Abstract
It is well known that the “New Archaeology’s” ethnoarchaeology has essentially dealt with problems that derive from the study of a material culture that aims to recognize the patterns of behavior that produced specific archaeological traces. This materialistic procedure (i.e., the research of the natural laws that transformed human actions into archaeological remains) in any case concerns something intangible: the actions of human beings in the past. Obviously the actions that do not leave archaeological traces (speaking, singing, dancing, etc.) are twice as intangible. Generally speaking, all human actions are part of a wider cultural context, which is of course intangible and does not correspond to a set of artifacts that archaeologists find during excavations. In fact, institutions, and social, economic, and political relationships and ideological aspects cannot be directly ascertained by field research. Furthermore, the problem of archaeologically studying ancient perceptions (“Archaeology of the Senses”) has recently been dealt with, and it obviously only regards intangible contexts.
It could be argued that the principal questions deriving from these truisms in relation to ethnoarchaeology are: Can ethnoarchaeology help to decipher this set of intangible phenomena, going beyond material culture, in specific past contexts? If so, does ethnoarchaeology not change itself into the discipline that 150 years ago was called “paleoethnology”—albeit in a renewed way? Can this renewed way entail a global perspective? These questions will be addressed here, mentioning also two case studies from the Italian Bronze Age, which clearly express the kinds of instances that are at the basis of this proposal.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Belardelli, C., Castagna, M. A., De Guio, A., Di Renzoni, A., Levi, S. T., et al. (2005). L’impatto miceneo sulle coste dello Jonio e dell’Adriatico e l’”alta congiuntura” del Bronzo recente italiano. In: E. Greco & R. Laffineur (Eds.), Emporia. Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Aegaeum 25, Liège. pp. 507–518.
Binford, L. R. (1962). Archaeology as anthropology. American Antiquity, 28, 217–225.
Binford, L. R. (1971). Mortuary practices: Their study and potential. In J. A. Brown (Ed.), Approaches to the social dimensions of mortuary practices (Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology, Vol. 25, pp. 6–29).
Binford, L. R. (1972). Contemporary model building: paradigms and the current state of Paleolithic research. In D. L. Clarke (Ed.), Models in archaeology (pp. 109–166). London: Gerald Duckworth & Co., Ltd.
Blake, E. (2008). The Mycenaeans in Italy: A minimalist position. Papers of the British School at Rome, LXXVI, pp. 1–34.
Bourdieu, P. (1972). Esquisse d'une théorie de la pratique. Genève: Librairie Droz.
Cazzella, A. (1986). Livelli di analisi nella ricerca paletnologica. Dialoghi di Archeologia III s., 4(1), 45–49.
Cazzella, A., Cofini, G. & Recchia, G. (2006). Scambio alla pari, scambio ineguale: la documentazione archeologica e il contributo dell’etnoarcheologia. In: Atti della XXXIX Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria. Firenze. pp. 14–168.
Cazzella, A. & Moscoloni, M. (2005). Gli errori di Salvatore M. Puglisi. Origini, XXVII, pp. 33–50.
Cazzella, A. & Recchia, G. (2008). Towards a global functional analysis. In: L. Longo & S. Skakun (Eds.), Prehistoric technology 40 years later: Functional studies and the Russian legacy. British Archaeological Reports Int. S. 1783. Oxford. pp. 267–273.
Cazzella, A. & Recchia, G. (2009). The Mycenaeans in the Central Mediterranean: A comparison between the Tyrrhenian and the Adriatic seaways. Pasiphae, III, pp. 27–40.
Cazzella, A. & Recchia, G. (2013). The role of human factor in the transformation of southern Italian bronze age societies: Agency theory and Marxism reconsidered, Origini, XXXV, pp. 191–209.
Childe, V. G. (1956). Piecing together the past. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Flannery, K. V., & Marcus, J. (1998). Cognitive archaeology. In D. S. Whitley (Ed.), Reader in archaeological theory: Post-processual and cognitive approaches (pp. 35–48). London: George Routledge & Sons.
Funari, P. P., Zarankin, A., & Stovel, E. (Eds.). (2005). Global archaeological theory. Contextual voices and contemporary thoughts. New York: Plenum Press, Inc.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory. Action, structure and contradiction in social analysis. London: Macmillan.
Hill, J. N. (1968). Broken K Pueblo: Patterns of form and function. In L. R. Binford & S. R. Binford (Eds.), New perspectives in archaeology (pp. 103–142). Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.
Hills, C. (2005). Holistic/contextual archaeology. In C. Renfrew & P. Bahn (Eds.), Archaeology: the key concepts (pp. 141–146). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hodder, I. (1977). A study in ethnoarchaeology in Western Kenya. In: M. Spriggs (Ed.), Archaeology and anthropology. British Archaeological Reports Int. S. 19. Oxford. pp. 117–141.
Hodder, I. (1982). Symbols in action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hodder, I. (1986). Reading the past. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kelly, R. L., & Thomas, D. H. (2010). Archaeology. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Co.
Longacre, W. A. (1968). Some aspects of prehistoric society in East-Central Arizona. In L. R. Binford & S. R. Binford (Eds.), New perspectives in archaeology (pp. 89–102). Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.
Longo, L. & Iovino, M. R. (2003). Archeologia sperimentale e analisi funzionale: ipotesi, verifiche e nuove interpretazioni. In: P. Bellintani & L. Moser, (Eds.), Archeologie sperimentali. Metodologie ed esperienze fra verifica, riproduzione, comunicazione e simulazione. Trento, Provincia Autonoma, Servizio Beni Culturali, Ufficio Beni Archeologici, Trento. pp. 183–201.
Melas, E. M. (1989). Etics, emics and empathy in archaeological theory. In I. Hodder (Ed.), The meanings of things (pp. 137–155). London: Unwin Hyman.
Puglisi, S. M. (1959). La civiltà appenninica. Firenze: Sansoni.
Renfrew, C. (1973) Before civilization. London.
Renfrew, C. (1994). Towards a cognitive archaeology. In C. Renfrew & E. B. W. Zubrow (Eds.), The ancient of mind (pp. 3–12). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Renfrew, C., & Zubrow, E. B. W. (Eds.). (1994). The ancient mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ricoeur, P. (1977). La sémantique de l’action. Paris: Editions du CNRS.
Robb, J. (2010). Beyond agency. World Archaeology, 42(4), 493–520.
Sahlins, M. D. (1968). Tribesmen. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Service, E. R. (1971). Primitive social organization. An evolutionary perspective. New York: Random House.
Shanks, M., & Tilley, C. (1987). Re-constructing archaeology. Theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Skeates, R. (2010). An archaeology of the senses. Prehistoric Malta. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cazzella, A. (2016). Ethnoarchaeology of the Intangible Culture: A Trajectory Towards Paleoethnology as a Global Discipline?. In: Biagetti, S., Lugli, F. (eds) The Intangible Elements of Culture in Ethnoarchaeological Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23153-2_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23153-2_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-23152-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-23153-2
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)