1

The Tent In The Middle Of the World

Ole Grøn, Oleg Kuznetsov & Torunn Klokkernes (1) Abstract This paper reviews the archaeological and anthropological conceptualisation of hunter-gatherers via an ethno-archaeological investigation of Siberian Evenki reindeer hunters. From this it is concluded that, 1) Hunter-gatherer behaviour is not guided by subsistence concerns alone - adaptations are as much cultural as they are environmental, 2) Patterns of hunter-gatherer behaviour are essentially dynamic: local ecological conditions determine the objective limits of adaptations, leaving broad avenues of opportunity and imposing constraints. Within this range of possible strategies there is a broad scope for individual choice and for decision making, which may be guided by subsistence concerns, social goals or a range of other perceived priorities, 3) The ‘internal’ social dynamism and diversity renders obsolete our inherent assumptions that all hunter-gatherer behaviour is essentially uniform, determined solely by the need to secure access to ecological resources. Our Siberian research findings suggest that instead of looking for large scale ‘normative’ cultural regions, we should be thinking in terms of ‘cultural micro-mosaics’ were individual choices and decision making are essential elements behind socio-cultural adaptation and change. 1. Introduction This was written in response to the simplistic way in which terms borrowed from ethnography are applied to hunter-gatherer archaeology. A Russian-Norwegian project was initiated in 1997 in order to improve our understanding of both the Mesolithic material from Scandinavia and the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic material from Chita Oblast in Siberia. To do this we have conducted ethno-archaeological studies with the Evenki people who live in the Kalar region (2). Our frustration has grown in step with these studies, revealing as they have, the gap that exists between the reality of these Siberian hunter-gatherer’s and the inadequacies of archaeological models (Grøn 1995; Grøn & Kuznetsov - in print a; in print b). Our present day concept of an archaeological culture is based on ideas of cultural rigidity and uniformity covering large areas or regions. This 19th century relic is based on Darwinistic ideas concerning the evolution of both artefacts and cultural forms. With few theoretical improvements, and in contrast with developments in social anthropology, this concept has managed to survive in archaeology (Kuper 1988). An additional methodological problem is the fact that Evenki thinking is often intuitive and makes little use of formal logic and formal classification, both of which are so essential to our own scientific way of thinking. Thus we found ourselves trying to describe these people by using a

2

system of well-defined and universal frames of reference, a way of thinking that is more or less meaningless to them and incongruent with their way of conceiving the world. Binford, so central to the growth of modern positivistic hunter-gatherer theory in archaeology, has observed, described and developed a set of basic and generalised assumptions that may be used to interpret archaeological material. In retrospect, his positivistic universe, with its focus on the universal aspects of material culture and resource strategies and its avoidance of the spiritual and religious aspects of culture is problematic (Binford 1978). Thus, our main concerns here are with, a) the insufficiency of any description concerning those aspects of the religious and spiritual culture that are central for the maintenance of etiquette and behavioural patterns which, in turn, create the material record, and with, b) the lack of focus on the individual as an important factor in strategic decision making and thus for the understanding of local dynamics and variations. 2. Religion, spirituality and irrationality Our observations show that the spiritual world of the Evenki plays a central role in the ideological maintenance of territorial hunting rights, the preservation and reproduction of game animals, as well as for the organisation of the settlements and, finally, the world itself (Grøn & Kuznetsov in print b). Our point is this; the spiritual world cannot be reduced to a parallel phenomena that exists outside the practicalities of daily existence. Instead, it actually plays a decisive role in how life is conducted from day to day as well as how and/or where things should be deposited or disposed. The Evenki’s invest large amounts of time and energy in the building of platforms and ‘halbos’, which are small log built chambers placed on the ground. Both of these structures are used to store the bones of game animals. This is done in order to please the souls of these animals so that they will choose to be reborn in the same area, thus ensuring that the game population will be preserved (Anisimov 1963a; 1963b; Grøn & Kuzentsov - in print b; Vasilevich 1963). Much time and energy are also invested into special rituals and depositional customs after a successful bear hunt. Another example of what could be perceived as being technically irrational is the existence of elaborate rules that determine the spatial organisation of the dwelling space. It seems irrational that individuals are restricted and confined to certain ‘his’ and ‘her’ areas in the dwelling (Grøn & Kuznetsov in print b). These customs, seen from a technical and purely survival point of view also appear as highly irrational and as a waste of energy, as does the telling of stories, singing, joking, art and ornaments, the visiting of friends without any exchange of important strategic news etc. We have no doubt that the Evenki are, at times, highly irrational, but as far as we can see, this does not cause them any problems. One must also ask why archaeologists portray some hunter-gatherer cultures, such as the Evenki,

3

as surviving on the fringe of starvation, when in fact the main subsistence problem they seem to have is of a culinary nature. The Evenki fancy meat and they find fish boring. Anyone who has subsisted for weeks on fish alone will agree. Thus it is quite understandable that their biggest problem is trying to prepare the unavoidable fish diet in as many different ways as possible in order to obtain culinary variation. Even though the term ‘primitive’ has been banned from modern archaeology, it seems to have survived in disguise, were it exerts a surreptitious influence on our conceptual framework and on our interpretations of the archaeological record. Archaeologists assume, without further reflection, that Mesolithic cultures just dropped their bone waste outside their dwellings at the waters edge. They do not take into account that material remains may have been subjected to complex systems of selective ritual depositions that have undermined the representativity of certain artefacts, for example, in waterlogged ‘waste layers’. This type of complex behaviour is well known in ethnography and has begun to be recognised in archaeology as well (Grøn & Kuznetsov in print b; Hansen 2002; Paphroth 1976). The recent revival of the term ‘complex hunter-gatherers’ can be seen as an attempt to add an explanatory box to archaeological terminology for dealing with hunter-gatherers with a highly developed material culture. Meanwhile, this exercise leaves the ‘simple hunter-gatherers’ taking on the role of Morgan’s ‘Lower Status of Savagery’ (Morgan 1907). Small adjustments of our definitions do not address the basic and deeply rooted misunderstanding which views organisational and material complexity as resulting from some higher cultural ‘level’. Leaving the simplistic and apparently robust eco-deterministic approach behind, we would argue that there is a rationality embedded in the spiritual and ideological aspects of culture, which supersedes that of the purely technical. We shall here restrict ourselves to discussing the most primitive aspects of archaeological theoretical thinking that still survive. 3. Cultural small-scale dynamics and individualism A remarkable degree of linguistic fragmentation on a small scale among hunter-gatherer societies has been noted on a number of occasions. The Finnish linguist Kai Donner in trying to make a systematic study of the Samoyed language complained that: ‘..almost every family has its own dialect or special vocabulary. It’s impossible to speak of regular dialects when the language is so variable, so individual; one is forced to study the language of the single individual. But that is impossible and one is forced to restrict the study area. To generalise is impossible, so one can only take these problems into consideration. With the awareness of these facts it can be questioned whether a detailed and exact phonetic transcription is of any value for the research.’ (Donner 1915:75). Krasheninnikov around 1740 (1972:71) observed a similar phenomenon in Kamchatka: ‘There is not an ‘ostrog’ in Kamchatka where the language is not different from that spoken in the next ‘ostrog’, and persons who live several hundred versts apart have much difficulty in understanding

4

one another. Shirokogoroff, on the basis of his extensive studies of the Evenki, developed a dynamic cultural-ecological model to explain how this strong fragmentation into small units takes place, both in their language and other aspects of their existence. His models on the dynamic formation of cultural groups in accordance with cultural-ecological principles were at that time, unique and based on ideas derived from the early development of theoretical ecology in Russia. Apart from Shirokogoroff’s uncritical use of mathematical formulas of an almost thermodynamic character for the modelling of cultural processes, his basic principles seem to be closely related to Barth’s cultural ecology (Barth 1969; Grøn in print; Shirokogoroff 1935:12-39; Weiner 1988; 1999). From an archaeological perspective, with its tradition of looking for large scale and uniform archaeological cultures, it was enlightening to observe the degree of fragmentation that exists in the Evenki Culture. For example, the existence of various types of bear graves, the different methods employed in the ritual deposition of the bones of the game animals and various methods used for the preparation of hides. If this fragmentation, what we here call ‘cultural micro-mosaics’, is extended outward in scale, then we will see a ‘mosaic landscape’ as reflected in either the material culture, the spiritual culture, the language and/or as a combination of two or more of these elements. We found three different variants of the bear ritual within a relatively small study area. Towards the north, on Lake Nitchatka, the whole articulate bear skeleton was put on a platform. Around the Chapo-Ologo the head of the bear was put on a platform and in the south around Sredni-Kalar the bear skull was traditionally put under a heap of stones or in a cave. Archaeologically, this probably would have been interpreted as being either chronology or cultural significant. Earlier, in the Sredni-Kalar area, the bones from game animals had been deposited under heaps of stone, except for those of the Red Deer, ‘...because he likes his bones to be spread on the ground’. In the Chapo-Ologo and the Nitchatka areas the bones from most species have always been deposited on platforms and, as far as we know, never under stone cairns. In this case the different customs seem to be more related to different geographical regions and do not reflect the preferences of any one clan, two or more of which might well be present in any specific area at the same time (Grøn, Kuznetsov & Turov in print). Patrilocality may explain the existence of rather stable local male related traditions, such as the bear ritual. Women’s activities also show specific local traditions, e.g. what is considered to be the proper way to process hides. As far as we can tell, when a young wife moves to her husband’s home area, she will be instructed by the other women on how to accomplish certain tasks according to ‘local tradition’. These brides are often quite young and have therefore not completed their ‘education’ before being married. In her studies concerning hide processing, Klokkernes has recently gained information on the small-scale variation of methods that exists within this activity among the Karasjok Sami. They see themselves as being made up of a large number of different local traditions and thus feel that it is unsuitable that they be stereotyped as belonging to some generalised ‘Sami Culture’.

5

Wiessner in her analysis of the stylistic variation of the arrowheads of the !Kung Bushman notes that ‘...differences in design frequencies between adjacent areas in the northern !Kung region are much greater than those between areas 400 km apart.’ (Wiessner 1983; 1984). From an archaeological point of view it is rather surprising to realise that the behavioural aspects and/or the material culture of these small neighbouring groups belonging to the same ‘culture’ and even to the same clan are so different and that this difference is so pronounced. What we might archaeologically have interpreted as belonging to different ‘cultures’ would in reality be anything but that. When significant local and small-scale differences are archaeologically observed in the material culture, for example, as seen in Petersen’s typological groups belonging to the Late Mesolithic in Eastern Denmark, they are usually explained as resulting from local isolation: The existence of local differences in eastern Denmark shows that the Ertebølle groups not only had a limited range, but also that they were closely attached to specific areas within the region. The hunters of the primeval forest were probably as limited in mobility as the ‘standwild’ game animals they pursued and may very well have defended their territory with equal ardour.’ (Petersen 1984). Part of this problem is due to the fact that archaeological ‘cultures’ are defined according to those typological elements in the material culture that have, through chance, survived. Contact and social connection is assumed to cause cultural similarity. Therefore the presence of small contemporary groups with significant differences in their material culture are easily taken to reflect local isolation. That contact and dynamic relations also cause the development of pronounced local differences - as has been described by Barth and Shirokogoroff - appears to have gone unrecognised by large parts of the archaeological world (Barth 1969; Shirokogoroff 1935:12-39). The development of local traditions in small areas may result from a strong demand for local small-scale identity. Meanwhile, one must also be aware of the fact that local variations may be difficult to observe over time due to fluctuations generated by these societies, a result of their dynamic and individualistic character. From the information we have gathered, the importance of ritual, religion and cosmology differs between families and clans. For some, the rituals are a mere routine that may actually be dispensed with out of pure laziness. For others, these matters are of the deepest concern, connected with an earnest and active engagement in religious thinking and philosophy. According to our informants and Shirokogoroff’s observations, this difference has always existed (Shirokogoroff 1935:12-39). We observed a surprising ability among the Evenki to recognise the usefulness of new methods and devices. Modern lightweight tents were examined and their pros and cons carefully considered. Our satellite phone was immediately accepted as a very practical device, but much to

6

expensive. Solar panels are found in some of the settlements, were they supply the necessary power for transistor radios. Reindeer are still the main means of transportation because it is ‘...to difficult and expensive to obtain petrol for snowmobiles and outboard motors out here’. According to our observations, the Evenki have a practical and pragmatic attitude towards technology. The reason that very old technological traditions are still preserved is apparently because they are still advantageous in relation to the difficulties and expense involved in obtaining and maintaining industrial alternatives. The bow was still used to hunt some types of animals during the 1960’s and, in some places, during the 1970’s, because ‘...when it’s really cold you can trust a bow but not a gun’. In light of the above it would seem that a switch from the rigid cultural concept, that is still pestering the theoretical thinking of archaeology, to Shirokogoroff’s dynamic culture concept, is a hundred years overdue. 4. The tent in the middle of the world, hunter-gatherer thinking and archaeological thinking What emerges, as a central problem concerning the investigation and interpretation of prehistoric hunter-gatherer cultures is the fact that we, who belong to a scientific tradition rooted in an industrial society, tend to impose our own industrial thinking and cosmology on to the cultures we are dealing with. Our investigations among the Evenki have revealed how separate our worlds really are. In our industrial world, the standardisation of ideas, values and thought systems is becoming increasingly important in order to ensure that information will be transferred rapidly and over long distances - and that it will be understood by the receiver. Cultural sub-groups do exist, but these are small, modest in number and geographically confined. In the culture of the industrial world the universe is conceived as a Cartesian co-ordinate system. No point in the universe is more ‘central’ or ‘valuable’ than others. However we must be aware that this has not always been so. The Catholic Church did not officially give up the geocentric world system until 1983, after having defended it for centuries. The trauma this caused, the abandonment of the idea that our own planet is the centre of the universe, is understandable when one sees how important this idea has been for numerous other cultures over the centres. This conflict is in reality one between two ideologies, the scientific/technological and the humanistic/religious. The Evenki look on the Polar star as the ‘centre of the universe’ or the ‘central axis’ (Shirokogoroff 1935:56). Such ideas are widespread. Often the centre of the universe is described as a central pole in the world tent. Large poles that represent the centres of the world for different native groups have been documented in Siberia (Holmberg 1922). As both Ränk and Bourdieu have noted, the dwelling is often spatially and socially organised as a micro-representation of the cosmos with its own centre (Bourdieu 1970, Ränk 1951). The Evenki

7

regard a hearth in a tent as the centre of the universe. Some of them even hold the relativistic viewpoint that they never move when they travel - ‘it is the world that moves’ (Grøn & Kuznetsov in print b). Similar ideas have been recorded from several other nomadic cultures (e.g. Eliade 1983:212p; Holmberg 1922; Prussin 1995:34-43; Schmidt 1935; 1941; Tanner 1979:73). From a psychological point of view, it seems quite plausible that nomadic people create stability in their ever-changing world by positioning themselves in a place that is always the same. Prussin writes (1995:42): ‘Contrary to general thinking, the nomad’s home is not temporary. The space it contains is permanent, even though, as a moving volume, it is not fixed permanently in space. Its ‘permanence’ is in the minds and behaviour of those who build it‘ From a psychological point of view it is understandable that the nomadic Evenki households, which for most of the time exist and act as autonomous and socially isolated units, also operate in a cosmos of their own. To a large degree, their beliefs and ideology develop, and have developed, in relationship to and with their own experiences. And like their hunting and foraging strategies, they reflect personal preferences that may vary from household to household. The symbolic centre of a family’s cosmos and the symbol of the family’s identity is the dwelling. From its security they exploit the surrounding resources of a region. The landscape is both conceived and organised in relationship to this dwelling. The river next to which it is located becomes the river that connects the higher ‘up-stream’ world of the souls of the yet unborn with the lower ‘down-stream’ world were the souls of dead reside in their own cosmology (Anisimov 1963a; 1963b; Grøn et al. 1999; Grøn & Kuznetsov in print a; Vasilevich 1963). A comparison between an Evenki household and one from an industrial country with regard to the maintenance of such basic and daily needs as subsistence, social activities, health care, access to information, transportation etc. shows that the former is much less dependent on a larger social community than the latter. Dependence on a surrounding social community increases with industrialisation (Fig. 1).

8

Fig.1. The estimated and relative importance of the surrounding social community in relationship to a Evenki household and a nuclear family from an industrial society with regard to daily subsistence activities, social activities, health care, access to information, transportation etc. In the confines of the enormous Siberian landscape, the Evenki household is a highly self-sufficient group, which is able to cope with nearly any situation it may encounter. Its ideology, cosmology and skills are adapted to such a lifestyle. Compared to our industrial society, the Evenki society is a web of loosely connected small units, which operate with a high degree of individualism. This is an essential part of the Evenki survival strategy and in our opinion the reason why their culture can encompass an abundance of cultural variations without falling apart. 5. Discussion Many of the points discussed in this paper are banal. However the way in which cultural phenomena is derived from prehistoric hunter-gatherer cultures and dealt with in archaeology demonstrates the importance of a thorough and critical discussion of the basic concepts it employs. Archaeology today relies, to a high degree, on outdated conceptual leftovers, which obstruct the proper interpretation of the archaeological material. Before more fancy models are put forward that seek to explain prehistoric hunter-gatherers, we think that it is important to try and grasp the character and complex texture of this type of culture, before it is so happily subjected to manipulations in the form of simplistic conceptual frameworks. On the basis of the results obtained from our investigations among the Evenki in Siberia and in combination with other data, we have attempted to demonstrate that hunter-gatherer cultures are not necessarily static societies consisting of individuals who act according to some stereotypical behavioural pattern, which in turn is dictated by a limited access to subsistence resources. On the contrary, we have found them to be highly dynamic, individualistic and

9

culturally diverse, even at the very small-scale level. We also hope we have been able to given some idea of those mechanisms that permit this diversity while preventing these social constructions from falling apart. To use the term ‘culture’ in the normal sense of the word is misleading. We are talking about loose networks that consist of small individualistic and self-sufficient social groups. We think that the cultural aspects we have dealt with here will be found in most hunter-gatherer societies to some degree and thus may also be used to explain the geographically fragmented appearances of typological features in prehistoric hunter-gatherer materials deriving from shorter chronological phases. The absence of any systematic and thorough registration of the cultural micro-mosaics that make up hunter-gatherer cultures is a problem. We do not yet have data which would tell us whether these ‘micro-groups’ are the result of variations in language, ideologies, rituals, cosmologies, material culture, land use and/or craft traditions etc. Nor do we know if these different elements would coincide to produce one coherent pattern or alternatively form a palimpsest of units that are separated and/or independent of one another. We do not know how and under which conditions they may develop to such a degree as to become conspicuous, nor how long they may last. These points are crucial for an archaeological interpretation of the material record. We perceive hunter-gatherers as ordinary, pragmatic, strategic, highly qualified, irrational, dynamic individuals who have much in common with the members of our own culture but who possess a lifestyle, which is ideologically and pragmatically adapted to a very different subsistence pattern. If we are to understand these societies then it is crucial that we overcome our own cultural preference for formal and logical two-dimensional models and seek explanations more in line with their intuitive way of thinking. This initial analyses would also seem to indicate that artificial intelligence has a way to go. Notes (1) Thanks for discussion and criticism from Peter Jordan and David Loeffler. (2) This work is the result of a collaboration between the Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research (NIKU) and the Chita Regional Museum of Human and Natural History.

10

References Anisimov, A.F. 1963a: The shaman's tent of the Evenks and the origin of the shamanistic rite. In - Studies in Siberian Shamanism. (ed.) Henry N. Michael. Toronto. 84-123. Anisimov, A.F. 1963b: Cosmological concepts of the peoples of the north. In - Studies in Siberian Shamanism. (ed.) Henry N. Michael. Toronto. 84-123. Barth, Frederik 1969: Introduction. In – Ethnic groups and boundaries. (ed.) Frederik Barth. Boston. p.9-38. Binford, L.R. 1978: Nunamuit Ethnoarchaeology. New York Bourdieu, P. 1970: La maison Kabyle ou le monde renverse. Change et communications. Mélanges offerts à Claude Levi-Strauss à l’occasion de son 60ème anniversaire. (eds.) J. Pouillon et P. Maranda. Paris. 739-758. Donner, Kai 1915: Bland Samojeder i Sibirien åren 1911-1913, 1914. Helsingfors. Eliade, M. 1983: Le Chamanisme et les techniques archaïques de l'extase. Paris. Grøn, O. 1995: The Maglemose Culture. The reconstruction of the social organization of a mesolithic culture in Northern Europe. Oxford. Grøn, O. – in print: Archaeology and the study of indigenous peoples in Siberia. Some aspects of the development of the study of prehistoric and indigenous cultures in Siberia and its political/ideological background. To be published in Public Archaeology London, 2002. Grøn, O. and Kuznetsov – in print a: What is a hunter-gatherer settlement? An ethno-archaeological and interdisciplinary approach Grøn, Ole and Kuznetsov, Oleg – in print b: Evenkian forest hunters. Ethno-archaeology and the archaeological settlement concept. C.C.I. in the series ‘Northern Hunter-Gatherers’. Grøn, O., Kuznetsov, O., & Turov, M.G. – in print: Cultural micro-mosaics – a problem for the archaeological culture concept? To be published in the proceedings of the N-TAG conference in Oslo 2001. Grøn, O., Holm-Olsen, I.M., Tømmervik, H., and Kuznetsov, O. 1999: Reindeer hunters and

11

herders: settlement and environmental impact. NIKU 1995-1999. Kulturminneforskningens mangfold. (eds.) Grete Gundhus, Elisabeth Seip & Eli Ulriksen. Oslo. 20-26. Hansen, K.M., 2002: Slagteplads. SKALK 2(april). 9-14 Holmberg, U. 1922: Der Baum des Lebens. Helsinki. Krasheninnikov, S.P. 1972: Explorations of Kamchatka 1735-1741. Oregon. Kuper, A., 1988: The invention of primitive society. New York. Morgan, L.H. 1907: Ancient Society. Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery through Barbarism to Civilization. New York. Paproth, H.-J. 1976: Studien über das Bärenzeremoniell. I. Bärenjagdriten und Bärenfeste bei den tungusischen Völkern. Uppsala 1976. Petersen, P.V: 1984: Chronological and Regional Variation in the Late Mesolithic of Eastern Denmark. Journal of Danish Archaeology (3). 7-18. Ränk, G. 1951: Das System der Raumeinteilung in den Behausungen der noreuroasischen Völker. Ein Beitrag zur nordeuroasischen Ethnologie vol. II. Stockholm. Sahlins, F. 1972: Stone Age Economics. London. Shirokogoroff, S.M. 1935: Psychomental Complex of the Tungus. London. Prussin, L. 1995: African Nomadic Architecture. Space, Place and Gender. Washington. Schmidt, W. 1935: Der Ursprung der Gottesidee vol. VI. Eine historisch-kritische und positive Studie. 2. Abteilung: Die Religionen der Urvölker V. Endsyntese der Religionen der Urvölker Amerikas, Asiens, Australiens, Afrikas. Münster. Schmidt, W. 1941: Analecta et Additamenta. Anthropos vol. 35-36, 1940-1941. 966-969. Tanner, A. 1979: Bringing Home Animals. Religious Ideology and Mode of Production of the Mistassini Cree Hunters. London. Vasilevich, G.M. 1963: Early Concepts about the Universe among the Evenks (Materials). In – Studies in Siberian Shamanism. (ed.) Micael M. Henry. Toronto. 46-83. Weiner, Douglas R. 1988: Models of nature ecology, conservation, and cultural revolution in Soviet Russia. Bloomington Indiana University Press.

12

Weiner, Douglas R. 1999: A little corner of freedom. Russian nature protection from Stalin to Gorbachëv. Berkeley, Calif University of California Press. Wiessner, Polly 1983: Style and social information in Kalahari San projectile points. In – American Antiquity vol.48, no.2. 253-276 Wiessner, Polly 1984: Reconsidering the Behavioral Basis for Style: A Case Study among the Kalahari San. In – Journal of Anthropological Archaeology vol.3. 190-234