ARHEOLOQIJA UN ETNOGRAFIJA.- RIGA, 2011.-25. LAID.

Ole Gr"n

ETHNOARCHAEOLOGY IN DENMARK - A VERY PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

This paper investigates two themes and the relation between them, 1) the introduction and development of the use of ethnographic analogies in Danish prehistoric archaeology in the 19th century, where Denmark held a leading position, and 2) the extremely restrictive approach to ethnographic analogies one finds in Denmark in the 20th century.

Keywords: ethnoarchaeology, archaeology, ethnography, analogy, comparative.

INTRODUCTION

I had two reasons for initiating an investiga­tion into the development of ethnoarchaeology in Denmark. Firstly, I found it embarrassing to be confronted with students thinking that Bin­ford "invented" ethnoarchaeology. Apparently, there is a need for elucidation of the develop­ments which, already in the 19th century, led to a highly qualified debate concerning the use of "ethnographic analogy" in archaeological interpre­tation.

Denmark was included in an early Scandina­vian awareness of the importance of ethnography for archaeology, as well as being the country where modern principles for the organisation of the archaeological record into Stone Age, Bronze Age and Iron Age were first introduced.

Secondly, after having been engaged in eth­noarchaeology for many years, I found it strange in retrospect that ethnoarchaeological thinking was more or less banned in Danish archaeology at the time when I was a student during the 1970s and 1980s. After the Second World War, Danish Stone Age/hunter-gatherer archaeology boasted a strong research community with considerable experience of arctic hunter-gatherer societies (Helge Larsen, Therkel Mathiassen, ]0rgen Mel­dgard, ]0rgen Troels-Smith, Kaj Birket-Smith, P. V. Glob, etc.) . They could have contributed

235

significantly to the development of ethnoarchae­ology, but compared to their Norwegian and Swedish colleagues they seemed paralysed by a general perception that ethnographic/social-an­thropological data and archaeological thinking should be kept separate. Other researchers who actually did work in the interdisciplinary arc­haeological/ ethnological/ social-anthropological field (e.g. Axel Steens berg and Grith Lerche) appeared marginalised in relation to the "cen­tral" archaeological environments of the time. Gudmund Hatt had died in 1960, ostracised by the National Museum, following a brilliant in­ternational interdisciplinary archaeological-eth­nographical carreer, because of his extreme right­wing points of view during the Second World War. Margrethe Hald could still be met at the National Museum like a dinosaur from another world.

Binford and other representatives of the new developments in archaeology in other parts of the world were accepted as guest lecturers even though we, as students, were expected to maintain a focus on typology or other less flimsy aspects of archaeology. I wanted to understand more clearly why the situation in Denmark had changed so dramatically from the early glorious days and I also wanted to gain a more precise understanding of the development and character of the early ethnoarchaeological debate.

BACKGROUND

Exotic and uncivilised ("wild") cultures had a strong presence in the awareness of the educated public during the 18th and 19th centuries. Travel accounts developed into a popular literary genre and an increasing number of "ethnographies" were published. The first systematic ethnography at all - based on missionaries' reports - was publis­hed in 1760 by Jens Kraft, a professor in mathe­matics and physics at Sor0 Academy in Denmark. The Swede Sven Nilsson's first version of his eth­nographically-based understanding of prehistoric societies (studied by "comparative ethnography" -as he later put it - with a classification into three stages based on socio-economic factors) appeared in 1835. Both of these events reveal that uncivili­sed society was of central concern in Scandinavian society {Jensen 1992:190f.; Kraft 1760; Nilsson 1835; 1838-43; 1862-66, vol. 1: 22.) . Translation of these works into German as well as, in the case of Nilsson's Stone Age volume, into English (edited

.ftort

~ortrelning

~ttbifb~ous fllmemmttlt

3nbrctninger, 6fiffe og roleninger,

til

01){t)5ntng af bet mtnneftdtgt~

.Oprinbrl fc cg 3rcmgang t ~lminbelfg~tb.

m~~

3en~ straft,

6oret, 1 7 6 o. 'lmtt (los ~ 0 II Q e £i 11 tlg r t n, M ~ibtlttligt

%atltmir~ ~oglrQft,r.

and with introduction by Sir John Lubbock) and French, demonstrates their importance for the international audience at that time {Kraft 1761; Nilsson 1865- 68; 1868a; 1868b).

Nilsson was basically a zoologist and had, during his student years, been fascinated by the French palaeontologist Cuvier's comparative method which had brought about a revolution in the understanding of the development of the fauna through time (e.g. Cuvier 1817; Hegardt 1997; Nilsson 1862- 66, vol. 1: 22) . Nilsson's great achievement in archaeology was to transfer the comparative approach to this field of study and thus introduce a consequent use of ethnographic analogy (Hegardt 1997; Nilsson 1835).

C. J. Thomsen was very aware of the importance of ethnographic analogy for archaeology. Despite their disagreements, he and Nilsson were friends and there was continuous discussion between them (Nilsson 1862- 66, vol. 1: II, V, 20, 53; Jensen 1992, 131). Leading Danish prehistoric debate out of the "endless old-Nordic desert" of more or less

[)it eJitten

~tlbtn, aur Wuftfdtung

br5 Urfprung5 unb ~ufna~me

be~ imen f~Oeit,

3en5 .iraft, 4fllofi9ta t6algl. ~- !)ujli'r~ •• qlroftfet

ocr 84*'"111 lid •U•ftftic ai ter ~ tfanllic II etlic.

.«o.,en~agen,

~n btr Wtummifd><n ~"~"nblun, J 7 6 6.

Fig. 1. The Danish and the German versions of the world's first systematic ethnography written by Jens Kraft, who was a professor in mathematics and philosophy at Sor0 Academy, Denmark

236

problematic interpretations of the surviving lite­rary sources, Thomsen saw archaeology as being mainly related to natural history with "ethno­graphy forming a bridge between natural history and history': Already in his Ledetrad til Nordisk Oldkyndighed (Guide to Northern Archaeology), staking out his three-period system, he stresses the similarities between Stone Age Cultures and living "wild" cultures (Thomsen & Petersen 1836, 58). In 1846, he states that "just like a new scientific study-branch was opened when awareness was focussed on comparative anatomy so is the com­parative archaeology now winning acceptance. It has been overseen that the same cultural level and not too different climatic conditions leads humans to use the same means to fulfil their needs. Neither has the cultural development in the later period been very different in the different countries, even though at different times". The latter part of this statement expresses his experience of dia­chronous cultural developments in different areas which practically allow a person in one area to see their own culture during the past in another. A display case containing ethnographic objects was placed in the archaeological exhibition and the Ethnographical Collection was planned, from an early stage, "to give indications of the course of the gradual development of the different nations partly also in the more distant prehistory" (Jensen 1992, 313, 351).

In the second half of the 19th century, Europe­an archaeology was hit by a wave of interest in comparative archaeology and ethnography (Jensen 1992, 350). Sir John Lubbock's book from 1865, Pre-Historic Times (Lubbock 1865), was probably the most influential of this genre. Central figures at the National Museum in Copenhagen, such as Worsaae and Bahnson, were clearly supportive of this development (Bahnson 1882; 1887; 1894, vol. 1 XX; Worsaae 1879). Worsaae, in his book Danmarks Oldtid (The Primeval Antiquities of Denmark) published in 1843, underlines the im­portance of comparison with ethnographic data (Worsaae 1843, 7, 10, 15, 16, 20).

The Danish archaeological literature of the 20th century is bursting with ethnographical analogies. Vedel uses information from the American Indi­ans to estimate how rapidly cultural traditions can be expected to change significantly in prehistoric societies (Vedel1870, 58). The hafting and use of axes, knives, arrowheads etc. by "primitive" cul­tures fascinated scholars engaged in archaeology. Lund reports from Brazil on hafting and use of stone axes (Lund 1838). Sehested was fascinated by the hafting of prehistoric implements and he

237

dedicates four pages of his first publication of the systematic investigation of the archaeology of his own estate to show examples of ethnographic and preserved archaeological hafting. His second, posthumous, volume contains the report of his practical experiments involving the building of a wooden cottage using copies of Neolithic flint axes (Sehested 1878, 27-35; 1884, 2-40).

ANALYSIS

In order to obtain a more precise impression of developments, a statistical analysis was carried out, at selected intervals, of the content of the central archaeological journal, Aarb"'ger for Nordisk Old­kyndighed og Historie, extending back from 1975 to 1866, all volumes of its predecessor Annaler for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie back to 1838 and before that Nordisk Tidsskrift for Oldkyndighed back to 1832.

The articles included in the analysis were those dealing with prehistoric archaeology. Linguistic, historical and medieval studies and discussions not involving prehistoric archaeology were excluded.

Back until1866, five-year windows of Aarb"'ger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie were analy­sed, separated by ten-year intervals: 1975- 71, 1960-56, 1945-41, 1930- 26, 1915-11, 1900- 1896, 1881-85, 1870-66. Prior to the two-year hiatus that separates this series from Annaler for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie the intervals analysed were: 1863-59, 1858-46 and 1845-36. Finally, the three volumes of Nordisk Tidsskrift for Oldkyndig­hed were analysed together, covering the interval from 1836 to 1832.

For each time interval, the percentage of pre­historic archaeological articles employing analo­gies to recent "primitive" cultures or to traditional features of modern society was calculated. For instance: Engelhardt's comparison of the prehis­toric Nydam Ship with the Norwegian wooden fishing vessels of Nordland-boat type, still in use at the time, or the interpretation of bone objects as prehistoric skates on the basis of the contemporary use of a similar type in Iceland (Engelhardt 1866; Falbe & Magnusen 1837).

The three volumes published during the first interval, 1832-36, contain no use of ethnograp­hical analogies whatsoever. Their content reflects the developing conflict between, on the one hand, contributions from historians mainly interested in the study of written sources, including runic stones, and, on the other hand, brief and concise archaeological accounts giving priority to objects

Sv•n Nll••on 1838 - Fl,..t veralon printed ,,., a few ooplea onl y M•ln dl•trlbut.lon in Europ• 1 888.

70% r---------------------~

60%

50%

30%

20%

10%

O'lo 1832 1836 1846 1859 1866

-1836 -1845 -1858 -1863 -1870 I-2:3 I-... 1• 19 Ia8 I-21

1881 -1885

1898 · 1900

1911 -1915

1926 -1930

---------

1941 -1945

1956 -1980

1971 -1975

1830 1840 1850 1860 187o 1880 1890 1goo 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980

Fig. 2. The relative percentages of prehistoric archaeological articles, published during the period 1832-1975 in the central Danish archaeological journal, employing ethnographic analogies. The important publications in early

ethnoarchaeology are shown in the figure. They can be identified from the references

from everyday life in prehistory and ambitions of a closer relation with natural history (Thomsen & Petersen 1836, 27-28; Jensen 1992, 313; Wiell 2001; Worsaae 1869).

The subsequent intervals, 1836- 45 and 1846-58, reflect the sharply increasing interest in eth­nography that Thomsen refers to in a letter to his friend Vedel Simonsen in 1851. Of his suc­cess with his Ethnographical Museum, he writes: "I can ensure that when I eight years ago planned the Ethnographical Museum no human being discussed or thought of ethnography, and now it is swarming with writings about ethnographical conditions that are furthermore being expanded and included in history and what do I know -especially in Germany - so that I must smile." (Jensen 1992, 350).

The first appearances of Sven Nilsson's ideas in print (Nilsson 1935; 1838-43), together with the widespread distribution of Thomsen's Guide to Northern Archaeology in Danish, German and En­glish, which promoted similar ideas (Thomsen & Petersen 1836; 1837; 1848), and, accordingly, the publication in several languages of Worsaae's The Primeval Antiquities of Denmark ( 1843; 184 7; 1849)

238

seem, in the period's environment of developing nationalism, to have found resonance across a wide geographical area.

The intervals 1859-63 and 1866-70 show a significant peak, the latter having slightly more than 50% of all prehistoric archaeological articles employing ethnographical analogies - not all of which are equally well chosen. Ethnographical analogies had apparently become fashionable in archaeology. The first interval represents a relati­vely small sample size but it has been kept separate because it seems to indicate that the increased in­terest in and acceptance of ethnographical analogy reflected in the second interval started prior to the publication of Sir John Lubbock's book Prehistoric Times (Lubbock 1865). Further work might reveal whether this development was driven by supply or demand.

The next interval, 1881- 85, is interesting as it shows an abrupt decline which appears unparal­leled by developments in neighbouring countries. It is also significant in that it is related to an in­tense and systematic discussion of the exact poten­tial of ethnographical analogy in archaeology. In 1879, in a major article entitled "From the Stone-

and Bronze Age in the Old and the New World. Archaeological-Ethnographical comparisons", Worsaae discusses the increasing and confusing complexity of the incoming archaeological and ethnographical data and advocates the develop­ment of a new basic principle of organisation for this "chaotic mass" (Worsaae 1879). In 1882, Bahnson publishes a systematic study of "burial customs with the American Peoples" as a basis for the interpretation of archaeologically excavated burials in Denmark. This was followed in 1887 by a comprehensive article on ethnographical muse­ums, discussing their basic function of elucidating the stages of human development that "history leaves in silence" and, on this basis, reviewing vari­ous ethnographical museums in other countries (Bahnson 1882; 1887).

The brilliant countermove was a comprehen­sive paper published in 1884 by Sophus Muller, later Director of the Danish National Museum, "Smaller Contributions to the Method of the Pre­historic Archaeology". In this, Muller discusses archaeological methodology and, in particular, goes into detail with regard to different aspects of the use of ethnographical analogy in archaeology. He does this at a level that in its methodological approach - apart from time-related differences in terminology - matches recent contributions to this discussion: For instance Gould & Watson's "A Dialogue on the Meaning and Use of Analogy in Ethnoarchaeological Reasoning" (Gould & Watson 1982; Mi.iller 1884).

Mi.iller is brilliant, but he is also bitter as a result of bad experiences during his time study­ing linguistics. He is very territorial on behalf of archaeology and not happy about too much "inter­disciplinary" activity blurring the confines of ar­chaeology (Stine Wiell, personal communication). His conclusion is, therefore, generally negative apart from stating that ethnographical analogies may, in his opinion, be useful in relation to the most primitive types of culture. He is not adverse in principle to the use of ethnographical analogy and actually makes use of ethnographical informa­tion himself in his archaeological interpretations on a couple of occasions (e.g. MUller 1896; 1900a; 1900b). He also makes a couple of brief mentions of the importance of ethnographical informa­tion for archaeology in his book celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Danish National Museum (Mi.iller 1907). However, this demonstration of a positive attitude to the archaeological use of eth­nographical analogies may well have been an act of kindness to Worsaae, whom he respected pro­foundly (Stine Wiell, personal communication).

239

Fig. 3. Sophus Muller

The prevailing idea prior to the carrying out of this analysis was that Sophus Mi.iller might well have had a negative impact on the early de­velopment of ethnoarchaeology. Figure 2 seems to confirm this to an unexpected degree. His effect seems to have been analogous to a bucket of cold water. He seems to have prompted a significant recession covering the whole of the period dur­ing which he was a central figure at the National Museum. This extended from being awarded his PhD in 1880 until he retired from the position of Director in 1921, covering the two subsequent intervals which were analysed: 1896-1900 and 1911-15.

Following his death in 1921, a new increase can be seen in the percentage of articles employ­ing ethnographical analogies, in which Gudmund Hatt and Margrethe Hald played central roles. However, Sophus Muller, as probably the most influential person ever in Danish archaeology, had a long-lasting effect on his institution and the whole of the archaeological environment around it. This may be the reason that the use of ethno­graphical analogies fell to a zero again during the interval 1971-75, when Hatt and Hald were no longer central figures (Stine Wiell, personal com­munication) .

Precisely in the "New Archaeology" of the early 1970s an increased interest in "ethnoarchaeology" developed among a number of young archaeolo­gists as a protest against the typology-based and

positivist archaeological approach that reigned at universities and museums. However, this late de­velopment is beyond the scope of this preliminary investigation.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

It is obvious that the application of ethno­graphical analogies to archaeological interpreta­tion extends back to the 1830s and displays quite a dynamic development. Thomsen and Worsaae saw it as a means of strengthening the relationship with the natural sciences in the new orientation of antiquarian studies they advocated. However, they were probably also aware of its ability to relate dead archaeological objects to a living cultural context as a countermove to the lively descriptions provided by written sources.

As the use of ethnographical analogies faded out in Danish archaeology it is interesting to see

how "synthetic" cultures developed in archaeo­logical theory. These are cultures that, apart from the concrete details they reveal to the archaeolo­gist, tend to behave in accordance with a modern Western logic which, from an ethnographical! social anthropological perspective, appears rather suspicious: "The Single Grave culture", "the Funnel Beaker culture", "the Hallstatt culture" etc. Conse­quently, one very important role for ethnoarchae­ology is to provide information which can under­mine such unrealistic cultural constructions.

The sample used as the spine of this analysis represents the developments in a journal related to one central national institution and it will not be representative of development in other countries. Now we have let Binford off the hook as being the "creator" of ethnoarchaeology, it would be interest­ing to perform parallel studies in other countries which could elucidate interactions between the different geographical areas in the development of ethnoarchaeology.

REFERENCES

Bahnson, K., 1882. Gravskikke hos Amerikanske Folk. Aar­b0ger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie, 125- 218.

Bahnson, K., 1887. Ethnografiske Museer i Udlandet. Aarb0-ger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie, 171- 292.

Bahnson, K., 1894. Etnografien, vol. I. Copenhagen: Det Nordiske Forlag.

Cuvier, G., 1817. Essay on the Theory of the Earth . Edinburgh: James Ballantyne & Co.

Engelhardt, C., 1866. Nydamsbaden og Nordlandsbaden, en Sammenstilling mellem Oldtidsbaden og nogle Nu­tidsbade. Aarb0ger for Nordisk 0/dkyndighed og Historie, 197-206.

Falbe, C.T. & Magnusen, F., 1837. Beskrivelse over nogle mindre Fund af Mrerkelige Oldsager. Annaler for Nordisk 0/dkyndighed, 173- 175.

Gould, R.A. & Watson, P.J., 1982. A Dialogue on the Mean­ing and Use of Analogy in Ethnoarchaeological Rea­soning. journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 1, 355-381.

Hegardt, J., 1997. Relativ betydelse. Individualitet och totalitet i arkeologisk kulturteori. OPIA 12. Occasional papers in archaeology. Uppsala: Diss. Uppsala University.

Jensen, J.. 1992. Thomsens Museum. Historien om National­museet. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.

Kraft, J., 1760. Kart Fortcelling af de Vilde Folks fornemmeste Indretninger, Skikke og Meninger, til Oplysning af det menneskeliges Oprindelse og Fremgang i Almindelighed. Sor0, Denmark: Jonas Lindgren, det Ridderlige Akademis Bogtrykker.

Kraft, J., 1766. Die Sitten der Wilden, zur Aufkliirung des Ursprungs und Aufnahme der Menschheit. Copenhagen: Der Mummischen Buchhandlung.

Lubbock, J., 1865. Pre-Historic Times as Illustrated by Ancient Remains and the Manners and Customs of Modern Savages. London: Williams and Norgate.

Lund, P.W., 1839. Om de Sydamerikanske Vildes Steenoxer.

240

Annaler for Nordisk 0/dkyndighed, 159- 161. Miiller, S., 1884. Mindre Bidrag til den Forhistoriske Archreo­

logis Metode. Aarb0ger for Nordisk 0/dkyndighed og Hi­storie, 161-216.

Miiller, S., 1896. Nye Stenalders Former. Aarb0ger for Nordisk 0/dkyndighed og Historie, 303- 419.

Miiller, S., 1900. Oldtidens Plov. Aarb0ger for Nordisk 0/d­kyndighed og Historie, 203- 222.

Miiller, S., 1900. Vognaag til Trrekdyr. Aarb0ger for Nordisk 0/dkyndighed og Historie, 223- 234.

Miiller, S., 1907. Nationalmuseet hundrede aar efter Grund­Iceggelsen. Copenhagen: G.E.C. Gad.

Nilsson, S., 1835. Skandinavisk Fauna, 2nd edition, vol. 1. Foglarna. Lund, Sweden: Berlingska Boktryckeriet. The introduction contains his sketch for the later archaeologi­cal publications.

Nilsson, S., 1838- 43. Skandinaviska Nordens Ur-Indvdnare, ett forsok i komparativa Ethnografien och ett bidrag till mennoskosliigtets utvecklings historia. 3nd edition, 1838-43 - Forsta de/en (vol. 1), 1838-43 - Andra de/en (vol. 2). Lund, Sweden: Berlingska Boktryckeriet.

Nilsson, S., 1862-66. Skandinaviska Nordens Ur-Indvdnare, ett forsok i komparativa Ethnografien och ett bidrag till mennoskosliigtets utvecklings historia. 2nd edition, 1866 -vol. 1 Stendldern (the Stone Age), 1862- 64 - vol. 2 Bronsdl­dern (the Bronze Age). Stockholm, Sweden: P.A. Nordstedt & Soner.

Nilsson, S., 1865- 68. Die Ureinwohner des Scandinavischen Nordens. Ein Versuch in der comparativen Ethnographie und ein Beitrag zur Entwicklungsgeschichte des Menschen­geschlechtes. 1866 - vol. 1a Das Bronzealter (the Bronze Age), 1865 - vol. 1b Das Bronzealter - Nachtrag (the Bronze Age - Addition), 1868 Das Steinalter (the Stone Age). Hamburg: Otto Meissner.

Nilsson, S., 1868a. The Primitive Inhabitants of Scandinavia. An Essay on comparative Ethnography, and a contribution

to the History of the Development of Mankind: containing a Description of the Implements, Dwellings. Tombs, and Mode of Living of the Savages in the north of Europe during the Stone Age. London: Longmans, Green, and Co.

Nilsson, S., 1868b. Les Habitants Primitifs de Ia Scandinavie. Essai d'ethnographie compare. Materiaux pour server a l'histoire du developpement de l'homme. Paris: C. Rein­wald, Libraire-editeur.

Sehested, N.F.B. 1878. Fortidsminder og Oldsager fra Egnen om Broholm. Copenhagen.

Sehested, N.F.B. 1884. Archreologiske UndersfJgelser 1878-1881. Copenhagen.

Thomsen, C.]. & Petersen, N.M., 1836. Ledetrdd til Nordisk Oldkyndighed. Copenhagen: S.L.M0llers Bogtykkeri.

Thomsen, C.]. & Petersen, N.M., 1837. Leitfaden zur Nordischen Altertumskunde. Coopenhagen: S.L.M0llers Bogtykkeri.

Thomsen, C.]. & Petersen, N.M., 1848. Guide to Northern Archaeology. James Bain, London.

Vedel, E., 1870. Om de Bornholmske Brandpletter, Begravel­ser fra den JEldre Jernalder. Aarbf'ger for Nordisk Oldkyn­dighed og Historie, 1- 110.

Wiell, S., 2001. Det Kongelige Nordiske Oldskriftselskab. Rids af Selskabets Historie. AarbfJger for Nordisk 0/dkyndighed og Historie 2000, 91-136.

Worsaae, ].].A., 1843. Dan marks Oldtid belyst ved Oldsager og GravhfJie. Copenhagen: Det Seidelinske Officio.

Worsaae, ].].A., 1847. Altertumskunde des Nordens. Leipzig: Verlag Leopold Voss.

Worsaae, ].].A., 1849. The Primeval Antiquities of Denmark. London: John Henry Parker.

Worsaae, J.J.A., 1869. Om nogle Norske Oldsagsfund. AarbfJ­ger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie, 1- 12.

Worsaae, ].].A. , 1879. Fra Steen- og Bronzealderen i den Gamle og den nye Verden. Archreologisk-ethnografiske Sammenligninger. Aarbeger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie, 249-357.

Ole Grens

AGRINA ETNOARHEOLOGIJA DANIJA - PIEMIRSTA IZCELSME

Kopsavilkums

Rakstii apliikotas divas temas unto savstarpejiis sakaribas: 1) etnogriifisko analogiju ievie5ana unto lietosanas attistiba Diinijas aizvesturiskajii arheologijii 19. gadsimtii, kad Danijai sajii nozare bija vadosii lorna; 2) etnografisko analogiju joti ierobeiotais izmantojums Diinijas arheologija 20. gadsimtii.

Atslegas vtirdi: etnoarheologija, arheologija, etnogriifija, analogijas, salidzinosie petijumi.

Ievads Raksta apliikotas divas temas un to savstarpe­

jas sakaribas: 1) etnografisko analogiju ievie5ana un to lietosanas attistiba Danijas aizvesturiskaja arheologija 19. gadsimta, kad Danijai saja no­zare bija vadosa lorna; 2) etnografisko analogiju loti ierobezotais izmantojums Danijas arheologija 20. gadsimta. Meginats skaidrot saistibu starp siem fenomeniem.

Vispareja situacija Sakot ar 19. gs. 30. gadiem, izglltoto aprindu

uzskatus un Hdz ar to ari arheologiskas interpre­tacijas stipri ietekrneja prieksstati par eksotiskam un necivilizetam ("mezoQ.u") kultiiram. Zviedru petnieks Svens Nilsons (Sven Nilsson) aizvesturis­kas sabiedribas petija, izmantojot "salldzinosas et­nografijas" metodi, ka viQ.S pats to velak nodeveja, un sis kultii.ras dallja trijas stadijas, vadoties pee ekonomiskiem raditajiem. ViQ.a etnografiskais ska­tijums uz aizvesturiskajam sabiedr!bam sakotneja varianta publicets 1835. gada (Jensen 1992, 190 f.; Kraft 1760; 1766; Nilsson 1835; 1838-43; 1862-66, vol. 1, 22; 1865-68; 1868a; 1868b).

Nilsons pamata bija zoologs. ViQ.u fascineja francu paleontologa Z. Kivje (G. Cuvier) salldzi­nosa metode, kas radija apversumu izpratne par

241

faunas attistibu laika gaita (piem.: Cuvier 1817; Hegardt 1997; Nilsson 1862-66, vol. 1, 22). Nil­sona lielais sasniegums bija salldzinosas pieejas attiecinasana uz arheologiju, sistematiska veida izmantojot etnografiskas analogijas (Hegardt 1997; Nilsson 1835).

K. J. Tomsens (C. /. Thomsen) labi apzinajas etnografisko analogiju nozimi arheologija. Neska­toties uz to, ka viQ.u uzskati atsl,<iras, viQ.i abi ar Nilsonu bija draugi, un starp viQ.iem pastavigi norisa diskusijas (Nilsson 1862-66, vol. 1: II, V, 20, 53; Jensen 1992, 131, 313, 351; Thomsen & Petersen 1836, 58).

19. gadsimta otraja puse Eiropas arheologiju ietekrneja intereses vilnis par salldzinoso arheo­logiju un etnografiju, un Danijas arheologijai te bija vadosa lorna (Jensen 1992, 350; Lubbock 1865; Bahnson 1882; 1887; 1894, vol. 1, XX; Worsaae 1843, 7, 10, 15, 16, 20; 1879).

Analize Lai iegiitu pilnigaku ieskatu par to, ka attistijas

si pieeja, veikta centrala arheologiska zurnala Aarb0ger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie satura statistiska analize laikposmam no 1866.lidz 1975. gadam. Veikta ari ta prieksgajeju Annaler for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie (no 1838. g.) un

vel senaka Nordisk Tidsskrift for Oldkyndighed (no 1832. g.) satura analize.

2. attela paradita likne atspogulo etnografisko anallzu izmantosanas strauju pieaugumu rak­stos par aizvesturisko arheologiju apmeram lldz 1880. gadam, kad izvirzijas Sofuss Millers (So­phus Muller). S~iet, ka Millers baidijas, ka pa­rak stipra orientacija uz citam discipllnam va­retu vajinat arheologijas pozicijas. Pee tam kad tika plasi izdiskuteti galvenie etnografisko ana­logiju izmantosanas principi arheologija - pa­matos lldziga veida, ka par so temu diskute miis­dienas, - par valdoso Iquva negativa nostaja pret "etnoarheologiju" (Bahnson 1882; 1887; Gould & Watson 1982; Muller 1884; Worsaae 1879). Pee 1921. gada, kad Sofuss Millers pensionejas, atstajot Nacionala muzeja direktora amatu Kopenhagena, atka! noverojams neliels pieaugums, bet s~et, ka

viQa milziga ietekme turpinajas pat pee viQa naves (Stine Wiell, mutiska informacija).

lztirzajums un secinajumi Etnografiskas analogijas saka pielietot arheo­

logiskas interpretacijas jau no 19. gs. 30. gadiem, un si pieeja attistijas dinamiski. Interesanti verot, ka laika, kad etnografisko analogiju izmantosana Danijas arheologija gaja mazuma, tas vieta attisti­jas arheologu teoretiskie prieksstati par "sinte­tiskam" kultiiram. Ja neskaita konkretus, arheo­logiski konstatejamus elementus, sim kultiiram raksturigas Ipasibas, kas atbilst modernajai Rie­tumu logikai, kas no etnografiska vai socialas antropologijas viedokla s~et aizdomigi. Saja sa­kara loti nozimigs etnoarheologijas uzdevums ir sniegt informaciju, kas var sagraut sadas ne­realistiskas kultiiru konstrukcijas.

AT TELl

1. att. Pasaules pirmas sistematiskas etnografijas publikacija diiQu un vacu valoda. Tiis autors Jenss Krafts (lens Kraft) bija matematikas un fllozofij as profesors Sore (Sor0) akademija Danija

2. att. Rakstu, kur izmantotas etnografiskas analogijas, pro­centualais ipatsvars starp rakstiem par aizvesturisko arheologiju Danijas galvena arbeologiskaja zurnala laika no 1832. lidz 1975. gadam. Attela paraditas nozimigas agrinas publikacijas par etnoarheologiju, kuras atrodamas ari literatiiras saraksta

3. att. Sofuss Millers (Sophus Muller)

242

Tulkojis Valdis BerziiJS

ARHEOLOGIJA un

-E'TNOGRAFIJA

XXV

ARHEOLOGIJA un

ETNOGRAFIJA

XXV

LU LATVIJAS VESTURES INSTITOTS

ARM:EOLOGIJA un

ETNOGRA¥1JA

XXV

Veltijums akmens laikmeta petruecei arheologei Dr. hist. Ilgai Zagorskai

70. dzives gadskarta

~ZINATNE Rlga, 2011

UDK 902/904+908(474.3) Ar467

REDAKCIJAS KOLEGIJA:

VIKTORIJA BEBRE, Dr. hist. , LU Latvijas vestures instituts VALDIS BERZI~S, Dr., LU Latvijas vestures institiits

GUNTIS GERHARDS, Dr. hist., LU Latvijas vestures instituts ANDREJ$ VASKS, Dr. hist., prof., LU Latvijas vestures instituts

ANTONIJA VILCANE, Dr. hist., LU Latvijas vestures institiits (sastaditaja) GUNITA ZARI~A, Dr. hist. , LU Latvijas vestures institiits

GUNTIS ZEMITIS, Dr. hist., prof., LU Latvijas vestures institiits ANNA BITNERE-VRUBJ,.EVSKA (Anna Bitner-Wr6blewska), Dr., Varsavas Valsts arheologijas muzejs (Polija)

ALGIRDS GIRININKS (Algirdas Girininkas), Dr. habil. hist., Klaipedas Universitate, Baltijas regiona vestures un arheologijas instituts (Lietuva)

HEIKI VALKS (Heiki Valk), Dr. hist., Tartu Universitiite (Igaunija) ILONA VASKEVICOTE (Ilona VaskeviCiute), Dr. rust., Lietuvas vestures instituts, Vijl}a

Uzvaka: Skats uz RiQQukalna neollta apmetnes vietu no Salacas preteja krasta. Ilgas Zagorskas foto

KRAJUMA IEVIETOTIE RAKSTI ANONIMI RECENZETI

Gramatas izdosanu atbalstijusi:

VALSTS KULTURKAPITALA FONDS

Latvijas Zinatnes padomes sadarbibas projekta "Humanitaro zinatQu virtuala enciklopedija: personalijas, avoti, termini" (proj. nr. 10.0007)

apaksprojekts "Latvijas vestures personaliju un terminu datu haze"

ISSN 0320-9415 ISBN 978-9984-879-08-6

© Rakstu autori, 2011 © LU Latvijas vestures instituts, 2011 © Apgads "Zinatne': 2011