lecture 10

Hudson-Meng Bison Bonebed

*Inferences* based on patterning (the missing skull tops) in the skeletal assemblage of the bison: - Caused by humans - Hunting strategy - Large Group - Food storage

Cautionary remarks on analogies

1. Archaeological cases may have no clear ethnographic referent. 2. Cultural discontinuity between past and present, events in the past or present may have caused change in an ethnographic case that is culturally related to the archaeological one. 3. Even the best analogy is no more than a probability and there's always the chance we are wrong.

Kivas

12-17

Analogy

A comparison between two entities. If two entities are similar, therefore an attribute of one entity is also true of the other

Ethnoarchaeology cont.

A powerful tool for creating middle-range theory because: 1) It focuses on aspects of ethnographic data that are archaeologically observable 2) Attempts to explain why a relationship between behavior and archaeologically observable remains should necessarily hold true

Todd and Rapson Proposed:

A summer storm sparked a prairie fire that drove the bison herd into the swale for protection The fire could have jumped the swale and asphyxiated the bison The spear points were probably discarded or lost long after the bison died, decomposed, and buried This hypothesis remains to be tested

analogy example

Archaeological context has A, B, C Ethnographic/experimental context has A, B, C, and D Archaeological context must have had D

Archaeologists

Archaeologists deal with often jumbled archaeological sites with objects that have uncertain function/meaning slide 3

Relational analogies

Based on cultural. Similarity (cultural continuity or similar cultural forms) - One group descended from the other (Hopi from prehistoric SW groups) -Human groups living in similar environments/climates share some cultural similarities - between the archaeological and ethnographic cases OR similarity in general cultural form. -Direct Historical Approach OR Natural (Causal) Relations

Agenbroad's Inferences

Formal analogy Relied on the similarity in bison skull form (the missing top of the cranium). Relational analogy He worked back in time to Paleoindians based on known behaviors of Plains Indians *Analogy but NOT Middle-Level Theory

Middle-Level Theory ( over view)

Is a particularly rigorous kind of analogy based on causal linkages. - explains why there is a relationship between an artifact/feature/site and humans through bridging arguments Middle-level theory tries to make an analogy more certain by explaining why a causal relationship exists between an object's attributes and the inference being made from those attributes. Relies on the Principle of Uniformitarianism. This is the archaeologist's most difficult task

Case study= Hudson-Meng Bison Bonebed (NW Nebraska,

Larry Agenbroad (Paleontologist) 9500 radiocarbon YBP 500 bison antiquus in 1000 m² bonebed 21 spear points

I. Mid-level theory (AKA Middle Range Theory)

Links archaeological data to actual behavior (we look at static things [artifacts] in the present, which reflect dynamic activities in the past) - Middle range research aims to provide archaeology with the tools needed to infer behavior from the contemporary archaeological record.

a) Example - Binford and the Nunamiut

Looked at living hunting peoples to see what their activities left behind in order to better understand archaeological findings at Neanderthal archaeological sites People leave *different kinds of tools and bones* behind at different locations *depending on their activities*, (ie different assemblages can be from same culture because they represent a range of different behavior) I.E. Different sets of debris do NOT necessarily indicate different cultures

Middle-Level Theory, Formation Processes: Could natural processes create the same pattern? Or can we rule them out?

No cut marks from stone tools - only carnivore tooth marks appear on the bones. The skeletal remains are in anatomical position as if the bison had died there and were buried undisturbed.

Archaeological Strategies: Back to Square 2

Present material culture, past human behavior

Uniformitarianism ppt.

The contemporary world provides information needed to infer past human behavior and natural processes from the archaeological record We use: Analogies and Analogical reasoning

Hudson-Meng Bison Bonebed

Todd and Rapson: How can natural processes create the pattern of incomplete crania? How do bison fall apart? Documented sequences of natural disarticulation

Main questions → Why is the archaeological record the way it is? What caused it to be where/how we found it?

We get to these causes by looking at "living systems" -Controlled experiments = *experimental archaeology* -Observations of modern human behavior = *ethnoarchaeology* In the 4 strategies of archaeology, it is strategy 2: when archaeologists use present material culture to try to better understand human behavior in the past

Some things to keep in mind

We must take into account cultural and behavioral change • Humans are messy, and we can't replicate all behavior with controlled experiments (which can sometimes also be biased in that they assume all people are/act/think the same, or are us) • There are behaviors that have no modern analogues/comparisons

Butchering experiments

What kinds of use-wear form as a result of butchering and why?

Kivas in the American Southwest

a) We find them in the arch record, they all have similar features b) Modern Pueblo Indians (Native Americans) still use kivas in the North American Southwest c) Modern ethnographic sources, and historical records provide possible meaning/function of each feature within the kiva (fire pit, smoke hole, small pit) d) Ethnographic/ethnohistoric research suggests small pit is a sipapu, which has ideological significance to the Hopi e) Analogy seems to fit, but is this the only possible explanation for this pit? How do we know the small pit served the same purpose/had same meaning in the past as today?

Formal analogies

based on similarities in formal attributes of archaeological and ethnographic entitites ("they look the same") - Stronger if more cases demonstrate these similarities ( Strengthened IF many ethnographic cases demonstrate the same pattern AND the archaeological and)

Analogical reasoning

includes figuring out the unknown by beginning with the known.

Bridging Arguments

logical if-then statements made with a certain degree of confidence (Confidence determined by ethnoarchaeology and experimental archaeology) They explore the workings of culture in its *systemic context* (modern analogies) via: 1. Formation Processes studies 2. Experimental archaeology 3. Ethnoarchaeology to understand the processes that created the archaeological record.

Direct historical approach

observe groups today who are somehow related (genetically, culturally, geographically) to those you are interested in learning about in the past • Danger ⇒ this does not account for cultural change

Taphonomy (a particular type of site formation process) (also referred to as Taphonomy in your textbook)

study of how natural processes contribute to the formation of archaeological sites (the study of decay) - Looks at modern processes to infer how archaeological materials made it (or not) to the present (not just decomposition but preservation too) *Asian Elephant stepping on gravels in an experimental trampling pit

Uniformitarianism

the present is the key to the past - We assume for the most part cultural/natural processes had the same effects in the past as they do today (trampling, crushing, erosion, etc.) - We can't observe how things happened in the past - We have to beware of relationships not being cause-effect but correlation/coincidence

Ethnoarchaeology

the study of contemporary groups ( living societies), observing material remains while they still exist in their *systemic, behavioral contexts* (e.g. perishable remains) in order to examine how *human behavior* produces and uses *material culture* Looking for patterns in human behavior that can be applied to the past BUT human behavior is messy, cultures change, and there are likely behaviors in the past for which we have no current analogues

Experimental Archaeology

useful for Understanding the things people did in the past that they no longer do today (ex: Flintknapping)' - Controlled experiments - Discovering the mechanical relationships between behavior and material remains, such as tool manufacturing, use, and microwear BUT life is not controlled, these experiments give us possibilities NOT answers