Versión de HTML Básico
G
ustavo
G. P
olitis
Reflections on Contemporary Ethnoarchaeology
44
PYRENAE,
núm.
46
vol.
1
(2015)
ISSN: 0079-8215 EISSN: 2339-9171 (p. 41-83)
on material culture and its interactions with social and cultural dynamics, and because it
keeps archaeological research problems in mind.
There are many definitions of ethnoarchaeology, but initially it was simply and basica-
lly described as the acquisition of original ethnographic data to aid archaeological interpre-
tation. However, it is much more than this, and different definitions abound. Although, in
the past, some synonyms proliferated—such as “action archaeology”, “living archaeology”,
“archaeo-ethnography”, “paleo-ethnography”, or “ethnographic archaeology”—the term
ethnoarchaeology won popularity and today is, by far, the preferred word to refer to this
kind of research strategy.
Ethnoarchaeology can be defined as the study of the relationships between human
behavior and their archaeological consequences in the present. It is concerned with the
investigation of the material culture and built environments of living people, in relation
to the processes which effects and affects their conversion to archaeological context (Lane,
2006: 402). One of the most comprehensive definitions of ethnoarchaeology among the
many available (see summary in David and Kramer, 2001), and my personal favorite, is
that provided by B. Sillar:
[…] the study of how material culture is produced, used and deposited by contemporary
societies in relation to the wider social, ideological, economic, environmental and/or technical
aspects of the society concerned, and with specific reference to the problems of interpreting
archaeological material. (Sillar, 2000: 6)
Another interesting definition is by Alfredo González-Ruibal, in what is probably the
only ethnoarchaeological textbook written in Spanish:
[…] estudio arqueológico de sociedades generalmente preindustriales, con el objetivo de pro-
ducir una arqueología más crítica y menos sesgada culturalmente, de generar ideas que favorez-
can el debate arqueológico y de contribuir al conocimiento de las sociedades con las que se tra-
baja, teniendo en cuenta sus tradiciones, ideas y puntos de vista. (González-Ruibal, 2003: 12)
2
Other research strategies that use ethnographic data with intensity, in some way or
another, have also been labeled as ethnoarchaeology. This has generated some confusion.
Neither the use or application of published ethnographic data to interpret the archaeo-
logical record nor the study of ethnographic collections from museums with the goal of
aiding archaeological interpretation is considered ethnoarchaeology (David and Kramer,
2001). Considering examples from South America, the compilation and integration of
ethnographic and historical data made by Dominque Legoupil (1989) in the context of
her archaeological research of the southern Chilean channels cannot be included within
2. “archaeological studies of preindustrial societies, generally, with the goal of producing a more critical and less
culturally biased archaeology, of generating ideas that favor archaeological debate, and of contributing to the
knowledge of the societies with which one works, taking into account their traditions, ideas, and points of view”
(our translation).