In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

283 Conclusion Domesticity Re-expressed James G. Enloe, Françoise Audouze, and Ezra Zubrow This volume has incorporated ideas and analyses from numerous sources, at a variety of scales, which are both broadly viewed and narrowly focused. We have called upon researchers of demography and social organization on a global scale (Zubrow), ethnoarchaeologists of modern hunter-gatherers (Beyries and Rots, David, Karlin and D’iachenko, Keeley), those interested in Paleolithic hunters and gatherers (Soffer and Adovasio), specialists in the Magdalenian of western Europe (Cattin), of the Paris Basin (Bodu, Pigeot), and specific analyses of material from Verberie (Audouze, Averbouh, Dumarçay and Caron, Enloe, Janny, Keeler). The reflexivity of these perspectives involves bouncing back and forth between the present and the past, understanding the material correlates and their organizations for a variety of subsistence and technical activities that form a major portion of the kinds of remains that can be observed in the archaeological record. These have allowed us to understand better the significance of the specific studies of material from Verberie and their potential to expand a more general understanding of the organization of domesticity in the Magdalenian as well as in other hunter-gatherer societies. About Theories and Methods This chapter commences with a consideration of Verberie itself and how the analyses of the site have contributed toward evaluation of domesticity there. That perspective is expanded, first to other Magdalenian sites in the Paris Basin, then to the Magdalenian outside this particular region, and to other prehistoric hunter-gatherers. We have focused on technology , space, and social organization as those means for exploring domesticity. While social organization may be viewed as strictly cultural, the result of a unique history combining a number of different influences and accommodations, nonetheless, the structure of social 284 Conclusion organization must also be viewed in a general way as largely a consequence of the organization of labor. This latter perspective is the only thing that allows an approach to prehistoric archaeological social organization. We cannot use the idea of the direct historical approach (Hodder 1991; Leone 1986) as the sole justifiable use of analogy. The Magdalenian past is too distant, and no link to a modern cultural group can be demonstrated. We must be able to apply analogical reasoning based on more generalizable principles. Those include a number of technological processes for which modern observations can be made on the utensils, the actions, and the spatial context in which they operate. Building these kinds of methodology is exactly the sort of middle range research advocated by Binford (1977) for an accurate reading of the archaeological record. In good archaeological contexts of geological preservation and finely focused recovery and recording techniques, we can examine those aspects for which ethnoarchaeological observations help us understand the social organization that is not directly observable in archaeological sites. Domesticity is such an issue. It must be inferred from observations of the archaeological record; that inference must be enlightened by observations of modern people and their activities and of the material correlates of those activities. Technology that is well preserved in the archaeological record for the Paleolithic includes the production and use of stone tools; these are used to obtain and process the carcasses of hunted game. The bones of the latter are also occasionally well preserved in the archaeological record; this is one of the primary interests in the excavation of Verberie. That game represents both nutritional and technological resources. We can understand nutritional aspects from modern observations and experimentation; we can see the operation of the social and technological processes of butchering, storing, cooking, and sharing in ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological observations . The addition of the spatial dimension gives us perhaps the best way of moving from the simple hardware of technology to its social context. Technology includes its implementation in space by individuals and groups. Examination of the spatial dimension gives a window on the interactions of multiple actors, using the same space for different technological activities or using complementary areas for those differentiated activities. Different methods and techniques were used to produce the results on which we base our interpretations. Several are well known, such as microwear analysis, flint and bone refitting, and experimental reproduction. Keeler’s chapter brings a new approach to the Magdalenian of the Paris Basin with a GIS intra-site analysis of the Verberie site. Using high resolution spatial data (Audouze and Enloe 1997), it sets successive archaeological levels, features, and flint and bone re...

Share