HABITAT ANTHROPOLOGY
AND THE
ANTHROPOLOGICAL DEFINITION OF
MATERIAL CULTURE

INTRODUCTION

One of the few who clearly saw these limitations of the discipline(s) was Gordon Childe. He consequently suggested that the wider circle of anthropology should develop new theories which then could be tested by the archaeologist's historical method. To cite Childe: "...archaeology together with anthropology as twin branches of the science of man could provide the basis for the reliable induction of laws on the historical process, the specific role of archaeology being to test the systems advanced by ethnographers on the basis of their synchronic analyses of contemporary cultures." (Barbara McNairn 1980).

Now, this can be taken literally as a programme. A short discussion follows.

• The term 'anthropology' implies a 'periodisation scheme' quite different from the historistic periodisation system focussed on durable remains used to reconstruct prehistory.

• Anthropology implies man in a much wider diachronical extension than prehistory. It includes ethnology on one hand and physical anthropology on the other (including paleontology and primatology).

• In fact, this extension is also happening in the fields. The finds of the Leakey's at Olduvai formed an interface between anthropology based on fossil finds and prehistory (pebble tools). The outlook is very different from that held by early archaeologists, e.g. by Schliemann, who was in search of the historically recorded Troja.

• Time scales too have changed. In the framework of millions of years, some thousand years can not be a decisive factor anymore for any methodological definition. We have to acknowledge for instance that there was a strong 'ethnological factor' in Ancient Egypt (high percentage of perishable object culture preserved due to specific climate).

• This conception of interdisciplinary continuities is also gaining momentum within cultural anthropology. We refer to the (ethno-(pre-) historic method of Wernhardt and his 'structural history' (1981). It critically questions the validity of dated facts in depicting factual cultural processes and suggests structural concepts which have to be reconstructed ethno-(pre-) historically.

Material culture in ethnology:
fibroconstructive technology

Even at first sight, a striking difference is revealed. In Berlin-Dahlem for instance, where an ethno-museum and an archaeological one are closely adjacent, a comparison of the two 'material cultures' is at hand. The archaeological museum offers durable objects, practically 100%. In the ethnological museum a quite different material is dominant. We find numerous objects (huts, houses, fences, traps, baskets, ritual clothing etc.) constructed with fibrous materials. These objects are not durable, in most cases even highly perishable. Depending on the museum, one can say that up to 90% is of perishable character.

Cross culturally, the Vienna school of ethnology has worked intensely on the term material culture (Hirschberg/ Janata 1966/89). The book amply reports on fibroconstructive industries. Morphologically, the most interesting characteristic of this type of material culture is its tremendous formal and functional diversity, evidently a production of long developments. In addition it shows a technological characteristic which hints to diachronic depth: it is widely produced with manipulating hands. Tools play a very secondary role in this technology.

There is another important aspect. Most of these objects are constructed. They are made by joining similar or different fibrous elements, using some method of fixation (binding). Not surprisingly the technique is also amply used in built forms, like huts, sheds, houses and roof constructions. This architectural aspect has recently been documented in Paul Oliver's 'Encyclopedia of Vernacular Architecture of the World (1997). In 3 volumes it shows the enormous diffusion of fibroconstructive industries. Besides this, it is the first global 'architectural ethnology' and, consequently, is another important reason to speak of fibroconstructive technology.

Ethnology and fibroconstructive technologies. In regard to the diachronical validity of fibroconstructive object culture, there are two basic positions. In general it is maintained that all these fibrous objects or techniques are recent inventions, they are not considered to be ancient. But this may be an archaeological prejudice. On the other hand there are many reasons, e.g.technological ones, to assume that these fibroconstructive objects might be part of an anthropologically deep-rooted constructive tradition, which did not register in the archaeological method.

The author works cross-culturally, syn- and diachronically on what earlier history of religion had called 'fetish', 'idol', spirit hut, etc. (ethnology), maypole etc. (folklore), life-tree, tree of cognition, signs of deities, etc. (history, prehistory) [Egenter 1980, 1981,1982,1986, 1992, 1994b, 1998*]. Religion has an enormous literature on this phenomenon (see Eliade's classified bibliography, 1954). Architectural anthropology considers them as primary fibroconstructive demarcations of places important in the local ontology (dwelling, settlement and food control).

In the ethnological field we can survey these demarcations in the framework of vital rites and cults, and we can reconstruct their meaning in the complex network of their socio-territorio-semantic and spatio-structuro-symbolic functions. Signs and cults are syn- and diachronically deeply interwoven with the local ontology and its highest values (they are sacred, are seats of deities etc.). This naturally suggests that this 'settlement core complex' has a deep 'history' in the sense of an object tradition (Egenter 1994b).

Subhuman Architecture:
a very early fibroconstructive technology

Note that nests are routinely built by all great apes, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orangutan. At least one new nest is built for every night. Thus, quantitatively it is a tremendous production. If all the nests which one chimpanzee individual builds during his approximately 40 year long life, were virtually piled up we would obtain a 'sky scraper' of about 11 times the height of the Eiffel tower.

In the framework of paleontology and paleanthropology the suggestion of the Yerkes can be interpreted in socio-biological terms. Nestbuilding behaviour would consequently have to be assumed for the Miocene apes (Proconsul, Sivapithecus etc.). A very new and important paradigm appears: we would have to account for a constructive factor beginning about 22 million years ago. That time spans of this dimension raise genetic questions is evident. Was this very strong disposition for constructive behaviour the basic factor of hominisation?

In view of cultural implications the nestbuilding behaviour can be interpreted as a proto-cultural "pre-lithic fibroconstructive industry". We would now dispose of a proto-cultural factor beginning about 22 million years ago with the Miocene apes. It is evident that this new anthropological complement to conventional prehistorical periodisation could change many discussions, e.g. about the 'man the toolmaker' concept.

In the following I would like to outline this approach schematically. Adding a new fibroconstructive industry into the conventional periodisation scheme raises many new questions. We will limit ourselves to hinting to three most striking aspects:

1. routined terrestric nestbuilding and the erection of the body,
2. the evolution of construction and its impacts on brain size,
3. fibroconstructive territorial demarcation and the evolution of food control and sedentarisation.

SUPERSEDING CONVENTIONAL ANTHROPOLOGY
WITH THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
OF MATERIAL CULTURE

The Ember's list schematically uses 5 phases which are described by the Embers fairly convincingly in the framework of conventional physical and cultural anthropology. They are

1. Late Cretacious to Miocene (in this primary phase we will only use the Miocene),
2. Pliocene/Lower Paleolithic,
3. Middle and Upper Paleolithic,
4. Meso- and Neolithic,
5. Bronze Age.

Please note that we use the above numbers and periods as a basic reference in the following text.

Now, to this list of dated fossil records and prehistorical sources a new anthropological grid will be added. It contains our hypothetical sources. From left to right:

SO spatial organisation of settlement
NB nestbuilding behavior
SA semantic architecture
DA domestic architecture (derivate of semantic architecture)
CF controlled fire (derivate of semantic architecture)

Regarding the parameter 'social organisation of settlement', it has to be noted here that nestbuilding, at least among gorillas and chimpanzees is recorded as a matter of groups. The nests of the group form a night camp of a distinct spatial organisation (value centrality and access-place scheme). <1> We have therefore 'arguments' for the assumption that 'constructivity' was from its early conditions related to social grouping and that this produced some sort of spatial organisation, particularly in the case of dominantly terrestric nests.

However, this is of only secondary importance here. What dominates our present discussion is 'material culture'. But we should not loose sight of the fact that architectural demarcation always implies spatial organisation. This will be particularly important in view of our third field, 'evolution of food control and sedentarisation'.