How have ethnographic analogies have been used in the interpretation of Prehistoric exchange systems?

by seentje (student)

ARGY10072
ID: 76680440

How have ethnographic analogies have been used in the interpretation of

Prehistoric exchange systems? Illustrate your answer with ethnographic and

archaeological examples.

The use of ethnographic analogy as a method of archaeological interpretation has been the subject of debates in the discipline, ranging from attempts to change the theoretical framework of analogical interpretation (Ascher 1961), to dismissing the method altogether (Gould 1981 as quoted by Wylie 1985). This essay starts by defining the terms ‘ethnography’ and ‘ethnographic analogy’. The focus of the remainder of the essay is to explain some of the critiques on analogy and where they potentially originate from, by discussing how archaeologists have used ethnographic analogies in the interpretation of prehistoric exchange systems. It will be argued that, when used carefully, ethnographic analogy can provide valuable insights into prehistoric trade, exchange and culture.

Ethnographic analogy
‘Ethnography’ is a method of study that is often used by anthropologists in order to study a contemporary culture. Often ethnography involves fieldwork and a prolonged stay with the ‘host’ society, in order to fully emerge oneself into a foreign culture. Doing so will help with the recording of data, as informants will trust the anthropologist more over time, helping him or her with creating detailed accounts of people’s lives. Ethnographic analogy utilizes ethnographic data in order to discover possible functions of artefacts, and how those artefacts relate to people and their culture (McDavid). According to Torrence, archaeology as a discipline is heavily dependent on ethnography in trying to define past economic systems. For example, modern ethnography and economic anthropological theory is used in order to explain the economic structure in the late Bronze Age. (Ostaja-Zagorski 1993). Interpretation of prehistoric economic phenomena was influenced by a deterministic model of economic social formation and means of production (Ibid.). This model was presented as a motor that goes through different stages of economic development and was often linear in progress, suggesting that all societies developed in the same way (Bahn and Renfrew 1996, Ostaja-Zagorski 1993).

Criticism on early use of analogical inference
A critique that is often mentioned in debates surrounding analogy focuses on historical discontinuity. Early users of ethnographic analogies often depicted modern day hunter-gatherer societies as direct representatives of past prehistoric peoples, using them as a mirror through which to look at the past (Wylie 1985). An example of this can be found in the work of William Sollas who, in his book Ancient hunters and their modern representatives, establishes a direct link between Aurignacian peoples and modern African hunter-gatherers based on a similar art style (Sollas 1915). He argues that the similarities in the art of these different groups indicate a relationship between them, seeing the modern day group as a remnant of what life would have been like in the upper Palaeolithic (Ibid.).

The problem with this kind of reasoning is that it relies on the assumption that societies remain unsusceptible to change throughout history. Torrence argues that this assumption is a serious limitation in using ethnographic analogy as a means of interpreting exchange (1993). In his essay on Obsidian artefacts, he states: ‘’Separating out what is 'primitive' or 'pristine' about the behaviour observed and identifying which aspects can be used profitably as a 'model' of how prehistoric exchange might have looked elsewhere in the world is not straightforward.’’(1993:467). Sollas does not consider the impact that outside influences have on societies, which can perhaps partially be blamed on the nature of ethnography. At best, even ethnography only provides an archaeologist with a snapshot of human behaviour. Ethnography is usually conducted over a prolonged period of time, but hardly ever spans generations, making it seem as though societies do not change over time.

An ethnography that does cover the subject of changes within society is Yunxian Yan’s work on Chinese rural villagers, in which he explores the changes that occurred in the village throughout the second half of the twentieth century (Yan 2003). Even though Yan only covers roughly fifty years in his ethnography, the changes that he describes within that time support the theory that societies adjust and transform, and not, as Sollas argues, directly reflect earlier times.

Despite archaeologists abandoning an evolutionist model such as Sollas’, concerns about analogy as a method of interpretation persisted (Wylie 1985). Archaeologists such as Binford and Clark were often criticized for generalising in their analysis (Insoll 2012). The former studied the Nunamuit of Alaska in the 1960s in an effort to understand more about Palaeolithic Mousterian tool assemblages (Ibid.). Binford states that archaeologists should seek to make generalisations about the way in which culture operates in a way that has not been described through ethnography (Binford 1967). However, in his attempt create universals he occasionally bases his generalisations on little evidence. In his work, he suggests that that the practice of smoking hides, was women’s work (Binford 1967).

Hide smoking (source: http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t317/YTBM/Chippewa1900.jpg)

He based this analysis of hide smoking on ethnographies that suggested women were the ones who were mostly concerned with the practice. However, he then further generalises, claiming that hide smoking was done by women universally, and that this would influence changes in style (Ibid.).

In 1961, Robert Ascher suggested that analogy could be put onto ‘firmer foundations’ if archaeologists would accept its subjectivity (Ascher 1961). He believed that systematic analogy would pull the method out of its controversial status by stating the use of relevant analogs, why those were chosen as analogs for that particular phenomenon, and that these were merely suggestions, not facts (Ibid.). In his paper, Binford occasionally omits this from his analysis, which may then make it appear too factual.

Grahame Clark has also used ethnography in order to try and interpret aspects of prehistoric exchange. His analogy draws upon Marcel Mauss’ influential ethnography of Melanesia and the ‘gift’ (Bahn and Renfrew 1996). He links the principles of Mauss gift society, in which exchange is based on the reciprocation of gifts and relationships of obligation and interdependence between people, with an axe trade network that occurred in the British Neolithic (Ibid.). In his work, Clark used petrography in order to study the texture and sections of the axes (Bahn and Renfrew 1996). He concluded from the patterns that a society based on gift exchange existed in the British Neolithic (Ibid.).

This is a preview of the whole essay

This type of formal or processual analogy has been heavily criticised by Archaeologists, who regard processual analogy as a form of analogy that makes too many generalisations, and relies on science to formulate standardized methods of interpreting ethnographic material, thereby creating a false sense of ‘factual knowledge’ (Insoll 2012, Wylie 1985). According to Insoll, formal analogy should be abandoned in favour of a more complex, relational analogy (Insoll 2012). This form of analogy attempts to find common ground between the materials that are being studied, without trying to establish universals based on similarities between artefacts (Ibid.)

Ethnoarchaeology and the value of ethnographic analogy
In his essay on the exchange of obsidian artefacts traded by peoples on the admiralty islands, Torrence stresses the difficulties of using ethnographic analogy in order to reconstruct prehistoric exchange (1993). Apart from the argument that ethnographies usually only covers one generation, Torrence argues that most anthropological ethnographies lack emphasis on the link between material culture and exchange (Ibid.) In an effort to combat this gap in knowledge, archaeologists begun to conduct their own ethnographies, leading to the birth of ethnoarchaeology, a branch of archaeology described as ‘’the study of contemporary societies with the aim of understanding how human behaviour relates to material culture.’’ (Insoll 2012:7). However, it has to be noted that this new form of ethnography was and is still subject to the same issues that surround anthropological ethnography. The ethnographies conducted by archaeologists may have improved the study on material culture and exchange, but the same limitations on determining authenticity or degree of ‘primitiveness’ (referring to a quote by Torrence earlier in this essay) and lack of longitudinal research still apply (Torrence 1993).

Despite these criticisms, there are archaeologists who believe in the value of ethnographic analogy. Wylie, in her article, criticises Gould for arguing that analogical inference is not desirable and should be omitted, by stating that his reasoning is essentially analogical (Wylie 1985). She uses the example of hunter-gatherers, in which Gould discusses the issue with comparing prehistoric humans to modern nomadic groups, stating that they (like nonhuman carnivores) may not have had access to fire, which would have changed their way of survival (Ibid.). This statement is analogical, because Gould uses nonhuman carnivores as an analog onto which he constructs an image of what early humans might have been like. Wylie subsequently argues that all interpretations are analogical (Wylie 1985). This could be seen as actually strengthening the position of analogical reasoning in archaeology, not weakening it.

Others have also argued that using ethnographic analogy, despite its sometimes controversial status, can provide archaeologists with valuable insights about the way prehistoric exchange operated (Torrence 1993). Torrence used ethnographic data from museum collections to trace different forms of exchange, and how exchange can be influenced by modern capitalism and contact with foreign societies (Ibid.).

Torrence’s artefacts. He used museum collections to reconstruct exchange (Torrence 1993)

The key to using that data in order to reconstruct trade and exchange, according to Torrence, is ‘’not to expect that the objects represent a direct reflection of a pristine cultural setting free from the 'nasty' influences of a modern world system, but to take advantage of the types of variability that are represented.’’ (Torrence 1993:478). This ‘value’ in ethnographic data is backed up by Bahn and Renfrew, who write that ethnographies on West-African markets and for example pre-industrial China can provide archaeologists with insight into exchange (1996).

Conclusion
The way in which ethnographies are used in analogy possibly determines their value as a method of interpretation. Ethnographic analogy is not an effortless way of reconstructing the past through present day reflections in the way that Sollas argued in his studies. It is a method that is considered flawed by some, in the way that it can overgeneralise similarities between material cultures, or assume that societies remain unchanged throughout history. Gould’s dismissal of analogical reasoning altogether is met with resistance from Alison Wylie, who sees flaws in his argument and claims that Gould actually uses analogy in order to prove his point.

Many archaeologists also see the positive sides of analogy, arguing that using ethnographic analogy can open up new doors in the way people think about exchange and trade in prehistory. Ethnographic analogy in discussing prehistoric exchange is perhaps not useful in directly reconstructing the past through reflections from the present, but it can provide archaeologists with new ways from which to approach the subject of exchange in prehistory. It is perhaps unable to answer directly whether the British Neolithic was an exchange society similar to modern day Melanesia, but it can at least open up a possibility which, without ethnography, would not have existed.

Wordcount: 1821

Bibliography
Ascher R. (1961) Analogy in Archaeological Interpretation, Southwestern journal of Anthropology, vol 17:4, pp. 317-325

Renfrew C. and Bahn P. (1996) Archaeology Theories, Methods and practice (2nd edition), Thames and Hudson Ltd., London

Binford, L.R. (1967) Smudge Pits and Hide Smoking: The Use of Analogy in Archaeological Reasoning, American Antiquity, Vol 32:1, January, pp. 1-12

Insoll T. (2012) Themes in Archaeology week 2: Ethnography, Analogy and Ethnoarchaeology [lecture], University of Manchester, Mansfield Cooper G22.

Ostoja-Zagorski J. (1993) ‘Changing paradigms in the study of the prehistoric economy: An example from East-Central Europe’ in Bogucki P. (ed.) Case studies in European Prehistory, CRC Press, United States of America

Sollas W.J. (1911) Ancient hunters and their modern representatives, Macmillan, London

Torrence R. (1993) Ethnoarchaeology, Museum Collections and Prehistoric Exchange: Obsidian-tipped Artifacts from the Admiralty Islands, World Archaeology vol 4:3, February, pp. 467-481

McDavid C. Ethnography and Archaeology- how do archaeologists use the of people in the present to learn about people on the past [online]
[accessed: 20-03-2012]

[accessed 18-03-2012]

Wylie A. (1985) The reaction against Analogy, Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol 8, pp. 63-111