Anthropological Holism in Action: Using Linguistic Study to Inform Archaeological Interpretation

Anthropologists often time specialize in one of the four anthropological subfields, but most typically receive a holistic (comprehensive) education as their base in their undergraduate degree programs.  There is a push from there for specialization, which is odd given the importance and emphasis of the holistic nature of anthropology.  Today, many anthropologists are returning to their roots and embracing interdisciplinary research, most often combing two of the subfields into one (e.g. bioarchaeology, biocultural, etc.)  This blog post will address one such combination: linguistic anthropology and archaeology.

Linguistic anthropology is the study of language, whereas archaeology is the study of past cultures.  Both subfields focus on very different aspects of understanding what it means to be human, but they are complementary as they both focus on aspects of the human past, specifically through historical linguistics and the very nature of archaeological research.  Therefore, there has been some push among anthropological scholars to unite these two subdisciplines for the purposes of enriching the study of the past.  Several archaeological-linguistic studies have been completed since the 1970s, although the majority have focused on using linguistic and archaeological studies to understand the origins of modern ethnic groups.  There have been additional studies, though, that have taken different approaches.  One such study among Scandinavian groups used linguistics to understand and interpret archaeological sites.  Through the study of myths concerning manhood scholars were able to make sense of specific archaeological sites that contained a number of sacrificed dogs and wolves.  Without this linguistic evidence the archaeologists were at a loss of why these sites existed, so the inclusion of the linguistic evidence helped them better interpret the past.  Other studies have followed this same course of study by using linguistic evidence to understand aspects of the past that may no longer be recoverable.

Unfortunately, very few anthropological scholars (be they archaeologists or linguists) actually embark on this unified research.  Part of this is the push to keep the subdisciplines separate, which discourages such collaboration and prevents an individual to partake in this research on their own since one individual may not have the skills from multiple disciplines.  These problems are easily overcome, but additional problems are not.  The biggest issue is that the languages spoken today are most likely not the same or similar to those spoken in the past, meaning there are limitations on how much modern language can be used to interpret the past.  Related to this there are also issues of changing values, so the values of today may not be the same as the past, further complicating interpretations of the past.  Furthermore, linguistic studies may not be feasibly used for groups that had and currently have no written language. 

On a positive note where there is a will there is a way.  While combined archaeological and linguistic studies may not be feasible in all cases there is evidence that the ones that have been conducted have been successful.  This demonstrates the utility in such studies, and as the will among anthropologists grows there should be an increase in the number of these studies occurring.  The outcome of this is further enriched understandings of what it means to be human, which fulfills the ultimate goals of anthropological study.

References

Blench, R. 2006. Archaeology and Language: Methods and Issues, in A Companion to Archaeology (ed J. Bintliff), Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, USA.

 

Powell, E. A. 2013.  “Wolf Rites of Winter.”  Archaeology Magazine.  September/October.  

Saarikivi, J. and M. Lavento.  2009.  “Linguistics and Archaeology: A Critical View of an Interdisciplinary Approach with Reference to the Prehistory of Northern Scandinavia.”  Networks, Interaction and Emerging Identities in Fennoscandia and Beyond 13-16: 177-216.

Teofilo.  2012.  “The Roles of Linguistics and Archaeology.”  Gambler’s House: Chaco Canyon, Its World, and Ours.

 

Wencel, M.  2011.  “Making Archaeology Speak-Archaeology and Linguistics.”  Popular Archaeology 3.