The interplay of ethnographic and archaeological knowledge in the study of past human subsistence in the tropics

Abstract

Much of what is currently known or believed about how humans procured and produced food in the past stems from ethnographic and historical evidence of the subsistence practices of foragers and farmers. It is often difficult or impossible to relate archaeological evidence directly to the ethnohistorical record, although these two very different sources of data potentially complement each other. The potential of such complementarity is now being enhanced by the use of novel techniques, such as parenchyma, phytolith, and starch‐grain analysis, for identifying fragmentary and amorphous organic remains retrieved from archaeological deposits, and by the use of the AMS (accelerator mass spectrometric) radiocarbon method to date very small samples, such as single seeds. More conventional ethnoarchaeological methods, by which field evidence of subsistence‐related structures is compared with information derived from ethnographic and historical accounts, also continue to yield valuable insights into past food procurement and production. In this essay, the reciprocal relationship between archaeobotanical and ethnohistorical data is exemplified by examining (a) recent applications of novel analytical techniques in investigations of the antiquity of root and tuber cultivation in the American, African, and Southeast Asian tropics, and (b) the use of more conventional methods in the study of past forager subsistence in tropical northeastern Australia.