Ethnoarchaeology: Approaches to Fieldwork

  • Gustavo G. PolitisEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51726-1_1497-2

Introduction

Field methods of ethnoarchaeology are based on those of ethnography, but because of the type of information that is sought, there are some record types that are more specific to archaeology. In other words, fieldwork in ethnoarchaeology is also based on participant observation in living societies, with an attitude of minimal interference in the community under study and a clear research design. However, little has been written and reflected on ethnoarchaeological fieldwork (for exceptions, see David and Kramer 2001: 63–90; Arthur and Weedman 2005), and in general, it is not clearly specified in the reports. There are three defining elements of ethnoarchaeology that have implications in their field methods: the study of a living culture, with reference to the material derivatives of human behavior, and (when it is in traditional society) the postcolonial context.

Key Issues/Current Debates/Future Directions/Examples

The ethnoarchaeological fieldwork has some peculiarities....

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

References

  1. Arthur, J., and K. Weedman. 2005. Ethnoarchaeology. In Handbook of archaeological methods, ed. H.D. Maschner and C. Chippindale, vol. 1, 216–269. Lanham: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  2. Binford, L. 1978. Nunamiut ethnoarchaeology. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  3. Binford, L., and J. O’Connell. 1984. An alyawara day: The stone quarry. Journal of Anthropological Research 40: 406–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bird, D.W., R. Bliege Bird, and B.F. Codding. 2009. In pursuit of mobile prey: Martu hunting strategies and archaeofaunal interpretation. American Antiquity 74: 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cunningham, J., and S. MacEachern. 2016. Ethnoarchaeology as Slow Science. World Archaeology 48 (5): 628–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. David, N., and C. Kramer. 2001. Ethnoarchaeology in action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. David, N., A. Sterner, and K.B. Gauva. 1988. Why pots are decorated. Current Anthropology 29: 365–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DeBoer, W. 1974. Ceramic longevity and archaeological interpretation: An example of the Upper Ucayali, Peru. American Antiquity 39: 335–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fewster, F. 2001. The responsibilities of ethnoarchaeologists. In The responsibilities of archaeologists: Archaeology and ethics, British Archaeological Reports international series 981, ed. M. Pluciennik, 65–73. Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
  10. Flanagan, J.G. 1989. Hierarchy in simple ‘egalitarian’ societies. Annual Review of Anthropology 18: 245–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gonzalez Ruibal, A. 2009. De la etnoarqueología a la arqueología del presente. In Mundos Tribales. Una visión etnoarqueológica, 16–27. Madrid: Museu de Prehistoria de Valéncia. Diputació de Valencia.Google Scholar
  12. Gosselain, O. 2000. Materializing identities. An African perspective. Journal of Archaeological Methods and Theory 7: 187–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Greaves, R. 2006. Use and residential landscape. Foragers organization. In Archaeology and ethnoarchaeology of mobility, ed. F. Sellers, R. Greaves, and P.-L. Yu, 127–152. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.Google Scholar
  14. Hamilakis, J. and A. Anagnostopulos. 2009. What is Archaeological Ethnography? In J. Hamilakis and A. Anagnostopulos (eds.), Public Archaeology: Archaeological Ethnographies 8 (2–3), 65–87.Google Scholar
  15. Hernando Gonzalo, A., G. Politis, A. González Ruibal, and E. Beserra Cohelo. 2011. Gender, power and mobility among the Awá-Guajá (Maranhão, Brazil). Journal of Anthropological Research 67 (2): 189–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hodder, I. 1982. The present past: An introduction to anthropology for archaeologists. London: Batsford.Google Scholar
  17. Kelly, R., L. Poyer, and B. Ticker. 2006. Mobility and houses in southwestern Madagascar. Ethnoarchaeology among the Mikea and their neighbors. In Archaeology and ethnoarchaeology of mobility, ed. F. Sellers, R. Greaves, and P.-L. Yu, 75–107. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.Google Scholar
  18. Kramer, C. 1982. Village ethnoarchaeology: Rural Iran in archaeological perspective. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  19. Laming-Emperaire, A., M.J. Menezes, and M. Davina Andretta. 1978. O trabalho da pedra entre os Xetá da Serra dos Dourados, Estado do Paraná. In Coletânea de Estudos em Homenagem a Anette Laming-Emperaire, Coleção Museu Paulista, Série Ensaios, vol. 2, 19–82. São Paulo.Google Scholar
  20. Lupo, K., and J. O’Connell. 2002. Cut and tooth mark distribution on large animal bones: Ethnoarchaeological data from the Hadza and their implications for current ideas about early human carnivory. Journal of Archaeological Science 29: 85109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mendoza, M. 2003/2004. Range área and seasonal campsites of Toba bands in Western Chaco. Before Farming 2: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. O’Connell, J. 1987. Alyawara site structure and its archaeological implications. American Antiquity 52: 74–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pétrequin, P., and A.M. Pétrequin. 1993. Ecologie d’un outil: la hache de pierre en Irian Jaya (Indonésie), Monographie du CRA 12. Paris: CNRS Éditions.Google Scholar
  24. Politis, G. 2007. Nukak. Ethnoarchaeology of an Amazonian people, University College London Institute of Archaeology publications. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  25. Politis, G. 2015. Reflections on contemporary ethnoarchaeology. Pyrenae 41 (1): 41–83.Google Scholar
  26. Roux, V. 2007. Ethnoarchaeology: A non-historical science of reference necessary for interpreting the past. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 14 (2): 153–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Silva, F. 2009. A etnoarqueologia na Amazônia: contribuções e perspectivas, Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Geoldi 4 (1), 27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stark, M., and J. Skibo. 2007. A history of the Kalinga ethnoarchaeological project. In Archaoelogical anthropology. Perspective in methods and theory, ed. J. Skibo, M. Graves, and M. Stark, 40–56. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
  29. Watson, P.J. 1979. Archaeological ethnography in Western Iran. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
  30. Weedman, K. 2006. Gender and ethnoarchaeology. In Handbook of gender in archaeology, ed. M. Nelson, 247–294. Lanham: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  31. Weedman Arthur, K. 2018. The lives of stone tools: Crafting the status, skill, and identity of flintknappers. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Yellen, J.E. 1977. Archaeological approaches to the present. New York: Academic.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.INCUAPA-Facultad de Ciencias SocialesCONICET UNICENOlavarríaArgentina

Section editors and affiliations

  • Sandra Montón-Subías
    • 1
  • Bisserka Gaydarska
    • 2
  1. 1.Departament d’HumanitatsICREA/Universitat Pompeu FabraBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Department of ArchaeologyDurham UniversityDurhamUK