Armchair Archaeology

South African Archaeological Society

Armchair ArchaeologyAuthor(s): Roger SummersSource: The South African Archaeological Bulletin, Vol. 5, No. 19 (Sep., 1950), pp. 101-104Published by: South African Archaeological SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3886527 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 10:19

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

South African Archaeological Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toThe South African Archaeological Bulletin.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.55 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 10:19:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=saas

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3886527?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


101

Armchair Archaeology By ROGER SUMMERS,

Rhodesia Museum, Bulawayo

The adjective " armchair" when applied to any science is usually one of scorn, and conjures up a vision of a lazy gentleman, too tired or faint-hearted to put his theories to the test of experiment. In like manner an armchair archaeologist is conceived to be a dilettante who spins fine theories from inadequate facts and never rolls up his sleeves to do any fieldwork himself. He is, you may think, like the seventeenth-century gentleman who ascribed stone implements to "an admixture of a certain exhalation of thunder and lightning with metallic matter, chiefly in dark clouds, which is coagulated by the circumfused moisture and conglutinated into a mass (like flour with water) and subsequently indurated by heat, like a brick."l

My object in this paper is to point out the necessity of armchair work and to remind you that ill-digested fieldwork can be as troublesome to the body of archaeological studies as is indigestion in other spheres. In so doing, I merely underline Mr. Goodwin's plea made two years ago for more consideration of archaeological theory.2

We have at our disposal many articles made by man, stone and metal tools and weapons, household utensils, ornaments and buildings, and of course skeletal material, but these alone tell us prac- tically nothing. Often people will bring some artefact into the Museum and ask what it is, adding the invariable rider as to its age. Sometimes they get a satis- factory answer-but it is not the object itself which provides the answer, rather it is a knowledge of many hundreds of similar artefacts examined and discussed in papers and books and studied in rela- tion to other aspects of human activity ill the past.

I cannot emphasise too strongly that by itself a single object tells us nothing of how man lived; all we can do is to argue by analogy, by a knowledge of the physical environment in which the arte-

fact was used, and by a comparison of the object in question with those used by primitive people nowadays or in the very recent past. Even more emphatically is this true of dating: apart from coins and plate, dated inscriptions and documents, we cannot tell the date of any one artefact from itself, whether it be the fountain-pen in my pocket or a hand- axe from the Vaal gravels. All dating is an inductive process or, usually, a series of inductive processes.

A SOLID FOUNDATION OF FIELD-WORK

It is impossible to start " armchair" work without adequate material collected in the field or without a knowledge of the conditions under which the collection was made, but assuming these conditions to be fulfilled (possibly by the " armchair archaeologist " himself), let us see how we set to work to interpret field-work.

First, for what purpose are we using our finds? Are we seeking to arrange them in a sequence? Are we investigat- ing the technique of making stone implements? Are we trying to find out the antecedents of a particular type of pot? We may be doing all these things, but we must do something more, we must always use our material to see the man behind the tool and the woman behind the pot. As Dr. Grahame Clarke says, "Archae- ology . . . is the study of how men lived in the past."3

A bare century ago, when Archaeology was an entirely new subject, a great deal of attention was paid to typology, the arrangement of tools and weapons in classes more or less according to func- tion. This is still the basic method of classifying a prehistoric assemblage to- day, although we extend it to artefacts other than tools. Thus we make our first sorting of Stone Age material into cores, tools and debitage, then we break down the main classes into smaller ones, and so on. It sounds easy, but it is not



102

quite so simple as it appears at first sight, because prehistoric men worked as individuals, and there are many border- line cases amongst the tool types. This typological analysis has to be undertaken for each layer of the deposit and the results tabulated. Some people do this work in the field, but I am convinced that this is wrong; typological analysis demands concentration and a good light as well as clean specimens, and it is only in exceptional circumstances that these conditions can be obtained in the field.

MATERIALS AND TYPOLOGY

During sorting various problems of technique and raw material may begin to appear, and only by careful examina- tion will it be possible to provide some of the answers: questions about raw material may require geological knowledge beyond the archaeologist's ken, and the services of a geologist will be required.

The typology of the assemblage must now be compared with many others. This entails a great deal of reference to and knowledge of published material not only in one's own country, but in adjoin- ing areas. One must always bear in mind the principle that one should first seek for parallels close at hand before looking further afield.

By comparing the assemblage with others we obtain some idea of its cultural affinities: it may be that a Stone Age assemblage found in Rhodesia is almost identical with one from East Africa, or shows only slight differences from one in the Union or P.E.A. These other assemblages may have been the subjects of deeper study than we can give, perhaps the geological data are more easily interpreted elsewhere, perhaps the other assemblages are larger, and so on. It may be possible to interpret our assemblage in the light of what has been found elsewhere, but we must always look to the differences, for if these differences appear to signify a deep-seated cultural distinction, then we ought to be very wary of comparing the two assemblages.

Sometimes we must look beyond Africa for our comparative material, but the further afield we go for such material the more carefully we must examine the differences. As Dr. Leakey has recently pointed out in the Bulletin, the presence of the same type of unworked flake in differing assemblages in South Africa or Western Europe does not imply any cultural connection between the two. We ought therefore to beware of calling these cultures by the same or similar names, otherwise we shall imagine that both sets of people lived in the same way and were closely related.4

WAYS AND MEANS

This method of comparative typology is the only archaeological technique available in Stone Age context, but more about the environment can be learned from a consideration of the deposit from which the implements come. This, how- ever, is a geological problem, and I do not propose to go into any details about it. Nevertheless, given a knowledge of the probable climate and the types of tool used, we can begin to see something of the life which Stone Age Man lived. The picture is, of course, very incom- plete, and we are possibly wrong in assuming that the people of the Stone Age, particularly in its later phases, were necessarily very simple folk-we do not know how they talked or thought or organised their life, and so can have but a very partial idea of how they lived.

So far we have been considering methods which can be applied to the Earlier and Middle Stone Ages in Southern Africa (roughly corresponding to the Lower and Middle palaeolithic in Europe). These Stone Age cultures lasted for such long periods that in the course of time the people practising them wan- dered all over Southern Rhodesia and far to the south, showing scarcely any change of culture. In later periods cultures seem to have changed more rapidly, so we can employ other methods for analysing our information. One of the most powerful is the distribution map. This is a map on which the find-spots of a particular type of artefact are plotted;



103

it may be a ware of pottery, a special sort of weapon or even some type of building. The find-spots may form a pattern which can be accounted for by the physical features of the country, the river valleys, soils or a certain type of stone, but they may, and often do, form a pattern which can be interpreted as following a trade or migration route. Such a map, if backed by adequate knowledge, will give much important information. It is useful to think that in many instances it can make use of odd facts which would otherwise be of little use. For instance, I should doubt the stratigraphy which a junior school child claimed to have found, but if she should bring in a boxful of pottery found on such and such a farm, I could quite safely record this on my distribution map, because I could identify the pottery, and the only information required from the child would be the name of the farm on which the sherds were found.

Comparatire typology is just as important in studying the later periods as it is in dealing with the earlier ones, but owing to the complexity of such things as Neolithic, Bronze and Iron Age assemblages, local differences make it impossible to extend our comparisons in Europe over such wide areas. THE ETHNOGRAPHIC APPROACH

The greatest help in interpreting the way of life of these later cultures comes from comparative ethnography, and we who work in Africa should be grateful for the opportunities for first-hand study of our natives which we enjoy and which are denied to our European colleagues.

In Southern Africa no trace of a Bronze or Copper Age has been found nor has there appeared a true Neolithic culture-as distinct from odd "Neolithic elements ". We seem to pass directly from Late Stone Age cultures to a fully developed Iron Age. We can find traces of the earliest Southern Rhodesia Iron Age culture in some of the existing native cultures, both here and in North- ern Rhodesia. These help us to interpret some of the more difficult traits, particularly the very odd clay figurines which we find from time to time. Native

traditions and legends are another source of help, but I personally will not accept this type of oral evidence unless I can get some archaeological confirmation. Since the collection of native traditions calls for very special technique, the archaeologist is usually unable to undertake this work. Furthermore, so much of the native material culture has been replaced by store-goods that we are partly dependent on ethnographical records for much comparative material. Conse- quently, much comparative ethnography is an "armchair" study which requires a well-stocked library and a card-index mind for its successful prosecution. OTHER SCIENCES

Botanical and metallurgical studies are also helpful, but these are the work of independent specialists, so we need do no more than mention them. Finally, " armchair" work, though not apparently arduous, takes a great deal of time and involves the expenditure of more energy than many people would think. It may be of some interest to draw attention to Mr. Goodwin's remarks on the time taken for publication: " I consider that two to five years of deliberation, research, reading and comparison is the minimum necessary to study a new or major problem. For simpler problems . . . a year of digestion, constant handling of the material and comparable series, is needed."5

You will see therefore how necessary it is, not only to undertake "armchair" analysis and research, but to give oneself a breathing space (whilst resting in one's armchair or, more probably, finishing off some other job) before embarking on the exhausting task of publishing one's find- ings: a preliminary report is useful, but it can never tell the whole story. (1) Quoted in Daniel, G. E.: "A Hun-

dred Years of Archaeology" (p. 26). London, 1950.

(2) Goodwin, A. J. H.: South African Prehistory in the War Years, Man 1948, 143.

(3) Clarke, Grahame: Archaeology and Society (p. 1). London, 1939.

(4) Leakey, L. S. B.: Terminology in Prehistory. S. Af. Arch. Bull., vol. V, No. 17 (1950).

(5) Goodwin, A. J. H.: Method in Pre- history (p. 166), Cape Town, 1945.



104

PLATE REFERENCES Plate VII A. NACHIKUFAN I. NACHIKUFU CAVES. MPIKA DISTRICT.

No. 1: Bipolar core, chert. Nos. 2-12: Diminutive backed blades and

crescents in crystalline quartz and chert.

No. 13: Short end-or round-scraper --quartzite.

Nos. 14-15: Micro-drills-the point of No. 15 worn smooth by rotation. Black fine-grained siliceous rock.

No. 16: Double-backed microlith. Chert? No. 17: Side-scraper, quartzite.

Plate VII B. NACHIKUFAN I. NACHIKUFU CAVES. MPIKA DISTRICT. Nos. 1-3: Small bored stones, No. 2 a re-

bored fragment. Possibly for use as knobkerrie heads. Chlorite mica-schist ferruginous mica-schist, fine-grained mica-schist.

No. 4: Bored stone in blue phyllite, probably for use as a digging-stick weight.

Plate VIII. NACHIKUFAN II. NACHIKUFU CAVES. MPIKA DISTRICT. Nos. 1-7: Large tranchet microliths in

the form of trapezes, triangles and U- shaped. Cloudy and crystalline quartz.

No. 8: Bipolar core in crystalline quartz. No. 9: Serrated round scraper. Cloudy

quartz. No. 10: Transverse, straight angle-burin.

Black fine-grained siliceous rock. Nos. 11-12: Pseudo-disc cores in crystal-

line quartz. No. 13: Polished stone adze-blade, in blue

phyllite.

No. 14: Borer-chert. No. 15: Micro-drill-chert. No. 16: Backed microlith. Crystalline

quartz. No. 17: Bone awl. Nos. 18-21: Strangulated, waisted and

hollow scrapers of Smithfield " N " type. Cloudy quartz, chert, and siliceous ironstone.

No. 22: Awl-chert.

Plate IX A. NACHIKUFAN II. NACHIKUFU CAVES. MPIKA DISTRICT. No. 1: Bored stone digging-stick weight.

Ferruginous mica-schist. No. 2: Bored stone: knobkerrie head.

Fine-grained schist. Nos. 3 and 4: Pecked and polished stone

axes, of sub-rectangular form. Fine- grained schist and rotten basalt.

No. 5: End- and side-scraper-basalt. No. 6: Reimer for making bored stones.

Fine-grained schist. No. 7: Side-scraper-quartzite. No. 8: Rubber with dimple-scarring on

both faces for use as an anvil with the bipolar technique-quartz.

Plate IX B. NACHIKUFAN III. NACHIKUFU CAVES. MPIKA DISTRICT.

No. 1: Sherd of red paste with impressed, perhaps also comb, decoration, from a thickish pot with simple rolled-over rim.

No. 2: Sherds from a thin-walled, semi- circular pot or bowl of dark brown paste, undecorated except for a line below the rim.

Plate X. NACHIKUFAN III. NACHIKUFU CAVES. MPIKA DISTRICT.

No. 1: Fragment of bored stone-mica- schist.

No. 2: Pecked and polished stone axe fine-grained mica-schist.

No. 3: Tap-borer or awl-chert. No. 4: Waisted scraper of Smithfield "N"

type-chert. No. 5: Quartz pebble ground flat and

smooth round the circumference to

form a flattish cylinder. Probably a lip plug of the type formerly used by the East Luangwa tribes (Chewa, Nsenga, etc.).

No. 6: Polished oblate of bone with trace of pigment at lower end. Perhaps a second form of lip plug.

Nos. 7-11: Microlithic crescents. Cloudy and crystalline quartz.

I am indebted to Dr. G. Bond, of the National Museum of Southern Rhodesia, for the provisional identification of the materials used, and to Nigel Watt, of the Informa- tion Department, Lusaka, for the photographs of the implements here reproduced.



PLATE VIIA

*

* i

E i /

. s

.

8'

: : .

p.:

# f: E > ,

SE | /e

X f

: E: : Eys: :*

* . i::: : _ s + : e. .

* s 4> < f i > D E v: i i r AlF

i- f) ,7 ::, ."Sgsf i V y 'S:

e i* ' i r '.fi v i iCv A @ 'SigUZi 8 C%:; 0: t'N i*e'>2i l

Z + 0 f; i . i,;. g | :.>f.' > . . iq8 | |

'Si: D ;7.4& ? i

:: d4004; ^00 0't- 0 ' '' t ' :7: .. 7:6,: . :y;*

6' : i @

8, N + ;'gf -- o .B :: i- > S 3 :: ' :B ' s E 4 *Xe :::: : .... :. s x

> .- < vN :. <::: .--:uav ,*<7- :''::::. ,, . :: iS .**.7 ? ' iRi, *>.:

i i . ? vgy><f t S:: .E ;S

:.:.:. .,,: ,*i*Ef8::8 ::x, ::i0. x: , - ::::: .... : : Min:: .... :

': ziR x v: -2?f.s .'8.f-E: :: S: i :: iSi :G: ii: :e::#i.:+ . ,i#. :. .2 :

t v t; :EU ::,; S1 ';: j:;89 **, t: :i: i jf?,

g 3; 0 B>;t 'oS i- 8^ v,,,X.,g',;B82' : sx >> ' f,- S

- - - yS ? :ie 7 i -- 7 X,,-N , :,*,.- 7 i:N > ii-., ' . "i'S.>- S E i hfXy''t

* 8 i i-Ssg .:::. : : . :::: >: :::.E Ei. :: .: ,x.: a8

* : i::: ::E :, ::y :ELE- ::

K '-. tyyis. < f f i .; S8g; ;. <'iB; i 8W;e: i G :s a. :jj&>8> y s

* i . s .c R: 7 :v i :i

s a:: ::* : . -::: :: ::

_ s t. 7 s i ys ::^ .: t

_ : ,*, >, .. ,

_ ::: 4*,:: ' _ .: 8: . '' > v Se: 7 .

PLATE VIIB



PLATE VIII



PLATE IXA

0 1 2 1

I NS

A_ ~ ~ PAE X



to IS,

Or

xf

":rot

Ak.

PLATE X



Documents

Armchair Archaeology