Archaeology Through Ethnography: An Academic Treatment with the Study of Human Past

  • Mayanglambam ManiBabu


This chapter introduces to the growing scope of the discipline of archaeology in terms of the emergence of ethnoarchaeology as one of the growing sub-discipline; and aims at developing better explanatory models of past human culture through engagement with living societies; recording observable behaviour and consequent residues. It conceptualizes theoretical paradigm of ethnoarchaeology as it rests on the construct of ethnographic analogy and the principles of uniformitarianism; with a premise that living ‘premodern’ indigenous population acts as proxies for the people in the past and are deemed appropriate to be compared with archaeological contexts; and thereby forms important sources of interpretative information for the archaeologists. In view of this; the chapter is designed to throw light on the significances of pursuing such an endeavour on the indigenous tribal populations; particularly of Manipur and their counterparts of other northeastern India in general; as one of the immediate agenda of prehistoric archaeologists well before the life ways of these people are totally corrupted owing to the extraneous influence; such as globalization and the like.


Ethnoarchaeology New and post-processual archaeology Indigenous people Northeastern India Ethnographic analogy Memes Living contexts 


  1. Agorsah, E.K. 1990. Ethnoarchaeology: The Search for a Self-Corrective Approach to the Study of Past Human Behaviour. The African Archaeological Review 8 (1): 189–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ———. 1999. Ethnoarchaeological Consideration of Social Relationship and Settlement Patterning among Africans in the Caribbean Diaspora. In African Sites: Archaeology in the Caribbean, ed. J.B. Haviser, 38–64. Princeton: Marcus Weiner Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Allen, B.C., E.A. Gait, C.G.H. Allen, and H.F. Howard. 1984. Gazetteer of Bengal and North East India. Delhi: Mittal Publications. First Published in 1905.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, K.M. 1969. Ethnographic Analogy and Archeological Interpretation. Science 163 (3863): 133–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Atici, A.L. 2006. Middle-Range Theory in Paleolithic Archaeology: The Past and the Present. Journal of Taphonomy 4 (1): 29–45.Google Scholar
  6. Bednarik, R.G. 2003. A Major Change in Archaeological Paradigm. Anthropos 98 (2): 511–520.Google Scholar
  7. Binford, L.R. 1962. Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28 (2): 217–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ———. 1968a. Methodological Considerations of the Archaeological Use of Ethnographic Data. In Man the Hunter, ed. R.B. Lee and I. DeVore, 268–273. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  9. Binford, S.R. 1968b. Ethnographic Data and Understanding the Pleistocene. In Man the Hunter, ed. R.B. Lee and I. DeVore, 274–275. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  10. Binford, L.R. 1971. Mortuary Practices: Their Study and Their Potential. In Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices, ed. J. Brown, 6–29. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology 25. URL: Scholar
  11. ———. 1972. Archaeological Reasoning and Smudge Pits – Revisited. In An Archeological Perspective, ed. L.R. Binford, 52–58. New York: Seminar Press.Google Scholar
  12. ———. 1977. For Theory Building in Archaeology. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  13. ———. 1978. Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  14. ———. 1980. Willow Smoke and Bogs Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45: 4–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. ———. 1981. Behavioral Archaeology and the “Pompeii Premise”. Journal of Anthropological Research 37 (3): 195–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. ———. 1983. In Pursuit of the Past: Decoding the Archaeological Record. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
  17. Bintliff, J. 1991. Postmodernism, Rhetoric and Scholasticism at TAG: The Current State of British Archaeology. Antiquity 65: 274–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Blackmore, S. 1999. The Jvleme Machine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. ———. 2000. The Power of Memes. Scientific American 283 (4): 64–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Brace, L.C. 1995. The Stages of Human Evolution. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  21. Brown, R. 1975. Statistical Account of Manipur. Delhi: Sanskaran Prakashak. First Published in 1874.Google Scholar
  22. Byrd, B.F., and C.M. Monahan. 1995. Death, Mortuary Ritual, and Natufian Social Structure. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 14 (3): 251–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Chang, K.C. 1967. Major Aspects of the Interrelationship of Archaeology and Ethnology. Current Anthropology 8 (3): 227–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Charlton, T.H. 1981. Archaeology, Ethnohistory, and Ethnology: Interpretive Interfaces. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 4: 129–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Clark, J.D. 1951. Folk Culture and the Study of European Prehistory. In Aspects of Archaeology in Great Britain and Beyond: Essays Presented to O.G.S. Crawford, ed. W.F. Grimes, 49–65. London: Edwards.Google Scholar
  26. ———. 1968. Studies of Hunter–Gatherers as an Aid to the Interpretation of Prehistoric Societies. In Man the Hunter, ed. R.B. Lee and I. DeVore, 276–280. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  27. Clarke, D.L. 1968. Analytical Archaeology. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd.Google Scholar
  28. Conkey, M.W. 1989. The Place of Material Culture in Contemporary Anthropology. In Perspectives on Anthropological Collections from the American Southwest: Proceedings of a Symposium, Anthropological Research Papers, No. 40, ed. A.L. Hedlund, 13–31. Tucson: Arizona State University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Crawford, H. 1982. Analogies, Anomalies and Research Strategy. Pal’eorient 8 (1): 5–9.Google Scholar
  30. Cunningham, J.J. 2003. Transcending the “Obnoxious Spectator”: A Case for Processual Pluralism in Ethnoarchaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (4): 389–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. d’Errico, F. 1995. A New Model and Its Implications for the Origin of Writing: The La Marche Antler Revisited. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 5 (2): 163–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Damant, G.H. 1880. Notes on the Location and Population of the Tribes Dwelling Between the Brahmaputra and Ningthi Rivers. Journals of the Royal Asiatic Society (New Series), XII (Art. VlII):228–258.Google Scholar
  33. David, N. 1973. On Upper Palaeolithic Society, Ecology and Technological Change. In The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory, ed. C. Renfrew, 277–304. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  34. David, N., and C. Kramer. 2001. Ethnoarchaeology in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Davidson, I., and A. Nowell. 2010. Introduction and Overview. In Stone Tools and the Evolution of Human Cognition, ed. A. Nowell and I. Davidson, 1–12. Colorado: The University Press of Colorado.Google Scholar
  36. Dawkins, R. 1976. The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Dennett, D.C. 1995. Darwins Dangerous Ideas: Evolution and Meanings of Life. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  38. Domínguez-Rodrigo, M. 2008. Conceptual Premises in Experimental Design and Their Bearing on the Use of Analogy: An Example from Experiments on Cut Marks. World Archaeology 40 (1): 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Duke, P. 1995. Working Through Theoretical Tension in Contemporary Archaeology: A Practical Attempt from Southwestern Colorado. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2 (3): 201–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Evans, A. 1929. The Shaft Craves and Beehive Tombs of Mycenae and Their Interrelation. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  41. Fabian, J. 1983. Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes Its Object. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Fahlander, F. 2004. Archaeology and Anthropology – Brothers in Arms? On Analogies in 21st-Century Archaeology. In Material Culture and Other Things Post-disciplinary Studies in the 21st Century, GOTARC Series C, No 61, ed. F. Fahlander and T. Oestigaard, 185–211. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
  43. Fancher, J.M. 2009. An Ethnoarchaeological Analysis of Small Prey Bone Assemblages Produced by Forest Foragers of the Central African Republic. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Washington State University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  44. Fewkes, J.W. 1900. Tuseyan migration traditions. 19th Annual Report 2: 575–633. Washington, DC: Bureau of American Ethnol.Google Scholar
  45. Fotiadis, M. 1995. Modernity and the Past-Still-Present: Politics of Time in the Birth of Regional Archaeological Projects in Greece. American Journal of Archaeology 99 (1): 59–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Freeman, L.G., Jr. 1968. A Theoretical Framework for Interpreting Archaeological Materials. In Man the Hunter, ed. R.B. Lee and I. DeVore, 262–267. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  47. Gamble, C. 2001. Archaeology: The Basics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Goldberg, P., and I. Whitebread. 1993. Micromorphological Studies of a Bedouin Tent Floor. In Formation Processes in Context, Monographs in world archaeology, Vol. 17, ed. P. Goldberg, D.T. Nash, and M. Petraglia, 165–188. London: Prehistory Press.Google Scholar
  49. Goudsblom, J. 1992. The Civilizing Process and the Domestication of Fire. Journal of World History 3 (1): 1–12.Google Scholar
  50. Gould, R.A. 1968. Living Archaeology: The Ngatatjara of Western Australia. Southwestern Joural of Anthropology 24 (2): 101–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. ———. 1980. Living Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. ———. 1989. Archaeological Frameworks for Evaluating Site-Formation Process. In The Physical-Chemical-Biological Processes Affecting Archaeological Sites, Report EL-89-1, ed. C.C. Mathewson, 12–26. Vicksburg: Army Corps of Engineers.Google Scholar
  53. Gould, R.A., and P.J. Watson. 1982. A Dialogue on the Meaning and Use of Analogy in Ethnoarchaeological Reasoning. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1 (4): 355–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Green, E. 1973. The Use of Analogy for Interpretation of Maya Prehistory. Journal of the Steward Anthropological Society 4 (2): 139–159.Google Scholar
  55. Griffin, P.B., and W.G. Solheim II. 1990. Ethnoarchaeological Research in Asia. Asian Perspectives 28 (2): 145–162.Google Scholar
  56. Hamilakis, Y. 2011. Archaeological Ethnography: A Multitemporal Meeting Ground for Archaeology and Anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology 40 (1): 399–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Hamilakis, Y., and A. Anagnostopoulos. 2009. What Is Archaeological Ethnography? Public Archaeology: Archaeological Ethnographies 8 (2–3): 65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Hegmon, M. 2003. Setting Theoretical Egos Aside: Issues and Theory in North American Archaeology. American Antiquity 68 (2): 213–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Hodder, I. 1982a. The Present Past – An Introduction to Anthropology for Archaeologists. London: B.T. Batsford, Ltd.Google Scholar
  60. ———. 1982b. Symbols in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  61. ———., ed. 1982c. Symbolic and Structural Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  62. ———. 1986. From Ethnoarchaeology to Material Culture Studies. Dialoghi Di Archeologia 3 (1): 93–97.Google Scholar
  63. ———. 1999. The Archaeological Process. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  64. Hodson, T.C. 1908. The Meitheis. London: David Nutt.Google Scholar
  65. Hofman, J. 1985. Hunter-Gatherer Mortuary Variability: Toward an Explanatory Model. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA.Google Scholar
  66. Johnson, M.H. 2006. On the Nature of Theoretical Archaeology and Archaeological Theory. Archaeological Dialogues 13 (2): 117–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Kluckhohn, C. 1940. The Conceptual Structure in Middle American Studies. In The Maya and Their Neighbor, eds. C.L. Hay, R. L. Linton, S.K Lothrop, H.L. Shapiro and G.C. Vaillant, 41–51. New York: Appleton-Century..Google Scholar
  68. Knapp, A.B. 1996. Archaeology Without Gravity: Postmodernism and the Past. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 3 (2): 127–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Kramer, C., ed. 1979. Ethnoarchaeology: Implications of Ethnography for Archaeology. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  70. ———. 1985. Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 14 (1): 77–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Kuznar, L. 1997. Reclaiming a Scientific Anthropology. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  72. Lane, P.J. 2006. Present to Past: Ethnoarchaeology. In Handbook of Material Culture, ed. C. Tilley, W. Keane, S. Kuechler, M. Rowlands, and P. Spyer, 402–424. Trowbridge: Cromwell Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Lange, F.W. 1980. Prehistory and Hunter/Gatherers: The Role of Analogs. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 5 (1): 133–147.Google Scholar
  74. Lubbock, J. 1865. Pre-historic Times, as Illustrated by Ancient Remains and the Manners and Customs of Modern Savages. London: Williams and Norgate.Google Scholar
  75. Lynton, N. 1984. The Use of Ethnoarchaeology in Interpreting South Asian Prehistory. In Studies in the Archaeology and Palaeoanthropology of South Asia, ed. K.A.R. Kennedy and G.L. Possehl, 63–71. New Delhi: Oxford & IBH Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  76. Mallol, C., F.W. Marlowe, B.M. Wood, and C.C. Porter. 2007. Earth, Wind, and Fire: Ethnoarchaeological Signals of Hadza Fires. Journal of Archaeological Science 34 (12): 2035–2052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. ManiBabu, M. 1988–89. On the Scope of the Ethnoarchaeological Studies in Manipur. Regional Integration XII & XIII (1): 37–42.Google Scholar
  78. ———. 1994a. Treatment of Diseases Among the Meetei Folk: A Study on the Ethnomedical Synthesis. South Asian Anthropologist (New Series) 1 (1): 71–75.Google Scholar
  79. ———. 1994b. Post-cremation Urn Burial of the Phayengs (Manipur): A Study on the Mortuary Behaviour. The Eastern Anthropologist 47 (2): 157–171.Google Scholar
  80. ———. 2003. Morphological Characterization of Prehistoric Stone Artefacts. The Oriental Anthropologist 3 (1): 9–17.Google Scholar
  81. ———. 2005. Pottery of the Andros of Manipur: A Study on Ethnoarchaeology. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Manipur University, Imphal.Google Scholar
  82. ———. 2006a. The Archaeological Present: Nungbi Potters of Manipur at Work. In Anthropology of Manipur: Archaeological, Biological and Cultural Dimensions, ed. M. ManiBabu, 33–43. Imphal: Momothayai Books.Google Scholar
  83. ———. 2006b. Ceramic Ecology of the Paomei Nagas of Manipur. In Anthropology of Manipur: Archaeological, Biological and Cultural Dimensions, ed. M. ManiBabu, 44–51. Imphal: Momothayai Books.Google Scholar
  84. ———. 2009. Slicing the Reminiscences Up and Pieces de Resistance. In Silver Jubilee Souvenir, 29–33. Imphal: Department of Anthropology, Manipur University.Google Scholar
  85. ———. 2010. Ethnoarchaeology of Ceramic Reuse and Discard Behaviour of the Andro of Manipur. The Oriental Anthropologist 10 (2): 155–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. ———. 2011–12. Relating Andro Ceramic Vessel Form to Function: Implications for Prehistory. Bulletin Department of Anthropology XIII: 13–37. Guwahati: Gauhati University.Google Scholar
  87. ———. 2012a. Primary Ceramic Resources, Procurement Strategies and Cultural Factors: An Ethnoarchaeological example from Manipur (India). Frontier Anthropology 1 (1): 79–98.Google Scholar
  88. ———. 2012b. Art of Pomaking, Cultural Transmission and Archaeological Significances: A Case of a Potmaking Population in Manipur (India). Nrtattv – The Anthropology 2 (2): 19–39.Google Scholar
  89. ———. 2012c. An Ethnoarchaeological Study on the Monopoly of Pottery Production among the Andros of Manipur (India). Paper presented at the International symposium on anthropology of global issues, Organized by World Council of Anthropological Association, Association of Social Anthropologists of the U.K. and Commonwealth, Indian Anthropological Society, Indian Anthropological Association, and Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi, 1–3 April 2012, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  90. ———. 2013. Socio-Cultural Perspectives of Ceramic Production Among the Andros of Manipur: Looking for Archaeological Significances. In Anthropology in North East India, ed. K. Jose, G.K. Bera, and R.P. Athparia, 267–298. Delhi: Omsons Publishers.Google Scholar
  91. ———. 2014a. Making Sense of Stones: Wealth, Status and Indigenous Management Strategy. In Indigenous Resource Management in North East India, ed. K. Jose and G.K. Bera, 192–217. New Delhi: Omsons Publications.Google Scholar
  92. ———. 2014b. Cultural Transmission and Social Contexts of Pottery Making Among Andros of Manipur, India. In Explorations in Anthropology of North East India, ed. S. Sengupta, 52–78. Gyan Publishing House.Google Scholar
  93. Marshack, A. 1991. The Tai Plaque and Calendrical Notation in the Upper Palaeolithic. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1 (1): 25–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Merton, R.K. 1967. On Theoretical Sociology: Five Essays, Old and New. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  95. Miller, Daniel. 1983. Things Aint What They Used to Be. Royal Anthropological Institute Newsletter (RAIN) 59: 5–7+1. Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland.Google Scholar
  96. ———. 1985. Artefacts as Categories: A Study of Ceramic Variability in Central India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  97. ———, ed. 1998. Material Cultures: Why Some Things Matter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  98. Mithen, S.J. 1988. Looking and Learning: Upper Palaeolithic Art and Information Gathering. World Archaeology 19 (3): 297–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. ———. 1998. The Supernatural Beings of Prehistory and the External Storage of Religious Ideas. In Cognition and Material Culture: The Archaeology of Symbolic Storage, ed. C. Renfrew and C. Scarre, 97–106. Cambridge: The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
  100. Morgan, L.H. 1963. Ancient Society. Cleveland: The World Publishing Company. First Published in 1877. London: MacMillan & Company.Google Scholar
  101. Munson, P.J. 1969. Comments on Binfords “Smudge Pits and Hide smoking: The Use of Analogy in Archaeological Reasoning”. American Antiquity 34 (1): 83–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Murray, T., and M.J. Walker. 1988. Like WHAT? A Practical Question of Analogical Inference and Archaeological Meaningfulness. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 7 (3): 248–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Nilsson, S. 1866. Skandinaviska Nordens Ur-innevånare. Ett försök I komparativa Ethnografien. Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt and söner.Google Scholar
  104. O’Connell, J.F. 1995. Ethnoarchaeology Needs a General Theory of Behavior. Journal of Archaeological Research 3 (3): 205–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Oestigaard, T. 2000. The Deceased’s Life Cycle Rituals in Nepal: Present Cremation Burials for the Interpretations of the Past, BAR International Series 853. Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
  106. Orme, B. 1974. Twentieth-Century Prehistorians and the Idea of Ethnographic Parallels. Man 9 (2): 199–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. ———. 1981. Anthropology for Archaeologists: An introduction. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  108. Outram, A.K. 2008. Introduction to Experimental Archaeology. World Archaeology 40 (1): 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Paddayya, K. 1982. The Acheulian Culture of Hunsgi Valley (Peninsular India): A Settlement System Perspective. Pune: Deccan College Postgraduate and Research Institute.Google Scholar
  110. Parsons, J.R. 1972. Archaeological Settlement Patterns. Annual Review of Anthropology 1 (1): 127–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Persson, A.W. 1931. The Royal Tombs at Dendra Near Midea. Lund: Kungl. Human- istiska Vetenskapssamfundet.Google Scholar
  112. Philip, M., and M. ManiBabu. 2015. Megalithic Monuments in Manipur: A Discourse on Space Syntax Analysis. Paper presented in the 45th annual conference of the Indian Anthropological Society, 23–25 May, 2015, University of Calcutta, Kolkata.Google Scholar
  113. ———. 2017. Philosophy in Materializing Stone Monuments: Issues with Poumai Naga Megaliths in Manipur (India). IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IOSR-JHSS) 22 (5, Ver. 3): 29–34. Scholar
  114. Politis, G.G. 2007. Nukak – Ethnoarchaeology of an Amazonian People. California: University College London.Google Scholar
  115. ———. 2015. Reflections on Contemporary Ethnoarchaeology. Pyrenae 46 (1): 41–83.Google Scholar
  116. Pyne, S. 1999. The Dominion of Fire. Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy 14 (1): 6–14.Google Scholar
  117. Rathje, W.L. 1978. Archaeological Ethnography: Because Sometimes it is Better to Give Than to Receive. In Explorations in Ethnoarchaeology, ed. R.A. Gould, 49–76. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
  118. Ravn, M. 2011. Ethnographic Analogy from the Pacific: Just as Analogical as Any Other Analogy. World Archaeology 43 (4): 716–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Rouse, Irving. 1965. The Place of Peoples in Prehistoric Research. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 95 (1): 1–15.Google Scholar
  120. Saxe, A. 1970. Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.Google Scholar
  121. Schiffer, M.B. 1972. Archaeological Context and Systemic Context. American Antiquity 37 (2): 156–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. ———. 1978. Methodological Issues in Ethnoarchaeology. In Explorations in Ethnoarchaeology, ed. R.A. Gould, 229–247. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
  123. Schwartz, D.W. 1978. Forward. In Explorations in Ethnoarchaeology, ed. R.A. Gould, 229–247. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
  124. Shanks, M., and I. Hodder. 1995. Processual, Postprocessual and Interpretive Archaeologies. In Interpreting Archaeology, ed. I. Hodder, M. Shanks, A. Alexandri, V. Buchli, J. Carman, J. Last, and G. Lucas, 3–29. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  125. Shimray, Y.K. 1976. Tangkhul Language and Culture. In An Introduction to Tribal Language and Culture of Manipur (7 Tribes), ed. B.B. Singh, 1–30. Imphal: Manipur State Kala Akademi.Google Scholar
  126. Simms, S.R. 1992. Ethnoarchaeology: Obnoxious Spectator, Trivial Pursuit, or the Keys to a Time Machine? In Quandaries and Quests: Visions of Archaeologys Future, Occasional Paper No. 20, ed. L. Wandsnider, 186–198. Carbondale: Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University.Google Scholar
  127. Sinopoli, C.M. 1991. Seeking the Past Through the Present: Recent Ethnoarchaeological Research in South Asia. Asian Perspectives 30 (2): 177–192.Google Scholar
  128. Sollas, W.J. 1911. Ancient Hunters: and Their Modern Representatives. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  129. Spaulding, A.C. 1973. Archaeology in the Active Voice: the New Anthropology. In Research and Theory in Current Archaeology, ed. C.L. Redman, 337–354. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  130. Stahl, A.B. 1993. Concepts of Time and Approaches to Archaeological Reasoning in Historical Perspective. American Antiquity 58 (2): 235–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Stanislawski, M.B. 1978. If Pots Were Mortal. In Explorations in Ethnoarchaeology, ed. R.A. Gould, 201–228. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
  132. Stark, M. 1993. Re-fitting the “Cracked and Broken Façade”: The Case for Empiricism in Postprocessual Ethnoarchaeology. In Archaeological Theory: Who Sets the Agenda? ed. N. Yoffee and A. Sherratt, 93–104. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Stiebing, W.H., Jr. 1987. The Nature and Dangers of Cult Archaeology. In Cult Archaeology and Creationism: Understanding Pseudoscientific Beliefs About the Past, ed. B.H. Francis and A.E. Raymond, 1–11. Iowa: University of Iowa Press.Google Scholar
  134. Stiles, D. 1977. Ethnoarchaeology: A Discussion of Methods and Applications. Man (New Series) 12 (1): 87–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. ———. 2001. Hunter-Gatherer Studies – The Importance of Context. African Study Monographs (Suppl.) 26: 41–65.Google Scholar
  136. Thomas, D.H. 1972. A Computer Simulation Model of Great Basin Shoshonean Subsistence and Settlement Patterns. In Models in Archaeology, ed. D.L. Clarke, 671–704. London: Metheun.Google Scholar
  137. Trigger, B.G. 1989. A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  138. Tschauner, H. 1996. Middle Range Theory, Behavioural Archaeology, and Postempiricist Philosophy of Science in Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 3 (1): 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Tylor, E.B. 1865. Researches into the Early History of Mankind and the Development of Civilization. London: Murray.Google Scholar
  140. Vidyani, Kh., and M. ManiBabu. 2017. Archaeological Significances of the Potmaking Tradition of the Oinamee in Manipur (India). IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IOSR-JHSS) 22 (5, Ver. 8): 45–52. Scholar
  141. Walthall, J.A. 1999. Mortuary Behavior and Early Holocene Land Use in the North American Continent. North American Archaeologist 20 (1): 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Watson, P.J. 1979. The Idea of Ethnoarchaeology: Notes and Comments. In Ethnoarchaeology: Implications of Ethnography for Archaeology, ed. C. Kramer, 277–288. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  143. Watson, Richard A. 1990. Ozymandias, King of Kings: Postprocessual Radical Archaeology as Critique. American Antiquity 55 (4): 673–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Wattez, J. 1992. Dynamique de Formation des Structures de Combustion de la Fin du Pale’olithique au Ne’olithique Moyen. Paris: Universite de Paris I.Google Scholar
  145. Welinder, S. 1994. The Ethnoarchaeology of a Swedish Village. Current Swedish Archaeology 2: 195–208.Google Scholar
  146. White, J.P. 1967. Ethno-Archaeology in New Guinea: Two Examples. Man 6 (1): 409–414.Google Scholar
  147. Wiesner, J. 1938. Grab und Jenseits. Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann.Google Scholar
  148. Williams, Stephen. 1991. Fantastic Archaeology: The Wild Side of North America Prehistory. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  149. Wobst, H.M. 1978. The Archaeo-Ethnology of Hunter–Gatherers or the Tyranny of the Ethnographic Record in Archaeology. American Antiquity 43 (2): 303–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Wrangham, R.W., J.H. Jones, G. Laden, D. Pilbeam, and N.L. Conklin-Brittain. 1999. The Raw and the Stolen. Current Anthropology 40 (5): 567–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Wylie, A. 1982. An Analogy by Any Other Name Is Just as Analogical: A Commentary on the Gould-Watson Dialogue. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1 (4): 382–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. ———. 1985. The Reaction Against Analogy. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 8, ed. M. Schiffer, 3–108. Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  153. ———. 1988. “Simple” Analogy and the Role of Relevance Assumptions: Implications of Archaeological Practice. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 2 (2): 134–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mayanglambam ManiBabu
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyManipur UniversityImphalIndia

Personalised recommendations