Vice Chancellor, Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute (Deemed

University), Pune

ECOLOGICAL ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE ECOLOGY OF ARCHAEOLOGY: THE ARCHAEOLOGIST'S

VIEWPOINT
Author(s): K. Paddayya
Source: Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute, Vol. 41 (1982), pp. 130-150
Published by: Vice Chancellor, Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute (Deemed
University), Pune
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/42931420
Accessed: 11-02-2016 14:46 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Vice Chancellor, Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute (Deemed University), Pune is collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 131.172.36.29 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:46:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
130
ECOLOGICAL ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE ECOLOGY OF
ARCHAEOLOGY : THE ARCHAEOLOGIST'S VIEWPOINT
By
K. Paddayya
'The mostfascinatingterraeincognitae
of all are thosethatlie withintheminds
and hearts of men" (Wright1947:15).
During the last fiveor so years, Butzer,
whose writingshave played a key role in
bringingtogethersciences and archaeology,
has moré than once given expressionto his
dissatisfactionwithsome of the conceptual
and organizationalaspects of environmental
archaeology as it is being practised today
and, more importantly, has proposed some
alternativeperspectivesfor bringingabout
improvements(Butzer 1975; 1978; 1980). It
is a measure of the relevance and
acceptability of Butzer's views that they
have not evoked any reaction.Nevertheless
theredoes appear to be scope forinitiating
discussionon some of the themesdealt with
by him. The presentpaper calls attention
to them with special reference to the
situation obtaining in Indian archaeology
today,It willfirstprovidea briefaccount of
Butzer's appraisal of the state of environ-
mental archaeology and the alternative
approaches proposed by him.Attentionwill
thenbe drawnto the pointsof agreementas
well as the areas where one could adopt a
dissentingposition.
I withinwhich the man-environment
While concedingthatthe debate initiated
during the 60s and 70s by the New
Archaeologyhas led to a betterappreciation
of the aims and methodsof archaeological
research, Butzer laments that the environ-
This content downloaded from 131.172.36.29 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:46:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
mental dimension has been but poorly
articulated. "Perhaps, the environmentis
specified as a variable in most processual
equations, but in all too many cases the
equation is then resolved by treatingthat
variable#asa constant.Also, archaeologists
often take a static, classificatoryapproach
to the environment,even when the human
variableshappen to be consideredas partof
a dynamicsystem"(Butzer 1980 : 417-8).He
disapproves of the characterization of
environmentalarchaeology as the studyof
past environments of man and remarksthat
what is at issue is not the techniques and
methods used for reconstructing past
environmentsbut ratherthe goals of their
application.
According to Butzer, environmental
archaeology is concerned withthe studyof
interrelationshipsbetween culture and
environment; its ultimate goal is the
"understandingof the human ecology of
prehistoric communities" (Butzer 1980 :
418). He furthersays that there are now
better prospects of realizing this goal
because not only has fliere been consi-
derable increase in the volume of data
but we have also at our disposal more
comprehensive conceptual frameworks
proble-
matic could be considered.Of the latter,he
specificallyrefersto systemstheoryànd the
ecosystem approach. The formerunravels
complex, multifactorialrelationships.The
ecosystemapproach employssystemstheory
fordelineatingfood chains ancļexchangeof

ANDTHE ECOLOGYOF ARCHAEOLOGY
ARCHAEOLOGY
ECOLOGICAL
materialsand information betweenthe non-
livingand living(includingman) components
of nature.
Butzer envisages two-levelobjectives for
environmentalarchaeology.At the primary
or lower level it is concerned with the
elucidation of the characteristics and
processes of the biophysicalworld. At the
secondary or higherlevel it deals with the
human ecosystem.Archaeological sites are
studied as a part of the human ecosystem.
This is what Butzer calls contextual
archaeology."Less concernedwithartefacts
than with sites, contextual archaeology
focusseson themultidimensional expression
of human decision-making within the
environment.And, without attemptingto
deal literallywith ecological phenomena
such as energy flows and food chains, it
stimulates holistic research by calling
attention to the multivariate, systemic
interactionbetweencultural,biological and
physicalfactorsor processes" (Butzer 1980:
419). Butzer regards space, scale, comple-
xity, interactionand stabilityas the five
central themes of contextual archaeology;
adaptation is the unifyingthreadthat binds
togetherall these themes.
Finally,Butzer (1980 : 421-2) would have
us believe that contextual archaeology
proposed by him, with its ultimategoal of
the study of past human ecosystems by
means of zooarchaeology, archaeobotany
and geoarchaeology, replaces the existing
Archaeology as anthropology' paradigm.
He remindsus that,just as it has benefited
fromthe stimuliand models suppliedby an-
thropology,archaeologyin the course of its
developmenthas been equally heavilydepe-
ndent on the empirical procedures and
modelsof naturalsciences like geology,bio-
logy and geography.It is a social science
This content downloaded from 131.172.36.29 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:46:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
:
131
mainlyon account of its objectives. To be
sure,unhappinessat the 'archaeologyas an-
thropology'paradigmhas also been express-
ed by several other workers in North
America (e.g.,Gumermanand Philips 1978;
Wiseman 1980a and b). Gumerman and
Philips have argued that the labelling of
archaeology as anthropologyhas hindered
itsprogress,as therehas béen reluctanceto
apply models fromareas otherthananthro-
pology; hence, they have given a call in
favourof'archaeologybeyondanthropology'
II
Butzerhas rightlydiagnosed thathitherto
an essentiallycataloguingkind of work has
been undertaken in environmentalarcha-
eology; in most cases littleor no efforthas
been made to bringthe environmentaldata
bear on the interpretation of past lifeways.
As a matterof factthisfailingon the partof
environmentalresearch has already been
pointed out by the archaeologists them-
selves. In his bold essay postulatingthatthe
economy of the European Mesolithic
communities was largely based on plant
foods, and not an animal foods as has
hithertobeen believed, Clarke (1978 : 17)
puts the matter bluntly thus: "The
contemporaryarchaeological development
of the ecological paradigm has been an
importantfactor in redressingthe biased
conclusions that emerged from earlier
studiesrestrictedto artefactdata. However,
therehas been a disconcertingtendencyfor
essays in this new fieldto repeat the worst
sins of the artefact typologistin a new
dimension,merelysubstituting the differen-
tial minutiaeof bone or seed measurements
and -statisticsfor those of typology and
substituting doubtfulgeneralizations,based
on eccentric faunai and floralsamples, for
132
those once committed upon artefact
assemblages."
In an equally interestingpaper Smith
(1976) has drawn attentionto the ailments
from which palaeoecological research is
suffering.Confininghis attentionto faunai
studies, Smith laments that so far a
'twitching'approach has been followed,in
which zoologists treating faunai material
fromarchaeological sites have by and large
concernedthemselveswiththe identification
of an umisual animal species and widening
of the geographicaldistributionof a known
species. 'Laundry*lisťtype of reports on
animalremainshave been in preparationfor
the last half a centuryor so. Smith does
concede that in recent years some
improvementshave been effectedin these
studies. Attention is now being paid to
aspects like the pre- and post-depositional
modificationof bones, age, sex and size
determination,frequencyof skeletal parts
represented,and thecalculationof minimum
number of individualsand probable gross
meat yields. The results of analyses are
usually representedin the formof charts,
graphsand tables.
Smith feels that even these improved
studiesare narrowinasmuchas the tasks of
identification,
quantificationand description
of skeletal material are viewed as ends in
themselves, whereas in actual fact they
merely constitutethe firstanalytical step
towards the formulation of predictive
models of man-animal interactions. He
believes thatsuch models alone can provide
answers to a series of five interrelated
questions concerningthe energy-capturing
strategyof prehistoricpopulations,viz., the
relativeimportanceof variousspecies in the
diet, possible seasonal exploitation of
This content downloaded from 131.172.36.29 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:46:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
K. PADDAYYA
animal populations,natureof procurement
strategies, possible selective nature of
human exploitationof animal populations,
and the overall seasonal pattern and
strategy of exploitation of the animal
populations (Smith 1976: 284-92). Full
answersto these questions can be had only
by adopting a hypothetico-deductive
approach which will also take into account
ethnohistoricaland ethnographicdata.
It is not difficultto multiplyinstancesof
the above type where archaeologistshave
expressed their unhappiness at the not-so-
helpful nature oř environmentalresearch
undertaken in archaeology. The obser-
vations of Clarke and Smith in respect of
food economy are no less truein respectof
environmental reconstructions*material
culture organizationand other aspects. In
short,it maynot be incorrectto say thatthe
sortof fetishismthathas*forlong been (and
in many areas continues to be) associated
with artefactshas now been transferred to
ecofacts.
Althoughwe mustin all fairnessto Butzer
say that he holds both archaeologistsand
collaboratingscientistsresponsiblefor this
unfortunatesituation,he appears to think
that it is the formerwho have to shoulder
the major share of blame"(Butzer1975: 107-
8). First, he says that in general archaeo-
logists are not aware of the potential
contributionsof sciences, eitherbecause of
their incomprehensionof these disciplines
or due to preoccupation with their own
tasks. Secondly, the collaboratingscientists
are "not alwaysgivenaccess to digestedsite
data and emergingproblems'9,so thattheir
contributions in site reports stand in
isolation. Thirdly,the excavation director
 ECOLOGICAL
ARCHAEOLOGY
ANDTHE ECOLOGYOF ARCHAEOLOGY
mayhave neithertheabilitynortheaptitude
to incorporatethe resultsof his collabora-
tors into his own interpretations.Fourthly,
the excavation directorhas greatercontrol
in the financialaspects of researchprojects
and wields more authoritythan he needs,
therebyreducingthe status of scientiststo
the position of 'vassal technicians9.Butzer
advocates that scientists ought to be
involvedmuch more closely in the formula-
tion of research strategies and the
publicationof reports.
It is just possible that archaeologistsare
respobsiblein these and several otherways
forthe failureto integratethe contributions
of Scientificdisciplineswithinarchaeological
research. Consideringthe fact that most of
, thearchaeologistssee theirjob as littlemore
than finding and reporting, it is not
surprising thattheycannotfullycomprehend
the role of sciences in promotingthe goals
of theirwork.And, yet,thisdoes not appear
tö be the whole truth;the role of scientists
themselves in this matter is not inconsi-
derable. We may illustrate.this point by
citingthesituationin Indian prehistory as an
example.
In India systematicapplicationof natural
sciences in archaeological research started
with the Yale-Cambridge expedition's
attemptto relate the Stone Age culturesof
northwesternIndia in terms of glacial
chronology(De Terra and Paterson 1939).
In recent decades, apart fromgeology and
gçomorphology, archaeologyhas also begun
to employ palaeontology, zoology and
botanyforfurthering itsinterests.But one is
constrainedto say that the contributionof
these disciplines has not gone beyond
preoccupation with the recognition of
climatic phases and the identificationof
This content downloaded from 131.172.36.29 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:46:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
: 133
plant and animal species, therebyaffording
a good example of the static classificatory
approach referredto byButzer.The general
attitude of archaeologists vis-à-visscience
is one of awe and respect,and almost any
statementgiven out by the collaborating
scientists would find ready acceptance.
Archaeologistscould thereforebe absolved
from Butzer's criticisms like authoritari-
anism and unwillingnessto place archaeo-
logical data at the disposal of theirscientist
colleagues. The lacuna seems to consist in
the lack of realization on the part of
contributing sciences thattheirgoals are no
longer concerned with the promotion of
naturalhistorybut entwinedwiththe.study
of human history.In otherwords,it has not
been fullyrecognisedthattheyhave a place
in archaeological researchonlyinasmuchas
they can aid the archaeologists in the
resuscitationof past human behaviour. A
fewinstanceswillsufficeto clarifythe point
at issue.
After the Yale-Cambridge expedition's
work in northwestern India resultingin the
identificationof glacial and interglacial
phases during the Pleistocene period,
Zeuner (1950) undertookstudiesof gravels
and otheralluvial depositsof westernIndia
and postulated the presence of a series of
wet and dry.climaticphases. The extension
of Stone Age studies to other parts of the
countryand the findingof alluvial deposits
of similartype have led to the adoption of
Zeuner's postulatedschejne of wet and dry
phases on a large scale. Taking gravel and
silt deposits as indicators,respectively,of
wet and dry phases, it has, for example,
been repeatedlysuggestedthattheAcheulian
and Middle Palaeolithic culturesflourished
during wet phases of climate and were
134
followed by a dry phase (e.g., Sankalia
1974 : 146-7). What is being argued here is
not that the reconstructionof climatic
events is an irrelevanttask in the studyof
the human past nor that the grounds for
makingsuch inferencesare unsoundand the
criteria of wetness and dryness are
unspecifiedbut thatit is unfortunatethatit
has not at all been thoughtfitto relate the
implications of these suspected climatic
changes in termsof humanadaptations.
Likewise, although the occurrence of
extensivelateriticformationshas oftenbeen
used as evidence for concluding that
monsoonal climate was a feature of the
subcontinent right from the Pleistocene
epoch, the siginificance of this climatic
patternin termsof the annual activitycycle
of the foraging and food-producing
populationshas gone unnoticed.It has been
left to prehistorians to point out that
seasonalityof rainfalland marked regional
differencesin precipitation,just as they
continue to have dominatinginfluenceon
the Indian peasant life, were critical
variables governingsettlementlocation as
well as food and water requirementsof the
prehistoric communities (e.g.. Paddayya
1981).
Thirdly,one is also temptedto say that
aspects like those concerningriverterraces,
long profiles and other geomorphological
features,sediments like gravels, silts and
clays containing cultural material, and
demarcation of sub-divisions within the
Pleistocene have often been given more
attention than they really deserve; their
studyhas nearlybeen treatedas an end in
itself. This situation coftstitutesa good
exampleof whatButzercalls 'archaeological
geology'. He difines it as' "geology, done
with an archaeological bias or application.
This content downloaded from 131.172.36.29 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:46:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
K. PADDAYYA
This is fundamentally distinct from
geological archaeology,done by means of
geologicalmethods,techniques,or concepts,
butconstituting whatis firstand foremostan
archaeological endeavour. At issue are
goals, rather than techniques" (Butzer
1980 : 418; see also 1981a : 226)
Even the small number of zoological/
palaeontological and botaņical studies that
have been undertakenin respect of pre-
and protohistoricsitesare rathernarrowin
scope? as theyare essentiallylistsof plantor
animalspecies. It is onlyby way of adopting
the kind of integratedapproach advocated
by Smith that they can contribute in a
significantway towards the understanding
of the functioning of archaeological
cultures.
From the above considerationsit is clear
that environmentalarchaeology in India,
althoughit has been of considerablehelp in
reconstructing the chronologyand climatic
background of the Stone Age cultures(fora
good review of the evidence in Peninsular
India, see Rajguru 1978),is yetto emergeas
an integratedapproach papable of isolating,
and identifying the relationshipsbetween,
the ecological variables governinghuman
adaptations. In this connection one is
tempted to think of cases like Butzeťs
(1976; 1981ty ecologically orientedstudies
of the Axum and Nile Valley civilizationof
Africa. One could of course counterargue
thatthe Indian pre - and protohistoricsites
are verypoor in organicremainsand as such
are intractable for elatorate ecological
analyses.It has alreadybeen pointedout by
the writerelsewhere (Paddayya In press)
that, instead of lamentingthis limitation,
other sources of informationought to be
exploitedin orderto supplementthe limited
data from archaeological sites.1Of funda-
 ECOLOGICAL
ARCHAEOLOGY
ANDTHE ECOLOGYOF ARCHAEOLOGY
: 135

mental importancehere are experimental ecological approach has a fairly long

and ethnographic data pertainingto climate,
plant and animal life,and water resources.
Quantitative studies of the type suggested
by Foley (1977) and others would be very
helpful in estimating the net annual
productivityof a given area in respect of
food resources. It should ultimatelybe
possible to formulatepredictivemodels of
economic, settlement and demographic
behaviour of past societies. Environmental
archaeology will then have transformed
itselffroma naturestudyinto a concern of
man-natureinteractions.
m the latterdevelopmentwas initiatedin he
The second importantaspect to be dealt
within the presentpaper concerns the use
of ecosystemand systemstheoryapproaches
in archaeology.The introductionof systems
analysis into ecological studies in the 50s
and 60s of the centuryhas been seen by
many as a revolutionarydevelopment,
leading to the birthof what has been called
the New Ecology (Mcintosh 1980 : 220-39;
see also Simberloff1980). Owing to the,
financial help initially rendered by the
National Science Foundation of the United
States under the InternationalBiological
Program,ecosystemstudies achieved wide
acceptance and constitute the most
importantframeworkof biological research
today. We can thereforewholeheartedly
welcome Butzer'splea foradoptingthisnew
perspectivein archaeological research.But
thereare some clarificationswhichare well
worthmaking.
While the ecosystem perspective no
doubt marks the latest formulationof the
well-knownman-environment problematic,
on a closer inspection it is seen that the , his adaptation and culturewas viewed as a
tradition in both anthropological and
archaeological research (for a good survey
of the growth of ecologicaly oriented
research in anthropology,see Helm 1962;
Mikesell 1967; Damas 1969; Anderson1973;
Bennett1976: Chapters6 and 7 particularly;
Hardesty 1977 : 1-17; Orlove 1980; for an
account of the parallel development of
ecological perspective in geography and
anthropology,see Grossman 1977).
Reaction to thegeographicaldeterminism
of theclosingdecades of thelastcenjturyled
to thegrowthof possibilismin anthropology;
early decades of the present-centuryand
continued into the 50s. Instead of viewing
the environment as a deterministicor
causative factor,thistrendadvocated thatit
only sets limits to the development of
culturalphenomenaswhichowe theirorigin
to otherculturalphenomena.Thanks to the
work of JulianSteward and Leslie . White,
cultural ecology became an important
concern in the 50s. Interestnow was on the
reciprocal relations between culture and
environment. Stewardheld thatenvironment
most directlyaffectedwhat he called the
Culturalcore' (comprisingtechnology,and
social and economic organization)and thus
reintroducedthe idea thatenvironment can
exercise a positive influence on cultural
forms. White considefed the levels of
energy use as the prime determinantof
culturalevolution.
With the introduction,in the 60s, of the
ecosystemconcept and systemstheory,the
studyof man-landrelationshipsgained fresh
conceptual perspectives.In earlierecologi-
cal studies man was regardedas unique in

This content downloaded from 131.172.36.29 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:46:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
136
superorganicphenomenon.As againstthis,
the ecosystemperspectivetreatsthe human
and non-human componentsoftheecosystem
on an equal level. Common concepts and
principleshold good for understandingthe
behaviour of both human and non-human
living systems. Similarly,the adoption of
systemsanalysisfacilitatesthe identification
of causal relationshipsbetween multiple
factors. Rappaporťs (1968) work on the
Tsembaga Maring of New Guinea is often
cited as a classic example of the application
of ecological and systems theory perspe-
ctives in anthropologicalresearch. He has
endeavoured to show how the annual ritual
killingof pigs functionslike a homeostatic
mechanismhelpingto maintainan undegra-
ded environment, limitsfightingto frequen-
cies that do not endanger the existence of
regional populations, adjusts man-land
ratios, facilitates trade, distributeslocal
surpluses of pig in the form of pork
throughoutthe regional population, and
assures people of high-quality proteinwhen
they most need it (for a criticismof this
neofunctionalistview, see Friedman 1974:
459-60; 1979; fora recentcontroversy about
the role of seasonal variationin rainfallin
successively controllingthe availabilityof
plant foods, movement of wild pigs, and
residence and kinshippatternsamong the
Miyanmin of Papua New Guinça, see
Morren 1980; Gardner 1980; and Morren,
McCay and Gardner 1981).
The 70s saw the emergence of what is
sometimes referred to as processual
The chiefelements
ecological anthropology.
makingup thistrendconcern a) inquiryinto
the relationshipsbetween demographyand
production systems; b) study of human
*
response, to situations of environmental
stress(Vayda and McCay 1975: 297-8; 1977;
This content downloaded from 131.172.36.29 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:46:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
K. PADDAYYA
forargumentsin favourof treatingthestudy
of environmentalhazards as a sub-fieldof
anthropology, see Torry 1979; for an
interesting studyof social responsesto food
shortages,see Dirks 1980); c) formationof
adaptivestrategies(Bennett;1969; 1976:271-
3); and d) freshworkin Marxismhighlighting
the role of internal conflicts in the
transformation of social systems.
The ecological perspective has again
been ď major element in archaeological
researchsince the earlypartof the century
(Trigger 1978: 134-52).Followingupon the
cartographicworkof Crawford,Fleure and
Whitehouse's study of the distributionof
ancient populations of England, and Cyril
Fox's geographical approach, Grahame
Clark developed the economic approach in
prehistoricstudies. The series of articles
which he contributedih the 40s on bees,
water, sheep, fowling and other topics
reveal his concern for ecological interpre-
tations.Clark (1974: 40) claims, and rightly
so, that his 1942 article on bees expressed
the essence of the ecological perspective
"by linkinghoney withland-utilization and
beeswax with bronze-casting".His efforts
culminatedin the work on the Mesolithic
site at Star Carr (Clark 1954). Although
termslike ecology and ecosystemhave not
been explicitly used, Clark sought to
undërstandthe workingof the culture by
relatingit to the biophysicalenvironment.
In a supplementarypublication he under-
took a freshinterpretation of the data to
cover even the demographic and social
aspects (Clark 1972). During the last two
decades several other archaeological
projects have been carried in which
environmentalvariables were given consi-
derationin one way or another(e.g., Willey
1974; Braidwood and Howe 1960; Adams
 ECOLOGICAL
ARCHAEOLOGY
ANDTHE ECOLOGYOF ARCHAEOLOGY
1965). Fitzhugh's (1972) work on the
Labrador coast is a well-knownexample of
archaeologicalinvestigations
makingexplicit
use of the ecosystemperspective.
Coming to the use of systemstheory,we
must note that the idea of gaining
knowledge of the systems or wholes as
importantas thatof thecomponentpartsfor
understandingthe worldaround*us is much
earlier than the General Systems theory
(Salmon 1978:175). The notion that the
elements forminga sociocultural system
exhibita networkof relationshipsis not new
to social sciences. A fine example is
provided by White's (1964) detailed study
of therole played bytechnologicalimprove-
mentsin initiatinga series of social changes
during the Middle Ages. Without talking
recourse to the systems concepts, he
has shown how sudden changes in the
methods of warfare during the eighth
centuryled to the rise of feudal chiefs,how
a series of inventionsbetween the sixthand
tenthcenturiesbroughtradical changés in
rurallife,ultimatelyprovidingthe basis for
urbanization,and, finally,how the appli-
cation of natural power and labour-saving
devices to industrialproduction from the
eleventh centuryonwards laid the founda-
tionsforcapitalism.
In archaeology, too, the notion of
betweencultural
systemicinterrelationships
components was already recognized by
manyworkers.In particular,attentionmust
be drawn to the work of Grahame Clark.
Influenced as he was by the work of
Radcliffe-Brown,.Malinowski and other
social anthropologists on the primitive
peoples, Clark emphasized that the past
cultures must be viewed as integrated
wholes; it is the task of the archaeologistto
This content downloaded from 131.172.36.29 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:46:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
: 137
show how the various components are
interrelated.With the help of a diagram
showingmulti-directional arrows- thisis in
no way inferiorto the present-dayflow
diagramsof boxes and arrows,he graphically
depictedthereciprocalrelationships existing
'between social organization, shelter and
clothing, technology, trade, subsistence,
language and writing,law, art, science,
magic and religion,*and between these and
thebiophysicalenvironment (Clark 1953:F/g.
6; 1965: Fig. 25).
In the lightof theseconsiderationsButzer
does not appear to be sayinganythingnew
when he asks archaeologists to .adopt
ecological and systemstheoryperspectives
in their work. It is rather surprisingthat
even the revised version of his otherwise
famousbook Environment and Archaeology,
although it expresses anxiety at the
continued preoccupation of environmental
archaeology withdating methods,geomor-
phological theoryand regionalstratigraphy,
and displays a welcome switch-overto the
ecological perspectivein lieu of his earlier
concern with the reconstructionof 'Plei-
stocene geography' (Butzer 1971: vii),
contains no reference to the ecosystem
concept and the works of Eugene Odum,
one of its staunch advocates. Quite apart
fromthis omission,we cannot also ignore
the debate that has befcnset in motion in
anthropologyand archaeology in the wake
of the adoption of ecological and systems
theoryperspectives.The principalcriticisms
and limitationsone has to contend withare
brieflyreferredto below.
As against the earlier work in which
culture and environmentwere treated as
"grossand staticcategories,to be typedand
correlated"(Ellen 1978a: 2%), theecosystem
138
approach lays stressupon a fineintegration
of behaviouraland materialvariablesand as
such undoubtedly constitutes a major
advance in thestudyof humansocieties.But
it has also given rise to the mistakenbelief.
that,ifonlythe ecological rules are applied
correctly,every cultural phenomenon can
readilybe explainedaway (Ellen 1978i>:123;
see also Schiffer1981:901-4). One of the
criticismslevelled againstecological studies
is that they emphasize the productionand
consumption of food to a degree that
amounts to the sin of 'nutritionalreduc-
tionism'or 'calorificobsession' (Vayda and
McCay 1977:412-3).It has been pointedout
by Slobodkin and othersthatthe efficiency
of energycapture and use by an individual
or a population is usefulfor understanding
the 'existentialgame' only when energyis a
limitingfactor.In cases where it is not and
other problems like floods, food or water
shortages and prédation are threats to
survival, what really matters is not the
efficiency óf energy capture but the
effectivenesswithwhichthese problemsare
overcome.
It has also been pointed out that the
ecosystemicview overlooks the differences
betweensocial and naturalsystems(Bayliss-
Smith1977: 14). For example, evolutionary
change within natural systems can be
visualized in termsof the processes of self-
organizatiónwhereless probable statesgive
p Li' successively more probable ones
throughthe operationof negativefeedback
processes. But social systemsdifferin that
change cannot be explained in terms of
adaptivevalue; thesesystemsare purposeor
goal-directed(teleonomic) withan element
of active control. Here positive feedback
relationshipsplay a dominantrole. Vickers
(1976: 468) relates change to the develop-
mentof an 4ego-ideal'
This content downloaded from 131.172.36.29 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:46:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
K. PADDAYYA
Thirdly,notwithstanding the factthatthe
holistic attitude of 'everything affects
everythingelse' lends a lot of intellectual
appeal to the use of ecosystemand systems
theoryapproaches (foran usefuldiscussion
of the various epistemologica!implications
of 'systemstheory,see Seidler 1979), there
are manyproblemsat the operationallevel.
These concern the definitionof system,the
identificationof its components and the
nature of linkages between them, and the
relative; importance of variables; these
issues cannot be decided upon withoi-
making subjective decisions (Ellen 19786
125; Bayliss-Smith1977: 13).
An important criticism concerns the
concept of social adaptation which
constitutes the unifying thread of the
hierarchical components of Butzeťs con-
textual archaeology. Tilley (1981: 385-6)
complains that the concept has been
employed in a loose way to cover a variety
of cultural phenomena (e.g., ritual by
Rappaport)2. It is* further argued that,
despite its usefulness for explaining
demographicsuccess, thisconcept is sterile
since it fails to account for the particular
manifestationsand configurationsmaterial
culturemay assume; thereare fartoo many
cases of "that is the way our grandfathers
did" which have no adaptive value (Alland
1975 : 70). Nor does it tell much about the
particular fashion a culture undergoes
change (fora replyto criticismsof thissort,
seç Rappaport 1977). Friedman(1974; 1979)
is another critic of the concept of
adaptation.He holds thatsocial systemsare
accumulative rather than adaptive and
favours Holling's concept of stability
maintenance as their keynote (Friedman
1979). Ingold (1979) too rejects the use of
the concept of adaptation in respect of
systems and feels that it may be more
 ECOLOGICAL ANDTHE ECOLOGYOF ARCHAEOLOGY
ARCHAEOLOGY
suitable for studying practices such as
patternsofcooperation,skills,organizational
techniquesand knowledge.
It is also being felt that group selection
and adaptation pose both theoreticaland
practical difficultiesto the investigator
(Ellen 19780:124; 1979: 13). It is ratherthe
individuals who adápt to environmental
changes, and this may be accomplished
throughthe manipulationof social relations
(cooperation, exploitationor conflict)."So
we can only speak of the adaptation of
groups in the sense that it is either the
cumulativeadaptation of individualsor the
manipulative adaptation of powerful
individualsor collectivitieswithina group"
(Ellen 19786: 124).
Fifthly,it has also been recognized that
viewingsocial systemsas 'cyberneticsavages'
has resultedin a new kindof environmental
determinism.Man is a symbol-makingno
less than a tool-makinganimal; indeed,
Cassirer (1951:26) wants the definitionof
man as an animal rationale to be replaced
by the characterizationanimal symbolicus.
While tool-makingmay be explained in
terms of food-gettingbehaviour, symbols
call for an entirelydifférentexplanatory
framework(fora cautionarytale describing
how the complex ideological - political,
- Animals do have mentaLfunctions,but it is
religious,social, historicaland economic
factors governingthe constructionof the
19th centurychurches of the New Haven
Green would have been obscured by the
employment of ecosystem and systems
theoryapproaches, see Coe 1978). Symbols
allow man to develop a characteristic
attitudetowards objects in absentia. They
are 'objects, acts, relationshipsor linguistic
formationsthat stand ambiguously for a
multiplicityof meanings,evoke emotions
This content downloaded from 131.172.36.29 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:46:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
: 139
and impel men to action" (Cohen 1974:23).
Magic, rituals,art,ceremonialgiftexchange,
values, beliefs,joking relationships,taking
on oath, and eating and drinkingtogether
are some of these symboliccreations. One
has to be a fanaticto say thatnone of these
can be identified in the archaeological
record. If they cannot be understood in
termsof the basic biological needs of man,
how else could one account for them?
Inevitably, we enter here the realm of
philosophyof mind.3
In the psychoanalyticaltraditiondistinct
meanings are given to some of these
symbols. Religion, for example, is an
elaborate wish-fulfillment; myth, custom
and fairytale formpart of the repertoireof
human imagination. Ritual acts are not
instrumentalacts directed towards any
purpose; they are motivated primarilya
tergo and fulfilan inner need. Freud has
thus given us the insight that "human
behaviour is not only a food:getting
strategy,but is also a language; that every
move is at the same timea gesture"(Langer
1964: 53). (Structuralist
interpretationsseem
to associate a certaindegree of arbitrariness
with symbols.) Langer (1964: 47-51) holds
that symbols representa need unique to
man, viz., the expressionof ideas through
the symbolictransformation of experience.
only man who has a mind and can be
intellectual. The satisfaction of this
intellectualneed is as importantas that of
thebiological urgeslikeeating,drinkingand
sleeping.
It i$ indeed gratifyingto see that even
'tough-mindeď ecological anthropologists
like Rappaport, while still holding that
cyberneticand information principleschara-
140
cterizingecological systemsalso apply to
cultural systems, now do recognize the
special and irreduciblequalities of cultural
forms. His insightful analysis of the
semiologicalsignificanceof human peculia-
ritieslike 'sanctity','holiness',and 'canon' -
aspects which many anthropologistswould
hold to be a concern of the priests- testify
to his interestin knowing how it is that
humansare indeed special (Tuzin 1981).
Although the usefulness of systems
concepts for describing what Rapoport
(1976:xx) calls the structureand function
of organized systemsis widelyrecognized,
doubts are being expressed about their
efficacyforexplainingstabilityand change
in socio-cultural systems. Salmon (1978:
178) feels thatFlannery'suse of the negative
feedbackconcept forexplainingthestability
of Mesoamerican hunter-gatherer procure-
ment systemswas unnecessaryand consti-
tutes an example*of "vulgarized" use of
systemstheory;seasonality and scheduling
already serveas theregulatory mechanisms.
It is thereforeeasy to understandwhy
Flannery does not feel called upon to . feedbackor dialecticalrelationships between
employ systems theory concepts for
explaining the growingcomplexityof the
Early Mesoamerican village system*even
though "it was anythingbut a static and
stable period. I see it as continually in
disequilibrium, responding to constant,
asymmetricalgrowth"(Flannery1976:371).
Coming to the explanation of sociocul-
turalchange,it is beingpointedout thatsys-
tems theoryplaces undue emphasison ho-
meostaticprocessesand ipsofacto attributes
all changes to violent disturbancesin the
This content downloaded from 131.172.36.29 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:46:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
K. PADDAYYA
systems'senvironment(e.g., papers in Hill
1977). Exogenous factorslike environment,
demographyand tradeare oftenseen as the
prime-movers of change. Inevitably,systems
theory denies the primacy of mind and
meaning in the organization of human
affairs; these properties are transferred
fromman to the ecosystem.
Marxist theory and structuralistinter-
pretations (both emphasizing the role of
internalfactors)are two of the alternatives
put forwardforcoping up withthisproblem
(for an attemptto interpretthe beginnings
of food-productionin structuralistterms,
see Bender 1978)4. Marx's historical
materialismindentifiesinnercontradictions
withina societyas thesourceofsociocultural
change. Since the interestsof individualsas
well as of groups always clash with one
another, contradictionand struggleare a
constantfeatureof social life.Accordingto
Marx, the mode of production- comprising
the means and forcesof production{tools,
techniques,resourcesand labour) as well as
the social relations of production(organi-
zation of work and ownershipof means) -
influencesthe social, political and spiritual
processes of life. He thus visualized
the component elements of society.
Although he concerned himself with
contradictionsin class societies^and their
role in initiatingsocial change, his analysis
has now been extended by social scientists
to cover simplersocieties also (fora review
account, see O'Laughlin 1975; also see
Godelier 1977).
Starting from the premise that "social
institutionalpropertiesare imprintedupon
theproduction-distributioncycle,"Friedman
and Rowlands(1977) formulatean epigenetic
model of the evolution of civilization in
 ECOLOGICAL
ARCHAEOLOGY
ANDTHE ECOLOGYOF ARCHAEOLOGY
the Old and New Worlds. Tilley (1981)
adopts what he calls structural-Marxist
approach for explaining the growth of
farming as also the appearance of megalithic
tombs in Europe. Lee (1979: Chapter 15)
believes that the Marxian perspective is
helpfulforunderstanding the functioning of
he concludes that the ideal
!Kung society;
of sharing,which is an importanttrait of
their way of life, is a characteristic
outgrowth of the mode of production
associated withforaging.
We may round offour discussionof the
ecological and systemtheoryperspectives
by drawingreferenceto the fivethemesof
space, time, complexity, stability and
interaction constituting the essence of
Butzeťs contextualarchaeology. Although
these themes form part of the core of
archaeologically oriented ecological work
and specifythedirectionsfortheacquisition
of ecological data, they are not of much
help at the levels of interpretationand
explanation.One would certainlyhave liked
to see even a briefreview of the general
ecological principlesand models(fora good
discussion of the various aspects of
theoreticalecology,see Mcintosh 1980). To
be sure, these cannot be blindlyused in
archaeologyand may need drasticreformu-
lation. In return, archaeology has thè
potentialof extendingthe temporalrangeof
theirapplication.
'extent(site, small region or large area), c)
As instances of the use of ecological
principleswe may note thatthe principleof
ecological succession has been employed
for explainingthe originof state. Stability-
timehypothesishas been made use of as the
organizingprincipleof habitationin desert
zones. Biogeographicalprincipleshave been
This content downloaded from 131.172.36.29 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:46:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
: 14Í
employed for explainingthe culturalvaria-
bilityof the South Pacific Islands. Limited
similaritytheory has been found to be
suitable forprobingculturaldiversification
(fordetails,see Hardesty1980a/
In recentyears several ecological models
(whichwere in turnborrowedfrombiology,
geographyand economics) have been intro-
duced for integratingdata and formulating
hypotheses about various aspects of past
societies 7 environment,subsistence,settle-
ment and demographic organization
(Bettinger 1980). Also of interestare the
models proposed of humanbehaviourin the
face of environmental constraints,e.g.,
efficiency and competionmodels in thecase
of resource scarcity, and resilience and
claihping models developed in respect of
unpredictabilityof resources (Hardesty
19806).
Referencemustalso be made to Jochim's
(1979) detailed considerationof the various
aspects of the application of ecological
research in archaeology; it is a much more
helpfuldiscussionthanButzeťs all-too-short
account of the fivethemesof his contextual
archaeology. Of special interest are the
dimensions or aspects of past human
ecosystems selected for ecological investi-
gation.These are a) behaviouralsubsystems
like subsistence, technology, settlement,
demography, trade, etc., b) geographic
transactionmedia or currency(energy,and
matter and information), d) level of
organizai complexity(regional groups and
whole cultural systems), e) systemic
processes (homeostasisand change), and f)
problems, hazards, stresses or demands
posed by both environmentaland non-
environmental factors. Further, Jochim
142
considers the various methods and pro-
cedures for measuring the variables of
humanecosystemsand èstablishingrelation-
ships between them,and also discusses how
the human behavioural subsystems are
reassembledto arriveat an understanding of
man-environment interactions.
IV
Attentionnow needs to be 'focussed on
Butzeťs commentson the 'archaeology as
anthropology' paradigm. As has been
pointed out earlier,he wants this model to
be replaced by his contextual archaeology
aimed at the study of the past human
ecosystems. Butzer thus inadvertently
convertshis originalpurpose of identifying
the problems facing environmentalarcha-
eology and suggestingmeasures to improve
it into one of prescribing the goals of
archaeology; indeed he mistakesthe means
for ends. Contextual archaeology is
essentiallya strategy,albeit a powerfulone,
foracquiring and studyingecological data,
whereas the paradigm of 'archaeology as
anthropology'refersto the ultimategoals of
archaeological research.
While one can readilyagree withButzer
(1975 : 110) regardingthé difficulties
which
the institutionalaffiliationof archaeology
withanthropologymayhave created forthe
environmentalarchaeologist in respect of
fund-gettingand the not-so-favourable
attitude of fellow anthropologiststowards
Undertakingresearchon topics like alluvial
history,one cannot ignorethe fundamental
insights supplied by the anthropological
paradigm. In mofctparts of the Old World
archaeology has essentially been and
continuesto be a matterof findingand des-
cribing objects; it is its association with
This content downloaded from 131.172.36.29 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:46:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
K. PADDAYYA
cultural anthropology in North America
whichhas broughthome the awarenessthat
its ultimate concern is with the human
culturalsystems.5 It is thereforenota matter
of accident thatthe New Archaeologywith
its emphasison the studyof cultureprocess
took shape in the latter region; indeed
'archaeology « as anthropology' paradigm
servedas therallying-point of thismovement
(Binford 1962). The general unwillingness
of archaeologistsin the New World to sever
their close association with sociocultural
anthropology(e.g., Chang 1978: 24-5), the
appearance of new journals like theJournal
of AnthropologicalArchaeology, and the
explicit recognition being accorded now
even in regions outside the New World to
the contributionanthropologycan make to
the archaeologist'sinterpretation of his raw
material(Orme 1981)6and the áctual use of
anthfopologicalapproaches forstudyingthe
archaeological cultures {e.g., Milisauskas
1978) are sure signsthattheanthropological
paradigmhas come to stay.This is however
not to deny the, differences that exist
between archaeology and sociocultural
anthropologyin respect of both basic data
and methods(Eggert 1976); it is in termsof
general theoryand goals of studythat the
two disciplinesare close to each other.
Whatever may be the practical or
organizational considerationswhich influ-
ence us to remindourselves now and then
that archaeology is a social science in its
own right,it is difficultto dispute Tylor's
(1948:43) contentionthat"Archaeologyper
se is no more than a method and a set of
specialized techniquesfor the gatheringof
culturalinformation.The archaeologist,as
archaeologist, is really nothing but a
technician. . ." As concernsgoals, archaeo-
 ECOLOGICAL
ARCHAEOLOGY
ANDTHE ECOLOGYOF ARCHAEOLOGY
logymergeswithsocioculturelanthropology
and history,all being concerned with man
and his products.It is anthropologyin the
synchronicperspective and historyin the
diachronic perspective. To put in other
words,it is anthropologyin thatit seeks to
studythe human experience [Chang (1978:
14) calls it 'Historical Reality', Le "What
really happened in thè past"] in all its
dimensionsat a particularpointin time(T i);
it is historyby virtueof being a Connective
account of this experience at a series of
pointsalong the timedimension(T,>T2. .
The plea that the anthropological
paradigmshould be replaced by contextual
archaeology seeking to reconstructhuman
ecosystemsnot only remains unconvincing
in viewof our earlierobservationsthatthere
are aspects of human behaviour which
cannot be studied in termsof ecology but
sounds ratherout of tune as it comes at a
time when the boundaries between the
socioculturalsciences are becomingincrea-
singly tenuous and, ironically enough,
certain common humanizing trends are
currentlyrunningthroughthese disciplines.
Hodder (1981:10) rightlyidentifiesecolo-
gical functionalismas one of the obstacles
preventing archaeology from taking
part in this wider debate raging in the
sciences of man. The followingobservations
about geographywill serve to illustratethe
natureof thesedevelopments.Commencing
from the 1940s, practically every decade
witnesseda freshconceptual development
in thespatialperspectiveofgeography(fora
summary,see Entrikin1977: 209-14; for a
detailed treatment,see Davies 1972).
In the 40s geographywas viewed in the
United States as a chorological science
dealing with the spatial integration of
This content downloaded from 131.172.36.29 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:46:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
: 143
phenomena. As chorologists,geographers
were concerned with an accurate and
objective orderingof the knowledgeof the
world. The differencesbetween two places
were accounted for in terms of differing
relationsbetweenphenomena;and measure-
ment was viewed in objective, practical
termsand took the formof two-dimensional
Euclid's grid.
With the work of F.E. Schaefer, E.
Ullman and others in the 50s geography
emerged as a theoreticalscience of space
relations; it was viewed as a positivistic
science capable of formulatinglaws and
theories. Like the (North American) New
Archaeology of the followingdecade, this
trend was strongly influenced by the
positivistic philosophy of science. Geo-
graphywas soughtto be modelled afterthe
physicalsciences (fora text-booktreatment
of geographyas a positivisticscience, see
Harvey 1976). Generalizations about
distance, shape and patternoftentook the
formof purelygeometric statements.The
nomothetic tendencies apart, positivistic
gpography was characterized by the
increaseduse of quantitativetechniquesand
the borrowingof models and analogies from
physicalsciences.
The 60s saw the growthof a new trend
called behavioural geography.It is intere-
sting to note that one of the studies
heralding this trend was published in an
Indian journal as far back as 1951 (Kirk
1951). Arising partlyas a reaction to the
precedingpositivisticinfluences,this trend
focussed its attention on the subjective
aspect of the environment.It now became
importantto know how man perceives the
natural and human environmentaround
him, how he stores informationabout it,
how he computesoptimalsolutionsand how
144
he predicts the outcome of futureevents.
Human geography (Brookfield 1967) and
cultural anthropology supply us with
numerous examples of such cognitive
studiesof the environment.
In anthropologythese cognitive studies
have led to the birthof a sub-fieldcalled
ethnoecology,which seeks to identifythe
principlesused by people forclassifyingthe
phenomena around them (Hardesty 1977:
215-43). Lee (1979: 108-12) has drawn
attentionto thefinecorrelationbetweenthe
!Kung perception of the importance of
timingand duration of rainstormsand the
recognitionon the part of geographersthat
it is the timingand spacing of rain, rather
thanitsactual amount,whichare of crucial
importancein theecologyof thearea. So far
as archaeology is concerned, a tributeis in
order to the fertilemind of Gordon Childe
forstressing,more than threedecades ago,
the"need to take into account the cognitive
aspect in palaeoenvironmentalstudies. He
declared that "The environment that
affecteda prehistoricsociety was not that
reconstructed by geologists and palaeo-
botanistsbut thatknownor knowableby the
society with its then existingmaterial and
conceptual equipment" (Childe 1958: 73;
see also 1949: 8). Miller(1980: 711) refers,to
the correlation between the conceptual
models of settlementpattern of archaeo-
logical sites,as held by the inhabitantsof the
Solomon Islands, and those of the archaeo-
logist.
Geography witnessed what is called the
* in the last
P'^st-behavioural revolution
decade; the work of geographerssuch as
Lowenthal,Relph, Tuan and Buttimerhas
led to the rise of humanisticgeography(for
a summary account, see Entrikin 1976).
This content downloaded from 131.172.36.29 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:46:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
K. PADDAYYA
Phenomenology and, to some extent,
existentialismare the guidingforcesof this
new trend.It is a continuationof the studies
of the subjective element introduced by
behavioural geography, and denies the
postivisticdistinctionbetween subject and
object, and betweenfactand value. In tune
with its phenomenological background,
humanisticgeographyádvocatesan approach
in which one would study man's 'direct
experience' of the environmentdevoid of
theabstractionsof social science. Illustrating
Husserl's call of Zu den Sachen (To the
things themselves') with reference to an
example in-geography, Merlau-Ponty(1962:
ix) wrote:"To returnto thingsthemselvesis
to return to that world which precedes
knowledge, of which knowledge always
speaks, and in relation to which scientific
schematizationis an abstractand derivative
signlanguage,as is geographyin relationto
the countrysidein which we have learnt
beforehandwhata forest,a prairieòr a river
is."
In humanistic geography description
ratherthan explanationis the watch-word;
importanceis given to the studyof human
emotions, meanings,values, and goals and
purposes.Secondly,whilein positivisticgeo-
graphy spatial relationships refer to
objective, geometric relations between
phenomena, the spatial- perspective now
acquires an existential character; spatial
relationshipsreferto man's,involvementin
or concern with the world. Thus concepts
like place, distance, neighbourhood,city,
and region acquire radically different
meanings. For example, place is not a
collection of empiricallyobservableobjects
or phenomenabut a repositoryof meaning;
it incarnateshuman experience and aspira-
tions. Region is a macroversionof place.
 ECOLOGICAL
ARCHAEOLOGY
ANDTHE ECOLOGYOF ARCHAEOLOGY
Likewise;atplace or a regionis 'close' or 'far'
to a personor a groupnot in termsof metric
distance but by virtueof the degree of its
importanceas a centreof meaning.
Participant observation, intuition and
Verstehen are some of the procedures
suggestedforreachingthehumandimension
behind the spatial perspective. Although
humanisticgeographyhas invitedcriticism
in regard to the extentto which presuppo-
sitionlessknowledgeof space is describable
(for the charge of phenomenological
obscurantism,in anthropology,see Harris
1979: Chapter 11), its importanceas a form
of criticism is widely recognized. "As
criticism it provides a potentially useful
functionin reaffirming the importance of
the study of meaning and value in human
geography, making geographers aware of
their, often extreme interpretations of
science, and makingscientistsaware of the
social and cultural factors involved in so-
called objective research" (Entrikin 1976:
632).
Conceptual changes of the kind noted
above in respect of geography aré also
manifest in varying degrees in other
disciplines connected with the human
phenomenon - psychology,anthropology,
economics, sociology, history,and even
literatureand finearts.Owing to influences
fromphilosophical trendslike phenomeno-
logy,existentialism,hermeneuticsand their
more recent reformulations, these subjects
are undergoinga process of humanization
after flirtingwith trends of positivistic
persuasion for periods of varyingduration.
Archaeology,as a pursuitof the past, is no
less concerned with the human dimension
than any of these disciplines. While it is
impossible to dispute that environmental
archaeology is "one of the oldest interdis-
This content downloaded from 131.172.36.29 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:46:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
: 145
ciplinarybridges in the field" and that the
ecosystem perspective employing proce-
dures like archaeozoology,geoarchaeology
and archaeobotanyhas opened up freshand
excitingvistasin archaeological research,it
also seems clear that archaeology can
remain indifferentto its new intellectual
ecology only at the risk of furnishing
distorted knowledge about man and his
past.
To be sure, what has been said above is
not to be construedas a call fortakingup
positions in respect of long-debatedissues
like the matter-minddichotomy and the
man-versus-nature controversy.Rather it is
just beingsuggestedthathumanlifeconsists
of a range of activitiesother than efficient
feedingand breedingwhichserveto set man
apart fromotherorganisms;theyconstitute
what Mumford (1944:8) calls idolum or
symbolic milieu and complement man's
naturalenvironment. A meaningfulstudyof
these activitiescan be done onlyin termsof
frameworks adopted from other socio-
cultural sciences. Just as it is heavily
dependenton theproceduresand techniques
of natural sciences for the recovery and
analysisof artefactualand ecofactual data,
archaeology has much to gain from the
interpretiveapproaches of the sciences of
man.
One final consideration. While the
ecological, quantitativeand other appro-
aches developed in recent decades have
broughtsome disciplineto the"undisciplined
empiricaldiscipline"that archaeologyis, it
is regrettable that we are still shy of
examiningthe largersocial relevanceof our
pursuit. From the work of contemporary
schools of social thoughtlike the Frankfurt
School of Critical Theory, it is clear that
knowledge cannot be dissociated fromthe
146 K. PADDAYYA

interests of man-technical cognitive, systemsof the world,thesocial contextand

practical and emancipatory (Habermas relevance of the studyof the past will vary
1978). Reservinga detailedexaminationto a fromregion to region and fromsociety to
laterstage, we can onlysay that,in view of society.
the tremendousdiversityseen in the human

NOTES

1. Thatan appropriate approach to thestudy

ofeco- groupofTasadayin
He citestheprimitive
artifacts'.
logicaldatais as importantas thedata«themselves the Philippinesas an exampleto illustratetheir
findsa goodillustration
inthefaunai material
found and
significance valuein human lives.
The Tasaday
at OlduvaiGorgeandotherearlysitesin Africa. aregatherersandhunters witha rudimentarylevel
Theearlierstudies oftheseremains wereessentially oftechnology;their
legendsandceremonies arefew
inthenature oflistsofspecies(Leakey1965);it is in number.Thisprimitiveness the
notwithstanding,
onlyrecently thattheyhavebegunto be worked likeotherhuman
Tasaday, do-feeltheurge
beings,
uponfrom thepalaeoecologicalandpalaeoeconomic toreify experience. takestheform
Thisreification of
viewpoints(e.g.Isasac1971; Sivertsen1980;Jones and
dramatizing in
narrating, song,even trivial
day-
1980;Davis1978). incidents.
to-day

2. Fritz(1978)believes thattheChacoCanyon (New

Mexico)PuebloIndianarchitectural features ofthe 4. Formathematical approaches to culturé change
11thcentury constitute an ideational system and employing gametheory, systems directed
analysis,
encodea set of reference valuesand meanings. graphs andinteraction matrixmodels, see papersin
Commenting on the adaptive significance of this Renfrew andCooke(1979).
ideational system, he observes: "It identified the
socialaggregates thatperformed essential operations
inthesacred world (mediation,invocation) andinthe 5. Cambridge isoneofthefewuniversity centresout-
everday world (production, exchange, organization). where has
it defined thestructure of sideNorth America archaeology longand
Equallyas significant, strong institutionalassociationwithanthropology.
economic, political,and ceremonial relationsthat
Clark(1974:38)considers himself "doubly fortunate
obtained between andamongtheseaggregates to have been thesecondhalf of
wasanessential brought up during
Thus,Chacoanarchitecture compo-
nentof thememory of Chacoanculture, referents myundergraduate trainingspentintheDepartment
of Archaeology and Anthropology, on Radcliffe-
encoded instoneandspace,theorganizing principles Brown and Malinowski-and indue courseonEvans-
' fsecular 1978: 55-
andsacredexistence . . ." (Fritz Pritchard andThomson." It is thisbackground
6). But whatis intriguing is that,despitethe which enabledClarktosee thetaskofarchaeology
homeostatic mechanisms allegedly provided bythe as something transcendingthe"study ofotqectsand
ideationalsystem as formed bythearchitectural fea- taketheleadinstudying culturesfrom theeco-
past
tures,theChacoanculture ultimately cameto an andfunctionalistpointsofview.
likethe logical
end~a which
failure Fritztraces to causes
conflictsbetween thosecontrolling production and
these connectedwith sacred activities. Thus,
enough,
ironically Fritzdivests theChacoanarchi- 6. Orme(1981: 2-16)givesa helpful andverylively
tectureofadaptive valuewhich hehimself proposes. historicalaccountshowing how in Britain
archaeolo-
Foran attempted andwidely debated explanation gical
analysis and interpretationhavedepended on
ofthemaintenance of^sacred*cattle ofIndiainterms ethnography rightfromthe 16thcentury. Many
oftheir roleinthepeasant economy as contributors 19th century workersviewed maninterms
prehistoric
ofhides, dung, etc.,seeHarris,1966. of the living primitivegroups. This equationof
prehistoric and primitive man "is present,for
3.Tuan(1980)callsthesehuman constructions 'mental example, in workssuchas Tylor's Researches into

This content downloaded from 131.172.36.29 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:46:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 :
ANDTHE ECOLOGYOF ARCHAEOLOGY
ECOLOGICALARCHAEOLOGY 147

theEarlyHistory
ofMankind (1865)andLubbock's wouldhavebeenmade,eitherbyTylorandLubbock
PrehistoricTimes (1865). Subsequently, Tylor's themselvesor bytheirpublic.Therewas butone
workhasbeentakenas partofthefoundations of subjectintheseyears,
maninhisprecivilised
state,
anthropology,whereasLubbock,betterknown ànd archaeologyand anthropology
coverged to a
perhapsas LordAvebury, is seenas a pioneerof greaterdegreethaneverbeforeor since"(Orme
Withhindsight,
archaeology. thisis fairassessment, 1981: 14-15).
butduringthe1860sit.isdoubtful
thatthedistinction
REFERENCES
Adams, Robert Me. C. 1965,LandBehindBaghdad - 1980.Context in archaeology : an alternative
A History of Settlement on the Diyala Plains. Journal
perspective. ofFieldArchaeology 7: 417
Chicago: University ofChicago Press.
Alland,Alexander (Jr.).1975.Adaptation. Annual - 1981aReviewof C. Vita-Finzi's Archaeological
Review ofAnthropology 4:59-73. Sitesin theirSetting, 1978. London : Thamesand
Bayliss-Smith,T.P. 1977.Humanecologyand island Hudson. American Antiquity 46:225-6.
populations and the problems of change.In 19816.RiseandfallofAxum, Ethiopia : a geoarcha-
Subsistence and Survival-Rural Ecologyin the eologicalinterpretation. American Antiquity 46:
Pacific, pp. 11-20(ed. Bayliss-Smith, T.P. and 471-95.
Feachem, R.).London: Academic Press. E. 1951.AnEssayonMan-AnIntroduction
Cassirer,
Bender,B. 1978.Hunter-gatherer to farmer : a social to a Philosophy of Human Culture.New
World Archaeology 10:204-22. Haven: ValeUniversity Press.
perspective.
Bennett,J.W. 1969.Northern Plainsmen : Adaptive Chang, K.C. 1978. Some theoretical issuesin the
Strategy and Agrarian Life. Chicago : Aldine. archaeological study of historical reality.In
AscitedbyGrossman (1977). Archaeological Essaysin Honorof IrvingB.
Bettinger,R.L. 1980.Explanatory/predictive models Rouse,pp. 13-16[ed. Dunnell, R.C. and Hall,
ofhunter-gatherer adaptation.InAdvances in Edwin S. (Jr.)).
TheHague: Mouton.
Archaeological Methodand Theory, Vol. 3, pp. Childe, Gordon V. 1949.SocialWorlds òfKnowledge
189-255 (ed.Schiffer,
M.B.). New York: Academic (L.T.Hobhouse Memorial TrustLecture No 19).
Press. London: Oxford University Press.
Binford,L.R. 1962.Archaeology as anthropology. Retrospect.Antiquity 32:69-74.
American Antiquity 28 : 217-25. Clark, J.G.D.1953.Theeconomic approach toprehis-
Bráidwood, RJ. and Howe,B. 1960.Prehistoric In- tory.Proceedings of the British Academy 39:
vestigationsin Iraqi Kurdistan.Chicago: 215-38.
University ofChicago Press. 1954.Excavations at StarCarr,an EarlyMeso-
Brookfield,H.C. 1969. On the environment as perce- lithicSiteat Seamer,nearScarborough, York-
ived. In Progress in Geography- Interna- shire.
Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
tionalReviews of Current Research.Vol.. I, pp. 1965.Archaeology andSociety -
thePrehistoric Reconstructing
51-80.(ed. Board,C., et al.). London lEdward Past.London: Methuen. First
Arnold. published in1939.
1972.StarCarr: A CaseStudy inBioarchaeology.
K.W.1971.Environment
Butzer, andArchaeology -An
Reading (Mass.): Addison -Wesley Modular
Ecological Approach to Prehistory.SecondEdi- Publications.
tion.Chicago: Aldine. 1974.Prehistoric
- 1975.The ecologicalapproachto archaeology: Europe: theeconomic basis.In
Archaeological Researchesin Retrospect, pp.
are we reallytrying? American Antiquity 40:
33-57(ed.Willey, G.R.). Cambridge (Mass.):Winth
106-11. ropPublishers.
1976.EarlyHydraulic in
Civilization Egypt : A Clarke,D.L. 1978,Mesolithic Europe: TheEconomic
Studyin Cultural Ecology.Chicago: University Basis.London: Duckworth.
ofChicago Press. Coe,M.D. 1978.TheChurches ontheGreen: a cau-
1978.Towards anintegrated,contextual approach tionary tale.In Archaeological Essaysin Honor
inarchaeology. JournalofArchaeological Science ofIrving B. Rouse,pp.75-85(ed.Dunnell, R.C.
5: 191-3. andHall,E.S.).TheHague: Mouton.

This content downloaded from 131.172.36.29 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:46:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
148 K.PADDAYYA

Cohen,A. 1974.Two-Dimensional Man. London K.V. 1968.Archaeological

■Flannery, systems theory
Routledge and KeganPaul.As citedbyChap- and early Mesoamerica. In Anthropological
man,B. 1980.Death,culture andsociety : a pre- Archaeology in the A&xericas, pp. 67-87(ed.
historian's
perspective. InAnglo-Saxon Cemetries, Meggers,BJ.).Washingtoíi, D.C.:Anthropological
1979,pp.59-79, (ed.Rahta,P.,T. Dickinson ahd SocietyofWashinirton.
Watts,L.). Oxford BritishArchaeological (Ed.). 1976.The EarlyMesoamerican Village.
Reviews BritishSeries. NewYork: 'Academic Press.
Damas,D. 1969.Thestudy ofculturalecologyandthe Foley,R. 1977.Spaceandenergy: a method forana-
ecology conference. In Contributionsto Anthro- lysinghabitatvalueandutilization inrelation Jo
pology:Ecological Essays,pp. 1-12(ed. Danißs archaeologicalsites.In SpatialArchaeology, pp.
D.).Ottawa: TheQueen'sPrinter. 163-87(ed.Clarke, D. L.).London: Academic.
Davies,W.K.D.(Ed.).1972.TheConceptual Revolu- J.
Friedman,1974,Marxism, structuralism andvulgar
tioninGeography. London ofLondon
:University materialism.Man9: 444-69.
Press - 1979.Hegelian ecology : between Rousseau andthe
Davis,D.D. 1978.Lithic assemblage inrela-
variability worldspirit.In Socialand Ecological Systems.
tionto earlyhominid subsistencestrategies at pp.253-70 (ed. Burnham, P. andEllen,RoyF.).
OlduvaiGorge.In Lithicsand Subsistence : London: Academic.
TheAnalysis of StoneTool Use in Prehistoric - and Rowlands, M.J.1977.Notestowardsan
Economies, 35-86(ed. Davis,D. D.). Nashville: epigeneticmodeioftheevolution of'civilization'.
VanderbiltUniversity. In The Evolution of SocialSystems, pp. 201-
De Terra,H. andPaterson, T.T. 1939.Studies inthe 76(ed.Friedman, J.andRowlands, M.J.).London:
Ice AgeinIndiaandAssociated HumanCultures. Duckworth.
Washington : Carneeia Institution J.M.1978.Palaeopsychology
Fritz, today: ideational
Dirks,R. 1980.Socialresponses during severefood systems andhumanadaptation in prehistory. In
and famine.Current Social Archaeology : BeyondSubsistence ' and
shortages Anthropology
21: 21-44- Dating,pp. 37-59(ed. Redman,C.L., et al.).
Eggert, M.K.H. 1976.On theinterrelationship ofpre- NewYork: Academic.
historyandcultural anthropology.Prähistorische Gardner,Don. 1980.The determinants of Mianmin
51: 56-t>0.
Zeitschrift settlement and residence :
patternsa replyto
Ellen,RoyF. 1978aProblems andprogress in the Morren. Mankind 12:215-25.
ethnographic analysisof small-scalehuman Godeher, M. 1977.Perspectives in Marxist Anthro-
ecosystems.Man13:290-303. pologyCambridge . Cambridge University Press.
- 19786. Ecologica- perspectivesonsocialbehaviour. Translatedfrom theFrench byR. Brain.
InSocialOrganisation andSeitlement : Contribu- Grossman, L. 1977.Man-environment relationships
tionsfromAnthropology , ArchaecgyandGeo- in anthropology and geography. Annalsof the
graphy, pp. 121-7(ed. Green,D., C. Haselgrove Association ofAmerican Geographers 67:126-44.
andSpriggs, M.).Oxford: BritishArchaeological Gumerman, G.J.andPhilips, D.A. 1978.Archaeology
Reports International Series. beyondanthropology. American Antiquity 43:
1979.Introduction : anthropology,theenvironment 184-91.
andecological systems. In SocialandEcological Habermas,J.1978.Knowledge ãndHumanInterests.
Systems, pp.1-17(ed.Burnham P. andEllen,Roy SecondEdition. London : Heineman.
F.).London: Academic Press. Hardesty,D.L. 1977.Ecological Anthropology. New
J.N.1976.Contemporary
Entrikin,- humanism ingeo- York:John Wiley.
graphy. Annalsof theAssociation of American 1980a.The use of generalecologyprinciples
Geographers 66:615-32. in archaeology. In Advances in Archaeological
- 1977.Geography's spatial andthephi-
perspective Method andTheory, Vol.3, pp.157-87 (ed.Schi-
losophy of ErnstCassirer. The CanadianGeo- M.B.).NewYork:Academic.
ffer,
grapher21: 209-22. 19806Theecological perspective inanthropology.
Fitzhugh, W.W. 1972.Environmental Archaeology American Behavioural Scientist24:107-24.
andCultural Systems inHamiltonInlet,Labrador. M. 1966.Thecultural
Harris, ecology ofIndia's sacred
Washington, D.C. Smithsonian Institution cattle.
Current Anthropology 1: 51-66.
Press. 1979.CulturalMaterialism: TheStruggle fora

This content downloaded from 131.172.36.29 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:46:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ANDTHE ECOLOGYOF ARCHAEOLOGY
ECOLOGICALARCHAEOLOGY 149

ScienceofCulture. NewYork: Random House. Miller,D. 1980. Archaeology and Development.

Harvey, D. 1976.Explanation in Geography. London: Current Anthropology 21:709-26.
Edward Arnold. First
published in1969. Morren,G.E.B. (Jr).1980.Seasonality amongthe
Helm,J. 1962.The ecologicalapproachin anthro- Miyanmin : wildpigs,movement, anddualkinship
pology.The AmericanJournalof Sociology organization. Mankind 12:1-12.
67:630-9. .,B.J.McCay, Gardner, D. 1981.Cultural ecology,
Hill,J.N.1977.TheExplanation of Culture Change. theMianmin & seasonality.Mankind 13:74-81.
Albuquerque: Universityof NewMexicoPress. Mumford, L. 1944.The Condition ofMan.London:
Hodder,I. 1981.Towardsa mature archaeology. In Martin SeekerandWarburg.
Pattern of thePast-Essays in Honourof Dāvid
O'Laughlin, B. 1975.Marxist approaches in anthro-
Clarke,pp. 1-13.(ed. Hodder.I., G.LI. Isaac
and Hammond, N.). Cambridge. : Cambridge pology. Annual Review ofAnthropology 4: 341-70.
UniversityPress. Orlove,B.S. 1980.Ecologicalanthropology. Annual
Ingold,T. 1979.Thesocialand.ecological relationsof Review ofAnthropology, 9: 235-73.
culture-bearingorganism: anessayinevolutionary Orfrie,B. 1981.Anthropology - An
forArchaeologist
dynamics. In EcologicalandSocialSystems, pp. Introduction. London:Duckworth.
271-91(ed. Burnham, P. and Ellen,Roy F.).
London: Academic. Paddayya, K. 1981. Watersupply as a keydeterminant
lssac,G.L1.1971.The dietof earlyman:aspectsof intheAcheulian OccupationtheHunsgi
of Valley,
archaeological evidencefròm LowerandMiddle Peninsular India.Bulletin oftheDeccanCollege
Pleistocene sitesin Africa.WorldArchaeology Research Institute41: 39-51.
2:278-99. - Inpress.Therelevance ofexperimental
M.A. 1979» downthesystem: recent approach
Jochim, Breaking
inArchaeology. InAdvances in Indianprehistory. In S.R. Rao Felicitation
ecologicalapproaches
in Archaeological Methodand Theory,Vol. Volume. Mysore.
2,pp.77-117 (ed.Schiffer,M.B.).NewYork:Aca- Rajaguru, S.N. 1978.On theproblem of Acheulian
demicPress. chronology in westernand southern India.Paper
Jones,P.R. 1980.Experimental butchery withmodern readat thesymposium on 'RecentAdvances in
stonetools and its relevanceforPalaeolithic
World 12:153-65. Indo-Pacific heldatPoona.
Prehistory'
archaeology. Archaeology
Kirk,W.1951.Historical geography andtheconcept of Rapoport, Anatol. 1976.Foreword. InModern Systems
behavioural environment.TheIndian Geographical Researchfor the Behavioural Scientist- A
SocietySilverJubileeand N. Subrahmanyam Sourcebook , pp. xiii-xxii (ed. Buckley,W.)
Memorial Volume 26:152-60. : Aldine.
Chicago
Langer, S.K. 1964.Philosophy ina NewKey- A Study
Rappaport, R.A. 1968.PigsfortheAncestors. New
in theSymbolism ofReason,RiteandArt.New
York:Mentor Books. Haven:YaleUniversity Press.
Leakey, L.S.B.1965.OlduvaiGorge1951-61 (Volume 1977.Maladaptation in Socialsystems. In The
I): A Preliminary Reporton the Geologyand Evolution ofSocialSystems, pp.49-71(^d. Fried-
Fauna.Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress. man,J.andRowlands, M.J.). London: Duckworth.
Lee, R.B. 1979.The !KungSan-Men,Womenand Renfrew, C. andCooke,K.L.(ed.).1979.Transforma-
Workin a Foraging Society.Cambridge : Cam-
bridge UniversityPress. tions-Mathematical Approachesto Culture
Mcintosh, R.P. 1980.The background andsomepro- Change. London: Academic.
blemsof theoretical ecology. Synthese 43: 195- Salmon, M.H.1978.Whatcansystems theory do for
255. archaeology? American Antiquity 43:174-83.
Merleau-Ponty, M. 1962.Phenomenology of Perce- Sankalia,H.t). 1974.Prehistory andProtohistory in
ption.NewYork:Humanities Press.As citedby
IndiaandPakistan.- Poona:DeccanCollege.
Entrikin (1976).
Mikesell,M.W. 1967.Geographic perspectives in Schiffer,M.B. 1981.Someissuesin thephilosophy
anthropology. AnnalsoftheAssociation ofAme- ofarchaeology. American Antiquity 46:899-908.
ricanGeographers 57:617-34. Seidler,M.J.1979.Systems epistemology. International

This content downloaded from 131.172.36.29 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:46:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
150 K. PADDAYYA

Philosophical Quarterly 19:29-60. Tylor,W.W.1948.AStudyofArchaeology. Meipoir

of paradigms in No. 69 of theAmerican Anthropological Asso-
Simberloff,D. 1980. A succession
and ciation.
ecology: to
essentialism materialism probabi-
Vayda,A.P. and McCay,B.J.1975.Newdirections
lism.Synthese 43:3-39. in ecologyandecological Annual
anthropology.
B.J.1980.A siteactivity
Sivertsen, modelforkilland Review ofAnthropology 4: 293-306.
butchering activitiesat hunter-gatherer sites. 1977.Problems intheidentification ofenviron-
Journal ofFieldArchaeology 7: 423-41. mentalproblems. In Subsistence and Survival-
a minor ailmentaffect- RuralEcologyin the Pacific , pp. 411-8(ed.
Smith,B.D. 1976.'Twitching":
In Culture Bayliss-Smith, J.P.andFeachem, R.). NewYork:
inghumanpaleoecological research.
Academic Press.
Changeand Continuity -Essays in Honor of Vikers,G. 1976.Is adaptability In 'Modern
enough?
JamesBennett Griffin,pp. 275-92(ed. Cleland, Systems Research fortheBehavioural Scientist-
C.E.).NewYork:Academic Press. A Sourcebook, pp. 460-73(ed. Buckley, W.).
Tilley,C. 1981.Conceptual framework fortheexpla- Chicago: Aldine.
nationof sociocultural change.In Patternof White,L. (Jr.).
1964.Mediaeval Technology andSocial
thePast-Essays inHonourofDavidClarke . pp. Change. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
363-86 (ed.Hodder, I.,G.LI.IssacandHammond, G.R.1974.TheViruvalley
Willey, settlement pattern
N.).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. study.In Archaeological Researches in Retro-
Torry,W.I.197$.Anthropological studies inhazardous spect,pp. 149-76 (ed. Willey,G.R.).Cambridge
environments: past trendsand new horizons. (Mass.):Winthrop Publishers.
Current Anthropology 20:517-40. Wiseman, J. 1980a.Archaeology in thefuture : an
Trigger,B. 1979.Timeand Traditions: Essaysin evolving discipline.American Journal of Archa-
ArchaeologicalInterpretations. New York: eology 84:279-85.
Columbia UniversityPress. 19806.Archaeology as archaeology. Journal
Tuan,Yi-Fu.1980.The significance of theartifact. ofFieldArchaeology 7:149-51.
Geographical Review 70:462-72. Wright,John K. 1947.Terraeincognitae: theplaceof
Tuzin,D.F. 1981.Reviewof Roy A. Rappaporťs imagination in geography. Annalsof theAsso-
EcologyMeaning andEvolution , 1979.Richmond ciation ofAmerican Geographers 37:1-15.
(California): NorthAtlanticBooks.American Zeuner,F.E. 1950.The StoneAge andPleistocene
Anthropologist 83:403-4. Chronology inGujarat. Poona:DeccanCollege.

This content downloaded from 131.172.36.29 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:46:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions