Ethnoarchaeology and Experimental Archaeology Defined

Abstract

Ethnoarchaeology and experimental archaeology have become established subfields in archaeology; so much so that it is possible to be an archaeologist but spend little time excavating or analyzing materials from an archaeological site. During the inception of the modern era of ethnoarchaeology and experimental archaeology, which I place at the beginning of the “new archaeology,” there was an abundance of theoretical statements and attempts at defining the scope of these new subfields (see the papers in Donnan and Clewlow 1974a). Not since the work of Reid et al. (1975) and Tringham (1978), however, has there been a discussion, from a theoretical perspective, of what comprises ethnoarchaeology and experimental archaeology and how they interrelate. There is certainly a need, especially in experimental archaeology, for a refinement of definitions and a discussion of how each subfield relates to the primary objective of archaeology—understanding the relationships between human behavior and material objects. From the perspective of having participated in both ethnoarchaeology and experimental archaeology, I provide working definitions of each subfield. I argue that ethnoarchaeology and experimental archaeology pursue the same archaeological objective (see Reid et al. 1975) but that they can be contrasted by the manner in which they control variables and the data each subfield analyzes. I also argue that combining ethnoarchaeology and experimental archaeology has the greatest potential for examining issues of archaeological importance. A case study is used to demonstrate this strategy and the insights it can provide.