Archaeological Theory and Anthropological Fact

Abstract

As W. H. Holmes pointed out in 1905, our archaeological investigations need to be “supplemented by the rich materials derived from the study of the living peoples.“1 In accordance with this line of thought, I have tried to correlate some findings of archaeology and ethnology in relation to the small but controversial archaeological problem of fetishes and toys. The clay figurines and miniature pots illustrated in Plate XII were made as toys by contemporary Navaho children living in the region between the Chaco and Blanco Canyons, New Mexico. The toys represent two women with the characteristic Navaho skirts and headdresses, three miniature vessels (a handled mug, round-bottomed cooking vessel, and crude dish), and thirteen animals, including two dogs, a sheep, ram, mare, donkey, two horses, a cow, chicken, buck, and two goats. The faces of the women have been pinched to suggest a nose but otherwise they are featureless. One dog, the sheep, cow, two horses, and one of the goats have black glass beads for eyes.

Miniature in Everything but Meaning: A Contextual Analysis of Miniature Vessels at Homol'ovi I

“…High-quality miniature vessels and figurines have been identified in Minoan, Mississippian, and Southwest assemblages (Carey 2006; Kamp 2001; Tournavitou 2009). The care put into the construction of these objects has led researchers to argue for their ritual importance; however, expediently manufactured vessels or vessels appropriated from children may also serve as offerings or grave goods (e.g., Bullen 1947; Sillar 2016). Miniature vessels have been recovered in burial contexts throughout the world (e.g., Holmes 1903; Jackson 1992; Martin 1991; Park 1998) and are commonly encountered as votive offerings or dedications (e.g., Barfoed 2015; Tournavitou 2009).…”

“…Miniature vessels often exhibit lower levels of technical expertise than larger ceramics, suggesting they were constructed by novices, likely children (Crown 1999, 2001, 2002; Kamp 2001; Kamp et al 1999). Additionally, the use of miniatures as toys has been observed by ethnographers (Bullen 1947; Hough 1918).…”

“…Less proficient miniature vessels are often interpreted as the byproduct of learning activities (Crown 1999, 2001, 2002, 2014; Kamp 2001; Kamp et al 1999). Alternatively, if miniature vessels were produced by adults for children's play/enculturation (e.g., Bullen 1947; Park 1998), the production quality may be high, closely mimicking full-sized versions. When objects ended their use life as toys, they were likely to be discarded in domestic or midden areas of a village; miniature vessels have been recovered from domestic contexts in India (Menon and Varma 2010) and Iron Age Iberia (López-Bertran and Vives-Ferrándiz 2015).…”

“…While these ceramic forms are able to hold small quantities of material, suggesting their function may be closely tied to larger ceramic forms (Blinman 1988:461; Foxhall 2015:2), the reason for their reduced size is debated. Southwest literature variously identifies these forms as individual serving vessels, grave offerings, ritual/votive objects, children's toys, or vessels produced by novices (e.g., Bagwell 2002; Bullen 1947; Clark 1967; Crown 2001, 2007; Kamp 2001).…”

Archaeology’s quest for a seat at the high table of anthropology

“…Ethnologists and archaeologists alike identiWed anthropology (or ethnology) as the gold standard to which archaeology should aspire (Bennett, 1943;Steward and Setzler, 1938;Taylor, 1948). Further, during the Wrst half of the twentieth century many ethnologists and archaeologists examined the relationship between ethnology and archaeology (e.g., Bullen, 1947;Parsons, 1940;Strong, 1936). Ethnological and archaeological methods were distinct, their data were distinct, but problems and solutions were similar-they were anthropological.…”