Lecture 7 — Ethnoarchaeology: Analogy, Experiments, and “The Ethnographic Present”

Big idea: Archaeologists connect material remains to past behavior using analogy—sometimes by studying living or historically documented communities (ethnoarchaeology), and sometimes by reproducing processes under controlled conditions (experimental archaeology). This is powerful, but it can mislead if we treat the present as a frozen mirror of the past.

Ethnoarchaeology

• The direct study of ethnographic or historical situations (observation or documents) to extract information about how behavior ↔ material culture relate across space and time.
• At its core: analogy — inferring something unknown (past) from something known (present) because the material “medium” looks similar.

Where this shows up routinely in fieldwork:

• Identifying and classifying sites, features, and artifacts via known patterns.

Experimental archaeology

• Experimental replication of behavioral processes under controlled conditions to help interpretation.
• Typical aims:
  • use similar resources,
  • model the actions needed to produce a comparable material record,
  • test whether a proposed process is plausible and what traces it should leave.

Generalized vs specific analogy

Ethnoarchaeological reasoning usually falls on a spectrum:

1) General comparative approach (general analogy)

• Search for hypothetical analogues anywhere in time/space.
• Useful for behaviors that are near-universal, where the question is about process rather than cultural specifics.

Example: Garbage / “garbology”

• Refuse is a by-product of human activity and its disposal—close to a human universal.
• Key insights from measuring modern garbage (Arizona example in notes):
  • People’s reports often differ from behavior: over-report healthy, underreport unhealthy.
  • Misreporting is patterned (social norms shape what people admit).
  • Under perceived shortage, consumption can increase (behavior vs stated intention).

Why archaeologists care:

• Much of the archaeological record is discarded material.
• Refuse is socially meaningful (management, reuse, taboos).
• Shifts in refuse patterns can track social and behavioral change.

2) Direct historical approach (more specific analogy)

• Look for analogues in regions with long-term cultural continuity.
• Can incorporate experimental archaeology but doesn’t require it.
• Goal: connect observed practices to archaeological correlates (tools, spaces, residues, wear).

Example: Maize beer (chicha) in the Andes Questions to link present → past:

• Who produces it (households vs specialists)? Where (kitchens/patios)? With what tools?
• What is its social/ritual/political role—and what evidence would preserve?

Illustrative archaeological correlates from notes:

• Labor + bodies: repetitive activities may leave skeletal signatures (e.g., arthritis patterns).
• Diet/processing: starchy production/consumption may correlate with dental caries.
• Spaces: kitchens/patios with many large pots, hearths/fires, pot alignments.
• Vessels + architecture: chicha vessels associated with elite construction; ties to hierarchy, reciprocity, mobilization.

Potential pitfalls (the “don’t fool yourself” list)

• Unilineal cultural evolution thinking: classifying cultures using simplistic single traits (a legacy to avoid).
• The “ethnographic present” trap: assuming living cultures are static and have “always been that way.”
• Present-day patterns may hide major historical contingencies (contact, displacement, political economy, climate, etc.).

Amazon example (from notes):

• Regions sparsely populated today may have had large, complex settlements in the recent past (≈ 500+ years), so modern lifeways can be a poor proxy for earlier ones.

Takeaways

• Analogy is unavoidable—so be explicit about assumptions and test them systematically.
• Experimental archaeology helps evaluate process plausibility and expected traces.
• Some behaviors are broadly comparable (e.g., refuse), but many practices are culturally specific; continuity must be argued, not assumed.