Further Reflections on Archeological Interpretation1

Abstract

THIS paper is a somewhat expanded version of an attempt to explain to European colleagues some of elements of anthropological method and theory that underlie and condition thinking of American anthropologists. In its original form (Ehrich 1961) it appeared as a contribution to issue of Pamatky Archeologicke honoring late Dr. Jaroslav Bohm, Director of Archaeological Institute of Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences. Since Dr. Bohm was not only interested in methodological problems but had also contributed to field (Bohm 1953; 1961), this seemed an appropriate topic. In United States, archeology forms one of subdivisions of that larger discipline which we call Cultural Anthropology, and overwhelming majority of archeologists trained here today, with exception of most Classical archeologists, Egyptologists, Medievalists, and a few other specialists, receive a thorough grounding in this subject. It thus becomes necessary to restate, in broad terms, content of anthropology in British and American sense, and position of archeology within it (Ehrich 1950; 1958a; 1958b) before we explore theoretical and methodological implications of this relationship in greater detail. Our summary definition of anthropology, then, is that it is comparative study of man and his works. This of itself divides subject into two major parts: Physical Anthropology, or man viewed as a biological organism in meaning attached to simple term anthropology in other European languages; and Cultural Anthropology, which comprises ethnology and archeology. If we accept the comparative study of peoples and cultures as a valid description of ethnology, we can then subdivide it further into its two major orientations which respectively have historical and nonhistorical objectives. The goals of historical ethnology are to reconstruct actual history of cultural development both in general and in particular instances and to gain an understanding of laws and processes which may be involved. The nonhistorical schools of ethnology, on other hand, are much more concerned with actual functioning of individual cultures, interrelationship of their parts, differential effects of people on their own ways of life, and effects that particular cultural outlooks and practices have on development of people within a given society. The information for these nonhistorically oriented studies normally derives from discipline of ethnography, which entails detailed analysis of individual cultures. Although ethnographer primarily describes directly observable phenomena or attitudes via informants, he is interested in current cultural processes, while analysis of multiple ethno-