Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T19:55:55.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. A response to Gosselain's article

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 December 2017

Valentine Roux
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In a provocative article published recently in Archaeological dialogues (23(2)), Olivier Gosselain proposes ‘to get rid of ethnoarchaeology once and for all, and join forces with other, more serious, disciplines’. In this reaction article, I challenge Gosselain's sweeping statements about ethnoarcaheology. In particular I argue against the notion that methodological weakness is unique to ethnoarchaeology, that the questions under study ignore the complexity of the social context, and that the search for cross-cultural regularities denies the historical dimension of technical practices. In conclusion, I suggest that rather than getting rid of ethnoarchaeology, it would be more helpful to meet the ambitious goals of ethnoarchaeology by improving and strengthening the methodology.

Keywords

ethnoarchaeologyanalogiessocial theory
Type
Reaction
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , December 2017 , pp. 225 - 229
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bril, B., 2002: Apprentissage et contexte, Intellectica 35, 251–68.Google Scholar
Cherkaoui, M., 2005: Invisible codes. Essays on generative mechanism, Oxford.Google Scholar
Gallay, A., 2011: Pour une ethnoarchéologie théorique, Paris.Google Scholar
Gallay, A., 2013: Biens de prestige et richesse en Afrique de l'Ouest. Un essai de définition, in Baroin, C. and Michel, C. (eds), Richesse et sociétés, Paris, 25–36.Google Scholar
Gandon, E., Roux, V. and Coyle, T., 2014: Copying errors of potters from three cultures. Predictable directions for a so-called random phenomenon, Journal of anthropological archaeology 33, 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelbert, A., 2003: Traditions céramiques et emprunts techniques dans la vallée du fleuve Sénégal, Paris.Google Scholar
Gosselain, O., 2008: Mother Bella was not a Bella. Inherited and transformed traditions in southwestern Niger, in Stark, M., Bower, B. and Horne, L. (eds), Cultural transmission and material culture. Breaking down boundaries, Tucson, 150–77.Google Scholar
Gosselain, O., 2011: A quoi bon l'ethnoarchéologie?, in Boissinot, P. (ed.), L'archéologie comme discipline, Paris, 87–111.Google Scholar
Gosselain, O., 2016: To hell with ethnoarchaeology!, Archaeological dialogues 23 (2), 215–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hägerstrand, T., 1965: A Monte Carlo approach to diffusion, European journal of sociology 6, 43–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manzo, G., 2007: Variables, mechanisms, and simulations. Can the three methods be synthesized?, Revue française de sociologie 48, 35–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mesoudi, A., 2007: Using the methods of social psychology to study cultural evolution, Journal of social evolutionary and cultural psychology 1, 35–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, E.M., 1962: Diffusion of innovations, New York.Google Scholar
Roux, V., 1989: The potter's wheel. Craft specialization and technical competence, New Delhi.Google Scholar
Roux, V., 2007: Ethnoarchaeology. A non historical science of reference necessary for interpreting the past, Journal of archaeological method and theory 14, 153–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roux, V., 2013: Ethnoarchaeology in France. Trends and perspectives, in Marciniak, A. and Yalman, N. (eds), Contesting ethnoarchaeologies, New York, 17–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roux, V., 2015: Standardization of ceramic assemblages. Transmission mechanisms and diffusion of morpho-functional traits across social boundaries, Journal of anthropological archaeology 40, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roux, V., and Matarasso, P., 1999: Crafts and the evolution of complex societies. New methodological perspectives for modeling the organization of production. An Harappan example, in Dobres, M.A. and Hoffman, C.R. (eds), The social dynamics of technology. Practice, politics and worldviews, Washington, 46–70.Google Scholar