Introduction to Cultural
Anthropology for Archaeologists A
Maximilian Wilding
Student PrepWS 2017
Course aim:
To introduce prehistorians-in-the-making to basic terms & key concepts
of cultural anthropology.
Course goal:
Prehistorians-in-the-making can easily comprehend & use basic books
on cultural anthropology in case they decide to use those in their
research.
They are familiar with the way that cultural anthropologist approach/
describe reality.
PART A - CROSS-CULTURALITY
PART B - ESSENTIALLY CULTURE
PART C - RESEARCH HISTORY
PART D - FORAGING
“Introduction to Cultural Anthropology for Archaeologists A” has 4 parts.
How to use the prep:
- [Blue] = More detailed comments/amendments. You can use them, but need not
reproduce them.
- Go into the presentation as much as you need to be able to aptly express the issues
mentioned in the following 4 slides, using the basic vocabulary.
- If some cases are not clear: Please use the index of the scanned textbooks.
PART A: CROSS-CULTURALITY
1. What really causes cultural shock.
2. Why nobody doing research abroad stays completely unaffected.
3. A handy way to shorten the phase of culture shock.
[360˚, 24/7 - Attention for what is going on outside, “cultural learning”]
PART B – ESSENTIALLY CULTURE
(4) The amazing power of culture to even change natural categories (male,
female, the dead, the living etc.)
(5) That culture always depends on the things that we individuals do.
(6) That culture is dynamic and complex throughout on the planet, no matter
whether in a mega-city/remote in the Artic ice.)
PART C – RESEARCH HISTORY
(7) How did Ethnocentrism impede the study indigenous groups. Why
did it take so long for cultural anthropology to evolve?
[Only after WWI did anthropologists start to live among native groups
part-time. What researchers gave the impulse to make field work?].
(8) Research history of the discipline. - The most basic trend
[Scholarly opinion “swung back & forth” between:
a view that accented the invariance of native life (“preservation
tought”) and a view that claimed that the natives - all the while produced
cultural changes themselves and thus possessed creativity
(and history) like anybody else on the planet. Give one example for
each view].
(9) An early & important achievement of our species has been upright
walking.
(10) Foragering is a complex adaptation, important for the history of mankind.
(11) Forager existence has never been “primitive” or poor. Why did many
people assume that?
(12) Please describe forager’s flexibility in how they get to food & live together
PART D: FORAGERS
PART A: CROSS-CULTURALITY
(0) What is “cultural anthropology”, “ethnology”, “ethnography”?
(1) Why cultural anthropology for Near Eastern archaeology?
(2) What do we know about the cross-cultural contact?
(3) How do people react in the situation?
(4) What is simple principles of positive coping, if we are exposed to a new
kind of culture?
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
(0) What is Cultural Anthropology?
A nowadays’ definition (by Kottak 2008):
‘The study of the humans as culture-producing and re-producing beings'.
[Older definitions of cultural anthropology used perceived deficits as a divide between
“them” us:
- the lack of a written language,
- the ‘remoteness’ of the communities, or an
- assumed simplicity of the social or technological tools].
The modern definition by Kottak makes no such difference: It emphasizes that we humans
are not simply driven and determined by our culture but that we can too shape (produce)
it.
Applied Anthropology: when anthropological know-how is used outside & in
real-life-situations (e.g. archaeological campaigns abroad).
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
(0) What is Cultural Anthropology
Other important terms: Ethnography – Ethnology – Participant observation
‘Ethnography’
= a detailed description of the life of a ‘traditional society’ at one place;
In former times this has typically taken the form of a sweeping description of the life of
“the XY” >> ethnographic monograph.
Modern ethnography: more focussed & participative (the studied group describes itself.)
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
(0) What is Cultural Anthropology?
‘Ethnology’
= subsequent theorizing on the basis of ethnographic data. This moves away from the
particular observation. Rather hidden structures are looked for.
[How ethnology is done: Comparing a cultural phenomenon globally to understand why
differences & similarities happen. Focus is rather on topics than places: parenting, gender,
puppetry, family relationship, shamanism….]
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
(0) What is Cultural Anthropology?
Other important terms: Ethnography – Ethnology – Participant observation
‘Participant observation’
Research technique that involves long-term stay among the people, interviews, direct
dialogue, sharing daily life 24/7.
[P. o.: Prime research technique. A ‘total immersion’ of the researcher.
Often causing a broad range of sentiments ranging from enthusiasm to culture shock.
Sh/e lives in the community.
Expectation is that by constant presence the researcher is no longer ‘much noticed’ &
things eventually return to normal. That may or may not be so.
By p.o. the anthropologists hope to see the difference what people say they (‘ideally’) do &
what are their actual decisions/actions day after day.
Anthropologists typically take all sorts of notes (including video) during p. o.]
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
(0) What is Cultural Anthropology?
Carlos taking field-notes. Torres Islands (Melanesia).
@ Carlos Mondragón; https://jimsmuse.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/social-anthropologist/
PART A
CROSS-CULTURAL CONTACT
(0) What is “cultural anthropology”, “ethnology”, “ethnography”?
(1) Why cultural anthropology for Near Eastern archaeology?
(2) What do we know about the cross-cultural contact?
(3) How do people react in the situation?
(4) What is simple principles of positive coping, if we are exposed to a new
kind of culture?
Basic cultural anthropological information is
desirable for the Near East archaeologist for the
following reasons:
#1 For the comparison with material/social tools of
past cultures
(such as artifacts, social structures, rituals.
#2 Cross-cultural competence during carrying out
research on another continent
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Comparing clay ovens: Bronze Age, Tell Arbid, NE Syria
(1) Why cultural anthropology for Near Eastern archaeology?
#1: Useful for archaeological site interpretation (ethnography furnishing
artefact parallels)
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
[The mother of A. A. is doing a small-scale model
of a recent bread-baking oven for the Czech
archaeological team. Tell Arbid, NE Syria]
(1) Why cultural anthropology for Near Eastern archaeology?
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
(1) Why cultural anthropology for Near Eastern archaeology?
Tell Arbid, 2007
#2: Knowing about some about their cultural background is useful when
working & living alongside with the local people.
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
[Team member & N. & S at the Czech archaeological site Tell Arbid Abyad]
(1) Why cultural anthropology for Near Eastern archaeology?
PART A: CROSS-CULTURALITY
(0) What is “cultural anthropology”, “ethnology”, “ethnography”?
(1) Why cultural anthropology for Near Eastern archaeology?
(2) What do we know about the cross-cultural contact?
(3) How do people react in the situation?
(4) What is simple principles of positive coping, if we are exposed to a new
kind of culture?
(2) What do we know about the cross-cultural contact?
What is meant with 'cross-cultural contact'?
A situation where people with different cultural backgrounds meet.
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
What causes this difference?
A lot of reasons can lead to perceived cultural differences, the most
elementary one & inevitable one for Near East Archaeologists could be
termed: the ‘by-passing factor‘ caused modern superfast means of
transportation).
[Note: The speed of change of the cultural milieu in overland transportation long was
not more the walking pace of animals of burden!
Exposure to cultural differences happened a gradually, continuously and gave time for
cultural learning. – So, when arriving at the destination one was not as much “struck”
by the difference as after the early modern period].
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
(2) What do we know about the cross-cultural contact?
Experience of cultures piecemeal (as blending into one another).
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
[The sketch should show that the mere mode/speed of approaching other cultures can cause
“polarity”].
'Caravelle,' Air France
Marc Polo on the Silk Road (cultural
learning along the way). “Caravan
speed”. Several years. > Some cultural
learning during the approach
cultural mediation/transition
Missing out things, precipitated
approach. A few hours only > Contrast.
Over-exposure.
(2) What do we know about the cross-cultural contact?
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
15th century:
Travelling underwent a radical change: it became suddenly practice to by-pass neighbouring
cultures. Space: shrinking. (e.g. the Spanish shorting the Portuguese mariners shorting the Arab
seafarers in the spice-trade with the Moluccas. The “shorting practice” made Columbus find the
“West Indies”).
The time-scale changed also!
[For example: It took the ancestors of the Pacific Islanders 2000 years to settle Micronesia,
Melanesia and Polynesia in a slow, adaptive process. - Magellan's crews made the same move
in few weeks. Their knowledge of the maritime environment was marginal, their sea-craft &
men were a hardly adapted. A most profitable but extremely perilous undertakings. This superfast
travel “changed time”: It prematurely “aged” the young men (starvation, diseases) & their
vessels (shipworms) & turned back evolution (the topic of the “cannibal” seamen in distress!)]
Air transportation = by-passing meditating cultures > 'stumbling onto foreign places'.
Facit: the effect of becoming 'unfamiliar‘/contrast is automatically is produced if we arrive at
distant places and rural ambiences within hours after departing from home. We are leaving out
all neighbouring ('mediating‘) spaces & are barred a slow cultural learning..
Tourists haven’t the problem > The “foreignness” is precisely dosed & built after expectations.
(2) What do we know about the cross-cultural contact?
The 1492 Shortcut
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
[Atlantic Ocean = a space with
hardly any islands. It is a space
that initially did not allow any
preparatory cultural learning.
The eruptive release of energy
shortly after 1492, the frenzy that
soon broke out, may - among
other things - have been caused
by the distinctive type of
travelling through space
Did the rapid by-passing that the
caravelles began, perhaps cause
fatal encounters?
, ‘
Spain'India' 'India'
The 2 ways to reach the 'Spice Islands'
'Caravel,' Air France
short-circuit!
(2) What do we know about the cross-cultural contact?
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
In the Pacific Ocean, West Polynesians coined a term for the Westerners that was
long though to convey the meaning of “abruptness”:
“When the white men made their appearance, it was thought that the vessel which
had brought them had in some way broken through the heavens; and, to this day
white men are called Papalangi, or Heaven-bursters” (Williams 1842; my
emphasis).
[Williams, John, 1842. A Narrative of Missionary Enterprises in the South Sea Islands with Remarks upon the
Natural History of the Islands, Origin, Languages, Traditions and Usages of the Inhabitants. London: John Snow;
Note: The actual meaning of the term papalagi has been subject to scientific debate.]
[G. Dore, “Voyage to the Moon” - Engraving for The Adventures of Baron Munchhausen]
(2) What do we know about the cross-cultural contact?
‘Short-circuit 1492’
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
‘Discussion ‘Turn of the Axis' (Image Analysis):
Visualization of the unmediated front-line situation. The ‘gear’ of the approaching Westerners has not changed under the way.
The original owners of the land loose their cultural inventory (presents on left picture) and humanness (no longer bipedal, prey to carnivores).
The Spanish habitus is portrayed as being totally unaffected by the exposure to the new cultural environment.
To the left: caravels > ‘machines’ that allow to by-pass empty or settled areas & are capable to reduce time & distance.
Arrival of Christopher Columbus 'Balboa setting his dogs upon Indian
practitioners of male love'
Theodore de Bry, popular engravings, 1594
(2) What do we know about the cross-cultural contact?
Indirect message by the drawing tradition: in modern nation state neighbouring
cultures constellate a frontier situations than (cultural) transitions.
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Discussion: The younger cartographic convention is tied to certain visual conventions.
A ‘transitional border‘ expressed by
color transition : The ethnic Polish
in Latvia/Baltic States.
Ethnic groups of the Great Basin, AD 1150
(2) What do we know about the cross-cultural contact?
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
“Shortcut” between cultures:
Likely to release of all sorts of cross-cultural dynamics, some of which are conscious or
unconscious, individual or collective, positive or negative. Energized basic situation.
(2) What do we know about the cross-cultural contact?
‘I have travelled before..!’ - Tourism < > Archaeological campaigning abroad
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Although the travel means is often the same, there is a considerable difference between an excavating
abroad and tourism:
In the case of tourism the ground-tension of cultural contrasts is being exactly regulated to be never
'excessive'. To keep this margin has become a sophisticated art in today’s tourism industry.
[So, in poorer countries artificial infrastructures (hygienic standards, food quality) are established and
painstakingly kept to the degree of the absurd (considering reality in these countries!) well knowing
that tourists may become irritated if regulation fails.
In the cases of outdoor tourism: abandoning is a regulation mechanism to keep tension below a selfchosen
threshold.]
Archaeological campaigning is different to either mode of traveling.
1. Ideally in scientific expeditions the unexpected tends to be kept at a minimum. Monotony of ever
the same precise work.
2. If things develop unexpectedly it is difficult to abandon the project (research team).
(2) What do we know about the cross-cultural contact?
»
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Tourism in Papua New Guinea as “dosed adventure” (oxymoron)
(2) What do we know about the cross-cultural contact?
»
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
[Both the mechanisms of a ‘safe haven’ – ‘emergency lever’ are not viable in the case of archaeological
campaigning abroad.
Actually living in small villages, suffering from objective/perceived deprivation (sleep), a high work-load
& responsibility and a fundamental lack of all the recreational means: A gradual power-loss, whereas
deficits & duties tend to accumulate over the course of weeks.
Feelings become amplified and are rarely stable. They swing wildly between fatigue and fascination.]
(2) What do we know about the cross-cultural contact?
Q: Why do some people experience digging in the Near East as a great unease. Whereas other
seem addicted to it?
A. This may have to do with the way we what we do in the face of habital extremes.
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Hypothesis:
The circumstances of researching abroad (expedition as a 'total institution‘) inevitably leads
to a crisis. A “shaking” of one’s former existence , with unforeseeable inter/intrapersonal
effects (many of which are outright positive!).
This is strikingly similar to what we know about:
The initiation (social “rebirth”)
(2) What do we know about the cross-cultural contact?
»
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Segregation, restrictions on food
etc., unused tasks are the typical
markers of an initiation.
Under the extreme stress, fatigue
and uncertainty of the initiation
situation the candidate experiences
“major cracks”.
The ‘death of the outdated
personality’ during crisis is deemed
necessary by traditional groups to
create space for the new identity of
a grown up, male, female, priest
etc.
[In contrast to modern Western
societies the individuals in
traditional communities may
experience ‘being old, being born'
more than 1 time in life. The former
life mode and former social
relations are left completely to allow
the new behavior]
Initiation
Ethnomusicologist Luis Devin as initiate , Baka Pygmies, 2000;
Initiations take place in a special huts or 'districts', apart from the ordinary
settlement.
(2) What do we know about the cross-cultural contact?
NE excavation stress is of that kind:
Upon your actions not the usual reactions follow. - Not only occasionally, like in the
case of the notorious 'miss-understandings‘ at home, but at a high frequence.
[The result is a general feeling of being clumsy, “incompetent”…as if virtually being an “infant”
again. This is a challenging experience initially.
The way out is also “that of a child”: Learning the unfamiliar environment by watching & trials.
- Essentially staying in the situation, with eyes for what’s around, performing, imitating].
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
A sandstorm keeps dust in the air for days. It creates a twilight that impairs our color
vision (soil recognition) & photographing. This unexpectedly results in a big “bottle-neck”
in the work flow at the dig (esp. the documenting). Things get dense - all of a sudden.
(2) What do we know about the cross-cultural contact?
»
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
[The cumulative strains of
archaeological campaigning abroad
can lead to a transient phase of
disorientation and unease.]
Phases: After crisis a rapid recovery
follows - if one stays put at the
learning “interface”:
Only a 1st casual success in
communicating/interacting will instill
confidence and a good feel - “Dark
clouds” quickly disperse.
A new positive identity forms,
capable of doing new things. (= The
“kick” of excavating abroad?). New
insignias, behavioural patterns mark
the achievement.
[Response: Withdrawing: little stress
but also little situational learning
possible>> getting stuck in the
culture shock phase.
Response: Staying put: high
exposure, cultural learning
intensified. Cultural shock soon gives
way to: curiosity.]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RU4eZsKcbX4 Answering a cultural shock
(2) What do we know about the cross-cultural contact?
PART A: CROSS-CULTURALITY
(0) What is “cultural anthropology”, “ethnology”, “ethnography”?
(1) Why cultural anthropology for Near Eastern archaeology?
(2) What do we know about the cross-cultural contact?
(3) How do people react in the situation?
(4) What is simple principles of positive coping, if we are exposed to a new
kind of culture?
»
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Tell Arbid, N-E-Syria
Researchers in foreign countries - 2 basic reaction modes
Basic Concepts Explained (1)
Cross-cultural Contact
Reactions modes to culture shock are observable:
a)”Centripetal”: exclusive/avoidance/attention towards the interio.r
b)“Centrifugal”: inclusive/contact/attention towards the exterior.
“Centrifugality”: Tea break at the dig: 2 cultural backgrounds 1 (outside) focus.
(3) How do people react in the situation?
»
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
“Centrifugality”: Tea break at the dig. The outside focus (ant) is behaviourally
“common ground” for the persons with a very different background.
(3) How do people react in the situation?
»
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Short characterization of the 2 reaction modes:
a) Centripetal, avoidance: Lowered unease at the beginning, especially if
combined with a withdrawal from the ambient. Interest in the own group
becomes paramount. Contact avoidance prevents the efficient learning of the
cultural environment. This heightens the frequency of cultural misconduct >
Unease rather accumulating over time.
b) Centrifugal, limnoid: High unease at the beginning. Plunged into a challenging
‘learning ambient’. Soon first adaptive successes occur. Self-confidence returns.
Interest & exploration of the surrounding > Unease quickly abates after a
straining initial ‘peak stress’.
(3) How do people react in the situation?
Some similarities of the centripetal response to the
Colonial habitus:
• Indifference, unchanging.
• Barricading within the own space.
• Concentration on the cultural self, “navel-
gazing”.
• Extreme significance of the values & customs
that you brought with you.
• Silent watching. “Interpretating” instead of
direct asking. No discourse.
• Existing rather “shoulder to shoulder” than 'face
to face‘.
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
[Greta Scacchi, Charles Dance in; 'White Mischief', (1987)]
(3) How do people react in the situation?
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
“Centrifugal” response:
[In-class discussion. Visual analysis: ‘The Table’
The table as the focal point of centripetal (inward) attention. Ostentatious refusal to acknowledge what is culturally around or to learn it.
Defining others according to one’s own needs (one of which is…adventure).
Watch out for oppositions (like bush-home, standing-sitting, black-white, actors-coulisse, consuming-serving). The image is carefully
arranged (Ask yourself: Why is at once clear that these are not images made by/for the indigenous?).
“Colonial romance” as actual violence: Although the Europeans in these images are 'out-standing‘ it is paradoxically the native
population, owners of the land for thousands of years, that “look odd” in the imagery. The big difficulty to see in the images the actual
‘foreign element' (> table, clothing, food) proves how much our cultural awareness is influenced by the visual conventions with which
we grow up].
(3) How do people react in the situation?
“Centrifugal response”:
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Extreme adherence to the
values & customs of the
'motherland'…
... and concentration on the cultural self.
[“Shoeshine”: The “master’s” defiance of what is around is epitomized in the shoe shine
& in mimicking a bath room scene.
The boy is fixed, reduced to a supportive wall for the mirror. The mirror itself becomes a
hiding wall: The own imago is the most effective barrier to the perception of the 'Others’.
The visual codes stresses a polarity: ‘dirty?/clean’, white/coloured’, ‘civilized/primitive’,
‘own/foreign’, ‘dominant/subaltern’. Be careful with self-dramatization (Indiana J).
[Certain visual conventions are so much part of our upbringing that it is hard for us to
perceive a violent content below the surface. Even though it is playful most of the time,
excavators should be careful when reproducing ‘colonial charm’ in visual media.]
(3) How do people react in the situation?
Liminality: a concept of Arnold van Gennep (1909) describing initiation phases in traditional
communities. 3 phases.
Limnoid: Victor Turner (1969) used the term limnoid for status chances in our own everyday
life.
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
[After seclusion & destabilization a personality emerges that is augmented by the knowledge of
yet 'another world'. -> The stress of archaeological campaigning may initiate a limnoid adaptive
process.]
(3) How do people react in the situation?
PART A: CROSS-CULTURALITY
(0) What is “cultural anthropology”, “ethnology”, “ethnography”?
(1) Why cultural anthropology for Near Eastern archaeology?
(2) What do we know about the cross-cultural contact?
(3) How do people react in the situation?
(4) What is simple principles of positive coping, if we are exposed to a new
kind of culture?
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
‘Going liminal’: Alois Musil aka Sheikh Musa al-
Rweili
Do not act out of a desire of a complete
merging with local life.
As an excavator stay outsider: you are
considered the a potent visitor from outside.
You are granted special rights at the place that
set you apart from everyone else there.
[There is nothing won in swapping the one
cultural personality for the other:
By “merging with the local hosts” you would
forfeit crucial advantages:]
1. Some license concerning your acting in the
social arena of the host community (gender
roles; engagement for socially weaker;
ecological etc. agendas; freedom in the choice
of people you want to make contact with;
preferences how you interact etc.). - No one
expects you to behave correctly as a stranger.
Your constant trespasses confirm your liminal
role.
2. The ability to act as a “translator” between
the cultural spheres if you were no longer
interested in your own cultural roots.
Cultural learning: Yes
Going Native: No!
(4) What is simple principles of positive coping, if we are exposed to a
new kind of culture?
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Limninal & limnoid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dygFtTWyEGM
[Adaptation & Bridge function]
The crucial question is whether this relates mainly to
members of the own group, or to the local
community.
Higher 'inner integration' in the own team sub-group
often happens at the expenses of the wider social
environment. - For obvious reasons this will be
undesirable for excavation-teams, whose success
abroad depends on understanding with the social
ambience in which they work)
Several European visitors to the Near East , though
rooted in a colonialist tradition, strove to break up
exclusiveness, moved towards the locals and ended
up taking temporally a place in the hosting
communities without loosing sight of the own
cultural background (cf. the Czech Orientalist Alois
Musil).
As seen in the sketch the return is integral part of
the experience. It may even make it easier to deal
with one’s own cultural upbringing in a a more
appreciative & constructive manner].
(4) What is simple principles of positive coping, if we are exposed to a
new kind of culture?
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Guideline for newcomers:
1. If the setting is different, the technical/social approaches can not stay the same. - Some
learning of the cultural environment is positive: It allows you to increasingly move in the new
environment. [Only tourists need not open up.]
2. If feeling unsecure: rather going into the unfamiliar situation than shying away from it (stay
where the learning happens). [It is actually interesting to get to know your hosts.]
3. Turn the attention to the outside. “360 degrees, 24/7” will work best . [That is where the
key to coping is found. Much more than internally, t. i. in the preferred group).]
[“Shoe-shine or muddy feet”?
It should be clear that the simple “deployment” of
own logistics, values and behaviour is not advisable
for the Near East archaeologist. This gesture - apart
from the individual show of invariance (cf. the riksha
photo)- must be doubtful also in terms of a
successful project.
Getting moved by what is around may be a more
benign demonstration - as in the case of the
mudbrick-making of by member of the Czech
research team].
(4) What is simple principles of positive coping, if we are exposed to a
new kind of culture?
PART B – ESSENTIALLY CULTURE
‘Meeting A Sphinx'- What Culture is.
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Decoding J.-A.-D. Ingres’
“The Sphinx & Oedipus”
(France, 1826):
Not so long ago culture was
understood as an ideal, as
exactly that which is not in the
realm of everyday life.
“Mighty culture”, however,
seems to be very much bound
to what plainly are: humans.
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Ingres, 1826
Learned
Shared
Symbolic
Integrated
Dynamic
In Peoples & Bailey (2009)
culture is aptly described as:
[Peoples & Bailey. 2009. Humanity – An introduction to Cultural Anthropology. 8th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth].
Often initiation means crisis: the contact with a
formerly hidden culture, some radically new “insight”
-> the initiations South Africa, Australia, Papua-New
Guinea]
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
'Enculturation'
The multi-faceted process by which a human learns all things necessary to
become the member of a social group.
By this learning-process the cultural values, ideas and behaviour are handed over
to the next generation, the important accumulative learning of mankind
'Born several times!'
Learned
Learned
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Cultural learning in traditional societies often took the form of initiations during different life phases
(concept of being re-born/dying multiply!)
[“White” in many cultures signifies the paleness of the deceased, is a colour bound to mourning & death. - Like in the
case of Oedipus, the path for the initiates to full humanness implies the encounter with a devouring monster that kills
but also possesses the keys to a new (understanding of) life, to new powers whose use must be practiced. Initiations
South Africa, Australia, Papua-New Guinea
Enculturation: learning one’s own culture.
Learned
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
• C.: the complex adaptive strategy of the species
Homo.
• C.: shapes human perceptions, emotions, acting.
• C.: defines ways to satisfy essential needs in a
social acceptable way.
• C.: is accumulative & trans-generational.
[Note: The inventory of culture can be constantly
widened. Theoretically behaviour can be changed
short-term. It is a powerful tool for mankind,
compared to the animal kingdom.]
Directed by Ang Lee, 1994
[“Eat/Trink,Man/Woman”
seem to be physiological
categories like few other.
However, it turns out that
they are relative and
culture-bound.
For all mankind eating is a
first of all an expressive
act.]
Shared
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
• C. forms a limited set of rules that influence what we think, feel or do
('cultural norms')
• Cultural norms must be shared/known by the members of a social
group.
• This allows it to synchronize the actions of the individuals during
satisfying basic needs as a group.
[Subculture:
social group with a full set of behavioural
norms within a larger community that still
shares some of the latter collective ideals and
norms.
Gender: Masculine, feminine etc. in the social
sense of roles that are not necessarily
congruent with the biological sexes.
Native American Two Spirit people
(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-
spirit).
Zuñi, New Mexico
(https://www.theguardian.com/music/2010/oct/11/two-spirit-people-north-America)
Symbolic
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
? Symbol:
• Everything that can express another
thing (creating a meaning).
• The picked symbol can be random,
even subversive. But it must be 'readable'
by the members of the social group.
• Not only material emblems symbolize
culture but also how we stand, how we
dance or speak, whom we marry, how we
deal with criminals, how we act in nature,
and so forth.
• A symbol-free zone therefore does not
exist.
•
[A typical symbolic system transporting
meaning is: language]
[Symbols are “energy-loaded” & always in a flux: Identical symbols can be
used for expressing contrastive messages. Groups can rival in their
appropriation].
Symbols can be either material… ..or immaterial (e.g. a gesture).
“Swiss”
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
The case of Rapa Nui
(Easter Island)
Initially a chiefly society developed on Rapa Nui. The limited tracts of suited for planting & over-exploitation soon led to competition for the
remaining resources. With wood becoming rare (precious) soon, boatbuilding was abandoned. No more emigrating, no more high-sea fishing.
Elites monopolized highly rated-resources (marine protein, wood, prized stone, pearl-shell, feathers etc.)
[See how in Easter Island’s past, production and environment and religion were constantly
influencing one another, with each factor working “bi-directionally”.]
Integrated
Dynamic
Hunger as a cultural feature.
An ancestor (wood): overly skinny
Fish (wood)
Rapa Nui’s initial “aristocratic” phase.
Integrated
Dynamic
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Chicken house, hare moa
Garden enclosures (manavai)
Statues (moai) are erected on ceremonial platform (ahu)
to boost a groups mana (“prestige”, spiritual & worldly power).
[Easter island’s culture responds to the situation: technical measures are taken to protect plants
form excessive evaporation (manavai); massive chicken pen to discourage animal theft (hare
moai). Some more symbolic efforts (moae) have a negative material effect > The few trees left
are consumed in the transport of the figures or are destroyed during raids on rival groups.]
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Late 14th century:
soil deterioration: 160
sediment layers!
1300 AD: Erosion & evaporation
increases. Yields drop. A socioreligious
way to intensify
intensification production is chosen
> ceremonial architecture.
1300 AD: Economical intensification > clearances
by using fire; the ashes = fertilizer (good yields).
Root channels of palm trees
1200 AD - pristine palm tree forests
[Efforts began to also use the sloping area. The result were landslides (erosion) that rather buried the scarce
fertile soil at the valley bottom, suddenly worsening the nutritional situation. Both the agricultural and the
religious response fail!]
High erosion:
160 layers of
sediment (!)
Shrines (ahu) buried
Integrated
Dynamic
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Motu Nui Isl.
‘Birdman-cult'
Life in vulcanic caves
Later ‘warrior’ phase
Iconoclasm: moae tumbled
[Groups on the islands directly clash in competition for the very
limited resources. Constant social unrest disrupts all possible
economic, religious, social countermeasures to curb hunger on the
small island. Island-wide violence & destruction. The aristocratic
society implodes. Warriors rule. People retreat to protective caves.
Also a shift in spirituality: Birdman cult]
With the bird-egg race to the island
Motu Nui a solution is found to
establish political dominance every
year anew, considering all fractions.
Integrated
Dynamic
PART C – RESEARCH HISTORY
:
(1) The shackles of ethnocentrism.
(2) Famous forerunners.
(3) Milestones in cultural anthropological thought (basic research history)
Research History
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Getting to know the Others challenges this firm view.
Ethnocentrism is the idea of a cultural group of being “the universal measure,
of representing the only legitimate way of existing. It is wide-spread among
groups, small or big.
Research History
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
The widening horizon has it that the idea of being the “one & only” dissolves.
by itself. Mobility: can lead to more acceptance or even more acute
ethnocentrism.
Research History
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Ethnocentrism - Some characteristics
> E: The point of interest is not who the 'Others' themselves are, but how
they differ from the own mode of existence.
> Classical E is a often an outer judgement (“observation-based”).
Sometimes even entirely “evidence-free”: a preconception that does not
need actual contact with what is out there (-> prejudice).
> E. people typically think that dialogue is not necessary to reach to final
conclusions about the Other (trusting solely their own reasoning).
> E. people tend to see E. as ‘natural’ (in the sense of correct/good!)
Research History
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Textual reports of “people
far away” are cast into
“memes”.
These are then used as
visual codes in many of the
media media of the time.
[Note: Globes & maps back
then often described what
was not really known].
i
Nuremberg Chronical
(Schedel'sche Weltchronik),
1493; a wild mix of fancy &
ethnographic fact.
Example
‘A Look at the Periphery‘ - Cartography as the Expression of the Ethnocentric World View
[Logic of it is:
“What is marginal must be less
perfect than at the middle”.
This thinking coloured people
negatively who just appeared
at the (own) horizon. On our
round planet there is not
anything like a real centre. - If
anything, then cartography
proved exactly this.]
Research History
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
The world according to Herodotus (484-425). [Note: this is not merely an erroneous image of Greeks & their surrounding.
This was the entire planet .]
Research History
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Othering is often to the visual code.
Much of the idea “being of the same kind” in past times depended on shared symbols like
clothing, tools & habits. To a degree that not displaying the expected cultural inventory made it
difficult for early European travellers to perceive certain groups they came in touch with as
human at all (e.g. the Khoisan of S. Africa).
During the time of Ancient Greek the term 'strangers' referred in fact to the neighbouring
cultures of the Mediterranean/Near East, not so much differing in phenotype, but in their
language & costumes.
[In this depiction (for us) Diomedes of the Greek (left) is
not so much different from Aeneas, member of an
antagonist society, the people of Troy.]
Research History
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Rome and the Germans
Philip Clüver's
Germania Antiqua
(1616)
[Note that this display of nakedness and “animalic
attributes” (wearing a fur or feathers) is constitutive for the
stereotype of the natives of the New World - > Patagonian
Giants]
Research History
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
i
A 15th century illustration of Augustinus
Antipodes (The dialectic of the North & the South)
Research History
OT – Orbis Terrarum Ma
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Excursus:
“Putting natives on the map” – The inherent problem of old cartography.
The OT (“Orbis Terrarum”) type of map; Cartographic “North”
= Jerusalem)
The 3 continents - settled according to Christian believe each by offspring of Noah each (his sons
Sem, Ham & Japhet) are surrounded by the “Okeanos”.
[The ocean: a ring or strip rather; there was no actual room to accommodate transoceanic
“newcomers”. And if: they automatically figured at the extreme periphery - at a place inhabited long
time by monstrous creatures of imagination).]
Research History
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
i
The periphery: inhabited already by “anti-human memes” before ethnographic
observations were entered.
Woodcut map Tabula Asiae VIII by
Sebastian Münster, Basel, 1540;
Excursus:
“Putting natives on the map” – The inherent problem of old cartography.
Research History
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
i
Map of America, Sebastian Münster,
Basel, 1550;
As soon as the major oceans had been crossed, the fantastic creatures started “settling”
the landmasses just discovered.
[Japan (Cipangu) is put approx.
where California is.
The only cultural item signifying
the New World in this map of 1550:
Relics of man-eating which confirm
a long held-tenant of “nonhumanness”
at a distance of the
Mediterranean.]
Excursus:
“Putting natives on the map” – The inherent problem of old cartography.
Research History
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
i
“Amerikaner”, 1796, Leipzig
[Some details = ethnographically accurate]
Patagonian “Giants” – Real or hallucination according to old visual codes for
faraway areas?
http://www.messagetoeagle.com/mystery-of-the-patagonian-giants-europes-lost-race-from-the-land-of-the-bigfeet/ A tenacious “meme”
Lafitau, P. (1724). Caribs of the Antilles male & female,
Acephali from South America, Brazilians
Research History
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
i
Patagonians: Selk’nam, of Terra del Fuego. End of 19th cent. (Note the “archaic attribute” of using untailored fur).
Research History
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
A female presenting taumi fixed on a roll of bark cloth
Engraving in John Webber, Cook's Third Travel 1776-80
[‘The noble savage’ - A projection of the European Rich.
The Madam Pompadour-like rendering of an indigenous of Tahiti:
mainly concerned with the possibility & implications of a liberal exposure of the
body.
The 2 semi-circle ornaments are pectorals of Tahitian (male) high-priests.
[Exoticism This attitude not seldom mixes admiration with sentimentality and patronizing.
Satisfying mainly own needs, it is a ethnocentric consumption of another ethnic group.
The pressure of expectations & media can be so high that it forces indigenous groups to abandon their
genuine life-style in order to conform with/enact the Westerners’ idyll.]
Xenophobia: Aversive reaction in case a 'stranger' comes to live among one's own group.
Hardly better romantizism & exoticism: Primarily projecting own desires on ethnographic
populations.
Hathe
A warrior’s gorget, taumi
Research History
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Watching alone will always distort the facts & create distance.
Cultural anthropological ‘rule-of-thumb’: Highlight always the context. You need a
dialogue. Take part in daily life.
i
[1. Age of Discovery (Mid 15th century)
Experience of a marked cultural difference. A medial market emerges.
Commodification & circulation of authentic artefacts, natural species and partly persons among elites. > Any removal of the exotic of
these items during this time would have meant 'deflation', and a tremendous loss of prestige for the ones returning home. Wild stories
are esteemed.
2. Age of Enlightment (Mid – End 18thcentury)
Search for socio-political idylls > The idealization did nothing for the real understanding of the visited cultures.
3. Classical colonialism (18th-19th century)
Natives together with their territories become itself exploitable.
In all of colonialism forced change is the idea. Civilization perceived as a merciful act of salvage from ‘primitive life’). > No impetus to
protect or study the indigenous groups.
4. Late 19th century
Only after the idea of evolutionism late in the century:
Pre-industrial societies were now identified as representatives of past developmental stages.
Due to this turn the > academic interest in the study especially of the so-called ’primordial groups’ became relevant.
This insight propelled research greatly during the late 19th beginning, early 20th century, at a time when indigenous life had been
reduced for almost 500 years. (President Trudeau’s apology vis-à-vis native Canadian communities just days ago).]
Research History
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Cross-cultural contacts happened on a larger scale since the mid 15th century why is cultural
anthropology such a young discipline then?
PART C – RESEARCH HISTORY
(1) The shackles of ethnocentrism.
(2) Famous forerunners.
(3) Milestones in cultural anthropological thought: Research history basics)
Research History
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
i
Thomas Jefferson
(1743 – 1826),
3rd President of the US
Spectacular: T. Jefferson approached the native Indian burial mounts in Virginia by digging crosssections.
He thereby realized the diachronic nature of deposition layers.
Strata - >“The Discovery of the Archaeological Depth”.
[Such “periodization” per se went counter the theology of that time that had so much impacted attitudes
towards the newly-encountered indigenous peoples as simply “sinful souls condemned by God live the life of
beasts” or peoples that accidentally be spared by the Biblical Flood.
Finding stratification - changes of the artefacts, especially if they had developed one out of the other –
implied that the shaping of their cultures had taken several thousands of years more than theologists
thought.]
(2) Famous forerunners.
[In this climate it was exactly a clergy man who freed ethnology. Based on observations made while living among the Native Americans, he put
the locals at equal foot with was the cultural ideal for Westerner back then: the ancient Greeks. JFL had found striking similarities in with
Iroquois’ behaviour. This of course needed explanation. Explanation of that kind are in fact ethnological reasoning (= the comparison, how
distant peoples relate to one another).
Research History
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
published Mœures des Sauvages américains
comparées aux mœurs des premiers temps,
1724
Joseph-François Lafitau
(1681-1746)
Jesuit, 1711 sent to Canada, Mohawk Territory
(2) Famous forerunners.
Research History
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
i
Iroquois/Haudenosaunee
The basic layout of the longhouse is reflected in the structure of
Haudenosaunee territoriality also (e.g. Seneca: 'Keepers of the Western
Gate', Mohawk: 'Keepers of the Eastern Gate'). Unanimity & debate rule in
decision-making from from the level of the individual household hearth up
to the confederal assembly (council fire)
Research History
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
i
Ethnographic Example
Iroquois/Haudenosaunee
Research History
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
A sachem (paramount chief) at a maweomi
(central council fire) holding a wampun Six Nations Iroquois Chiefs reading wampums, 1871
Ethnographic Example
Iroquois/Haudenosaunee
The discursive culture of the 'People of the Longhouse' made a big impression upon immigrants that had just fled European absolutism and
watched out for alternatives of social organization. They found the inclusive, consensual mode of decision-making by the Iroquois impressive.
The example of the Federal Six Nations has influenced U.S. parliamentary culture & the U.S. constitution in turn political life in modern Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algonquian_Confederacy_of_the_Quinnipiac_Tribal_Counci
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/06/28/us/iroquois-constitution-a-forerunner-to-colonists-
democratic-principles.htmll
PART C – RESEARCH HISTORY
(1) The shackles of ethnocentrism.
(2) Famous forerunners.
(3) Milestones in cultural anthropological thought: Research history basics)
- For the exam scan the presentation for information that tells you why some frequent assumptions about indigenous
groups (“sticking to the their way of living since thousands of years”, “knowing no history”, “a totally different mind”,
“showing some old-egyptian traits”, “heirs of a sunken continent’s civilization”) have a root that is problematic.
- Evidence for the fact that we have been one mankind always.
- Why it is so important that researchers not only study indigenous people but to live with them side by side (Malinwoski)
Unknown earlier stage of Britain. Can be inferred via survivals.
“Civilization at the highest”: Technically advanced Victorian Age Britain
Edward B. Tylor (UK)
Fieldwork in Mexico, 1865
He challenges the idea of the assumed invariance (or even degeneration) of the
culture of natives groups.
Tylor concludes that “like children” are changing but simply lagging much behind
(hardly a more pleasing view!).
Because of the “delay” in the development, he thinks, native life could serve as a
window into the past of the own nation.
Research History
Unilineal Evolutionism, UK
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
[Hutton & Lyell (geology) and Charles Darwin (zoology) discovered that the past was much longer than
anyone had assumed. - Many things seemingly developed over a long time one out of the other. These
scholar discovered development & historical depth
Unilineal: A development of one out of the other. Every culture is thought to take exactly the same
series of steps.]
.
1832-1917
Native groups make it easier
to interpret survivals.
Research History
Unilineal Evolutionism
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
[Hutton & Lyell (geology) and Charles Darwin (zoology) discovered that the past was much longer than
anyone had assumed. - Many things seemingly developed over a long time one out of the other. These
scholars discovered the slow becoming of things: historical depth.]
Unilineal = Every entity is thought to take exactly the same series of developmental steps.
Research History
Unilineal Evolutionism
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Tylor's famous concept of the “Survival”:
The inventory of even modern cultures carries along outdated elements (“survivals”).
They can be traced back to an existence when these odd “folklore elements” held a
central place and played a vital role.
(Evolution-style tracing back of a number of those “survivals” was thought to allow a
reconstruction of a past cultural phase).
[Halloween on the one hand is a survival. On the
other hand all through its history it has been recharged
with the most recent meanings, effects,
practice.]
Research History
Unilineal Evolutionism
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
E. B. Tylor is known to have 1. identified animism. He also tried to
explain how magic “worked”.
Animism: a metaphysic concept that goes without gods. It conceives all
things around as being animated (from Latin anima – 'soul').
In 1871 EBT published Primitive Culture:
Studying survivals he claimed the following unilineal stage model for the
evolution of the cultures on the planet:
• Monotheism
• Polytheism
• Animism
[Based on his discovery of the phenomenon on animism (historically & globally) Tylor was able to create the 1. cultural application of
evolutionist thinking. Others would later take the survival concept to do the same with social structure, technology, art etc.
Later the scientists learned that evolution had occurred everywhere, but that it had taken different steps and has had different time-scales at
different places -> modern concept of multi-lineal evolution. - It became also doubtful whether necessarily Western life-style was necessarily
the most complex. Instead of a development towards a civilizatory climax some therefore proposed to think “development” rather in terms of
an (infinite) side-ways transition].
Research History
Unilineal Evolutionism, U.S.
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Lewis H. Morgan
(1818-1881)
Ely S. Parker, Seneca
(1828-1895)
Lewis Henry Morgan (US) – Applies evolutionism to social systems.
Groundbreaking work.
[Grew up on Cayuga land; studied law
1842: Inspired by Lafiteau he founded with his friends a loge the ‘Grand
Order of the Iroquois’ which imitated Native American life. Thence his
ethnological interest.
New York State: Seneca legal campaign against an intrusive real estate
company.
This brought him to studying indigenous family ties in greater detail, the
possession of land etc. A key event was when he ran into a Seneca youth in
a library: E. S. Parker (Ha-sa-ne-an-da). LHMs enthusiasm for the Iroquois
became suddenly fact-based.
Becomes activist. “New confederacy of the Iroquois” > Tonawanda
Reservation created.
Lewis H. Morgan was rewarded the Indian name Tayadaowuhkuh, meaning
'Builder of Bridges‘ (liminal!)
Field-research with Ely S. Parker. Studying the relationship terms used by
the Winnebago, Crow, Yankton, Kaw, Blackfeet, Omaha.]
Research History
Unilineal Evolutionism, U.S.
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Morgan made a similarly huge discovery like Tylor. He identified an unknown kinship system in
operation among the Iroquois (go to the EXCURSUS #1 below on kinship terms & descent)
©Jose Antonio Peas
Research History
Unilineal Evolutionism, U.S.
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
i
Iroquois kinship system
Seneca Dance
[The Iroquois system favours the building of larger social
aggregations like lineages and clans.
 Ego is embedded in a stable social net possessing several
parents and siblings (together with all behavioural
reciprocities).
 The marriage of the 'distant' cousins is encouraged (serves
to enlargen the group).
It is well fit for cooperating, co-resident groups of some size.
Use is made of the strong bond among siblings.]
[©University of Manitoba]
Research History
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Classificatory; grouping gender & gen.
> co-working groups; Pacific Area; 1/3.
Descriptive; individualized;
> complex, stratified societies; Afr., Latin, Anglo, Turkey, Balkans, China;
Descriptive/classificatory; soz. distance, lineal/collateral relatives;
> small, mobile groups; Europe, America, !Kung, Inuit; 1/10.
Descriptive/classificatory; distinguishes same sex/cross sex; parallel
cousins are “brother & sister”, cross-cousins are not (encouraging
remoter marriage);
> larger units based on relationship (e.g. clans)
Descriptive (mother-side), classificatory (father-side); distinguishes sex,
but generation only on the motherside;
> unilineal groups (matrilineal) clans Hopi, Navaho, Crow
Descriptive (father-side), classificatory (mother-side);
distinguishes sex, but generation only on the father-side);
> unilineal groups (patrilineal) clans Mexico, Chile, Argentinia, Papua,
Nigeria
Using queries L. H. Morgan found out there existed only 6 systems world-wide.
He claimed for them evolutionary stages.
Research History
Unilineal Evolutionism, U.S.
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Lewis H. Morgan
(1818-1881)
LHM’s book Ancient Society
(1877)
Main topics: kinship-systems,
property relations,
systems of governance.
Civilization (Inka, Corean,
Japanese, Chinese)
Barbarism (Ancient GreeceInka,
Aztecs, Semites, Indians-
Iroquois)
Savagery (Northwest Coast
Indians-Aborigines-Tropical
Foragers)
Cultural marker: alphabet.
Cultural marker: agriculture, domestication of
animals, metal.
Cultural marker: bow, pottery
The discoveries of Tylor & Morgan created a ‘hype’ of studying past & present faraway groups. –
This ignited cultural anthropology, although this has been in the main cursory research carried
out in museums & books (“arm-chair” research). Their world-wide comparing (incl. many
perished cultures) made single “ethno field-trips” pointless!
Useful Tool: Kinship symbols
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
EXCURSUS #1
[This structure will show you who owns what, who respects whom, who
marries whom, who helps/avoids whom etc. Kinship is the very “matrix”! Also
for the learning of the social landscape by the visiting anthropologist.
This “wiring” of the studied groups is so important that the alias for our
discipline is Social Anthropology.]
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Worldwide:
Often a clear difference is made between people born into one’s group
(consanguine relatives) and people that married into one’s group
(affinal relatives).
“Blood relatives” are often further divided into one’s direct ancestors or
off-spring and the ones of uncles & aunts.
EXCURSUS #1
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Among your consanguine relatives (colours) you have:
Collateral relatives (green) - Lineal relatives (violet)
EXCURSUS #1
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Classificatory & descriptive kinship
This is a classificatory term:
Cousin (engl.)
In a descriptive kinship system expressions would exist for each one of
those (conveying precise information on the parental siblings’ side &
gender):
Father-brother-son
Father-brother-daughter
Mother-sister-son
Mother-sister-daughter
Father-sister son
Father-sister-daughter
Mother-brother-son
Mother-brother-daughter
EXCURSUS #1
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Bilineal descent
Relationship is traced through both the mother’s & father’s side.
EXCURSUS #1
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Relatively frequent is unilineal descent (either patrilineal or matrilineal).
Matrilineal societies > Iroqouis Navaho, Hopi, Greek, Danes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_matrilineal_or_matrilocal_societies
Mosuo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbzG0n3shTM
Tuscarora https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5N5BMGkgXU
Garo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KEwGpYHOV4
EXCURSUS #1
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
i
Kinship model of mobile foragers/urbaners alike: the Eskimo System)
© Laurent DOUSSET, 2002
[The family “core” is accented. This relatively small group forms the principal subsistence unit most of the
time. Little differentiation is made concerning the more distant consanguine relatives. - Fit to be split (“disentangled”)
or regrouped easily. Ideal for resource-following groups].
EXCURSUS #1
Research History
Critique of Unilineal Evolutionism
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
 The idea of “simple”, “complex”, “progress” etc. is highly culture-bound.
 Cases contrary to the “prognosis” of unilineal stage-model occur (inverse or skipped
stages; local development different)
 Merely a subjective ranking of cultures is being made. The stagnation of remote cultural
groups is a 'scientific myth‘ which frames the impact by Westerners on local groups.
 Random choice of examples (superficial/material similarities; convergence of cultural
traits completely ignored)
Jackson Pollock: ‘Action painting’.
Native Australian imagery
Research History
Critique of Unilineal Evolutionism
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
i
Dreamtime - A Native Australian view that is clearly no less sophisticated than our own societal explanation
models.
PINTA PINTA TJAPANANGKA
Untitled, 1981 (c1937 – 1999),
synthetic polymer paint on linen.
Research History
Critique of Unilineal Evolutionism
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
i
Please note: A non-material symbol system can in fact be highly sophisticated (religious
concepts, worldview, magic, social practice & structure, language itself, oral tradition,
dance,..) > Peoples possessing simple tools are not necessarily “deprived” peoples!
Research History
Critique of Unilineal Evolutionism
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
i
Augustus Pitt Rivers
(1827-1900)
Typological series of ethnographic/archaeological objects in museums. From the simplest to
the most complex > “evolutionary concept applied to tech”.
[Evolutionists started taking it too far:
It all ended up as randomly picked elements across time & space. Early evolutionism
started to produce large crude stage models with relatively little explicatory power. They
completely ignored what cultures influences most: …environmental conditions and their
neighbours’ politics! One could say: Early evolutionism paid much attention to outer traits &
materiality, but it cared remarkably little about history itself. (However, due to its plausibility
evolutionism completely dominated the other scientific approaches during the late 19th
century).]
Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford
A ‘family tree' of composite bows by Henry
Balfour spanning faraway regions.
Research History
Historical Particularism, U.S., 1890-1940
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Franz Boas
(1858-1942)
F.B. performing Kwakiutl
Hamat'sa ('Cannibal Dance')
Arctic Expedition to Baffinland1883,
British Columbia 1886/7,
Columbia University 1899-1934,
Crushed speculative evolutionistic theory and challenged racism.
Influential students.
Boas emphasized: Stay with the native group. Use its language!
Research History
Historical Particularism, U.S, 1890-1940
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Franz Boas
(1858-1942)
Locked in arctic for months, Boas was intrigued by the way Inuit carvers decorated their needle
cases. At first glance they pretty much looked the same. He needed to meet more than one
carver to see: the variation, creativity, individualism in indigenous life. - It made him think that
perhaps the life of cultural groups was not so much governed by a binding developmental law
“that made them all do the same thing” (as evolutionists doing arm ‘chair research’ had
concluded).
Since Boas: cultural anthropology is mainly driven by: field data.
Boas’ famous needle cases.
[Looking for many very similar at first
Boas understood that the particular
combination of decoration motives was
invented by the particular artist. – Same
as we using only 8 keys (piano) in
principle form our entire musical pieces
& genres.]https://www.youtube.com/watch
?v=GOvFDioPrMM (a biopic)
Research History
Historical Particularism U.S., 1890-1940
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
i
Ethnographic Example
The Kwakiutl of British Columbia
(= sedentary foraging communities. Living
in an abundant environment).
Tlingit - Klukwan Village - Whale House (Raven Rain Screen)
In contradiction to the evolutionistic concept of L. H.
Morgan the hunter-gatherer groups of British Columbia
(Tlingit, Kwakiutl, Haida, Salish. Tsimshian) were
sedentary, displayed a lavish material culture and kept
house-slaves.
Neighboring groups differed in detail.
Potlatch: Demonstration of a copper-plate Prosperity: Salmon fishing
1. Particularism:
Every culture down to the (individual) household has its own ‚sequence‘ of changes. FB thought a
whole mix of environmental factors, historical processes, cultural contact, migration, individual
agencies causes > a unique appearance of every cultural group
2. Cultural Relativism:
Every community must be studied on its own right, from within and using the culture's own terms.
All cultures equally creative.
3. Scientific Empiricism:
Use of historic reconstructions in cultural anthropology. From actual observations to the model
(not the other way round, as 19th cent. evolutionists had often done).
Research History
Historical Particularism, U.S., 1890-1940
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Franz Boas
(1858-1942)
How Boas crushed dominant evolutionism:
During his field research he had noticed many cultural variations
occurred within a small area. Many of these “variations” were not a
result of some development but were caused by outer influences &
individual decisions!
Research History
Historical Particularism, U.S., 1890-1940
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
> Take to empiricism: Create detailed data sets
> Field-research. Make detailed reconstructions of the near past. Use the
indigenous language - their own symbol system (!) - to describe the
ethnographic group that you study.
> Cultural relativism. No group can claim to be superior. Industrial town – arctic
bay: no difference: Creativity is an universal human trait.
> Cultural standstill is the only thing that definitely does not exist. Culture
everywhere is dynamic & changing. That makes it necessary to study - also the
more recent - history of the group.
Franz Boas
(1858-1942)
Into what direction F. Boas pushed cultural anthropology:
[Boas by his research advocated creativity, individuality, equality.]
Research History
Historical Particularism, U.S., 1890-1940
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
“Left Naked?” – A Criticism of Boas’ Particularism
How can we match cultures under the circumstances that every household is
unique, an own cosmos? > Particularism does not allow any overarching
theory or comparison of larger regions!
Different to evolutionism any new theory would have to account also for
history & small-scale cultural differences.
Such one attempt for wider comparison was “Diffusionism”.
This approach took the idea of history to an extreme.
It explained the looks of cultural traits not by an evolution or human
creativity but exclusively by the borrowing from cultural centres (Egypt,
Babylon).
How far or near native groups lived to these civilizations determined what
mix of cultural traits they received.
Research History
Diffusionism, Ger. & Engl.; End of 19th century – 1920
Great Britain > Grafton E. Smith,
William J. Perry (Heliolithic
Diffusionism, a 'Pan-
Aegypticism')
Germany > Friedrich Ratzel, Fritz
Graebner, Berhard
Ankermann.
Austria > 'Wiener Schule der
Kulturkreislehre'
(Schmidt/Koppers/Gusinde/Sc
hebesta)
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Similarities, variations and dissimilarities between distant were explained by Diffusionism that way:
Cultural elements, invented at a cultural centre, 'travelled' wide distances through space unchanged.
Remote folks received the cultural traits in a sometimes corrupted form which they subsequently
reproduced.
[From: G. Elliot Smith,
The Migrations of Early Culture, 1929].
Research History
Diffusionism, Ger. & Engl., End of 19th century – 1920
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Leo Frobenius: African 'Kulturkreise‘
(Note: it is only 3 for the entire
continent.)
[Kulturkreise
Counter to Boas’ advice huge cultural entities (“Kulturkreise”,
cultural provinces) were claimed on the basis of the similarity of
selected traits (e. g. the way the string was attached to the bow,
musical instruments etc.).
Different to evolutionism the explanations of Diffusionism were
explicitely historical (Egypt, Babylon!)]
Research History
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
i
'Mu'
'Atlantis'
'Lemuria'
[Note: The bigger the scope of the hypothesis: the less justice to
cultural self-definition (Europe: a uniform block); a “hyper-
diffusionism”]
Submitting Egypt/Balbylon itself to Diffusionism:
The hypothesis of a sunken continent.
Research History
Hyper-Diffusionism: The hidden idea of superior civilizations/races.
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
i
Research History
Critique of Diffusionism
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
[> This delivery of cultural packages across wide distances of course mirrors 19th cent.
colonialism (legitimizes it).
> Mechanistic, sweeping concept of the dispersal of cultural traits.
> History: “broad-brush”.
> Largely a scholarly theory not based on factual field-work (contrary to Boas' school
Diffusionism = “museal-librarian” research)
> Native cultures are reduced to recipients of the traits that cone from superior
civilizations (Egypt, Babylon etc.). They are not themselves styling their culture but rather
copying/borrowing.
A highly problematic concept: It distinguishes between advanced & creative societies and
passive cultural groups only capable of “copying” the cultural elements they accidentally
receive (cf. the NS racial doctrine).
Note the big difference to Boas’ concept of universal creativity.]
This concept provoked intellectual resistance - > E.g. by Adolf Bastian.
Research History
Adolf Bastian, Ger., End of 19th Cent.
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Adolf Bastian
(1826-1905)
Studied law, medicine & natural sciences
Past 1850: Work as a ship's doctor
Past 1873: First director of the Ethnological Museum in Berlin
A. Bastian atomized Diffusionism.
Homology
Analogy
Research History
Adolf Bastian, Ger., End of 19th Cent.
Similarity in animal extremities can be caused by
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Adolf Bastian
(1826-1905)
Homology Analogy
Similarity via common ancestry
(historic-genetic parallel)
(Insect & bird = unrelated)
Similarity caused by solving the same basic problem
(functional parallel)
Schooled in anatomy he reminded the cultural researchers:
If similar cultural traits are found in different parts of the world that
does not mean that they have the same cultural origin. Hence no
need to think of borrowing (diffusion) either. Rather: similar things
can be developed in different parts of the world independently as
functional analogies.
or
Research History
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
i
Adolf Bastian
(1826-1905)
E.g.: Need the elevated thrones of both China and Germany really be the result of a cultural diffusion
process?
Adolf Bastian, Ger., End of 19th Cent.
Research History
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Adolf Bastian
(1826-1905)
Parallels: Homologies or Analogies?
[Scale armour in various corners of the world need not be interpreted as the result of a
cultural contact or a common origin. They can also be explained as the result of the
response of creative human mind to the same functional problem.
Same with some social institutions, he thought.]
Adolf Bastian, Ger., End of 19th Cent.
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
i
The Hawaiian noble headdress mahiole has sometimes been cited as an
indicator of a Greek or a Spanish influence (as Capt. Cook’s men thought) in
the dark past (migration or cultural borrowing).
It is perhaps easier to explain it as a functional analogy (Elementargedanke:
“Becoming more impressive by one’s increasing height”) and sophistication
over time of a local cultural trait..
© Jorge Barrios
Research History
Parallels: Homologies or Analogies?
Adolf Bastian, Ger., End of 19th Cent.
Research History
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Bastian‘s Elementargedanke („the elementary thought“):
Cultural similarities are the result of elementary thoughts that are universal and occur worldwide. .
Pladoyer the genuine creativity of all peoples. There is only one mankind. All groups are equally
skilled. No superior group exists.
Bastian‘s Völkergedanke („the folk thought“):
The specific way how the elementary thought is expressed in each culture as a consequence of
different environments and historic influences. This factor is responsible for the differences and the
individual appearance we observe > Differencies have the same „psychic basis“!
[Bastian claimed a „psychic unity“ of mankind. This is strongly counter diffusionist thinking!]
[His concept tries to reconcile both universal human creativity and the regional differences.
Critique: While being able to deal a blow to diffusionism his concept still stayed to vague to be
much of a help for a cultural anthropologist.]
The next concept (British Functionalism), however, was quite utilizable in practice.
Adolf Bastian, Ger., End of 19th Cent.
Research History
British Functionalism, 1920-1960Bronislaw Malinowski
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
(1884-1942)
- Influenced by Linguistics/Maths/Psychology
- During WWI: detained in Melanesia, Trobriand Isl. (intensive field-research
period).
- 1922-1939: Teaching at London
School of Economics
- Withheld in USA when WWII broke out; there BM died in 1942, aged 58.
[His long field stay led to the most complete observations so far. These
completely lifted the difference between a Trobriander and a British in terms
of ambitions, goals or behaviour..]
Research History
British Functionalism, 1920-1960
Bronislaw Malinowski
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
(1884-1942)
In Kula Trade worked shells are exchanged
between the involved islands in perilous voyages.
The whole event is deeply imbued with zeal,
magic & prestige.
[Stuck on the Trobriand Islands during WW1 BM dwelled among islanders for a
long period, learned their language & finally understood their central cultural
practice: the passion of exchanging shell trinkets - the famous “Kula”.]
Ethnographic Example
Trobriand Islanders,
Melanesia,
Kula-Trade
Research History
British Functionalism, 1920-1960
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
i
(1884-1942)
Ethnographic Example
Trobriand Islanders,
Melanesia,
Kula-Trade
[Malinowskis 'Argonauts of the Western Pacific' (1922) is unique in depicting the imponderabilities,
the lust and the magic of Kula Trade.]
[What the Trobrianders
did not know but BM
discovered: the shell
items travel in circuits –
not only this, they move
in opposite direction.]
Obviously the shell items
are traded for same
items - a “Zero-sumgame”
(?!)
Bronislaw Malinowski
Research History
British Functionalism (1920-1960)
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
> Not the visible cultural traits of Kula are relevant, but underlying functions!
> The functions serve to satisfy basic needs (physiological, psychic, social needs; individual,
collective needs.)
> From the point of view of the mentioned functions there is no basic differences between far-away ethnic
groups and industrial societies (focus = on social life as such -> emergence of Social Anthropology).
> Interplay of ‘sectors’ of a society & the motives of the acting individuals become visible for the first time in
anthropology .
 A boost for ethnographic field research, aiming at sharing the indigenous 'world vision‘. Study of as
many aspects community life as possible - they are all interrelated!
BM concluded:
(1884-1942)
Bronislaw Malinowski
Research History
British Functionalism, 1920-1960
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
(1884-1942)
Critique of the Functionalism:
- If the functions are practically the same: What
causes major cultural differences then?
- Human need are changing and dynamic.
- What about the impacts on the functional
systems by historical events (e.g.: colonialism).
- More than he understood MB’s theory mirrored
the power-relations & social roles of British Empire
than it did indigenous life.
Bronislaw Malinowski
Research History
British Functionalism (1920-1960)
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Bronislaw
Malinowski
(1884-1942)
Is this London… ….or rather the felt one?:
Research History
British Functionalism (1920-1960)
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Malinowski’s functional approach: A possibility is found to
- by-pass the Boas’ dogma of particular historical events
- to respect fully Bastian’s & Boas’ idea of universal creativity
- to generalize, to compare world-wide &
- to still to explain handy details - of native life as well as of ours in Europe!
[Understandably this is the turning point in the history of cultural anthropology. Remarkably it all
started with staying with the indigenous people “day & night” - almost too late to do so: shortly
after the tragedy of WW1 & the advent of a 2nd catastrophic war.]
•
Bronislaw
Malinowski
(1884-1942)
Bronislaw Malinowski
Research History
French Structuralism (1950-1970)
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
[Somewhat later French research contributed a completely different way of
interpreting native life & to learn from it profoundly.
This new type of thinking neither too focused on particular or general history (like
Boas or the evolutionists) nor were the explanations as psychological as the ones
of Bastian or socially-focused (functionalist) as those of Malinowski.
This new theoretical approach became a hype in intellectual circles & beyond in
politics & art: Structuralism.]
Studied initially law & philosophy.
1935-1939 visiting professor in Brasil.
During that time: ethnographic field research at the
Bororo, Nambikware (Mato Grosso)
A leading intellectual
Author of a series of 'mile-stone'-publications
influencing society as a whole in the 1960’s.
[Elementary structures of kinship (1949)
Tropes tristes (1955)
Structural anthropology (1958)
La pansee sauvage (1962)
Mythologiques (1971)]
Research History
French Structuralism (1950-1970)
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
(1908-2009)
Claude Levi-Strauss
Research History
French Structuralism (1950-1970)
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
(1908-2009)
Claude Levi-Strauss
Influenced by linguistics he looked not so much at the
cultural traits themselves as their position to one
another:
How relatives dealt with one another, how people
arranged motives in art, how ritual followed on after the
other in a cycle seemed to express patterns deeply
buried in culture: the structures.
These are not the same as essential functions & needs of
humans. But principles of arrangement like we find them
if we describe the grammar of a language.
Structures like a dual arrangement (Heaven: Earth,
Male:female, Holy:profane etc.) seemed fundamentally
human, universally spread and therefore completely
untouched by historic change (1).
Studying this “matrix” it was thought it would be possible
to understand the much differing cultural behaviour more
deeply than ever before..
Research History
French Structuralism (1950-1970)
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
(1908-2009)
Claude Levi-Strauss
Influenced by linguistics he looked not so much at the cultural traits
themselves as their position to one another:
How relatives dealt with one another, how people arranged motives
in art, how ritual followed on after the other in a cycle seemed to
express patterns buried in culture: the structures.
These are not the same as essential functions & needs of humans.
But principles of arrangement like we find them if we describe the
grammar of a language.
Structures like a dual arrangement (Heaven: Earth, Male:female,
Holy:profane etc.) seemed deeply human, universally spread and
therefore completely untouched by historic change.
Studying this “matrix”, it was thought, it would be possible to
understand the much differing cultural behaviour more than focusing
on what they did in history!
Research History
French Structuralism (1950-1970)
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
(1908-2009)
The Ultimate Matrix: Structures in the sense of Levi-
Strauss
Claude Levi-Strauss
Humans often arrange entities as duals
[Note the dualism in the strict symmetry of halves in the ornaments of the native art of
British-Columbia!]
Research History
French Structuralism (1950-1970)
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
(1908-2009)
The Ultimate Matrix: Structures in the sense of Levi-
Strauss
Claude Levi-Strauss
Phases of processes mankind likes to arrange in a
“triangular way” (before – under way – after)
Research History
French Structuralism (1950-1970)
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Structures are manifest in dance, mythology, artefacts, customs, eating, social practices etc.
As a most basic quality of organizsation, structures might appear unchanged
in diverse historical contexts.
(1908-2009)
The Ultimate Matrix: Structures in the sense of Levi-
Strauss
Claude Levi-Strauss
Research History
French Structuralism (1950-1970)
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
[The Salish & Kwakiutl are culturally similar. - But when
the revered white mask symbolizing wealth for the Salish
(A) enters Kwakiutl Society it receives exactly the
opposite meaning of ‘poor’ of the own black mask (C).
(For no other reason than: the meaning of ‘rich’ is
already embodied by a black mask in Kwakiutl society
(B). T- o keep the cultural grammar intact (A) must
make the striking change of meaning!)
More important than to keep the true meaning is to
maintain the structure (A : B = B : D).]
Swaihwe (A) Dzonokwa (C)
The Salish The Kwakiutl
rich
Xwexwe (D)Sasquatch/Tsanaq (B)
poor
Ethnographic Example
Salish Art, British
Columbia
poor
richX
Note the masks’ dualism: Sunken eyes/dark colour/open mouth <> Protruding eyes/light colour/protruding tongue
Research History
French Structuralism (1950-1970)
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
(1908-2009)
[Again we find the idea of a unity of mankind - irrespective of
whether individuals do fishing on a Melanesian island or sit
in an office in Rome.]
Criticism of Structuralism:
S. is “a-historic”. A very important concept but not likely to
fully capture the overwhelming dynamics of some historical
processes, human decisions & desire.
[As expected the pendulum swings to the opposite site:
The next break-through in cultural anthropology did less
focus on the creative, functional or structural unity of man
(Bastian, Malinowski, Levi-Strauss).
It more strongly consider the historical process & cultural
differences (as had Unlineal Evolutionism, Boas
particularism, Diffusionism, “Kulturkreise”).]
Next to come: Multi-lineal evolutionism, a very handy
concept - especially for the archaeologist..
Claude Levi-Strauss
Research History
Evolutionism reloaded (USA, 1940-1960)
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
i
[Advocates of Neo-evolutionism:
Leslie White & Julian Steward, USA]
Leslie A. White (+ 1975)
• Materialistic approach
• Technology -> social organization -> ideology
• Evolutionary trend: Technologies raises the ratio of
energy extraction.
• White conceived his evolutionism as a synthesis of
synchronic functionalism and diachronic particularism being
both generalizing and historical.
So, general principles can be found (a similar level of
exploitation leads to similar social and ideological
systems). Contra Boas culture per se exists and can as
such be studied empirically.,
1949
Research History
Evolutionism reloaded, USA, 1940-1960
Julian Steward
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
 Advocated “multilinear evolutionism”: In spiteo f Boas’ dictum ome
characteristic sequences can be observed. – But nowhere identical
(in the full length, caused by the same factors in the same direction
or at the same pace).
 In the study of cultures focus on the influence of natural
environment, the distribution of resources, production empiric data
(fore-runner of 'Cultural Ecology', 1960-1980)
[Irrigation field. Measuring
the productivity
of the garden plot with
Taro fruit (Hawaii)]
Research History
Evolutionism reloaded (USA, 1940-1960)
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
[Critique of Neoevolutionism
- Considered to be deterministic. Model-centred & in search for “the main factor”.
- The observation of individual cultural development makes it hard to apply the
resulting models elsewhere].
If focused on certain regions archaeological studies result that are outstanding in
their temporal scope, their portrayal of ecological/economical/social interdependence
as well as the historic detail.]
- Culture is a patchwork, always ‘work in progress’.
- Interpretations & content constantly change.
- Culture: constantly redefined in the day-to-day behaviour (by performance)
Research History
Cultural Anthropology Today
Postmodernism (since 1980ies)
Clifford Geertz
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
(1926-2006)
Research History
Cultural Anthropology Today
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
i
Research History
Cultural Anthropology Today
Postmodernism (since 1980ies)
 Many 'objective facts' reveal to be culture-bound.
 Science is but one way of a 100 ways of conceptualizing the world.
 No system of explanation is privileged.
Consequences for the anthropological practice:
- Give the 'Others' a voice, instead of talking 'about' them.
- Science hides power relations. - So include the circumstance of
'knowledge productions‘ in your works. PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
4 Modes of Economy
FORAGING - HORTICULTURE - PASTORALISM - AGRICULTURE
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Elman Service (US)
Primitive Social Organization
(1962)
[Foraging………………………… bands
Horticulture & pastoralism…..tribes
Farming - husbanding……….. chiefdoms
Agriculture………………………...states]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlVrrNlmJyg
[the dark “ball” > formal leadership emerges]
EXCURSUS #2 (a preview of the 2018 semester)
[Source: Julianna Bryan, http://slideplayer.com/slide/10122122/]
EXCURSUS #2 (a preview of the 2018 semester)
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
[Foraging-Horticulture-Pastoralism-Agriculture]
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
i
[Source:Havilland et al. 2008]EXCURSUS #2 (a preview of the 2018 semester)
PART D - FORAGING
[The description of foragers follows the convention. It portrays groups which many see as the classical
forager: highly mobile, food-extracting groups in the arctic, desert or tropical zone.
Note:
1) All communities also take part in modern life-style nowadays. (Our take on foragers is often
nostalgic).
(2) Rather sedentary, populous hunter-gatherer existed in the resource-rich Eco zones (e.g. Kwakiutl).
Seen by us as the “exception”, they may in the archaeological past have been much more frequent.]
FORAGING
https://doktorat.univie.ac.at/aktuelle-meldungen/einzelansicht/news/feldforschung-im-regenwald-ein-bericht-von-khaled-hakami/
https://chags.univie.ac.at/
http://ishgr.org/
Current research by Dr.
Kh. Hakami, Vienna at
the Maniq, a forager
community of SThailand.
[Invited to
PANE in the 2018
semester.]
Foraging: food extraction not food production. Extensive exploitation of wild
animal/plant species in a vast territorial unit (as opposed to irrigational
agriculture.)
[Dawn of Mankind: Taking instead of making food.
Quadruped animals often eat & drink “on site”.
Developing the upright gait early freed the hands
of early hominids. It made their bodies’ sexual
signals permanently visible (factor in stable pairbonding).
And it llowed our progenitors to carry
resources where they were most meaningful for
survival:
In support the offspring who matures partly “extrauterine”
through intensive multigenerational care
& take a very long time to become reasonably
biped.]
[Lucas Cranach the Elder, Adam & Eve, ca. 1508]
FORAGING
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Foraging
= exploitation of wild animal/plant resources in a vast territorial units
(opposed e.g. to irrigational agriculture.)
= a extractive system of making one’s living (opposed to producing
food)
= combined economy (typically: fishing + hunting + gathering)
= a flexible life-mode (economically as well as socially)
FORAGING
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Some key facts..
- 99% of it's history our mankind exclusively relied on foraging ('food
extraction'). Obviously it is a life-mode extremely fit for H. sapiens in
many ways.
- Actual food production started only some10.000 years ago.
FORAGING
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
History
Mary Leakey found in Laetoli,
Tanzania:
Hominid traces (A. afarensis?)
[Together with the races of 20 animal
species, petrified volcanic ash]
3,6 Mio ys.
[Scientific sensation: Despite many other differences (skull) the
legs of Australopithecus were practically as that of “me & you”. The
extreme development of brain did happen after early
hominids had fully acquired the upright gait. ->The ability to
move from place to place 2 legs must have been most
meaningful..]
FORAGING
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Laetoli, Tanzania, 3,6 Mio ys.
FORAGING
©Laurie Grace
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/1/image_pop/l_071_05.html
History
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
i
[Differing reconstructions of the foot prints were
offered the time.
Lately it is thought that one of the individuals
carried an asymmetric load (an infant too young
to its own legs on the walk?)]
FORAGING
History
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
• Foraging = walking plus picking up things…
[In early humans this activity created a stimulus for important things:
• Dexterity
• Eye -> brain (increase of information, stimulation)
• Enhanced experience of space
• Permanence of the sexual appeal (different to other primates, a factor in
pair-bonding & caretaking for newborns/mothers)
• Mixed grouping of the young & old (intergenerational learning)
• Creating one’s material & social habitat via logistic solutions].
+
FORAGING
History
[Lucy: walking on todays’ legs..]
Foraging – A marginal economy? - Early hominids obviously used many places that
are considered relatively favourable & central.
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
i
© Kottak 2004, The MacGraw-Hill Companies
FORAGING
Locations
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
[Compare their past/present spread]
FORAGING
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
i
Once highly adaptive,
restricted to marginal zones
'nowadays'
pedestrian
equestrian aquatic
© 2001-2006 by Dennis O'Neil
FORAGING
Locations
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
(Classical) Hunter-Gatherer Communities, arid regions
Kalahari (San)
Arizona, Utah, New Mexico (pre-contact Navaho, Apache)
Locations
FORAGING
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Locations
i
(Classical) Hunter-Gatherer Communities, tropical regions
Tropical Central-Eastern Africa (Mbuti, Efe, Hadza)
Madagascar, SE-Asia (Mlabri)
Malaysia (Semang)
Sri Lanka (Vedda)
India (Chenchu, Birhor)
Philippines (Agta)
Indonesia (Kubu)
Andaman Islands
South-America (tribes of the rain forest)
Paraguay (Ache)
FORAGING
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
i
(Classical) Hunter-Gatherer Communities, temperate regions
Arctic regions (Inuit)
tribes of thre arid areas and wood-lands of America (Plains/Great Basin/
Northwest Coast/Plateau)
Patagonia (Selk'nam, Tehuelche)
Russian Fed. (Chukchi)
Locations
FORAGING
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Population size
On the (Classical) Hunter-Gatherer Communities
- Now: 0.005 % of world population, only 1/4 million today
- In all known instances foragers were cornered by pastoralist and sedentary populations
leaving the former hunter-gatherers without the “main ingredient” their existence: vast & free
roaming territory.
- Partly foragers & sedentary were antagonistic, partly they were periodically in touch & formed
symbiosis (Mbenga & hunters & Bantu farmers).
FORAGING
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
i
Indigenous of Patagonia,
Smyth’s Channel/Chile
Foragers: typified as exposed, deprived, struggling.
FORAGING
[Early evolutionists branded hunter-gatherers as “primordial groups”, “relics”]
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
“Truth Is..”:
High knowledge of the natural habitat & managing skills.
- long-term processes in nature
- distribution of resources
- animal behaviour,
- wild plants reproductive cycles
- micro-climate
- weather phenomena
- soil types
- medical plants etc.), instead of a control of the living conditions of animals/plants and
the preservation of food..
Competences in social life & the assessment of the socio-economic balance.
(Skill in realizing “life satisfaction”).
(Developed spirituality)
FORAGING
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
i
[Dena'ina of South Central Alaska use of the habitat
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g36oIvod2-k&list=PL4cegg1q2GAKvD6IS03FslAaIY-7IjTM3]
Exploitation wild animal/plant species in a large territory means:
A remarkable ‘mapping & cataloguing operation’ (especially in the case of marked seasonal changes).
[Vegetation pattern, W-Scotland.]
FORAGING
Hunting skill is but one of the necessary skills. Male & female in foraging groups need:
> Trained observational/memorizing skill
> Good feel for what group-size a stretch of land will sustain (“carrying capacity”),
> Anticipation when resources will be abundant/exhausted,
> Exact knowledge of the properties of natural resources (e. g. some poisonous stable plant
can only be made use of after intricate processing),
 Capability to respond to sudden changes aptly/promptly.
That is…
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
FORAGING
…skills no less than that of our managers.
[Some researchers assumed that despite the harsh environments (classical) foragers inhabit, many of the small groups
spent less hours per week “making their living” than members of industrial societies. This led to the popular concept of
the “original superfluent society” (Marshall Sahlins 1966) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_affluent_society.]
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
/Koece Ghau, Ju/'hoansi
© Dave Bruce
Spelling:
http://anthro.palomar.edu/subsistence/sounds/Ju_hoansi.mp3
[Though being aestheticized for the Western consumer the photo has been picked:
It subverts the conventional presentation of foraging peoples “running after animals,
making fire, making traps etc., i.e. being always busy with basic food or tool
procurement.]
FORAGING
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
i
Ethnographic Example
The Ju'/hoansi of Angola/Namibia/Botswana
(= “Classical” hunter-gatherer communities. Inhabiting an esp. dry environment)
FORAGING
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
i
Ethnographic Example
Ju'/hoansi, Angola/Namibia/Botswana
The seasonal variations and the exploitation of scarce natural resources necessitate
mobility.
FORAGING
Subsistence
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
i
•
FORAGING
Hunting. Any time hunters fail, they turn to gathering.
Subsistence
Ju’hoansi men use 4 methods in hunting: bow and poisoned arrow, hunting with dogs, digging out ground-living
animals and snaring.]
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
i
Gathering: making a wide use of the resources in their territory (including wild plants and animals
species for food )
[The Ju'/hoansi:100 species of plants (nuts fruits, berries, melons, roots, greenery etc.) are collected. Especially the
mongongo-nut is rich in carbohydrates, fats and protein. 50 animal-species offer meat.
Subsistence
FORAGING
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Silent Trade, Barter
3-4 months each year individual Aka work for Bantuspeaking
farmers in exchange for manioc.
They trade products of the rain-forest with the
neighbouring agrarians ('Silent Trade').
-----------------------------------------------------
The, Mbuti from Ituri similarly exchange with Sudanic,
Bantu-speakers in Congo.
-----------------------------------------------------
Also the Ju/'hoansi barter with surrounding agrarians.
Bantu & Aka’ s “silent trade”/Central African Republic, Congo
[Ethnographic Example
Aka, Central African Republic, Congo]
Subsistence
FORAGING
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Mbuti/Congo
[The necessity to be constantly on the move limits the possibility to accumulate material possessions,
and a classical forager economy does hardly create storable goods.]
FORAGING
Ownership
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Forager are nomadic. Through much of their history they did not possess beasts of
burden.
All personal belongings have to be carried on the back, when the band moves collectively
to a better area of exploitation.
[The individual belongings of the Ju/'hoansi
remarkably do not outweigh 12kgs,
although they encompass everything that is
necessary for hunting, gathering, fishing,
building, cooking etc.).
[“It is not the man who has too little,
but the man who craves more, that is
poor.” – Seneca, Roman philosopher.]
Foragers are not poor.
Like we they had all equipment that
matters.]
FORAGING
Possession of tools
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Counter to what was sometimes claimed, egalitarian foragers do not “practice communism”. - Tools
are produced and owned by the individuals.
Extra efforts may legitimate exclusive rights of use, however, borrowing of these implements happens
freely.
[If game has been shot by the arrow of an other person, the
owner of the owner of the tool is entitled to receive part of the
pray.]
ulu-knife/Inuit
Possession of tools
FORAGING
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Although bands exploit certain territories, the claim for it cannot be enforced.
There is no individual right to the pristine resources within the foraging-circle of the group
('first come – first serve').
Working the honeytree, Hadza/Tanzania
[For example, in the case of the Mbuti/Congo a honeytree is
exploited its finder and all that get a notion of it indifferently
(similar practice: Shoshone/Great Basin).]
[Ju/’hoansi women exploit different sections with berry-bearing
trees after marriage. Also in the case of the Yurok/N-California
resources may be considered a family possession (however, this
group already possessed certain prestige-items.)]
Possession of resources
FORAGING
[Source: http://www.kalahariwildlandstrust.com/participatory-
mapping.html]
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Territory
FORAGING
Although a group may be adhere to a particular area, kinship ties may allow
individuals to roam farther & join other related groups, either more peramanently
or temporally (seeking a marriage partner, visiting, enforcing or reliefing groups,
curiosity, avoiding personal conflict etc). A constant coming & going!
Social unit
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
i
Ju/'hoansi, Namibia
Foragers live(d) in small groups that migrate to exploit the natural resources in their
territory.
The decisive social unit is special in structure & is correctly labelled: a “band”.
[Band size: not stable!]
FORAGING
Group size
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
i
Ju/'hoansi, Namibia
Max. 50-100 individuals. Usually well below.
[Limited size allows to meet the main socio-economic factors of moving foragers:
mobility - carrying capacity - social integration - social fluctuation - buffering of
existential threats etc.]
FORAGING
The structuring principle is kinship.
Relatively small family units (nuclear families) together loosely form the larger
band.
Ju'/hoansi,
Angola/Namibia/Botswana
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists[Nuclear family = parents & their kids.]
Group structure
FORAGING
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
[Because of the bilineal relationship (to both the mother & father side) the nuclear families of bands are
relatively easy to ‘untangle’. They may split into smaller groups or join into larger units as it is “good for the
season”.]
@Brian Schwimmer/Manitoba
Ju/'hoansi band, after Richard Lee (2002)
FORAGING
Genealogical “depth”: max. 4 generations (I.-IV.).
So: in a band relationship entirely focuses on the living, not on a common
dead ancestor - as it is characteristic for the numerous people that form, for
example, a clan..
I.
II.
III.
VI.
[Organizational flexibility!
If there is a seasonal abundance of resources, nuclear families may gather at a favourable place
and stay the stay together for some time (maximum size of bands).
Once the locally abundant resources diminish
• as season progresses
• or the resources within the 'foraging-circle' are exhausted (due to the concentration of
individuals),
the maximal unit (band) breaks up into smaller units who make their living during the rest of the
year independently.]
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Group structure
+ + (+) (+)…
FORAGING
[So there is a constant subtle interplay between social and economical needs in nomadic foraging
communities.
Part of their ingenuity lies in keeping this in a balance in harsh ecological settings.]
It has been observed that large groups already start to split and disperse before 1/5 of the carrying
capacity of the territory is reached! - That means that indeed foragers need relatively large, open
tracts of land for living & risk-buffering!
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Group structure
+ + (+) (+)…
FORAGING
The factor of seasonality
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Contrary to us classical
foragers may live quite
different
“behavioural cultures”
during different seasons.
[Ethnographic Example
Ju'/hoansi, Angola/Namibia/Botswana
June-Sept (no rainfall):
20-50 individuals group at the remaining water-holes, feeding on the nutritious mongongonuts.
(Meeting other individuals, exchanging news, marrying partners etc.)
After a while the exploitation of less liked plant-products: bitter melons, roots & gum starts;
gets more difficult to get to the needed stuff (socially a vague “feeling of tense” may grow)
Humid season:
Filling up of the surrounding less permanent smaller water-holes; the large band splits up into
smaller units, who roam freely through the surrounding land & alone make their living.]
Kalahari waterhole
FORAGING
Marriage
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
i
Foragers practice
exogamy (marrying out
of the own group).
Postmarital residence:
optionally patrilocal
(“side of the father”) or
matrilocal (“side of the
mother”).
Aché family (E-Paraguay)
FORAGING
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
[Ethnographic Example
Ju'/hoansi, Angola/Namibia/Botswana
Getting married/postnuptial residence: female
are engaged with the age of 8 or 9 years. The
couple stays some time with the family of the
bride's father (‘bride-service’).
• Spouses: Monogamy prevails with 95%.
(Healers may turn to polygny to emphasize
their special status.)
• Childcare: lactating occurs several times/hour.
Nursing lasts 4 or 5 years. So a spacing in
pregnancies occurs.
• Divorce: easily obtained & common, as are
second marriages. When a separation does
occur, the children remain with their mother.]
FORAGING
Marriage
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/e4/2a/01/e42a01b87a1d1222336a622c78a81c1c.jpg)
[Ethnographic Example
Ju'/hoansi, Angola/Namibia/Botswana
Main social binding force:
consanguinity & marriage.
Putative ('claimed kinship') relations
are also accepted.
Exogamous marriage: Relatively broad
scope of non-marriageable persons
(excluding 75% of members). Ties
with a outward groups = encouraged.]
FORAGING
Marriage
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
,
Ju'/hoansi, Angola/Namibia/Botswana
[Ju'/hoansi, Angola/Namibia/Botswana: Men
and women equally often leave the camp(3
days/week). In both cases the working
hours are ca. 43 hours/week. Nor is the
task easy: they cover approx. 12 miles/day
and carry a load of 15 kg plus their children.
[(Draper 1975, R. Lee 1993
Division of labour by gender
FORAGING
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
[Hunt - High expenditure of energy, plus risk to be injured (not seldom negative energybalance;
bonus: amino-acid for vital protein as well as social/symbolic significance).
Gathering - Low energy-spending, low risk, reliable intake.
- Women also prey on fish, small animals when they come across them during their gathering
activities.
- During their excursions they gather information important for the hunters: the moves of
game.
- With nuts etc. they “fuel” the energy-consuming meat hunt.]
FORAGING
Division of labour by gender
General reciprocity: In a community giving and receiving occurs in such a natural way that no
one wants nor will be able to keep track of the amount of things shared. Infinite care of parents
for their children vice versa is of such kind. This is not the same with balanced reciprocity
Balanced reciprocity: a return present of exactly the same value as the one given is expected
within an certain period of time. This is a wide-spread mechanism to establish reliable relations
with distant persons (e.g. ritual gift-exchange, trade).
Negative reciprocity: 'selfish' trial to overreach persons with which we do not need to establish
balanced, frictionless relations (extreme form: raiding)
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Ache/E-Patagonia Lampung/Sumatra Plains Indians
EXCURSUS #3 Reciprocity [Sahlins (1968), Service (1966)]
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
i
The overarching concept – kinship-ideology/general reciprocity – inhibit the idea of a higher social
rank.
Amassing goods by an individual would not result in a higher status. It would lead to the contrary :
ridicule and withdrawal. And it can not be realized technically for want of storage facilities,
conservation practices and beasts of burden..
Ba'Aka/Cameroon, Congo,
Central African Republic, Gabon
[Sharing: investment, long-term insurance]
Distribution
FORAGING
Distribution
Male hunter are often obliged to share their pray with not only with their all members of
their nuclear family, but with the entire band. Sharing entitles you to take a share of meat
next time if your hunting attempt fails, but another hunter has made a kill.
Though hunting success is never predictable a constant inflow of important food (meat of
game) is thereby realized. - Same as our risk-sharing assurance system.
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Mbuti/Congo
FORAGING
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Contrary to that woman are not compelled to generally share with the band. (Food
intake by gathering is predictable).
A woman can distribute according to her will the yield of gathering (fruits, nuts,
tubers, small animals etc.). She supports individual households. This may be a way
how to influence life within the band.
FORAGING
Distribution
Social stratification
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
 The 'classical' forager groups were egalitarian:
 No social division of labour (exception: ritual specialists, persons accomplished in certain
techniques).
FORAGING
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
,
[Exceptions: The owners of the nets for rabbithunting
of Shoshone/Utah, Nevada. Likewise the
captains of whale-boats Inuit/N-Alaska are given
command.
Washo/Great Basin: leaders may be persons with
some special skill as advisors, healers, midwifes,
warriors or hunters. ]
No political institutions or formal authority.
Classical foragers are egalitarian, within the same social category (of age or gender)
Leadership: informal ('primus-inter-pares') - persuasion instead of enforcement of decisions.
Mbuti/Ituri Rainforest, Congo
FORAGING
Social stratification
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
[Tropical region: contribution of gathering women to the total diet may up to 60-70%. Different in the
arctic region: scarcely any exploitable plants exist. (Arctic zone: the roles of men and women in huntergatherer
society are less balanced).
In foraging societies women are excluded from certain rituals. Some ritual exclusion exists for the males
also, e.g. the ritual avoidance in connection with the hunt]
According to the 'kinship-ideology' of foragers: along the lines of age & gender.
Aka, Congo
Division of labour
FORAGING
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
[Agta females are reported do hunt with dogs while
carrying their babies (Griffin & Estioko-Griffin 1985).
The Washo of the Great Basin (N-America): both
female and male were engaged in gathering and
fishing]
Agta/Philippines
Division of labour
FORAGING
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/jun/15/childrensservices.familyandrelationships]
Aka/Congo
Contrary to the common stereotype, percentage of time
that foragers have to invest in primary economical activities
is astonishingly low (e.g. 40 hrs/week to give just some
figure). A high proportion of time & effort flows into the
social interactions of group members that dwell together.
[Observations among the Aka by Barry Hewlett indicate
that the male hunters play a major role in the infants care,
including hugging for prolonged time etc. Males: accessible
for infants approx. 47% of the time].
FORAGING
Division of labour
Managing conflict
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Low competitiveness.
No social incentives, special precautions or provisions for violence.
Mobility eases off the tensions.
Spontaneous feuds occur. Individual causes (adultery, witch craft etc.).
[Tension control Ju/’huoansi San: The composition of the bands constantly changes.
Individuals are free to join related groups in some distance. They will also exchange visits, which may last
for a week or two. This should allow individuals 'to find their place' in the larger social web.
Arctic Inuit: public 'song battles' as a means of for conflict-resolution.]
FORAGING
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
,
Ethnographic Example
Ju'/hoansi, Angola/Namibia/Botswana
Retirement with about 60. The old may hunt for themselves, but do not contribute to the band.
Freed from eating taboos.
Mature persons serve as personified 'lexicons' for the community.
Hadza/Tanzania
[Hadza/Tanzania: Elder women significantly
contribute, to support younger women with
children.]
FORAGING
Aging
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
Many rituals are performed by the
individuals themselves.
Spirituality
FORAGING
Collective rituals: healing trance, initiation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjPHmrU2B1E Kosmology: Aborigine dreamtime
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyLF3y1YJKA Healing
PANE CuAnthroArchaeologists
[Part-time ritual specialists: shamans
(healer/medium/diviner) who act because of a personal
vocation.
They perform for other members of the group, but are
not exempt from primary production.
Shamans sometimes set themselves off from ordinary
people by different/ambiguous sex/gender roles; see
Chukchi (Bogoras 1904)]
FORAGING
Spirituality
END of CuAnth A