Since its first introduction and application to archaeology in the late-nineteenth and early- twentieth century during the classic evolutionary ideology era where it was heavily utilized to
establish the human origin of prehistoric artifacts (Shelley 1999), analogy has always held a
central role in archaeological thought. While in archaeological thought it functions on the base
of broad and generalized comparisons that are documented across many cultural traditions; in
anthropological practice as a whole, analogy is the reasoning based on the notion that if two
things are comparable in some values then they must be comparable in other values. It refers to
the structure which describes and attempts to explain the cultural processes
Although ethno-archaeology has been under severe criticism since the late-1980s
it can nevertheless be useful to archaeologists. Hole’s 1979 work is a success story of
ethnoarchaeology whereby his usage of ethnography on the Baharvand—Iranian pastoral
nomadic group—shows the beneficial aspects of using ethno-archaeology. His work had aimed
to help explain the issues of distinguishing nomads archaeologically, and consequently allow the
assessment of the role carried out by the pastoral nomads in the Near Eastern prehistory. Ethno- archaeology’s benefits to archaeological research have been outlined by Stark (2003) in form of
Near Eastern ceramics. She also calls for ethnoarchaeology to be seen as a research strategy than
of a sub-discipline of archaeology, and reasons that because archaeology is heavily dependent
on inferences reasoning, ethnoarchaeology and its data serves to build stronger archaeological
explanations, especially in oppose to commonsense explanations of culture. Ethnographic
Despite its abundant employment in archaeological thought time and time again,
FIRST EXAMINATION IN ARCHAEOLOGY
DAY II: RELATING THEORY TO RESEARCH
Archaeologists have recovered numerous Clovis
projectile points and chipped-stone tools in the New World. Archaeological evidence shows that
Clovis hunters were able to obtain these projectiles and chipped-stones from mammoths (Frison
1989). Together with analogues and given that mammoths and elephants are physiologically
comparable enough to make confident statements on the possibility of this type of stone tool,
Frison experimented with elephants in Hwange National Park in Zimbabwe to test replicas of
Clovis tools and weaponry.
Apart from ethnographic, historic, and experimental analogues, there are general,
relational and specific analogues to consider in archaeology. Formal analogy is justified by
similarities in the formal attributes, hence the name, of archaeological and ethnographic objects
and features. Relational analogy explained on the basis of close cultural continuity between
the archaeological and ethnographic cases, while specific analogy is used in archaeological
interpretation based on specific comparisons documented within a single cultural tradition. Last,
general analogy is based on broad and generalized comparisons that are documented
The second question frequently asked regarding Schliemann’s legacy examines his motives and skill as an excavator: was Heinrich Schliemann a good archaeologist? This question has two sides. First, did Schliemann use the best techniques and technology available to him at time of his first excavation? Second, did he have the same values that other archaeologists have?
...ncyclopedia of Archaeology, Ed. Deborah M. Pearsall. Vol. 3. Oxford, United Kingdom: Academic Press, 2008. p1896-1905. New Britain: Elsevier, Inc.
Examining excavated artifacts can tell researchers a lot about the people who left them behind. The artifacts can hint at characteristics such as how people lived, what time period they were from, what they ate, and how their families were structured. The identification of the three bags of artifacts was completed by utilizing artifacts that helped to infer the time period it was from.
Using a scanning electron microscope Shipman studied several types of marks left on the fossil remains of prey animals. Two of these marking she determined came from stone tools. These stone tools were used in two different ways leaving two different sets of marks. The first set of marks where located around joints and suggested disarticulation, and the second set removing flesh from bone. She then compared bones from the Olduvai to the Neolithic. Discovering Olduvai hominids did not practiced disarticulation as often as Neolithic hominids. But both Olduvai and Neolith...
Although the ancestors of the Anasazi’s were nomadic people, the Anasazi began to settle and live in one place. Making it harder for them to roam and tend to their gardens and crops at the same time, farming became a staple of their ...
Turfa, Jean Maclntosh. American Journal of Archaeology. N.p.: Archaeological Institute of America, 1977. JSTOR. Web. 30 Nov. 2013.
Behnke, R. H. (1980). The Herders of Cyrenaica: ecology, economy and kinship among the Bedouin of Eastern Libya. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. 197 pp. HRAF.
Who the earliest settlers were in the United States is controversial, as is where they came from and how they got here. A few different scientist has done studies on this and came up with different theories. Some believe they came by foot from Asia across the Bering Strait during the Ice Age while following mammoths for food (Shultz, n.d.). Others believe they came by boat following whales and searching for fish to eat. There are a few different theories. With this said, what we do know is the earliest settlers were the Paleo-Indian; how they got here or from where they came from is basically irrelevant.
“Stonehenge is one of the most impressive prehistoric megalithic monuments in the world on account of the sheer size of its megaliths, the sophistication of its concentric plan and architectural design, the shaping of the stones, uniquely using both Wiltshire Sarsen sandstone and Pembroke Bluestone, and the precision with which it was built.
Stage one of Stonehenge was built by native Neolithic people way before any modern things could have been used to help moving these huge bluestones. The Neolithic people dug a circle three-hundred feet in diameter; these ditches were known as Aubrey holes. These holes were discovered in 1666 by a man named John Aubrey. Scientist found evidence that the Aubrey holes that were dug the ditch with deer antlers which were found in the ditches as well as very old cow remains that are centuries old. The Aubrey holes were twenty f...
Immense changes took place between the Paleolithic and Neolithic time eras. One major change was the evolution of art. During the paleolithic time period, “…humans began making the first consciously manufactured pictorial images” (Kleiner, 16). The art they began creating came in a large variety. “During the Paleolithic period, humankind went beyond the recognition of human and animal forms in the natural environment to the representation of humans and animals (Kleiner, 16). They created portable paintings, sculptures, and figurines. “Art historians are certain, however, that these sculpture were important to those who created them, because manufacturing an ivory figure, especially one a foot tall, was a complicated process (Kleiner, 17). As
Both the lecturer and the reading argue about the use of carved stone balls which she describes as an artifact found many times ago. However, the lecturer disagrees with the reasons mentioned in the article and opposes each reason.
Susan Lindee and Ricardo Santos’ goal was to understand the contexts of genesis and development of biological anthropology around the world from an international standpoint, focusing on engagement with living human populations. Their contributors, scholars in history of science, science studies, and anthropology, were guided by key questions about national histories, collections, and scientific field practice.
One cannot generalize or predict all human behaviors, thought processes, morals, and customs. Because human nature is dominated by different types of cultures and societies in various parts of the world, this can often lead to misunderstanding which ultimately leads to the illusion of cultural superiority, and in most cases this can lead to genocide - the systematic murder or annihilation of a group of people or culture. Anthropology is the study of humans, our immediate ancestors and their cultural environments this study stems from the science of holism - the study of the human condition. Culture is crucial in determining the state of the human condition, as the cultures are traditions and customs that are learned throughout an individual
When trying to figure out what the field of applied anthropology is Sillitoe says that there is still some debate as to what the meaning of applied anthropology is and since anthropology is such a huge field and is considered to be the ‘study of humankind’, there is a threat that it could possibly too big and possibly collapsing on itself or how Sillitoe says, “such a broad church that there is a danger the walls are now too far apart and the roof falling in” (Sillitoe 2007). With such a big topic, there’s discussions as to how to define applied anthropology without able to agree on a single definition because it is “a very odd subject”, “hard to say what it is the study of”, and “it is not at all clear what you have to do to study it” as well