© 2009 International Institute of Anthropology
© 2009 Reports of Prehistoric Research Projects
© 2009 The authors
© 2009 Lolita Nikolova
© 2009 Ernst Pernicka
© 2009 Reports of Prehistoric Research Projects
© 2009 The authors
© 2009 Lolita Nikolova
© 2009 Ernst Pernicka
| Approach to Enculturation in Prehistory and in Present 60th Birth Anniversary of Ian Hodder Complied and edited by Lolita Nikolova and Ernst Pernicka Reports of Prehistoric Research Projects 9 (2009) in collaboration with Stratum, Chisinau, Moldova Contents |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  |
Back to Household in Prehistory: The Souvatzi’s “A Social Archaeology of
Households in Neolithic Greece” and the Anthropology of Everydayness
Lolita Nikolova, University of Utah &
International Institute of Anthropology,
Salt Lake City, Utah
Introduction
Although the household is a traditional topic in
anthropological literature, its subject is
amorphous for Prehistory of Eurasia, in particular
Southeast Europe (the Balkan Peninsula). Accordingly,
the monograph of Stella Souvatzi represents a special
new stage in historiography of Southeast European prehistoric archaeology for its attempt systematically
to approach the Neolithic households in Greece in the context of the contemporary level of understanding
of household in anthropological literature. According to the initial statements of Stella Souvatzi, the
book will lead us through the author’s attempt to analyze the prehistoric household as a social process
based on the available archaeological data (p. xvii). It is a development of the Souvatzi’s PhD thesis “The
Archaeology of Household: Examples from the Greek Neolithic” successfully defended at the University
of Cambridge (2000).
Household in Prehistory
The brief review on the study of household and related social units (family, kinship, co-residence, house,
domestic group) made Stella Souvatzi to draw on the fact that till the 1960s the normative view on
household dominated in the anthropological historiography (p. 8). In turn, series of works since 1960s
have pointed to household as a social process “constructed and realized through everyday practices and
relationship” (p. 8). As the author mentions, a huge amount of works have been published, some of which
related to reconceptualization not only of the household, but of gender as process and to revitalization of
kinship. Souvatzi stresses mostly on general works on household and gender, although since 1960s a
whole direction of research of anthropology of everydayness has been grown, in which frame for
instance, had been placed my own research on Balkan prehistoric household (Nikolova 2005). We may
need to believe that different authors and directions of investigation first confirm the primary importance
of the everyday anthropology for studying the past societies, and that every author or school of thoughts
is able to compliment the general research on the household as cross-cultural category and elementary
social unit.
The cross-cultural and multiaspect character of the household is possibly the reason Stella Souvatzi
to avoid any specific definition (pp. 9-11). In our research household is defined as an elementary social
unit (Nikolova 2005). In the anthropological and formal definitions dominate two main indications of
household: the appearance of head and sharing common space for living. For archaeology is probably of
interest the definition given in architecture: “All persons, including family members and any unrelated
persons, who occupy a dwelling unit”. However, such definition may be true or not true for Prehistory
since of special importance for the household is the economic regulation of the relationships between the
individuals living under one and the same roof. Then, we may define the prehistoric household as an
elementary social unit of one person or more persons who share common economic and domestic duties
and the skeleton of which are kinship blood relations.
Souvatzi reasonably compared the households with co-residential groups and concludes that “every
social group has spatial dimensions but not every social group s a household” (p. 11) and stresses on
the fact that the spatial dimensions of the household are beyond the house referring to external work
areas, spaces of leisure and other household properties (after McKie et al. 1999) (p. 11). However, it
seems that dropping the coming roof from the definition of house (p. 11) lives the concept of household
amorphous. According to Souvatzi, “ the household consists of one or more individuals who may often
form co-resident group and may often, but not necessarily, coincide with a house” (p. 11)… and “the
relationship of household with house and with other spaces ought to be defined analytically rather than
being presupposed” (p. 12). Being in agreement with the author about the difficulties to define
household, our understanding is that even in case of nomad societies there is a coming roof when the
whole (extended) family moves or there is a psychological invisible link when a member of the household
leaves seasonally or temporary the household for economic reasons. Also, the main goal of this absence
is bringing contributions for the economic stability of the household.
Then, sharing domestic (residence) duties is in the definition of the household, as well as the house
means in fact a common residence place and not the everyday understanding of the long-term building
for one or more generations. It is worth noting that the house (home) is in fact extremely important
component of the prehistoric cultural pattern and in our opinion having a house and producing and
reproducing social relationship in the house was the powerful social strategy for a successful social
reproduction in Prehistory. In the everyday life of the prehistoric communities the house was a key
economic, social and psychological constructor, and for this reason the prehistoric communities with
producing economy can be reasonably named “house” communities. It is another question that not all
prehistoric communities consist of elementary units such as household and there is no reason to look at
the household as mandatory social category for the human society.
See the whole article in RPRP 9 (in preparation)
Households in Neolithic Greece” and the Anthropology of Everydayness
Lolita Nikolova, University of Utah &
International Institute of Anthropology,
Salt Lake City, Utah
Introduction
Although the household is a traditional topic in
anthropological literature, its subject is
amorphous for Prehistory of Eurasia, in particular
Southeast Europe (the Balkan Peninsula). Accordingly,
the monograph of Stella Souvatzi represents a special
new stage in historiography of Southeast European prehistoric archaeology for its attempt systematically
to approach the Neolithic households in Greece in the context of the contemporary level of understanding
of household in anthropological literature. According to the initial statements of Stella Souvatzi, the
book will lead us through the author’s attempt to analyze the prehistoric household as a social process
based on the available archaeological data (p. xvii). It is a development of the Souvatzi’s PhD thesis “The
Archaeology of Household: Examples from the Greek Neolithic” successfully defended at the University
of Cambridge (2000).
Household in Prehistory
The brief review on the study of household and related social units (family, kinship, co-residence, house,
domestic group) made Stella Souvatzi to draw on the fact that till the 1960s the normative view on
household dominated in the anthropological historiography (p. 8). In turn, series of works since 1960s
have pointed to household as a social process “constructed and realized through everyday practices and
relationship” (p. 8). As the author mentions, a huge amount of works have been published, some of which
related to reconceptualization not only of the household, but of gender as process and to revitalization of
kinship. Souvatzi stresses mostly on general works on household and gender, although since 1960s a
whole direction of research of anthropology of everydayness has been grown, in which frame for
instance, had been placed my own research on Balkan prehistoric household (Nikolova 2005). We may
need to believe that different authors and directions of investigation first confirm the primary importance
of the everyday anthropology for studying the past societies, and that every author or school of thoughts
is able to compliment the general research on the household as cross-cultural category and elementary
social unit.
The cross-cultural and multiaspect character of the household is possibly the reason Stella Souvatzi
to avoid any specific definition (pp. 9-11). In our research household is defined as an elementary social
unit (Nikolova 2005). In the anthropological and formal definitions dominate two main indications of
household: the appearance of head and sharing common space for living. For archaeology is probably of
interest the definition given in architecture: “All persons, including family members and any unrelated
persons, who occupy a dwelling unit”. However, such definition may be true or not true for Prehistory
since of special importance for the household is the economic regulation of the relationships between the
individuals living under one and the same roof. Then, we may define the prehistoric household as an
elementary social unit of one person or more persons who share common economic and domestic duties
and the skeleton of which are kinship blood relations.
Souvatzi reasonably compared the households with co-residential groups and concludes that “every
social group has spatial dimensions but not every social group s a household” (p. 11) and stresses on
the fact that the spatial dimensions of the household are beyond the house referring to external work
areas, spaces of leisure and other household properties (after McKie et al. 1999) (p. 11). However, it
seems that dropping the coming roof from the definition of house (p. 11) lives the concept of household
amorphous. According to Souvatzi, “ the household consists of one or more individuals who may often
form co-resident group and may often, but not necessarily, coincide with a house” (p. 11)… and “the
relationship of household with house and with other spaces ought to be defined analytically rather than
being presupposed” (p. 12). Being in agreement with the author about the difficulties to define
household, our understanding is that even in case of nomad societies there is a coming roof when the
whole (extended) family moves or there is a psychological invisible link when a member of the household
leaves seasonally or temporary the household for economic reasons. Also, the main goal of this absence
is bringing contributions for the economic stability of the household.
Then, sharing domestic (residence) duties is in the definition of the household, as well as the house
means in fact a common residence place and not the everyday understanding of the long-term building
for one or more generations. It is worth noting that the house (home) is in fact extremely important
component of the prehistoric cultural pattern and in our opinion having a house and producing and
reproducing social relationship in the house was the powerful social strategy for a successful social
reproduction in Prehistory. In the everyday life of the prehistoric communities the house was a key
economic, social and psychological constructor, and for this reason the prehistoric communities with
producing economy can be reasonably named “house” communities. It is another question that not all
prehistoric communities consist of elementary units such as household and there is no reason to look at
the household as mandatory social category for the human society.
See the whole article in RPRP 9 (in preparation)
