Deposited in DRO:
22 January 2013
Version of attached ﬁle:
Peer-review status of attached ﬁle:
Citation for published item:
Garrow, D. and Yarrow, T. (2010) ’Archaeology and anthropology : understanding similarity, exploring diﬀerence.’, Oxford: Oxbow.
Further information on publisher’s website:
http://www.oxbowbooks.com/bookinfo.cfm/ID/87549 Publisher’s copyright statement: Additional information: Sample chapters deposited. Chapter 1: ’Introduction : archaeological anthropology’ by Duncan Garrow and Thomas Yarrow, pp. 1-12. Chapter 2: ’Not knowing as knowledge: asymmetry between archaeology and anthropology’ by Thomas Yarrow, pp. 13-27.
The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-proﬁt purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.
Durham University Library, Stockton Road, Durham DH1 3LY, United Kingdom Tel : +44 (0)191 334 3042 — Fax : +44 (0)191 334 2971 http://dro.dur.ac.uk
2. Not Knowing as Knowledge: asymmetry between archaeology and anthropology Thomas Yarrow
Asymmetry This paper explores the widespread understanding that archaeology and anthropology exist in an asymmetrical relationship to one another characterized by an archaeological theoretical ‘trade deficit’. While the paper questions the basis on which this asymmetry has been imagined, it explores the effects that this has had. Through examining how archaeologists and anthropologists have historically imagined the relationship between these disciplines, the article sets out to understand the implications of this asymmetry for both. Rather than seek to redress this asymmetry, it demonstrates how asymmetry has in fact been archaeologically productive, leading to an explicitness about archaeological procedures and their limits and concomitantly to an openness to other disciplinary insights. On the other hand, for anthropologists the perception of asymmetry simultaneously arises from and leads to assumptions that have foreclosed certain lines of enquiry, relating to a disciplinary narrowing of horizons.
In the introduction to An Ethnography of the Neolithic, Chris Tilley starts by describing an archaeological fantasy that is revealing of wider assumptions both about the kinds of knowledge that archaeologists and anthropologists produce and about the relationships between these disciplines:
I have sometimes imagined what it might be like to be transported back into the past in a time capsule, to arrive somewhere in Sweden during the Neolithic and to be able to observe what was really going on, stay for a couple of years and then return to the late twentieth century and write up my ethnography. I have thought how much richer, fuller and more sophisticated the account would be. I would actually know who made and used the pots and axes, what kind of kinship system existed, how objects were exchanged and by whom, the form and nature of ethnic boundaries, the details of initiation rites, the meaning of pot designs and the significance of mortuary ceremonies. (Tilley, 1996: 1)
Tellingly, whilst such archaeological fantasies of time-travel are common, the corresponding fantasy does not seem to capture the anthropological imagination: anthropologists, to my knowledge, do not often fantasize about the possibility of travelling forwards in time and viewing their own field-sites through the material remains of the people who once lived there. Why might this be? My suggestion is that the asymmetry is indicative of a wider perception,...