Caroline Hamon

Debates in ethnoarchaeology today: a new crisis of identity or the expression of a vibrant research strategy?

Criticism of the use of ethnoarchaeology in archaeology is almost as old as the discipline itself. This criticism appears to hinge on a number of issues. Firstly, its origins: ethnoarchaeology lies at the interface of several fields concerned with the study of societies in all their diversity. Secondly, the focus of interest, in this case human groups, is by no means a subject that is neutral, verifiable or reproducible at will. Finally, the development of the field coincided with a wider growing awareness in western society of the ‘otherness’ of human groups in the context of decolonization. The development of ethnoarchaeology over the past 50 years has thus been accompanied by a marked tendency towards self-criticism of its practices and the validity of its scientific contribution. The principal criticisms revolve around the ‘applicability of ethnoarchaeological models to the interpretation of the archaeological, or questioning the ethical or the moral dimensions of the practice of ethnoarchaeology’ (Politis 2015, 42). The four articles included here are presented as a pro-ethnoarchaeology manifesto which aims to defend the place and role of ethnoarchaeology in contemporary archaeological research. They aim to reply to criticism by relying on experiences in ethnoarchaeological practice on different continents and within different conceptual frameworks. Even though we wholly support this desire to promote ethnoarchaeology and to openly affirm its epistemological role, this position of self-justification may seem surprising to those – first and foremost among whom are archaeologists – who consider as obvious the necessity of dealing with the materiality of human behaviour. For the most part, it is not the definition of ethnoarchaeology itself, i.e. a research strategy focusing on the comparative study of interactions and co-evolution of material culture and human behaviour in past and present societies, that has provoked this criticism, but rather certain uses to which it has been put. As a consequence, an important question has to be asked: is it still necessary in the present day to justify the practice of ethnoarchaeology? The principal criticisms regarding the inherent limitations of the approach and the ethical abuses, of which it can be sometimes justifiably accused, were generally formulated by ethnoarchaeologists themselves with the principal purpose of emphasizing the significant scientific contributions of their (sub-)discipline (see for example González-Ruibal 2006). Are (self-)criticism and (self-)justification the signs of a new crisis within the discipline or do they, as we hope, reflect the vitality of a research strategy which is fully aware of its limits?

Salt mining tools and techniques from Duzdaği (Nakhchivan, Azerbaijan) in the 5th to 3rd millennium B.C.

The emergence of mining reflects profound changes in the organization of late prehistoric societies. In terms of lithic and ore mining, salt is a highly strategic mineral resource which was exploited for its dietary and healing properties. The exceptional prehistoric salt mine of Duzdaği (Nakhchivan, Azerbaijan) is located in a high salt-bearing region centered on the Aras River in the Lesser Caucasus. Field survey, spatial recording of archaeological materials and use-wear analysis of macrolithic tools have allowed us to outline the mining operations and techniques there from the Chalcolithic period onwards. We have identified workshops for the manufacture and repair of tools, as well as salt extraction and processing areas.