Problems with Prehistory

Within archaeology, prehistory has a fairly straightforward meaning: prior to recorded (i.e. written down) history. In theory, the use of this term within the field to describe a time period in the past is free of value judgments.

The key distinction between prehistoric and historical archaeology is one of differences in the resources that are available to archaeologists when trying to piece together peoples' behaviour in the past. In both cases, we are interested in the material remains of that behaviour. That is, in a nutshell, the definition of archaeology: the investigation of the human past by the study of the material remains left behind.

British archaeologist Stuart Piggott once called archaeology 'the science of rubbish' because it predominantly involves the study of things that people have thrown away.

Historical Archaeology

In historical archaeology the study of material remains is complemented by the study of historical records - whether they be written histories, diaries, letters, newspapers, maps, inventories of goods etc. These can be invaluable in providing insights into gaps in the archaeological record (for example, some materials, such as metal, tend to survive better in the archaeological record than others, such as food scraps), and some insight into the minds of those who created the archaeological record.

Conversely, the archaeology can complement incomplete historical records, or perhaps can show us that what people were saying in the past was not the same as what they were actually doing! Often the historical records that are available have been written by those from a particular section of society, such as the middle/upper classes in Victorian society, and therefore we only have the picture from a limited perspective. The story of the lower classes is lost to history, but may be salvageable, at least in part, through their archaeology!

To illustrate my last point, the following paragraph is a short extract from an assignment I completed a couple of years ago (cited references are included at the end of this post for anyone who is interested):

Porter and Ferrier (2006) studied a nineteenth century assemblage of “miscellaneous” artefacts from Casselden Place, an urban site in the working-class ‘Little Lon’ district of Melbourne, Australia, that was excavated between 2002 and 2003 – a joint project between Godden McKay Logan, Austral Archaeology and La Trobe University. The ‘Little Lon’ district is popularly portrayed in historic sources as being “a slum district, a place of filth, neglect, and desperate poverty and hardship” (Porter & Ferrier 2006: 392). Some of the research questions related to whether items in the assemblage were a necessity for survival or an indulgence, used for health or for vanity, for work or for leisure, utilitarian or ornate (Porter & Ferrier 2006: 379). The recovery of ornate items of personal adornment attested to the fact that people in the ‘Little Lon’ district were able to afford to buy decorative items for personal adornment and actively maintained standards of appearance that exceeded expectations that were drawn from the historic sources (Porter & Ferrier 2006: 392).

Other examples of historically disenfranchised sections of society may include women, children and non-white ethnic groups.

Problems with Prehistory

I got thinking about this topic a bit more following a conference I attended last year.

As noted above, the use within archaeology of the term 'prehistory' to describe a period in the past is, in theory, free of value judgements. However, when you move out and begin engaging the wider community, which as archaeologists we must do, the use of such a term can come across very differently!

My home country, New Zealand, like a lot of other places in the world, has a history of post-medieval European colonialism. The first people to settle here were Polynesian. These were the ancestors of the Māori people. A few hundred years later, Europeans began to arrive on New Zealand's shores.

The Māori had no written language prior to the arrival of Europeans. Following the definition above, the human history of New Zealand prior to European arrival is 'prehistory'. However, during a session focusing on 'Pre-European Māori Archaeology' at last year's New Zealand Archaeological Association conference one of the conference delegates, a Māori woman - not an archaeologist herself, but an interested member of the Māori community - made it clear that she was not comfortable with the use of the term 'prehistoric' when referring to her ancestors.

On reflection, it was not difficult to see why this might have been the case.

'Prehistoric' has less than flattering connotations in everyday use. It can be used as an insult, implying that someone or some idea is 'less-evolved', 'uncultured' or 'inferior'. When the term is used by white European archaeologists to refer to the archaeology of a non-white indigenous people prior to European colonisation, it is no wonder it can be taken by non-archaeologists as being racist.

It is conceivable that the use of the term 'prehistoric' in such contexts may also be mistaken for a (politically-motivated?) denial of an indigenous history, or at least a history of any note. Certainly, reparations with Māori tribes, or iwi, for lands annexed by the British Crown in the past is a politically sensitive issue here in New Zealand. When people are referring to what happened prior to the arrival of Europeans as 'prehistory' (regardless of how the term is intended to be taken) this may be viewed by some as threatening to undermine claims to land.

There is, in my mind, another reason for questioning the use of the term 'prehistoric' to refer to the archaeology of societies without written history. Although pre-European Maori society did not have a written history, they did have a rich oral (spoken) history. For example, there are many Māori traditions about the arrival of their ancestors in waka (canoes), from a place called Hawaiki (not to be confused with Hawai'i) in East Polynesia. The presence of rich oral histories is true of indigenous societies throughout the Pacific.

Such traditions can provide archaeologists investigating the 'prehistory' of the region with potentially valuable information in the same way that written historical records often enlighten archaeological investigations.

To illustrate this point, the following is an extract from another assignment of mine:

Nunn (2001) illustrates the potential of oral traditions to help decipher landscape and human history in the Pacific region by giving an example of a recently validated oral tradition from the Fiji Island group. The tradition concerns a volcano at the western end of the island of Kadavu in southern Fiji (Nunn 2001: 131). The volcano is known as Nabukelevu, and its current state of activity has long been of concern to the people living around it and farming its fertile slopes. Geological surveys conducted between 1988 and 1998 suggested that the last time Nabukelevu had erupted was probably around 50,000 years ago and the danger of future eruptions was remote. One myth, recounted to Nunn on the island of Ono just to the east of Kadavu, could be interpreted as recalling an eruption of Nabukelevu, with associated ash falls, within the period of human occupation of the island (<3000 years ago), which conflicted markedly with the results of the geological surveys:

[A] long time ago, the chief of Ono (Tanovo) was accustomed to walk down the beach in the late afternoon to view the setting sun. One day he walked to the beach but found that his view of the sun had become obscured by a mountain (Nabukelevu) which had risen at the western end of [Kadavu]. Enraged at this, Tanovo wove giant coconut-fibre baskets and went during the night to remove earth from the mountain. The chief of Nabukelevu (Tautaumolau) caught Tanovo one night and chased him away, in the course of which he dropped earth (ash) at the islands Dravuni and Galoa (Nunn 2001: 131).

More recent geological investigations have shown that the earlier surveys were incorrect in their attribution of a pre-human age to the most recent eruption of Nabukelevu (Nunn 2001: 131). In a newly exposed road cut on western Kadavu palaeosol (former soil horizon) containing potsherds was overlain by in situ tephra (volcanic deposit), indicating that at least one eruption must have occurred in the area within the period of its human occupation.

This is not meant as an argument for cross-cultural generalisation about the historicity of oral traditions/histories, but merely demonstrates that they are potentially of value to archaeologists, in much the same way as written records, if available, are of value to archaeologists. Obviously, uncritical use of any form of evidence by itself in a simple, direct reading of the past is unsound practice. The most effective archaeological explanations are ones that are supported by the convergence of multiple lines of evidence (e.g. archaeological, historical, linguistic, genetic, palaeo-environmental), and oral traditions can be used as one such line of evidence, as long as they are analysed and interrogated in the same critical fashion as any other type of evidence that is drawn upon (Sheppard et al 2004: 124).

Thanks for reading,

Nick.

References

NUNN, P. D. 2001. On the convergence of myth and reality: Examples from the Pacific Islands. The Geographical Journal, 167(2): 125-38.

PORTER, J. & FERRIER, Å. 2006. Miscellaneous Artifacts From Casselden Place, Melbourne. International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 10(4): 375-393.

SHEPPARD, P., WALTER, R. & ASWANI, S. 2004. Oral tradition and the creation of late prehistory in Roviana Lagoon, Solomon Islands. In V. Attenbrow & R. Fullagar (eds.) A Pacific Odyssey: Archaeology and Anthropology in the Western Pacific. Papers in Honour of Jim Specht. Records of the Australian Museum, Supplement 29, pp. 123-32. Sydney: Australian Museum