2 Relationship to other branches of Anthropology

D. K. Bhattacharya

Contents

Introduction

1. Relationship of Archaeology with other branches of Anthropology

1.1 Relationship with Palaeontology, palaeobotany and palynology

1.2 Relationship with Palaeo-demography

1.3 Relationship with Archaeolinguistics

Learning Objectives

• To know about the focus of the subject
• To know about the relationship of Archaeology with other branches of Anthropology
• To know how archaeology draws from other subjects
• To know how archaeology has contributed to other subjects

Introduction

Anthropology studies man in time and space. That is, it has to by definition study living mankind all over the world on the one hand and also study past mankind. It is the second aspect when we try to study past of mankind that archaeology comes into play. Since man is the only species which does not have a common species specific behaviour both contemporary man as also past man has to be studied for both physical characteristics as also cultural characteristics. The branch which studies the cultural characteristics of living man is called cultural anthropology and likewise the branch which studies physical characteristics of living man is called is called physical anthropology. The study of past man is reconstructive and hence its methods are slightly different. For instance we will never know the skin colour or eye colour of past men. This branch is called human palaeontology. In the same way the cultural anthropology of past men is studied in the domain of Prehistoric Archaeology. The method of study may be called archaeology but it essentially aims to construct cultural details and hence it is not different from anthropological concerns. Thus, unlike a commonly held belief that archaeology is not anthropology one can at once see that it is as much anthropology as human palaeontology is.

The term culture is taken to define human thought, belief and activities. Translating this for past men becomes difficult especially when we do not have anything but the product of human activity of the past as our only clue to their culture. We, therefore, decide that if a given activity is repeated identically in a group and also this behaviour is repeated through generations then such a behaviour/activity needs to be counted as representing the culture of past. Thus, group behaviour which is extra somatically inherited becomes the archaeologist’s way to identify, differentiate and define cultures. We try to introduce three different terms to designate the actual and contextual features of our discoveries. These are- assemblages, industries and traditions.

Assemblages: A cluster of antiquities found within a single layer is designated as an assemblage. The common features or typo-technological attributes of the assemblage can be taken to represent a short time human activity and consequently a possible suggestion of culture.

Industries: A number of assemblages can be found spread out over a region. Thus, taking the whole region as the area of activity, the antiquities and their typo-technological traits can be taken to indicate an industry.

Tradition: This term refers to the occurrence of several assemblages through time. That is to say it proposes both group behaviour as also extra somatically inherited through time. Hence tradition is the closest we can come to identify past culture.

1.    Relationship of Archaeology with other branches of Anthropology

Prehistoric archaeology studies antiquity along with associated finds in order to reconstruct past culture. The term past at once puts us across the difficult issue of creating a past chronometer. Geology and the number of basic sciences have now made the problem easier for us as we do have a reasonably accurate time table from as early as 4 million years to the present. Cultural discoveries when viewed against the time table enable us to explain the complex manner in which culture changes. Synchronic study of cultural anthropology does not enable us to understand why cultures changed at one place in one manner and not the same way in another place. The link of cultural anthropology with prehistoric archaeology is, therefore, unquestionable. An example, here, can make the issue of culture and archaeology clearer. Success of survival for our early ancestors depended entirely on several factors. Success in subsistence retrieval depends on the technology known to the community. At the same time the demographic strength of the band also lends a hand in increasing subsistence retrieval. Demographic strength depends on balancing child mortality rate as also parasitic infestation of the chosen ecosystem. Finally both technology and demography together can be of meaningful success only when there is adequate social ordering. An archaeologist is exposed to the antiquities which can at length be studied for technology but the success of this technology depends so much on the other factors to which archaeologists can have very little access. Cultural anthropology, demography, palaeopathology and cultural ecology are some of the various broad areas of study which an archaeologist has to be involved in order to have a proper interpretation of the past.

1.1 Relationship with Palaeontology, palaeobotany and palynology

Physical anthropology has always gone hand in hand with archaeology because of the obvious reason that fossil-hunting always included associated cultural material. While the cultural materials are studied by the archaeologists the fossil evidences are studied by the physical anthropologists. Disposal of the dead and the kind of grave goods used are studied by archaeologists while the manner of disposal like flexed or extended internment are delineated by the physical anthropologists. Likewise the evidences of primitive surgery like trepanation of the skull or drilling infected teeth are also best understood with the help of physical anthropology. Palaeontology and palaeobotany are two major branches of study which an archaeologist has to be conversant with. In fact many chronological markers which are used in the calibration of human cultural progression are entirely based on palaeontology. For instance, the so called Villa Franchian fauna defines the Pleistocene period which marks the period of human culture. Even during the subsequent glacial fluctuations the presence of a minority of warmth-loving animals within a majority of cold-loving fauna can enable an archaeologist to infer that we are dealing with the closing phase of a major glaciation because the warm fauna has already arrived. Thus, one can divide a glacial period into such stages as early, middle and late stages. Palaeobotany and palynology are other branches which enable us to reconstruct the general environment within which our ancestors have sought adaptation. Pollens released by arboreal plants and their frequency can easily be taken to indicate a period of high rainfall. In fact the relative frequency of pollens from arboreal plants and non-arboreal plants (AP/NAP ratio) can be taken to indicate the nature of forest growth in the environment. An increase in xerophytes can be taken to indicate a very dry climate. Human adaptation to different kind of environments creates limits in adaptational success and this can easily explain the different rate of technological progress as compared to adaptation in different ecological spheres. An example of this can be given from the nature of Palaeolithic succession in South Asia when compared to the same in the temperate region of Europe. It will appear that in South Asia not only changes are slow but they also do not show any break. As contrast to this in Europe there are sharp breaks observed from Lower Palaeolithic to Middle and Upper Palaeolithic.

1.2 Relationship with Palaeo-demography

Palaeo-demography is another interesting branch of study which enables one to interpret the resource retrieval potentiality of a given band. If available resources are plenty and the population does not grow because of high rate of child mortality the technology used for resource retrieval does not show any change. If on the other hand if population shows an exponential growth resource retrieval technology is bound to show progress so that a larger amount of resources could be withdrawn. In short both palaeo-ecology as well as palaeo-demography go hand in hand in the explanation of cultural dynamics of the past.

Finally if a prehistoric site offers the potentiality of recovering the activity space within the habitation area, one can talk about areas of special tool making activity, training as well as experimenting with different stones etc. for younger cultures even gender difference in ceramic painting has also been commented by some scholars. Beginning of a centralised authority supported by a superstructure such as a temple or central hall has been possible to be interpreted in younger sites with productive economy, social structure, labour management, redistribution of harvest are other important components of prehistoric societies which are possible to work out in suitable sites.

1.3 Relationship with Archaeolinguistics

Very recently a group of authors have floated another subject called archaeolinguistic specially while describing the choice of farming in various parts of India. It has been found that rice is domesticated very early in the middle Ganga region. This has been argued as having arrived from south China through Burma. The people who brought this were Mundari or any other branch of Austro- Asiatic language speakers. In contradiction to them wheat and barley arrived from western Asia and the people who carried them were Indo- European language speakers. The reason for this was based on the fact that wheat and barley arrives almost as early in the western sites (e.g. Mehergarh) as rice arrives in the eastern sites (e.g. Lahuradewa). Further the predominant language family in the western borderland is Indo-European which has an exogenous origin. The altogether new crop of rice in the east and its similarity with Oryza japonica which is also found in south China gives rise to the opinion of its arrival from the east. Austro-Asiatic languages, it has been argued is also exogenous to India and must have arrived with the people who had developed expertise of rice cultivation.

It must be mentioned here that linguistically it is accepted that the above group of languages have arrived from outside India. Archaeo-lingusitics merely tag this with the arrival of different cereals chosen for farming. Since farming brings about sedentary settlements the languages brought by these farmers tend to get consolidated in a large area. The date of arrival of rice in the east and wheat/ barley in the west is roughly estimated as 6000 BC. Within the next 3000 years rice cultivation has migrated to the west and also wheat enters the east in a slightly later date. Thus, the farming of different cereals is commonly used by farmers in north India during late Chalcolithic and Iron Ages.

Farming in south India remained different because of their choice of millet farming and cattle pastoralism. This is taken to explain the expanse of Indo-European and Austro-Asiatic languages in the south of Krishna river.