Comments on the scope of ethnoarchaeology in Palaeolithic research

Ethnoarchaeology, considered as a subdiscipline of archaeology, has a growing significance for prehistory research as the significance of ethnology is reduced by the withdrawal of ethnologists (at least in German speaking countries) from fields such as the “incipient” peoples and their material culture which traditionally had combined the two disciplines.

When 30 years ago L.R. Binford wrote about “archaeology as anthropology” and initiated thus a “revival” of archaeological material, the time of processual archaeology had come. Binford’s views on different behaviour during hominisation especially in the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic inspired discussions also among European archaeologists.

An applied example (Simek 1987) concerning the French Palaeolithic is critically considered which refers to Binford’s model of changing human behaviour in land use and social structure. Different levels of behaviour and the impact on the archaeological record are stressed. Further on, a theory of Binford (1991) is discussed which demonstrates that the social role of elderly male members in a community is dependent on living conditions and environment for a hunter society.