Ethnoarchaeology: A Discussion of Methods and Applications

Author(s): Daniel Stiles

Source: Man, New Series, Vol. 12, No. 1 (Apr., 1977), pp. 87-103
Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2800996
Accessed: 14-06-2017 12:55 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Man

This content downloaded from 193.188.46.75 on Wed, 14 Jun 2017 12:55:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 ETHNOARCHAEOLOGY: A DISCUSSION OF
METHODS AND APPLICATIONS

DANIEL STILES

University of California, Berkeley

Ethnographic methods and observations have a long history of use by workers concerned
with the reconstruction of prehistoric human behaviour and cultural patterns based on
archaeological data. Even though the first attempts at applying knowledge of activities and
material culture of living peoples to interpreting and explaining things of prehistoric origin
date to centuries ago, it has not been until relatively recently that workers have begun
seriously to explore the methods and applications of ethnography as a tool of archaeology.
This increasingly active field can now be said to form a subdiscipline of anthropology, here
termed 'ethnoarchaeology'. The subdiscipline is defined broadly as encompassing all the
theoretical and methodological aspects of comparing ethnographic and archaeological data,
including the use of the ethnographic analogy and archaeological ethnography.
A discussion is made of the aims and needs of the field of ethnoarchaeology, along with a
presentation of the methods of obtaining data needed by archaeologists in explanation and
interpretation. Three methods of using the resultant information are defined: the ethno-
graphic analogy, the generation of hypotheses on models, and the testing of hypotheses.

Ethnographic data have long been used by archaeologists for interpreting and
explaining things found in the archaeological record. In more recent years as
archaeologists have become more preoccupied with theoretical aspects of archae-
ology, a conscious attempt has been made to create a more systematic model for
the use of ethnographic analogy. Students recognised that there was a difference
between using ethnographic analogy when direct historical continuity between the
ethnographic and archaeological data existed and when a general comparative
approach was employed, where no such continuity existed. It was proposed that
boundaries be recognised and applied when using ethnographic data and that
various conditions of validity existed (Ascher i96ia). Criticisms were made accusing
ethnoarchaeology of limiting archaeological interpretation of past modes of
behaviour to known analogues (Binford i968b; Freeman I968). Today the field of
ethnoarchaeology has overcome many of its growing pains and it is acknowledged
by most archaeologists as making a very valuable contribution to the study of
man's past behaviour and culture.
With the acceptance of the judicious use of ethnographic analogy in archaeolog-
ical interpretation people quickly realised that most ethnographic accounts were
inadequate for use in archaeology. Ethnographers are not normally concerned with
the same problems as archaeologists, so most things in a society of relevance to
archaeologists are not recorded. The palliative to this deficiency was to begin
studies of non-industrial peoples from an archaeological perspective.
Man (N.S.) I2, 87-I03.

This content downloaded from 193.188.46.75 on Wed, 14 Jun 2017 12:55:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 88 DANIEL STILES

II

Definition
Ethnoarchaeology as a distinct subdiscipline of anthropology is a relatively
recent phenomenon. The field is still in the process of formation and as such still
lacks a generally accepted definition or fully developed body of theory and
methodology. An etymologist might say that the term ethnoarchaeology implied
that the field data dealt with the use of archaeology in the study of living peoples,
but this would be diametrically opposite to its primary concern: the use of ethno-
graphic methods and information to aid in the interpretation and explanation of
archaeological data.
Most definitions offered to date restrict the term ethnoarchaeology to the con-
ditions of the actual field study. Oswalt (1974: 3), for example, states that it is 'the
study, from an archaeological perspective, of material culture based on verbal
information about artifacts obtained from persons, or their direct descendants,
who were involved with the production.' Stanislawski (1974: I8) offers a more
comprehensive definition when he states that ethnoarchaeology is 'the direct
observation field study of the form, manufacture, distribution, meaning, and use of
artifacts and their institutional setting and social unit correlates among living, non-
industrial peoples for the purpose of constructing better explanatory models to
aid archaeological analogy and inference.' I tend to see these two definitions as
referring more accurately to what Gould (i968a; 1974b) has termed 'living
archaeology', and which I shall refer to as archaeological ethnography. I would
like to expand the term to encompass all the theoretical and methodological aspects
of comparing ethnographic and archaeological data, and in particular the use of
the ethnographic analogy. Gould provides a definition which meets these criteria:
As I would define it here, living archaeology is the actual effort made by an archaeologist or
ethnographer to do fieldwork in living human societies, with special reference to the
'archaeological' patterning of the behaviour in those societies. Ethnoarchaeology, as I see it,
refers to a much broader general framework for comparing ethnographic and archaeological
patterning. In this latter case, the archaeologist may rely entirely upon published and archival
sources or upon experimental results ... for his comparisons without having to do the actual
fieldwork himself. Thus ethnoarchaeology may include studies of 'living archaeology' along
with other approaches as well (I974: 29).

III

History and development

The concept of the use of ethnographic information in archaeology is not a new
one. In fact, ethnographic information was used as early as the seventeenth century
as evidence that ceraunia (pierres de foudre or thunderstones) were actually imple-
ments made by man (in Pake 1940: 117-18). De Jussieu (1723: 6) compared pre-
historic stone tools found in France with similar forms still in use at that time in the
New World to explain their use, and thus made one of the earliest explicit uses of
the ethnographic analogy in interpreting what one day would be considered
archaeological data.
With the development of professional approaches to ethnography by workers
such as Morgan, Tylor, Spencer and others in the latter part of the nineteenth
century, ethnographic parallels were commonly used by archaeologists to explain

This content downloaded from 193.188.46.75 on Wed, 14 Jun 2017 12:55:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 DANIEL STILES 89

their data. With the belief th

past stages of human culture
models for interpretations of
of their cultural artefacts we
ogy. Sollas's (i9i i) Ancient h
viewpoint being applied to archaeological material, where there was an existing
culture representative of each stage of prehistory.
A critical reaction developed against the evolutionists with the rise of the
American 'historical school' under the leadership of Franz Boas during the end of
the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The comparative method was
replaced by the 'historical method', where during an active period of ethnological
fieldwork in North America the history of peoples and cultures in limited geo-
graphical areas was worked out (see Boas 1940). It is within this theoretical context
affecting ethnology that we see the first coordination of ethnography and archae-
ology for a common goal (Cushing I886; I890; Fewkes 1893; I900; Hodge 1897;
Sapir I9I6; Kroeber I9I6). Early American anthropologists like Cushing and
Fewkes could have been considered ethnoarchaeologists, as in their studies of
American Indians they began with the ethnographic present and worked back to
the prehistoric past. Indeed, in I900 Fewkes used the term 'ethno-archaeologist'
(Fewkes I900: 579).
The situation remained approximately stable for the next sixty years in terms of
the relationship of ethnography to archaeology. There were periodic appeals for
the increased use of ethnographic parallels in archaeology (Crawford 1927) and
examples of the use of ethnography in interpreting archaeological data appeared
(Swanton 1928; Strong 1936; Parsons 1940). D. F. Thompson's (1939) study of the
Wik Mungkan Aborigines of northeast Queensland, Australia, is one of the first
ethnoarchaeology studies done, i.e. ethnography from an archaeological perspec-
tive. He noted that:
Probably the surest method of appreciating the nature of the food quest of these people ...
[and] the little that would remain to tell the story to an archaeological investigator, is to
follow in the steps of one of these food gathering groups, a day or two after it has passed
(Thompson I939: 220).

Which is precisely what Thompson did, noting in detail information on climat

vegetation, surface water, subsistence activities and settlement patterns, house ty
and principal food stuffs, all in relation to the material culture according to t
season of the year.
In the 1940's, interest in ethnography by archaeologists was stimulated by
Steward's (1942) 'direct-historical approach', which in reality only officially
baptised the kinds of studies which had been occurring in America and Australia for
decades. In the igSo's the use of ethnographic analogy in archaeology was being
seriously discussed by such eminent European prehistorians as Grahame Clark
(195s; 19S2) and V. Gordon Childe (i9S6). The cautious use of ethnographic
parallels was defended, which stimulated critical response from Hawkes (1954),
Smith (i955), Leroi-Gourhan (I964), and Laming (i959), who expressed the belief
that there could be no logical connexion between the behaviour of present day
peoples and the prehistoric past, and thus no validity in the use of ethnographic
analogies in archaeology.

This content downloaded from 193.188.46.75 on Wed, 14 Jun 2017 12:55:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 go DANIEL STILES

In North America during the i95

was being developed in an intellec
was considered an important part of archaeology (Willey 19S3; R. Thompson
i9S6). Kleindienst and Watson (i9S6) proposed that 'action archaeology' be under-
taken, where archaeologists would study living communities in order to compile
inventories of material of interest to archaeologists. Ascher (ig6ia) published an
important paper in the early ig60's which implicitly prepared the way for the
formative period of the new subdiscipline 'Ethnoarchaeology'. In it he discussed
briefly the history and development of ethnographic analogy and some of the
theoretical and methodological issues concerning its use. He concluded that 'it is
the study of this very special corpus of data [the post-depositional transformation
of discarded and disused material] within the living community which holds the
most fruitful promise for analogy in archaeological interpretation' (ig6ia: 325).
During the mid-ig6o's several projects were undertaken around the world which
were explicitly archaeological ethnography or closely related human ecology
studies, with heavy emphasis on the few hunting and gathering societies still in
existence (Lee i963; i968; Gould i967; i968a; i968b; Heider i967;White i967;
i968; I969; Strathern i965; Woodburn i968; Stanislawski I969a; I969b). The
use of the results of these research projects engendered further criticism of ethno-
graphic analogy (Freeman i968; Binford i968a; i968b), but these studies are
widely considered to be extremely valuable and needed contributions to prehistoric
archaeology (Chang i967; Clark i968).
The 1970's has witnessed increased interest in archaeological ethnography by
archaeologists and the recognition that this type of study, along with the problem
of how to apply the resultant data, constitutes a subdiscipline in its own right.
There has been an increase in the number of treatments of studies involving
ethnographic parallels, exemplified by an issue of World Archaeology devoted to
archaeology and ethnography (i97i), the UCLA monograph entitled Ethno-
archaeology (Donnan & Clewlow 1974), and theoretical discussions by Clark (i968),
Watson et al (1971: 49-SI), and Orme (1973; 1974).
What is most needed now is a consistent and integrated body of theory of what
ethnoarchaeology is trying to accomplish and how it is going to go about accom-
plishing those goals.

IV
Aims and needs
The general aim of the subdiscipline is to make use of the information gathered
in the historical present that has relevance in interpreting and explaining archaeo-
logically revealed residues of prehistoric human behaviour. One of the most specific
aims is improving the quality of the gathered information to make it more useful
to archaeologists in formulating models and applying analogies.
The aim of using the present to aid in explaining the past generates certain needs.
There is a need for detailed information on all aspects of organised human activity
of the kind which will leave preservable traces in the archaeological record. There
is a need for an understanding of the relationship of the patterns of these traces to
the patterns of activities which produced them. This means that studies are necessary
of living societies of a nature normally out of bounds for traditional ethnographers.

This content downloaded from 193.188.46.75 on Wed, 14 Jun 2017 12:55:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 DANIEL STILES 9I

These studies focus on the

the influence that the phy
this behaviour will leave on
out.
When an archaeologist excavates a site he uncovers artefacts (in the broadest
sense, including structures, food residues, etc.) and the organisation of these artefacts
in a spatial pattern. There is a complex relationship between these artefacts and the
human behaviour which produced them and in turn all of the economic and social
activities in which they were engaged. In addition there exists the relationship of
these factors with the surrounding environmental and ecological situation, which
introduces the dimension of time in the form of seasonality and ultimately the
concept of culture change.
Equally important is the problem of archaeological visibility. This has often been
discussed (Heider I967; Lee I968; Deetz I968; Peterson 1971) and Gould (I974)
presents a good summary of the various aspects involved. Archaeologists have a
critical need for information on the processes which affect the degree of visibility
of the material they uncover.
Information is needed from living groups on how the inter-relationships of
factors mentioned above function in society today. From the observation of this
complex system in action it will be possible to create realistic models on how
societies functioned in the past, using archaeological data as supporting or contra-
dicting evidence. Normal ethnographies usually stress the social, economic, and
linguistic aspects of a society, largely ignoring the physical manifestations of
activities related to these aspects. An inventory of material culture might be given,
but there is rarely a discussion of the variability of the form of implements or how
the variability is related to the socio-economic system. There is need of special
emphasis on aspects of the traces of these activities which fall outside the scope of
normal ethnographies. General headings of areas of specific interest to archaeologists
not recorded in normal ethnographies are:
- variation in artefact form
- details of spatial relations of physical traces of socio-economic activity
- disposal processes
- location of craft and subsistence activities in relation to the settlement
organisation
A more detailed inventory of ethnographic information needed by archaeologists
is given in the appendix.

Methods of obtaining needed information

There are a limited number of sources from which to obtain archaeologically
relevant information:
i) the literature of normal ethnographic studies
2) early published accounts of travellers
3) museum collections of material culture
4) experimental studies
5) explicit archaeological ethnographic studies.

This content downloaded from 193.188.46.75 on Wed, 14 Jun 2017 12:55:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 92 DANIEL STILES

i) The literature on normal ethnographic studies is overwhelmingly copious

and although it contains many of the kinds of information needed by archaeologists,
it is often limited and uneven in quality. As an aid to locating ethnographic studies
which might contain information of the type desired, it is advantageous to have
a knowledge of bibliographies containing ethnographic citations. Some examples
are arranged under a separate heading in the bibliography.
2) Early accounts of travellers often contain many interesting details on the life
and environment of societies before the full impact of Western colonial expansion
altered traditional patterns of behaviour. It would be a worthwhile endeavour to
compile a bibliography of these publications for use by archaeologists and ethno-
graphers alike. As with normal ethnographies, however, they are lacking in many
of the details needed specifically by archaeologists for reconstructing past cultural
systems and human behaviour.
3) Museum collections are useful for furnishing examples of cultural artefacts
and how they were manufactured and used. They usually lack information on how
the artefacts functioned within the socio-economic system and how or why they
are discarded or fall into disuse.
4) In experimental studies the object is to try and replicate under controlled con-
ditions those factors which lead to what one observes in the archaeological record.
These studies have up until recently focused on cultural artefacts in an attempt to
determine the function of specific artefacts and whether certain objects are natural
or man-made (Ascher ig6ib). There have been many studies of this sort over the
years, some of the more significant ones being conducted by Warren (I9I4),
Barne (1939), Sonnenfeld (I962), and Semenov (i964)'. More recently, experi-
mern.s are being conducted concerning the processes which affect transformation
and preservation of archaeological remains (Isaac I967; Sadek-Kooros 1972), which
relate very closely to archaeological ethnography in purpose and method.
These studies are extremely useful to the archaeologist for the interpretation of
artefact function and for gaining a better understanding of natural processes affecting
archaeological remains, but taken out of the context of the original living milieu
no information can be acquired about the social and cultural aspects of the artefacts
and their preserved spatial arrangement.
s) Explicit archaeological ethnography (AE) studies provide the archaeologist
with the most detailed and useful information, unobtainable from the above
sources. There is much variability in the types of AE studies which have been carried
out thus far. This is a reflection of what different workers think AE is and also of
specific problems that are being investigated. Peterson (1971), for example, proposes
that areas rather than sites should be studied because he believes that artefact
variation is due to broad ecological, rather than specific cultural, causes. Gould
warns that 'sites first, and then areas' (1974b: 42) should be the object of study
because area studies 'lack the specific archaeological detail in terms of cultural
patterning needed by the archaeologist' (1974b: 41). Most researchers have been
following Gould's caveat and area models are emerging from specific site studies
(Yellen 1974; Stanislawski 1974).
The question is, then, how does one conduct an AE study at a site? There are
three general categories of AE studies, each with its own variants:

This content downloaded from 193.188.46.75 on Wed, 14 Jun 2017 12:55:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 DANIEL STILES 93

A. The study of activities

(i968a), 'action archaeology'
approach' of Yellen (I974)
interest, such as pottery, st
with a broader consideratio
the processes which genera
what are finally perceived
relationship between step i

FIGURE. i

FACTORS INVOLVED IN THE PATTERNING OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL

REMAINS

i PROCESSES 2 PROCESSES 3 DESTRUCTION

GENERATING DISTURBING y /BDESRUCION
PHYSICAL TRACES PHYSICAL TRACES /UR

6 PERCEIVED TRACES $ PROCESSES OF P

( EXTRACTING |4 PRESERVATION
TRACES v

The various approaches of this

of the following objectives:
i) to observe the relationship be
ing refuse patterning;
2) to observe the life of artefac
discard in order to understand b
occupation site floor;
3) to observe man-land-artefa
models of prehistoric settlement
The first approach involves mai
Brain (I967; I969) was one of the
happened to bone refuse from h
Desert lIottentots. The results sh
weathering resulted in a non-ran
(1974) has found that there is up
larger mammals over smaller one
ing past diet and hunting practi
practices are culturally determ
reconstructed from the archaeol
observed the effects of scaven
currently under way by D. Gif
natural and cultural agencies aff
The second approach is exemp
(i967a; I969; White & Thomas
an investigation is made of the r
observing how people manufactur
the artefacts from their partict

This content downloaded from 193.188.46.75 on Wed, 14 Jun 2017 12:55:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 94 DANIEL STILES

provided with a wealth of valuable information unobtainable from any other

source for the interpretation of archaeological patterning.
Peterson (I973), Gould (I969) and Stanislawski (I973b) have presented various
methods of using ethnographic data to investigate prehistoric settlement patterns
and subsistence behaviour. The overall aim of these studies, as Stanislawski (I973b)
notes, is to provide the archaeologist with a number of alternative hypotheses with
which to test his data. These studies have also shown the variety of ways man can
adapt to his environment, and thus an archaeologist must be careful to consider as
many alternative explanations as possible of his data.
B. The second category of AE study also involves living communities, but focuses
on the relationship between populations of artefacts and the sociology of the people
who produced them. Details of material culture are studied with concern for the
way in which material culture may reflect other aspects of the socio-economic
system.
Studies have been conducted recently by Longacre (I968; I974), Hill (I968),
and Deetz (I965) involving the extent to which artefact patterns may provide
information on kinship, residence patterns, and enculturation systems. Other
workers have conducted studies which have resulted in various criticisms of
simplistic approaches (Stanislawski I973a; I974). Binford (I974) working with
Eskimos in Alaska has been investigating the possible relationships between variation
in artefacts- and sub-sets within societies, such as hunting groups, trade and market
networks, kinship groups, etc. These types of studies offer great promise for pro-
viding hypotheses and models of how artefact systems relate to human social
behaviour which the archaeologist can then test against his data.
C. The third broad category of AE are studies of historically abandoned settle-
ment sites. In this case the ethnoarchaeologist studies the site from an archaeological
perspective and then checks his inferences against an informant who has knowledge
of the settlement and who can explain the objects and features found. Examples
are the Apache wickiup study of Longacre and Ayres (I968) and Bonnischen's
(I973) Cree camp study. A variant type is the study of Fulani compounds by
David (197I), where an occupied site is treated as if abandoned. Results of these
studies have pointed out that the real situation can often be much more complex
than that revealed by an archaeological reconstruction.

VI

Methods of using ethnographic data

Regardless of where the ethnographic data are obtained, whether from normal
ethnographies, archaeological ethnography studies, or from other of the sources
enumerated above, the problem of how to use the data remains. There are three
general uses to which such data can be put:
i) the ethnographic analogy
2) the generation of hypotheses or models
3) the testing of hypotheses
In the ethnographic analogy a specific set of ethnographic data is compared to an
analogous set of archaeological data. To determine what ethnographic data might
be applicable in a specified situation one should first formally describe the physical

This content downloaded from 193.188.46.75 on Wed, 14 Jun 2017 12:55:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 DANIEL STILES 9S

characteristics of the archae

analogy is then recognised an
of this phenomenon which a
to which the two sets of prop
which resulted in the archae
graphically observed activity. The degree of probability varies also with the
number of features shared in common of the time and space correlates of the two
sets of data. The question of probability will be discussed in more detail below.
The dimensions of time and space have led to a distinction being made between
two general types of ethnographic analogy. The first operates under conditions
where two sets of data are broadly disparate in either time or space, or in both. No
connexion can be demonstrated between the culture producing the archaeological
traces and the culture providing the ethnographic analogue. This type is known
by Ascher (i96ia) as the 'new analogy' when it is used in restricted situations,
where the factors of time, space, and form create certain boundary conditions. The
amplitude of the boundary limits is inversely proportional to the probability of the
analogy being valid, i.e. the narrower the boundaries, the greater the probability
of a valid analogy. This type of analogy is also known as the 'general comparative'
approach by Peterson (I97I), the 'discontinuous model' by Gould (I974b) and the
'buckshot' method, if proper boundaries are not defined, by Yellon (I974). There
are many examples of this type of analogy in the literature, it being practised by
most archaeologists.
The second general type of analogy occurs when a connexion in time and/or
space can be demonstrated between the archaeological and ethnographic cultures.
Some degree of historical continuity between the past and the present can be
assumed. This type is known as the 'folk-culture' or 'direct historical' approach
by Ascher (Ig6Ia), as the 'continuous' model by Gould (I974b), and as the 'direct
historical' analogy by Peterson (I97I). This type of analogy is generally considered
to provide the highest probability of being correct because the conditions of time,
space, and cultural affinity of the groups who produced the two sets of compared
data are most analogous.
The generation of hypotheses and models-Ethnographic data can be used as a
source of 'inspiration' in generating hypotheses and models about the past. These
hypotheses and models are tested using archaeological data. In the case of hypotheses
these are normally postulated in response to the use of ethnographic information
as a potential analogy to a specific archaeologically observed phenomenon, but
they need not be. For example, in the specific sense, if one is using ethnographic
information about Hopi kinship and residence patterns, one might hypothesise
that one would expect to find a certain differential distribution of pottery types
by households, determined by uxorilocal residence rules of matrilineal groups.
Archaeological data would then be gathered in the excavation of a Hopi pueblo,
with special attention paid to the analysis of the composition and distribution of
pottery types and attributes. These data would then be used in testing the hypo-
thesis.
A model seeks to represent or describe, in a more simplified form, a set of
observed phenomena from the real world. In this sense a body of ethnographic
observations may be combined to try to reconstruct and interpret a corpus of

This content downloaded from 193.188.46.75 on Wed, 14 Jun 2017 12:55:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 96 DANIEL STILES

archaeological data. From a

particular site or 'culture' and the ethnographic parallels of a model a selected
segment of prehistoric life can be constructed. Examples of this approach are the
Great Basin Shoshone study by Thomas (I972) and the Noallian culture study by
David (I973) from south-west France. In the construction of models archaeological
data need not even be involved, as in the case of Lee (I972; I974) with the Kalahari
Bushmen and Schrire (I972) with the Australian Aborigines of Arnhem Land,
where ethnographic data alone were used.
The testing of hypotheses: Once hypotheses have been formulated from ethno-
graphic observation one then proceeds to analyse the results of a comparison
between the ethnographic data and the relevant archaeological data. If the pattern
of the archaeological material falls within the range of variation of the pattern of the
physical traces which resulted from the ethnographic activity, one can then assume
a certain probability that a valid analogy has been made. Methods have not been
devised to quantify this degree of probability, but investigations into the use of
Baysian probability statistics would possibly be of value. In any case, once the
initial analogy has been made a priori reasoning tells us that the more conditions
that the two situations share in common which are also not directly connected with
the specific properties of the analogy, i.e. the time and space correlates, the more
the probability is increased of a correct analogy having been made. Using the Hopi
pueblo as an example, if the archaeologist finds a non-random distribution of
pottery with clusterings of particular types and attributes in discrete areas he may
be tempted to conclude that the above stated hypothesis is confirmed, i.e. that the
discrete areas of similar pottery types indicated matrilocal residences. Morgan
(I973), however, has warned archaeologists against committing the fallacy of
affirming the consequent, which means that the verification of a prediction of a
hypothesis does not necessarily prove the premisses of that hypothesis.
To make a valid analogy in the Hopi pueblo case one would first have to observe
a living community to see if the hypothesis held. In testing this hypothesis alterna-
tive hypotheses should also be formulated. If an archaeological ethnography study
showed that pottery type clusterings occurred due to kinship and residence rules
in the pattern predicted, then one could describe these patterns in detail and com-
pare these data to the archaeologically observed data. The degree of similarity in
the two sets of data would determine the probability of the analogy being correct,
and would constitute the 'test' of the hypothesis for the archaeological pattern.
The use of the ethnographic analogy would be an explanation of the previously
unexplained variation in the archaeological data. The probability of a correct
analogy having been- made would be greater if a Hopi community was used as the
ethnographic parallel (the direct historical or continuous method), and would be
commensurately less as parallels removed culturally from the Hopi were used (the
general comparative or discontinuous method).
When testing hypotheses one can also invalidate the analogy, called the 'spoiler'
method by Yellen (I974). An example of this method can be provided by con-
tinuing with the Hopi pueblo situation. From the ethnographic information of
uxorilocal residence patterns amongst the Hopi it was hypothesised that differential
clusterings of similar pottery types should indicate matrilineal kin group residences.
Upon a detailed observation of a living Hopi community, employing archaeological

This content downloaded from 193.188.46.75 on Wed, 14 Jun 2017 12:55:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 DANIEL STILES 97

ethnography methods, it might

more complex and that pottery
groupings, but can be the result
I973b; and 1974). The original
confirmation.
The three methods of using ethnographic data discussed above were presented
individually, but they can be and often are used together, an example being
Binford's (i967) study of snmudge pits in the south-central U.S. The flow chart in
fig. 2 shows how the three ways of using ethnographic data can be integrated.

FIG. 2

METHOD OF USING THE ETHNOGRAPHIC ANALOGY

ETHNOGRAPHIC OBSERVATION OTHER DATA

(FROM AE, LITERATURE, ETC.)

RELEVANT DATA TO ARCHAEOLQGY

HYPOTHESES CREATED FOR ANALOGY

ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION OTHER DATA

RELEVANT DATA TO COMPARE

WITH ETHNOGRAPHIC DATA

'TEST'-GOODNESS OF FIT DATA WHICH DO NOT FIT

OF'TWO SETS OF DATA V

USE OF ANALOGY

VII

Conclusions: doing and using

Ethnoarchaeology has been described here as being a loosely, but logically,
linked corpus of archaeological and ethnographic activity. It has been suggested
that the subdiscipline of ethnoarchaeology should include in its definition the
concepts of both doing and using. Doing ethnoarchaeology is mneant to denote
explicit archaeological ethnography studies where data for use in analogy are
gathered. Using indicates the situation where ethnographic data obtained from
written sources, museums, or AE studies are used to create hypotheses or models,
or are compared with archaeological data for use in analogy. Each has its own
theoretical and methodological correlates, but together they create an integrated
whole which forms the field of study known as ethnoarchaeology.

This content downloaded from 193.188.46.75 on Wed, 14 Jun 2017 12:55:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 98 DANIEL STILES

NOTES

I would like to thank Dr Glynn Isaac of the University of Califor

encouragement and helpful criticisms in the drafting of this article.
This article arises in part out of the collective efforts of a graduate s
of California, Berkeley, conducted by J. Desmond Clark and Glynn
ledge the start given me through the contributions of all of the part
'See Hester & Heizer (I972) for a detailed bibliography.

REFERENCES

Ascher, R. I96Ia. Analogy in archaeological interpretation. SWes

- Ig6Ib. Experimental archaeology. Am. Anthrop. 63, 793-8i6.
Barnes, A. S. I939. The difference between natural and human flaking in prehistoric flint
implements. Am. Anthrop. 41, 99-II2.
Binford, L. R. I967. Smudge pits and hide smoking: the use of analogy in archaeological
reasoning. Am. Antiq. 32, I-I2.
I968a. Archaeological perspectives. In New perspectives in archaeology (eds) S. R. & L. R.
Binford. Chicago: Aldine.
I968b. Methodological considerations of the archaeological use of ethnographic data. In
Man the hunter (eds) R. B. Lee & I. DeVore. Chicago: Aldine.
I974. Forty-seven trips: a case study in the character of archaeological formation
processes. Paper presented at the Bien. Conf of the Aust. Inst. of Abo. Stud., Canberra.
Boas, F. I940. Race, language, and culture. New York: Macmillan.
Bonnischen, R. I973. Millie's Camp: an experiment in archaeology. World Archaeol. 4,277-9I.
Brain, C. K. I967. Hottentot food remains and their bearing on the interpretation of fossil
bone assemblages. Scien. Pap. Namib Desert Res. Stat. No. 32.
I969. The contribution of the Namib Desert Hottentots to an understanding of Aus-
tralopithecine bone accumulations. Scien. Pap. Namib Desert Res. Stat. No. 39.
Chang, K. C. I967. Major aspects of the interrelationship of archaeology and ethnography.
Curr. Anthrop. 8, 227-43.
Childe, V.G. I956. Piecing together the past. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Clark, J. D. I968. Studies of hunter-gatherers as an aid to the interpretation of prehistoric
societies. In Man the hunter (eds) R. B. Lee & I. DeVore. Chicago: Aldine.
Clark, J. G. D. I95I. Folk culture and the study of European prehistory. In Aspects of archaeology
(ed.) W. F. Grimes. London: Edwards.
I952. Archaeological theories and interpretations: Old World. In Anthropology today
(ed.) A. L. Kroeber. Chicago: Univ. Press.
Crader, D. C. I974. The effects of scavengers on bone material from a large mammal: an
experiment conducted among the Bisa of the Luanga Valley, Zambia. In Ethnoarchaeology
(eds) C. B. Donnan & C. W. Clewlow. Monograph IV, Inst. of Archaeol., UCLA.
Crawford, 0. G. S. I927. Editorial. Antiquity I, I-4.
Cushing, F. H. I886. A study of Pueblo pottery as illustrative of Zuni culture growth, Annual Report.
Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institute.
I890. Preliminary notes on the origin, working hypothesis and primary researches of the
Hemenway Southwestern Archaeological Expedition. Seventh int. Cong. of Americanists,
Berlin.
David, N. I97I. The Fulani compound and the archaeologist. World Archaeol. 3, III-3 I.
I973. On Upper Paleolithic society, ecology, and technical change: the Noaillian case.
In The explanation of culture change (ed.) C. Renfrew. London: Duckworth.
Deetz, J. I965. The dynamics of stylistic change in Arikara ceramics (Illinois Stud. Anthrop. 4).
Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press.
I968. Discussion on hunters in archaeological perspective. In Man the hunter (eds) R. B.
Lee & I. DeVore. Chicago: Aldine.
Donnan, C. B. & C. W. Clewlow I974. Ethnoarchaeology. Monograph IV, Inst. of Archaeol.,
UCLA.

This content downloaded from 193.188.46.75 on Wed, 14 Jun 2017 12:55:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 DANIEL STILES 99

Fewkes, J. W. I893. A-wa-to-bi: an archaeological verification of a Tuseyan legend. Am.

Anthrop, 6, 363-75.
I900. Tuseyan migration traditions. Bur. Am. Ethnol. igth Ann. Report.
Freeman, L. G. I968. A theoretical framework for interpreting archaeological materials. In
Man the hunter (eds) R. B. Lee & I. DeVore. Chicago: Aldine.
Gould, R. A. I967. Notes on hunting, butchering, and sharing of game among the Ngatatjara
and their neighbours in the West Australian desert. Kroeber Anthrop. Soc. Pap. 36, 4I-66.
I968a. Living archaeology: the Ngatatjara of western Australia. SWestJ. Anthrop. 24,
IOI-22.

I968b. Chipping stones in the Outback. Nat. Hist. 77 (2), 42-49.

I969. Subsistence behaviour among the Western Desert Aborigines of Australia. Oceania
39, 25I-74-
I974a. Ethno-archaeology; or, where do models come from? Paper presented at the
Bien. Conf. of the Aust. Inst. of Abo. Stud., Canberra.
I974b. Some current problems in ethnoarchaeology. In Ethnoarchaeology (eds) C. B.
Donnan & C. W. Clewlow. Monograph IV, Inst. of Archaeol., UCLA.
Hawkes, C. I954. Archaeological theory and method: some suggestions from the Old World.
Am. Anthrop. 56, i55-68.
Hayden, B. I974. Stone tool functions in the Western Desert. Paper presented at the Bien.
Conf. of the Aust. Inst. of Abo. Stud., Canberra.
Heider, K. I967. Arachaeological assumptions and ethnographic facts: a cautionary tale from
New Guinea. S West. J. Anthrop. 23, 52-64.
Hester, T.R. & R.F. Heizer I973. Bibliography of archaeology, I. Addison-Wesley Module 29.
Hill, J. N. I968. Broken K Pueblo: patterns of form and function. In New perspectives in
archaeology (eds) S. R. & L. R. Binford. Chicago: Aldine.
Hodge, F. W. I897. The verification of a tradition. Am. Anthrop. 10, 299-302.
Isaac, G. L. I967. Towards the interpretation of occupation debris: some experiments and
observations. Kroeber Anthrop. Soc. Pap. 37, 3I-57.
Jussieu, A. de I723. De l'origine et des usages de la pierre de foudre. Me'm. Acad. Roy. 6-9.
Kleindienst, M. & P. J. Watson I956. 'Action archaeology': the archaeological inventory of a
living community. Anthrop. Tomorrow 5, 75-78.
Kroeber, A. L. I9I6. Zuni potsherds. Anthrop. Pap. Am. Mus. nat. Hist. i8, I-37.
Laming, A. I959. Lascaux. London: Pelican.
Lee, R. B. I963. The population ecology of man in the early Upper Pleistocene of southern
Africa. Proc. prehist. Soc. 29, 235-57.
I968. What hunters do for a living, or, how to make out on scarce resources. In Man
the Hunter (eds) R. B. Lee & I. DeVore. Chicago: Aldine.
I972. Work effort, group structure, and land-use in contemporary hunter-gatherers. In
Man, settlement, and urbanism (eds) P. Ucko, R. Tringham & G. W. Dimbleby. London:
Duckworth.
I974. Male-female residence arrangements and political power in human hunter-
gatherers. Arche'. Sex. Behav. 3, I67-73.
Leroi-Gouhan, A. I964. Les religions et la pre'histoire. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Longacre, W. A. I968. Some aspects of prehistoric society in East-Central Arizona. In New
perspectives in archaeology (eds) S. R. & L. R. Binford. Chicago: Aldine.
I974. Kalinga pottery-making: the evolution of a research design. In Frontiers of
anthropology (ed.) A. Leaf. New York:
J. E. Ayres I968. Archaeological lessons from an Apache wickiup. In New perspectives in
Archaeology (eds) S. R. & L. R. Binford. Chicago: Aldine.
Morgan, C. G. I973. Archaeology and explanation. World Archaeol. 4 (3), 259-76.
O'Leary, T. I963. Ethnographic bibliography of South America New Haven: H.R.A.F.
Orme, B. I973. Archaeology and- ethnography. In The explanation of culture change (ed.) C.
Renfrew. London: Duckworth.
I974. Twentieth-century prehistorians and the idea of ethnographic parallels. Man (N.S.)
9, I99-2I2.

This content downloaded from 193.188.46.75 on Wed, 14 Jun 2017 12:55:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 ioo DANIEL STILES

Oswalt, W. H. 1974. Ethnoarchaeology. In Ethnoarchaeology (eds) C. B. Donnan & C. W.

Clewlow. Monograph IV, Inst. of Archaeol., UCLA.
Parsons, E. C. I940. Relations between ethnology and archaeology in the southwest. Am.
Atztiq. 3, 2I4-20.
Peake, H.J. I940, The study of prehistoric times.J.R. anthrop. Inst. 70, I03-46.
Peterson, N. I97I. Open sites and the ethnographic approach to the archaeology of hunter-
gatherers. In Aboriginal man and environment in Australia (eds) D. Mulvaney & J, Golson.
Canberra: ANU Press.
I973. Camp site location amongst Australian hunter-gatherers: archaeological and
ethnographic evidence for a key determinant. Archaeol. phys. Anthrop. Oceania 8, I73-93.
Sadek-Kooros, H. I972. Primitive bone-fracturing: a method of research. Am. Antiq. 37,
369-82.
Sapir, E. I9I6. Time perspective in Aboriginal American culture: a study in method. Canada,
Dept. of Mines, Geol. Surv. Mem. go, Anthrop. Ser. No. I3.
Schrire, C. I972. Ethno-archaeological models and subsistence behaviour in Arnhem Land. In
Models in archaeology (ed.) D. L. Clarke. London: Methuen.
Semenov, S. A. I964. Prehistoric technology. London: Cory, Adams, & Mackay.
Smith, M. A. I955. The limitations of inference in archaeology. Archaeol. Newsl. 6, I-7.
Sollas, W. J. I9II. Ancient hunters: and their modern representatives. London: MacMillan.
Sonnenfeld. J. i962. Interpreting the function of primitive implements. Am. Antiq. 28, 56-65.
Stanislawski, M. B. I969a. What good is a broken pot? An experiment in Hopi-Tewa ethno-
archaeology. S West. Lore 35, ii-I8.
I969b. The ethno-archaeology of Hopi pottery making. Plateau 421, 27-33.
1973a. Review of Archaeology asAnthropology by W. A. Longacre. Am. Antiq. 38, I i7-22.
1973 b. Ethnoarchaeology and settlement archaeology. Paper presented at the 38th SAA
Meeting.
I974. The relationships of ethnoarchaeology, traditional, and systems archaeology. In
Ethnoarchaeology (eds) C. B. Donnan & C. W. Clewlow. Monograph IV, Inst. of Archaeol.,
UCLA.
Steward, J. I942. The direct-historical approach to archaeology. Am. Antiq. 7, 337-43.
Strathern, M. I965. Axe types and quarries. A note on the classification of stone axe blades
from the Hogen area, New Guinea. J. Polynes. Soc. 74, i82-91.
Strong, W. D. I936. Anthropological theory and archaeological fact. In Essays in anthropology
(ed.) R. Lowie. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
Swanton, J. R. I928. The interpretation of aboriginal mounds by fmieans of Creek Indian
customs. Ann. Rep. Smithson. Inst.for 1927.
Thomas, D. H. I972. A cotnputer simulation model of Great Basin Shoshonean subsistence and
settlement patterns. In Models in archaeology (ed.) D. L. Clarke. London: Methuen.
Thompson, D. F. I939. The seasonal factor in human culture. Proc. prehist. Soc. 5, 209-2I.
Thompson, R. I956. The subjective element in archaeological inference. SWest.J. Anthrop. I2,
327-32.
Warren, S. H. I9I4. The experimental investigation of flint fracture and its application to
problems of human implements, J. R. anthrop. Inst. 44, 4I2-50;
Watson, P. J., S. LeBlanc & C. L. Redman I97I. Explanation in archaeology. New York:
Columbia Univ. Press.
White, J. P. I967. Ethno-archaeology in New Guinea: two examples. Mankind 6, 409-I4.
I968. Ston naip bilong tumbuna: the living stone age in New Guinea. In La pre'histoire:
problemes et tendances (ed.) D. de Sonneville-Bordes. Paris:
& D. H. Thomas I972. What mean these stones? Ethno-taxonomic models and
archaeological interpretation in the New Guinea Highlands. In Models in archaeology (ed).
D. L. Clarke. London: Methuen.
Willy, G. I953. Archaeological theories and interpretation: New World. In Anthropology
tioday (ed.) A. L. Kroeber. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press.

This content downloaded from 193.188.46.75 on Wed, 14 Jun 2017 12:55:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 DANIEL STILES

Woodburn, J. C. I968. An introduction to Hadza ecology. In Man the hunter (eds) R. B. Lee &
I. DeVore. Chicago: Aldine.
World Archaeology I97I. Archaeology and ethnography. Vol. 3, No. 2.
Yellen, J. E. I974. The Kung settlement pattern: an archaeological perspective. Thesis, Harvard
Univ.
in press. Cultural patterning in faunal remains: evidence from the ! Kung Bushmen. In
Experimental archaeology (ed.) D. W. Ingersoll. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.

ETHNOGRAPHIC BIBLIOGRAPHIES

General
Bibliographie I924. In Anthropologischer Anzeiger. Stuttgart: E. Schweizerbart'sche Verlags-
buchhandlung.
Clapp, J. I962. Museum Publications. Part I: Anthropology, archaeology, and art. New York:
Scarecrow Press.
Human Relations Area File . New Haven, Conn.
International Bibliography of Social and Cultural Anthropology I955. Paris. UNESCO.
Murdock, G. P. I967. Ethnographic Atlas. Pittsburgh: Univ. of Pittsburgh.
Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography I963. Harvard Univ. Boston: G. K. Hall.
Naroll, R. & R. G. Sipes I973. A Standard Ethnographic Sample: Second Edition. Curr.
Anthrop. 14 (I-2), III-I40.
O'Leary, T. I970. Ethnographic Bibliographies. In A Handbook of Method in Cultural Anthro-
pology (eds) R. Naroll & R. Cohen. New York: Natural History Press.
Europe
Theodoratus, R. J. I969. Europe: a selected ethnographic bibliography. New Haven: H.R.A.F.
Press.
Asia
Fiirer-Haimendorf, E. von I958. An anthropological bibiliography of South Asia, together
with a directory of recent anthropological field work. Paris & The Hague: Mouton.
Kanitkar, J. M. I960. A bibliography of Indology. Vol. I: Indian anthropology. Calcutta: National
Library.
Africa
Africa south of the Sahara I97I. Compiled by the Library of Congress. Boston: G. K. Hall.
Bibliographie ethnologique de l'Afrique sudsaharienne I960. Tervuren: Mus. Roy. de l'Afr. Cent.
International African Institute i95o. Ethnographic survey of Africa. (ed.) D. Forde. London:
The Institute.
North America
Murdock, G. P. I960. Bibliography oJ'North American Indians. New Haven: H.R.A.F. Press.
Mesoamerica
Bernal, I. I962. Bibliografia de arquelogia y etnografia: Mesoamerica y norte de Mexico. Mexico:
Inst. Nac. de Antrop. e Hist.
Wauchope, R. I964. Handbook of Middle American Indians. Austin: Univ. of Texas Press.
(Vols. 6-9).
South America
O'Leary, T. I963. Ethnographic bibliography of South America. New Haven: H.R.A.I.
Steward, J. I946-59. Handbook of South American Indians.Washington: Smithsonian Inst.
Oceania
Bibliographie de l'Oceanie I945. InJ. Soc. des Oce'anistes. Paris: Musee de l'Homme.
Taylor, C. R. H. I965. A Pacific bibliography: printed matter related to the native peoples of Polynesia,
Melanesia, and Micronesia. London: Oxford Univ. Press.
Australia and New Guinea
Australian National University I969. An ethnographic bibliography of New Guinea. Canberra:
ANU Press.
Craig, B. F. I969. Central Australia and Western Desert regions. Aust. Inst. Abo. Stud. No. 31.
Greenway, J. I963. Bibliography of the Australian Aborigines and the native peoples of the Torres
Straits, to i959. Sydney: Angus & Robertson.

This content downloaded from 193.188.46.75 on Wed, 14 Jun 2017 12:55:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
I02 DANIEL STILES

APPENDIX

In more explicit terms the following inventory presents an idea of t

tion needed in each of the major areas of interest.
I. Environment and ecology
A. Topography
B. Geology
C. Hydrology and water sources
D. Biota
I. vegetation patterns

2. faunal communities S
E. Climate Seasonal fluctuations
I. rainfall
2. temperature
3. winds

II. Economy and subsistence

A. General level of socio-economic system
I. hunter/gatherer
2. pastoralist
3. agriculturalist
4. combination or other
B. List of foods
C. How each food item is acquired
I. domestic or wild
2. where in relation to settlement site
3. what members of society are involved in procurement
4. time involved
5. artefacts used
6. techniques employed
D. Handling within settlement
I. storage
2. processing
3. cooking
4. eating procedures
5. what members of society involved
E. Refuse patterns
I. relationship of use to refuse
2. processes of preservation
3. post-depositional disturbance
F. Seasonal variation in all of the above

III. Geographic and demographic settlement patterns

A. The types of settlements recognised
I. towns
2. villages
3. camps
etc.

B. The distribution of the settlement or settlements in the area under study in relation to:
I. geography
a. land forms
b. water sources
c. vegetation
etc.
2. other settlements

This content downloaded from 193.188.46.75 on Wed, 14 Jun 2017 12:55:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 DANIEL STILES I03

C. Size of settlement
i. number of habitation structures
2. number of people
3. number of other things, such as hearths, postholes, or granaries which may have a
relationship with the size and population number of a settlement.
4. spatial dimensions of settlement

IV. Settlement site organisation

A. Composition of settlement
i. kinship groupings (nuclear or extended families, etc.)
2. social groupings (age sets, clans, etc.)
3. professional groupings (iron workers, pottery manufacturers, etc.)
4. breakdown of population by age and sex

B. Lay out of settlement (maps and descriptions)

i. location of residence structures
2. location of other structures (walls, granaries, corrals, etc.)
3. distribution of any of the above recognised human groupings
4. location of abandoned structures and nature of remnants
5. refuse areas
C. Location of various activities and crafts within settlement

D. Location and form of residues of activities and crafts

E. Seasonal or other variations in patterning

V. Artefact systems
A. Inventory of material culture
i. crafts
2. architecture
3. ritual
etc.

B. Manufacture of each type

i. procurement of materials
2. description of materials
3. techniques used in manufacture
4. time involved
5. by-products
6. by what members of society
7. variations in form of each type
8. factors leading to variation
9. how manufacturing procedures learned and transmitted
C. Use of each type
i. for what purpose
2. by whom
3. wear patterns
4. repair

D. Final discard of each type

i. why discarded or no longer used
2. final form at time of discard or disuse
3. final resting place
4. further transformations or processes of alteration

This content downloaded from 193.188.46.75 on Wed, 14 Jun 2017 12:55:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms