Antibes. APDCA, Juan-les-Pins, pp. 21–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sillitoe, P., & Hardy, K. (2003). Living lithics, ethnography and archaeology in Highland Papua New Guinea. Antiquity, 77, 555–566.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silvestre, R. E. J. (1994). The ethnoarchaeology of Kalinga basketry: A prelimiary investigation. In Kalinga ethnoarchaeology: Expanding archaeological method and theory (pp. 199–207). Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simms, S. R., & Russell, K. (1997). Bedouin hand harvesting of wheat and barley: Implications for Early Cultivation in Southwestern Asia. Current Anthropology, 38, 696–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Speck, F. G. (1937). Analysis of Eskimo and Indian skin-dressing methods in Labrador. Ethnos, 2(6), 345–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spriggs, M. (1977). Introduction: Where the hell are we? (or a young man’s quest). In M. Spriggs (Ed.), Archaeology and anthropology areas of mutual interest (pp. 3–17). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terradas, X. (2005). Stone tools in ethnoarchaeological contexts. British Archaeological Reports (S 1370). Oxford: Archaeopress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terradas, X., Vila, A., Clemente, I., & Mansur, E. (1999). Ethno-neglect or the contradiction between ethnohistorical sources and the archaeological record: the case of stone tools from the Yamana. In L. R. Owen & M. Porr (Eds.), Ethno-analogy and the reconstruction of prehistoric artefact use and production (pp. 103–115). Tubingen: Mo Vince.

    Google Scholar 

  • Testart, A. (1986). Essai sur les fondements de la division sexuelle du travail chez les chasseurs-cueilleurs. Paris: EHESS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomka, S. (1993). Site abandonment behavior among trashumant agro-pastoralists: The effects of delayed curation on assemblage composition. In C. M. Cameron & S. Tomka (Eds.), Abandonment of settlements and regions: Ethnoarchaeological and archaeological approaches (pp. 11–24). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trigger, B. (1989). A history of archaeological thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vila, A., & Ruiz, G. (2001). Información etnológica y el análisis de la reproducción social: el caso Yámana. Revista Española de Antropología Americana, 31, 275–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, J., & Wilk, R. (1988). The manufacture and use-wear characteristics of ethnographic, replicated, and archaeological manioc grater board teeth. In M. Gaxiola & J. E. Clark (Eds.), La obsidiana en Mesoamérica. Ciudad México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weedman, K. J. (2006). An ethnoarchaeological study of hafting and stone tool diversity among the Gamo of Ethiopia. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 13, 188–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weedman, K. J. (2010). Feminine knowledge and skill reconsidered: Women and flaked stone tools. American Anthropologist, 112, 228–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wylie, A. (1985). The reaction against analogy. In M. Schiffer (Ed.), Archaeological method and theory (Vol. 8, pp. 63–112). London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yellen, J. E. (1977). Archaeological approaches to the present: Models for reconstructing the past. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This paper is a contribution forming a part of the HAR2011–29486 and HAR2010–21545-C02–019 projects of the MICINN, Proyectos de Investigación Fundamental no Orientada Program. The authors are grateful to Peter Smith for the English translation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instituto de Prehistoria (IIIPC)/Departamento de Ciencias Históricas, Universidad de Cantabria, Avda. de los Castros s/n, 39005, Santander, Spain

    J. González-Urquijo

  2. CEPAM—UMR 7264, C.N.R.S./Université Nice Sophia Antipolis, Pôle Universitaire Saint Jean d’Angély, SJA 3, 24, avenue des Diables Bleus, Nice, France

    S. Beyries

  3. Institució Milà i Fontanals, C.S.I.C., c/ Egipciaques 15, 08001, Barcelona, Spain

    J.J. Ibáñez

Authors
  1. J. González-Urquijo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Beyries
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J.J. Ibáñez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. González-Urquijo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Universidade do Algarve, Faro, Portugal

    João Manuel Marreiros

  2. Institució Milà i Fontanals, Barcelona, Spain

    Juan F. Gibaja Bao

  3. Universidade do Algarve, Faro, Portugal

    Nuno Ferreira Bicho

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

González-Urquijo, J., Beyries, S., Ibáñez, J. (2015). Ethnoarchaeology and Functional Analysis. In: Marreiros, J., Gibaja Bao, J., Ferreira Bicho, N. (eds) Use-Wear and Residue Analysis in Archaeology. Manuals in Archaeological Method, Theory and Technique. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08257-8_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation