Archaeology and Archaeologists’
Image representation for the Past.
Hidefumi Ogawa
Dept. of Philippine Studies
Tokyo University Of Foreign Studies
hide@fs.tufs.ac.jp
My topic is
about the problems, which occur when archaeologists imagine the past of his
research area.
Let me start
with my own experience in the fieldwork, presenting archaeological “discoveries
” as a limitation of archaeological studies. The second topic will shift on the
problems that the Image of hunter-gatherers was constructed as a diametrical
opposite of civilization in the dominant paradigm, and the archaeology has significance
only when it contributes to the civilization or the myth of nation states. And
at the end, I will present the necessity of change in archaeologists’
recognition or epistemology as a perspective of new possibility of archaeology.
1.
Problems of
Archaeological “Discoveries “
Please allow
me to start from my personal experience in the field. It shocked me that the
archaeological method I had learned in Japan was useless. I started to conduct
the archaeological research in the Lower Cagayan River, Northeastern Luzon, in
1982, and it has been continued intermittently since then. Especially from 85
to 88, I had lived in a village on the Lower Cagayan River for three years to
conduct the research of shell midden sites. The objective of the research is to
reconstruct the historical process of interactions between hunter-gatherer and
farmer societies using the model built by the data from the ethnoarchaeological
research, and verify this reconstructed model by the archaeological materials.
On the first stage of the process, I had explored the shell midden sites along
the river to find the scattered materials on the surface ground, like broken
pottery or stone adze, and plot the site area on the map. After two years’ site
exploration, it became clear that more than 20 shell middens distributed from
Aparri on the Babuyan Channel to the upriver for 40km. The types of shell
middens vary from small one, 10 meters diameter, to big one, 500 meters long
and two meters deep. The results of research were published in English.
It caused a
problem when I distributed the copies of the report to the foreign
archaeologists. Actually, we archaeologists’ aim is making some discoveries and
to inform these to the world. That is to say, a struggle with archaeological
works will accomplish the high evaluations of discoveries and the worldwide
fame. Even though I discovered the significance of materials, these were
excavated in the properties of the Philippines. Whose materials are these? To
whom the academic results belong? Then, arises the political issue concerning
the archaeological discoveries. The chief staffs of the Archaeological Division
of National Museum needed to question me to whom I had sent the copies. But they
did not blame me for this in front of me. It was maybe partly because we already had a friendly
relationship. Although they didn’t blame me, I have no rights to continue the
discoveries and publish the results under my name without any regret or
reflection.
My regret that
I had sent the copies of report which had hurt Filipino archaeologists’
feelings badly has changed the way my research work should be since. There are
some ways to avoid the political problems concerning the archaeological
materials. The way I chose was not to keep the discoveries to myself, but to
share the results with us all. I was in a dilemma between study and moral.
I was worried
that I wanted to continue my carrier of archaeologist on one hand and I wanted
to avoid the political problems caused by archaeological discoveries on the
other.
Back in Japan,
I learned what I needed to do to be an archaeologist was a series of works,
such as struggling with archaeological explorations and excavations in the
field, making some discoveries, informing the results to the world by the
contribution to well-known journals, and then to be recognized as an
archaeologist. Even enthusiastic efforts or hard workings in study had been
done, if these results would cause the political problems on the archaeological
discoveries and hurt the feelings of Filipino archaeologists, the archaeology,
as a science itself must to be questioned.
2. Image
shift to the hunter-gatherer society
In this way,
the archaeological research method, which is triggered by discovery, has been
maintained from the beginning of the study. This conventional method was
applied to the Philippines and I was caught in a dilemma between the study and
ethics. However, at first, I had no intention of solving this dilemma through
studying archaeology. And I could not find the method to solve the dilemma
instantly. I set my own ethical restrictions in that I would not release my
solo paper and my public announcement concerning this archaeological discovery.
However, as I
had to write a paper as a scholar, I published a paper that discussed a
theoretical examination modeling the economical relationship between a
hunter-gatherer society and an agricultural society. And I verified the model
using archaeological evidence. In those days, between the late 1980s and the
early 1990s, the "Kalahari Controversy “ had arisen.
That
controversy had the possibility of exploding the Kalahari model, which was
widely accepted as a model of prehistoric and present hunter-gatherer society.
By researching this controversy, I gradually understood the limitation of
"archaeological discovery".
Until that
time, the image of hunter-gatherer society was introduced from Kalahari Model
which made by the research resulting from “Man The Hunter" (Richard Lee
and De Vore, 1968), .the "bushman" study* in the Kalahari Desert in
the late 1960s. This image was characterized by a high contribution by women in
gathering activities or the existence of long leisure time. Before the study
"Man the Hunter", the image of the hunter-gatherer society was that
of a people who were always hungry and wandered from place to place searching
for foods.
Once the study
result of Lee et al was published, this image was changed to that of a flexible
"self-sufficient (independent)" egalitarian community. They said that
the hunter-gatherer society had a low labor occupancy ratio but people
maintained a high life standard and that they were well adapted to natural
environmental conditions. It was favorably accepted by archaeologists and was
introduced as the model for the prehistoric hunter-gatherer society for
everywhere in the world.
I question the
concept of "independence" or self-sufficiency. Because I am trying to
elucidate the prehistoric interdependence of hunter-gatherer society and
agricultural society, which had the different subsistence background, the
independence is not convincing to me. The concept of independence gives a
biased and preconceived notion that the prehistoric hunter-gatherer society had
developed without affect from the agricultural society since the Paleolithic
era. However, the "independence", to put it in other words, the
"purity" of hunter-gatherer society is very convenient to
archaeologists who advocate the simple model, which eliminates the noise from
the outside world.
Lee’s
hunter-gatherer social model was criticized for several years. The point of
controversy was exactly the concept of "independence". The
revisionist, who criticized Lee's Kalahari Model, insisted that prehistoric
bushman had traded with an Indian Ocean trading group on the African east coast
and that the Bushman had managed to supply raw materials to them, however, this
network was broken off after the Age of Great Voyages, therefore, the bushmen
were forced to change their life gradually to adopt the "self-sufficient (independent)
life". They said that the prehistoric Bushman had definitely not been
independent and had communicated with other societies and that they had traded
with the other societies since the prehistoric age (Wilmsen and Denbow,
1990:499-503). Lee himself carefully avoided defining the Kalahari Model of the
bushman's society as a survivor of the Stone Age. However, it contains some
problems. His theory was consistent with "timeless sense (Shott,
1992:845)" in that he assumed the hunter-gatherer society had not changed
since the prehistoric age. Also his model had not considered the historical
background of the Bushman.
Furthermore,
it is possible to indicate the problem of the Kalahari Model as the dominant
way of the construction and representation of the hunter-gatherer society or “Others”
by the viewpoint of essentialism. Archaeologists, including me, who accepted
the Kalahari Model, intend to look for the independent, isolated and pure hunter-gatherer
society in their fiction or the realm of dominant paradigm and use this
illusion as a model for the reconstruction of the hunter-gatherer society’s
past. In the background of their way of reconstruction of others’ past, it is
concealed the viewpoint that the interactions between hunter-gatherer society
and the surrounding societies shall contaminate the cultural tradition and
purity of the society.
When the
specific model is created by extracting " traditional elements"
arbitrarily from the hunter-gatherer society and by applying it to their
prehistory eliminating the "contamination" of the outside society, it
should be a biased approach which will only result in isolating the
hunter-gatherer society from the reality, peripherized in the World System. This
way of research must be indicated as our archaeologists’ problem in that we
have studied real hunter-gatherer society by eliminating the
"contamination" of the modern society in order to observe and describe
it in the timeless sense of “ethnographic present ”. It was an essentially biased
observation applied to the hunter-gatherer people as a Savage Others.
The essential
characteristic of the Kalahari Model reflected a periodic trend, restriction of
researchers in the 1970s, and the "dominant paradigm" at that time.
After the Vietnam War, the skepticism on civilization, which should bring a
bright future, became the primary factor to make us archaeologists to built the
utopia model in the “non-civilized world” that must be a harmony of nature and
human. That is to say, that skepticism became the primary factor in creating
the new concept of "Noble Savage" in the hunter-gatherer society.
However, at that time, this pessimistic model had a firm meaning with an
ideological background to reflect on the civilization. The researchers tried to
create the ideal world where the people had a good relationship with nature,
which was different to that existing in the real world to which the researcher
belongs. Finally, they created an image of the “independent”, “pure” and “traditional”
hunter-gatherer society. And it is now accepted as the common and prevailing
image of the hunter-gatherer society. The beginning of this trend can be seen
in "Man the Hunter". Also Salins (1972) could be the evangelist to
disseminate the new image. The current ecological ideologies, the understanding
of peripherized societies having their own natural philosophy, and a discourse
of strategic essentialism, which advocated peripherized societies, are all
recognized in the 1970s.
Back in the Philippines,
in the 1970s, using ethnoarchaeological methodology, a new model of prehistoric
hunter-gatherer society was built. However, it was strongly influenced by the
Kalahari Model. The "exchange adaptation" model, which explains the
mechanisms of the prehistoric interdependence between the hunter-gatherer
society and the agricultural society in the tropical rain forest area, tried to
supersede the isolation model put forward by Heinegeldeln. Mrs. And Mr. Peterson
presented this model, when they were researching at Palanan, Isaberra (Peterson
and Peterson, 1977).
However, this
model was also based on the limited conditions whereby the social mechanism was
completed in a closed system without being affected by the outside world. It was
based on a model advocating stability from the prehistoric age till the
present, with static "equilibrium" maintained without any alteration.
It is more natural that dynamic movement destroys the stability and equilibrium
of a society and produce new change in the society.
On the other
hand, Dr. Tom Headland, the revisionist of the Kalahari Model, had struggled to
remove the image of the independent hunter-gatherer society, which still
strongly exists among archaeologists. Headland had researched in Agta of
Casiguran, Aurora on the Pacific coast of the Sierra Madre for a long time. He
found that it was impossible for the hunter-gatherer society of the tropical
rainforest areas in the prehistoric age to have survived without exchange with
agricultural societies to obtain carbohydrates. He researched also prehistoric archaeological
sites in the tropical rainforest area prior to the immergence of agricultural
technology to attest to his hypothesis. He made clear that there were no
archaeological sites of the Paleolithic age in tropical rainforest area except
on the Malay Peninsula. However, many archaeologists who study tropical areas not
only Southeast Asia but also South America and Africa had opposing ideas.
Namely, they still recognized the hunter-gatherer societies as maintaining an
"independent”, self-sufficient" and "pure" society.
The
hunter-gatherer society has been represented as a "Cruel" Savage or a
"Noble Savage". After all, the archaeology represents the
hunter-gatherer society as an essential image, which is the “diametrical opposite”
to civilization. However, there is little movement to change the direction of
the study by reflection on this representation. It is necessary to pose the
question why the hunter-gatherer societies are represented as a diametrical opposite
to civilization at the epistemological level and to fumble for a new direction
for prehistoric hunter-gatherer social study.
3.
Archaeologists who contribute to create the myth of "civilization"
and "nation State"
The essentialistic
recognition of others originates in the recognition of the hunter-gatherer
society as the diametrical opposite of civilization. At the same time, the
history of the hunter-gatherer society has been essentially represented as a mirror
of others, which reflects and confirms our own civilization. And Archaeology,
which traces the footprint of "civilization", has existed and
functioned to contribute to the nationalism and national culture, which have essentially
constructed the national history. When an archaeologist goes back to a past and
then returns to the present time, he/she reconstructs essentially his/her own
national history along with the direction of civilization. Specifically,
archaeologists including me who reconstruct the past of foreign countries
without considering Japanese prehistoric cultural relationships with the one of
the Philippines have a further strong responsibility regarding the colonialistic
representation of others’ past.
It has to
break through the present situation that the image of the others’ past is
constructed by the inference of a contemporary social context. And it is
necessary for the archaeologist to quest for other possibilities in
archaeology. At the present situation where own and others’ past are
essentially represented by reflecting the social context of the minorities and
the majority within the nation states and relationship between the center and periphery
of the world system, the archaeologist will never be free from political
dilemma caused by the "archaeological discovery", as I have already
experienced.
As archaeology
contributes to nationalism and national history, my past faults are bound to be
repeated by other archaeologists. Of course, I have no intention of blaming
archaeology for my failure.
Finally, I
would like to conclude the aforementioned assertion.
When I had
realized that archaeological discovery brought political dilemma, my research
method and direction drastically changed. Also, through the discussion of the
Kalahari Controversy, I acquired the method of criticizing the archaeologists’
framework of recognition and the problem of the dominant paradigm from the
standpoint of a social constructionists’ view. Furthermore, I noticed the
necessity to build a concrete archaeological social model that allows for the prehistoric
dynamic movement of social interaction. These epistemological viewpoints gave
me the academic perspectives that I should start to discuss the problems of
political dilemma produced by archaeological discovery beyond the private
ethical problems affecting Filipino archaeologists. These perspectives can
present the new archaeological possibilities both in the Philippine and Southeast
Asian archaeology. However, it is accurate to forecast the occurrence of
political confrontation between essentialism and social constructionism. I
cannot find the solution for this problem yet. By posing this problem, I would
like to close my discourse.
References
Headland, T. N.
1986 Why
Foragers Do Not Become Farmers: A Historical Study of a Changing Ecosystem and
Its Effect on a Negrito Hunter-Gatherer Group in the
Philippines. Two vols. Unpublished Ph. D dissertation. University, Microfilms
International, Ann Arbor.
1987 The wild yam question: How well could
independent hunter-gatherers live in a tropical rain forest ecosystem? Human Ecology 15: 463-491.
Headland, T. N. and R. C. Bailey
1991 Introduction:
Have Hunter-Gatherers Ever Lived in Tropical Rain Forest Independently of
Agriculture? Human Ecology 19:2:115-122.
Headland, T. N. and L. A. Reid
1989 Hunter-gatherers
and their neighbor from prehistory to the present. Current Anthropology 30:43-66.
1991
Holocene
foragers and interethnic trade: A critique of the myth of isolated independent
hunter-gatherers. In Gregg, S. A. (ed.) Between
Bands and States: 333-340. Center for Archaeological Investigations. Southern Illinois
University at Carbondale. Occasional Paper No.9.
Lee, R. B.
1992 Art,
Science, or Politics? The Crisis in Hunter-Gatherer Studies. American Anthropologist 94: 31-54.
Lee, R. B. and I. De Vore (eds.)
1968 Man the Hunter. Chicago: Aldine
小川英文（Ogawa, H.）
1996a 『狩猟採集民ネグリトの考古学−共生関係が提起する諸問題−』、スチュアート ヘンリ(編)『採集狩猟民の現在』：183-222, 言叢社 (Archaeology of the Negrito
Hunter-Gatherers - the archaeological problems on the Symbiotic, Interdependent
relationships between Hunter-gatherers and Farmers. In Henry Stuart (ed.) Gatherer-Hunter, Today: 183-222. Tokyo:
Gensosha. In Japanese)
1996b ｢東南アジア考古学への招待｣、吉村作治編『世界考古学』：65-108、有斐閣 (Introduction to Southeast Asian Archaeology. In S. Yoshimura (ed.)
World Archaeology: 65-108. Tokyo:
Yuhikaku. In Japanese)
1997 ｢貝塚洪水伝説−フィリピン、ルソン島北部カガヤン河下流域における貝採集民の民族考古学｣ 『東南アジア考古学』17: 119-166 (Shell Midden was
made by the Noachian Deluge.-Ethnoarchaeology of the Shell Middens and Shell
Gatherers in the Lower Cagayan River, Northern Luzon, Philippines-. Journal of Southeast Asian Archaeology 17:
119-166. In Japanese)
1998 Problems
and Hypotheses on the Prehistoric Lal-lo, Northern Luzon, Philippines -
Archaeological Study on the Prehistoric Interdependence between
Hunter-Gatherers and Farmers in the Tropical Rain Forest -『東南アジア考古学(Journal of Southeast Asian Archaeology)』18: 123-166
1999a ｢東南アジアと日本の貝塚の比較｣『季刊 考古学』66: 29-34 (The Comparison between Southeast
Asian and Japanese Shell Midden Sites. Quaternary
Journal of Archaeology 66: 29-34. In Japanese)
1999b ｢考古学者が提示する狩猟採集社会イメージ｣『民族学研究』63-2: 192-202 (Archaeologist’s Image Representation
of Hunter-Gatherers in Southeast Asia. The
Japanese Journal of Ethnology 63-2: 192-202. In Japanese)
1999c Excavation
of the Mabangog Cave, San Mariano, Lal-lo, Cagayan, Philippines.『東南アジア考古学 (Journal of Southeast Asian Archaeology) 』19: 93-114.
1999d ｢自然と生業｣上智大学アジア文化研究所編『新版 入門東南アジア研究』: 23-35、めこん (Natural Settings and
Subsistence. In Institute of Asian Cultures, Sophia University (ed.) Introduction
to Southeast Asian Studies, new edition: 23-35. Tokyo: Mekong. In Japanese)
1999e ｢東南アジア 発掘の歴史と考古学の課題―｢古代｣への｢あこがれ｣が取り結ぶイデオロギーの磁場―｣、吉村作治編『東南アジアの華 アンコール･ボロブドゥール』: 75-89、平凡社 (Southeast Asian Archaeology
– its history and issues. In S. Yoshimura (ed.) Ankhor and Borobdur.
Tokyo: Heibonsha. In Japanese.)
2000a ｢狩猟採集社会と農耕社会の交流−相互関係の視角−｣、小川英文編『交流の考古学』: 266-295、岩崎卓也監修『シリーズ 現代の考古学』第5巻、朝倉書店 (Prehistoric Interactions
between Hunter-Gatherers and Farmers- special reference to the Interdependency.
In H. Ogawa (ed.) Archaeology of
Interactions. (Archaeology Today Series Vol. 5), Tokyo: Asakura Shoten. In
Japanese).
2000b ｢総論 交流考古学の可能性｣、小川英文編『交流の考古学』: 1-20、岩崎卓也監修『シリーズ 現代の考古学』第5巻、朝倉書店 (Introduction - Perspectives
in Archaeology of Interaction. In H. Ogawa (ed.) Archaeology of Interactions. (Archaeology Today Series Vol. 5),
Tokyo: Asakura Shoten. In Japanese).
2000c ｢狩猟採集民｣、｢ナショナリズム｣、｢文明｣、安斉正人編『用語解説 現代考古学の方法と理論III』: 131-141, 187-198, 227-234, 同成社 (Hunter-Gatherers,
Nationalism, Civilization. In M. Anzai (ed.) Method and Theory in
Contemporary Archaeology Vol.3: 131-141, 187-198, 227-234. Tokyo:
Dohseisha, In Japanese).
2000d (ed.)
『ラロ貝塚群の発掘調査−東南アジア島嶼部先史時代の考古学的調査−Excavation of the Lal-lo
Shell Middens』269 pages、文部省科学研究費報告書 (Report for the Grant-in-Aid for International Scientific Research
(Field Research) of The Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture
(Monbusho), In English).
Peterson, J. T.
1978 The Ecology of Social Boundary.
University of Illinois Press.
Peterson, J. T. and W. Peterson
1977
Implications
of Contemporary and Prehistoric Exchange Systems. In Allen, J., J. Golson and
R. Jones (eds.) Sunda and Sahul.: 567-599.
New York: Academic Press.
Sahlins, M.
1972 Stone Age Economics. Chicago: Aldine.(1984『石器時代の経済学』山内昶訳、法政大学出版局)
Shott, M. J.
1992 On recent trends in the
anthropology of foragers: Kalahari Revisionism and its Archaeological
Implications. Man 27(4): 843-872.
Wilmsen, E. N. and J. Denbow
1990 Paradigmatic
history of San-speaking peoples and current attempts at revision. Current Anthropology 31: 489-524.