Summary:
Chapter 1. Cultural continuity and the archaeologist's use of ethnographic analogy.
There can be no doubt of the usefulness to New Zealand archaeologists of the confident knowledge that only Polynesians occupied this country, and that they did so for only a comparatively short time. While arguments for Melanesian or Western Polynesian cultural influence, or even a three or four thousand year time span may be noted, the widely held view of cultural continuity and a date for initial settlement perhaps a little more than a thousand years ago, is of crucial importance to the way archaeologists in this country view their primary information. This thesis explores the implications of the �confidence in the continuity of culture� by employing the �direct historical� ethnographic analogy.
In addition, this work is also concerned with the �general comparative� ethnographic analogy. The difference between the terms �direct historical� and �general comparative� is significant not only for the variety of methods employed, but also because of the distinctiveness of their limitations. The �direct historical� analogy can be used only when there is demonstrable or assumed direct cultural continuity between archaeological information - the prehistoric group - and the ethnographic analogue. �General comparative� analogy draws upon a wide variety of cultural and behavioural models to generate hypotheses and interpretations of value to the archaeologist. Ascher (1961) restricts his �new analogy� to those archaeological areas for which historical continuity to the ethnographic present cannot be demonstrated. It is clear, however, that the concept of the general comparative analogy is more useful: it is frequently valuable to draw on a wide range of ethnographic observations and generalisations to reinforce particular historical analogues, and to offer interpretations for archaeological data for which there is no direct ethnographic insight.
The problems of ethnographic analogy have recently come under some scrutiny. This examination involves what is perhaps the central methodological and theoretical issue for archaeology: the relation of excavated data to whatever model or framework is used in interpretation. A major result of this new look at the ethnographic analogy is the recognition that ethnographic observations do not provide the only source of interpretative hypotheses. A more eclectic approach is now favoured and ecology and the behavioural sciences are explored for insight into archaeological data, while systems theory and other frameworks are used in analysis. For example, Anderson (1973) uses a competition model developed by ecologists to explain changes in size frequency and species composition in four stratified midden sites. Clearly the notion that archaeology depends on ethnographic analogy for interpretation is no longer tenable. None the less, ethnographic analogy does remain the most important single source of interpretative models for archaeology...
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:ADTP/217669 |
| Date | January 1974 |
| Creators | Prickett, Nigel, n/a |
| Publisher | University of Otago. Department of Anthropology |
| Source Sets | Australiasian Digital Theses Program |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Rights | http://policy01.otago.ac.nz/policies/FMPro?-db=policies.fm&-format=viewpolicy.html&-lay=viewpolicy&-sortfield=Title&Type=Academic&-recid=33025&-find), Copyright Nigel Prickett |
Page generated in 0.0021 seconds