All archaeological reasoning is analogical. The ethnographic record of traditional or non-western societies represents by far the most significant analogical resource for archaeologists, both in the absence and the presence of written documents. Since the 19^th century beginnings of archaeology implicit or explicit analogies have been drawn extensively from ethnography. For prehistoric periods in particular, this practice is seen as the most effective way for archaeologists to ‘put flesh on the bare bones’ of the archaeological record they excavate, to evoke the sense of complex social realities of lived lives and sensuous experiences. Yet, the way analogies have been appropriated in the interpretations of the past over the last century or so of archaeological practice varied widely: from casual and ad hoc evocations of randomly chosen similarities to sophisticated statistical modelling and middle-range analyses of artefact distributions, spatial patterns, issues relating to group territoriality, mortuary practices or techniques employed in artefact manufacturing, to mention only few areas covered. This module examines the development of ethnoarchaeology as a subdiscipline of archaeology, reviewing the successes and failures of particular ethnoarchaeological approaches to the past. We will focus on both philosophical and methodological underpinnings of making ethnographic analogies in archaeological interpretations, examining a wide range of case studies from around the globe.

• Knowledge and Understanding:
• Relate particular kinds of ethnoarchaeological comparisons to their intellectual tradition
• Understand appropriate methodological procedures when applying ethnographic analogies
• Know a series of ethnoarchaeological case studies from around the world

10 2-hour lectures and 2 seminars. Lectures will present different traditions of ethnoarchaeological research and theoretical background of this subdiscipline, introduce primary material, investigate themes and concrete case studies. Attendance at lectures is mandatory, in accordance with practice and regulations set out in the Student Handbook.  Seminars will give students an opportunity to investigate particular problems, while mandatory class participation will familiarise students with particular case studies and develop research and presentation skills. Class presentations are part of the assessment.

• Intellectual Skills:
• Evaluate evidence of varying quality and source
• Correlate evidence from different regional case studies that relates to wider problems
• Synthesise evidence relating to different areas of study
• Discipline Specific (including practical) Skills:
• Understand methodologies involved in research of particular problems
• Understand particular theoretical traditions
• Understand particular regional case studies
• Know particular classes of evidence
• Transferable Skills:
• Write effectively about research problems
• Talk effectively about research problems
• Present effectively a research problem and a case study

Lectures 1-2: Introduction to ethnoarchaeology; Philosophical, theoretical and methodological problems of making ethnographic analogies

Lectures 3-4: Theoretical traditions of making ethnographic analogies in archaeology; Ethnography, archaeology and social anthropology

Lectures 5-6: Middle-range analyses, frames of reference and systemic approaches; Case studies

Lectures 7-8: Symbolic meanings and object agency: postprocessual approaches and material culture studies; Case studies

Lectures 9-10: Ethnoarchaeologies of hunter-gatherers, horticulturalists, pastoralists and complex societies

Lectures 11-12: Ethnorachaeological approaches among traditional societies in Europe, Africa, Asia, the Americas, Australia and Oceania; Case studies

Lectures 13-14: Ethnoarchaeology of space (territories, settlement patterns, intra-site artefact distributions); Case studies; Ethnoarchaeology of food

Lectures 15-16: Ethnoarchaeology of funerary practices; Case studies; Ethnoarchaeology of art: shamanistic and other interpretations; Case studies

Lectures 17-18: Ethnorachaeology of materials: experimental and actualistic studies; Case studies

Lectures 19-20: Ethnoarchaeology and heritage studies; Case studies; Future of ethnoarchaeological research

Indicative Reading and Resource List:

Specialised Journals:Ethnoarchaeology. Journal of Archaeological, Ethnographic and Experimental Studies (LeftCoast Press)

Some key readings:

1. Binford, L. 1967. Smudge pits and hide smoking: the use of analogy in archaeological reasoning. American Antiquity32: 1-12.

2. Binford, L. 1978. Nunamiut ethnoarchaeology. New York: Academic Press.

3. Binford, L. 1981. Middle-range research and the role of actualistic studies. In Bones: ancient men and modern myths:pp. 21-30. New York: Academic Press.

4. Binford, L. 1991. When the going gets tough, the tough get going: Nunamiut local groups, camping patterns andeconomic organization. In C. S. Gamble and W. A.Boismier (eds.) Ethnoarchaeological approaches to mobile campsites: pp. 25-138. International Monographs in Prehistory. Ann Arbor.

5. Cameron, C. M. 1993. Abandonment and archaeological interpretation. In C.M. Cameron and S.A. Tomka (eds.) Abandonment of settlements and regions:ethnoarchaeological and archaeological approaches: pp. 3-7.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

6. Cribb, R.L.D. 1991. Nomads in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

7. David, N. and C. Kramer, 2001. Ethnoarchaeology in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

8. Gamble, C.S., and W.A. Boismier, (eds.). 1991.  Ethnoarchaeological approaches to mobile campsites.Ethnoarchaeological Series, 1. Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory.

9. Hodder, I.R. 1982a. Symbols in action: ethnoarchaeological studies of material culture. New York: Cambridge University Press.

10. Holtorf, C. 2000. Making sense of the past beyond analogies. In A. Gramsch (ed.) Vergleichen als archäologische Methode. Analogien in den Archäologien. Mit Beiträgen einer Tagung der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Theorie (T-AG) und einer Kommentierten Bibliographie (BAR Int Ser. 825): pp. 165-175. Oxford: Archaeopress.

11. Kelly, R.F. 1995. The foraging spectrum: diversity in hunter-gatherer lifeways.Washington, D.C.: SmithsonianInstitution Press.

12. Lee, R.B., and I. DeVore, (eds.). 1968.  Man the hunter. Chicago: Aldine.

13. Lemonnier, P. 1992.  Elements for an anthropology of technology. Anthropological Papers of the Museum ofAnthropology, 88. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

14. Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1993.  Gesture and speech. A.B. Berger. Canbridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

15. Lubbock, J. 1865. Pre-historic times, as illustrated by ancient remains and the manners and customs of modernsavages. London: Williams and Norgate.

16. Schrire, C. (ed.) 1984. Past and present in hunter-gatherer studies.New York: Academic Press.

17. Tilley, C. 1999. Metaphor and material culture.

18. Wylie, A. 1982. An analogy by any other name is just as analogical: a commentary on the Gould-Watson dialogue.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology1: 382-401.

19. Yellen, J.E. 1977. Archaeological approaches to the present. New York: Academic Press.