About Me

My photo
Baguio City, Philippines / Philippinen, Philippines
I am an anthropologist now retired from the University of Hawaii (Professor Emeritus) who lives in and travels in Southeast Asia with occasional scurrying off to wider places. My academic interests include hunters-gatherers, elephant husbandry, and ethnophotography. Other interests include trying to make sense, with an anthropological bent, of the world we live in. I also read like a fool. Daily.

Saturday, August 29, 2020


Bill Longacre, New Archaeology, and Bob Dylan: AN Essay of Appreciation

April 13, 2001

SAA 2001 Special session honoring Dr. William A. Longacre

Bion Griffin and Dave Tuggle

(Posted on my Blog “Wandering With An Old Anthropologist” just for fun and historical memory.

An update from another 20 years on would be fun. We'll see.)




The Times they are A-Changin’                                                                         Things Have Changed

Bob Dylan, 1964                                                                                                      Bob Dylan, 2000



            This paper is history from a personal perspective. It is a history of Bill Longacre’s impact on us and the areas in which we have worked in the Pacific. It is a history of an era when times were changing. Our main intent is to suggest something of the climate of those times, the early years of New Archaeology. As everyone who attends the past is well aware, it is difficult to grasp the social atmosphere of an earlier time, but historical novelists and screenwriters get it right when they say, “ don’t let facts stand in the way of the truth.’’ So, we present this as truth.


Strange days have found us

Strange days have tracked us down…


Strange days have found us

And through their strange hours

We linger alone…

Memories misused…


The Doors, Strange days, 1967


            We are the same generation, Bill and the two of us—all born just before WWII. So clearly the mid-late `60’s was the most turbulent era of our remembered experience. This turbulence, which shook along deep social fault lines, was the historical context for what became known as the New Archaeology. One of these fault lines was the age, the young vs the old; the generation of the veterans of WWII and the generation of Vietnam war protestors; expressed in a hundred ways, as establishment vs anti-establishment; as alcohol vs drugs; in sloganeering as “question authority” vs “obedience to the law is freedom”


            Archaeology, as were many sciences, was part of all this… caught up in the culture of the new (i.e., of the young), and young scientists commonly found their scripture of justification in Thomas Kuhn’s book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which could be simplistically read to articulate scientific advance in terms of young versus old.


            On the national level, SAA meetings were raucous affairs, not the boring clock-managed deals they are now. There was a great deal of argumentation about the New Archaeology at various levels, with Jimmy Griffin  holding court in one hotel and denouncing it all as bullshit, while Sally Binford would be making the opposite point in her own iconoclastic way in a hotel room party across the way. And always there was talk of the War (Vietnam), again often as schism; including rumors about which American archaeologists working in Southeast Asia were spies for the CIA.


            Today, every time we walk by the placid corner of Park and University at UA, waiting for fraternity men to drive through the intersection in their Miatas, we begin to see shadows from the past, as
Tim Robbins does in Jacob’s Ladder. Universities were the center of the turbulence, and a walk to the classroom was to walk by the corner of Park and University milling with Hippie panhandlers, Black Muslims, hawkers for a dozen alternative newspapers, protestors with a dozen causes, drug dealers, and street musicians. Student discussions concerned not only archaeological theory and comprehensive exams, but the latest rules for the military draft (which seemed to change weekly), war resistance, and whether 2001 and MASH were about present, past, or future.


            But for one us (Tuggle), the introduction to Bill Longacre was not in the Campus classroom, rather it was in the field classroom at the Grasshopper archaeological camp in the 1965. Bill was joining the Anthropology staff of the University of Arizona, and had come to the Grasshopper to co-direct with Ray Thompson that year, in preparation to take over the field school full time the following year.


            Bill began talking about archaeology as anthropology, about Carter Ranch, Lew Binford, hypothesis testing, cultural adaptation, social organization, and about the cultural theorists relevant to archaeology, particularly White, Service, and Sahlins. Much of this was not really new in the sense that one could find elements of these things in previous work, but it was being put together in a new way, and

perhaps the most exciting thing was that it emphasized the potential, not the limitations, of archaeology. The most negative reaction to this discussion came from the student-staff at the field school, but discussions among students indicated that most felt we were getting the best of both possible worlds, on one hand solid grounding in field techniques and the prevailing views of culture history and classification presented by Ray Thompson, and on other hand, a view from Bill Longacre that gave us the framework to expand our conceptual horizons. Bion Griffin first encountered Bill and the New Archaeology when Longacre began teaching at UA in the fall of 1965, and he began his field archaeology with Bill at Grasshopper the following summer. (This was Bion’s first field archaeology, except for some site visits under the wing of Jim Ayres, who likely wondered about an archaeological grad student who had never seen and archaeological site!) Grasshopper was a breath of fresh air in more ways than one! The discussions, arguments, and sites/sights were exhilarating… and then, of course, there was the gender integration of the showers, but, we won’t go there, so to speak. The heat of the debates continued to be felt in and out of the field, especially over a campfire, with Wetherhill stew, red eye, and Emil Haury – “Solve it with a shovel!!!!” Not only dirt had to be shoveled.


            In the classroom, in the cultural environment of Park and University, Bill began giving a seminar on archaeological method and theory, and it was the seminar that really molded our directions for a lifetime.  In Griffin’s case, it opened up the realm of ethnoarchaeological and what became a dedication to the cultures of SE Asia (and we will neither confirm nor deny that he was a spy), and for Tuggle, it de-regionalized his thinking and produced his one abiding interest in the field, the epistemology of archaeology. The success of that seminar lay partly in the energy of the era—New Archaeology and the universities’ participation in the events leading to Tet and Kent State were clearly linked in this energy field, and in the excitement of new material and new ideas, in the related excitement of looking at older material with fresh perspective, from the work of A.V. Kidder to that of W.W. Taylor. At every meeting of the seminar, there were new draft manuscripts from people such as Binford, Deetz, and Hill, and we looked forward to each new issue of American Antiquity and the caustic exchanges that had made it to print.


            Those days were like a bullish stock market; many if the papers ideas were likely high inflated IPOs, but the intellectual day-trading was just great fun, and over the long-haul (as stockbrokers always say) a number of ideas retained their value and have appreciated and been appreciated over time. The energy and enthusiasm of that era led graduate students at UA (in archaeology and cultural anthropology) to create a seminar on evolution in order to argue with each other and “visiting” professors. When we later taught at the University of Hawai’i, attempts to create similar seminars were successful in content, but not in spirit; the time had passed, and the post-Vietnam malaise had set in.


            Interest in Bill Longacre at the University of Hawaii was directly responsible for the positions we obtained there after completing our degrees, and, certainly for some of the changes that then infected Pacific and Asian Archaeology. UH attempted, in 1969, to hire Bill away from UA. Seriously. Of first interest is that this Pacific outpost understood enough of the New Archaeology to make such an attempt.


            Remember, this is well before Bill began his Kalinga project. But, Dick Pearson, an East Asia Specialist and Yale Ph.D. and Roger Green, a Harvard Ph.D. and well- established Polynesianist, made the attempt. Failing miserably, they asked, at the 1969 SAA meeting, if he had an acceptable student (protégé). With rash indiscretion Bill recommended then hopefully-to-graduate PBG. Griffin, a fan of Hawaiian music and long dark hair, hied off to Honolulu. A year later, seeing the need for reinforcements, he invited HDT to join him. The rest is (unwritten) history. We are older, less wise and more mellow, but have not set aside much of the enthusiasm that led to prefacing a paper aimed at the “Old Archaeology;” quoting from The Space Child’s Mother Goose_(Winsor 1958:1).


Probable-Possible, my black hen,

She lay eggs in the Relative When.

She doesn’t lay eggs in the Positive Now

Because she’s unable to Postulate How.


            An interesting dialectic was developing in Hawai’i, centering on a tension between University of Arizona graduates and graduates of east coast universities, particulary Yale. Bill Solheim was the first archaeologist from UA to join the faculty at UH; Solheim preceded New Archaeology, but he did shake the Pacific staidness out of the place with his revolutionizing Southeast Asian archaeology and the origins of the Neolithic!  And, he got an Arizona Ph.D. in 1960 and with a beard, in spite of Emil! Anyway, back to Yale. Early in Hawai’i’s colonial history, Yale became a destination of choice for Hawai’i  born whites, many of them descendants of the original colonizing missionaries. Now, one may recall that Yale was not a hotbed of New Archaeology. KC Chang’s Rethinking Archaeology (properly noted as “Retarding Archaeology” by Lew Binford – we forget the reference or bar side personal communication) fit well as the Old Pacific hands’ approach to archaeology,- it was all good stuff, and necessary, but not where the New archaeology was headed. Archaeology in the Pacific and Hawaii at that time was very different from that of the mainland US.


            The University of Hawaii was in come some ways a gradual transition between the two worlds, and in some ways it was at a sharp boundary. There were number of graduate students from elsewhere in the Pacific, and they came with training in different traditions: French, British, Japanese, or local New Zealand-Australian. Many of the areas where they had worked had seen limited archaeology and they were still puzzling over basic space-time archaeological boundaries, equivalent to SW archaeology in the 1920’s, and they saw New Archaeology as an intellectual luxury. Many graduate students from the US mainland had come to study with Bill Solheim, but his was not research with a major theoretical orientation. We were the pre-post-post-modernists.


            The irony of Yale/Arizona influences is amusing when one looks at the small world of archaeologists’ interactions. In 1968 Kenneth Emory, (Yale /Bishop Museum) visited the University of Arizona, giving a talk in the Arizona State Museum. Not only did he interest us, but he captivated Rob Hommon, who nearly immediately got a job under Emory at the Bishop Museum, abandoned Tucson, and became Hawaiian archaeologist obsessed (we put this positively) with evolution of the Hawaiian state. We had all known of Sahlin’s Polynesian Social Stratification and Services’ Primitive Social Organization from Bill, and off Rob Hommon went. Sahlins had written his book in the Bishop Museum and taught at Michigan, influencing Binford. William Kikuchi left Hawai’i after his MA and work at the Bishop Museum to study at Arizona. Others in teaching and the CRM field over the years have moved

from Tucson to Hawai’i. The flow continues (and we suggest that this Yale-Arizona tension resulting from the ideas of Bill Longacre still casts a large shadow over Hawaiian and all Polynesian archaeology). Bill himself is in the mix, having been a visiting professor at UH, and hopefully we can get him there again and learn how to properly mix a martini.


            The resident archaeologists of the Pacific (regardless of their national origin) got little caught in the foment of the era (neither that of the US or the equivalent movement in the mother England). Regardless of age, many were resentful of the issues raised by the New Archaeology, seeing at as demeaning their efforts in culture history. At the same time, many of the issues that Bill and the New Archaeology had raised began to be obliquely addressed in the research of the early 1970’s in Hawaii and the Pacific, where there was a significant expansion of the questions asked of the archaeological record, and efforts to determine how to measure variables, not just artifacts. In one example, a prominent archaeologist was giving a lecture on settlement pattern of an era he had studied, and was asked about population density. He railed about the impossibility of determining population numbers from archaeological data, but later in the published report devoted many pages to population and its importance in the process of cultural change.


            The influence of Longacre and New Archaeology in Hawai’i today can be seen in a direct way. The early 1970’s saw the implementation of the National Historic Preservation Act with the formation of a Hawaii State historic preservation office and the beginning of what is now called CRM archaeology. In the early regulations promulgated by preservation staff, the necessity for problem solving and hypotheses testing in carrying out archaeological contract work was explicitly laid out. The head of that office had just graduated from UH. Bill Longacre, Lew Binford and the New Archaeology were not mentioned by name, but their influence was clearly there. The legacy remains in current state regulations that direct 95% of the archaeological research in Hawai’i.


            Longacre’s influence is hardly restricted to the Pacific Islands. The University of Hawai’i looks as much to Asia as to the Pacific Islands; witness the lead of Bill Solheim. The germ of ethnoarchaeology planted in Griffin’s mind in 1965 in fact was instrumental in his acceptance of the UH position – the Department OK’d creation of a project among hunter-gatherers in Southeast Asia, as long as some Hawaiian archaeology was accomplished. Griffin’s first love, work among the Agta in the Philippines, began at the same time Bill initiated his Kalinga ethnoarchaeology. We should point out that this not only spread the ideas of ethnoarchaeology and the New Archaeology into Asia, but also ultimately led to two more faculty hires of Bill’s students – Michael Graves and Miriam Stark.


The following is a modest re-phrasing of

Bob Dylan, My Back Pages, 1964;


Crimson flames run through our ears

Rollin’ high and mighty traps

Pounced with fore on flaming roads

Using ideas as our maps…


Yes, our guard stood hard when abstract threats

Too noble to neglect

Deceived us into thinking

we had something to protect

Good and bad, we define these terms

Quite clear, no doubt, somehow

Ah, but we were so much older then,

We’re younger than that now.


                  Bill provided us with many of the ideas that we have used as maps, helped us identify those abstract threats and to define the terms quite clear, and for this we are most appreciative. As Dylan says, yes, things have changed; the archaeological landscape is different from what it was 35 years ago, and Bill is responsible for much of that change. We will not forget being there when those times were changing.


Tuesday, October 1, 2019

Sky Flakes Crackers and living the real life

An anthropologist as she or he wanders must have food. As an anthropologist who is deeply involved with food, cooking and associated wanderings, I have decided to post thoughts on a special food

Sky Flakes
Bion Griffin
Sky Flakes crackers are the Philippines version of American saltines. And no, this is not an infommercial. Sky Flakes are simply a beloved fast slow food or slow fast food or maybe just food for my soul…soul food. My most recent brush with Sky Flakes was mixed blessing. I decided to make a chicken liver paté consumed with a good red wine and, yes, Sky Flakes. The cooking went well.  Then, the pate had to be cooled. By the time that was done, two days had passed. So, I decided to unmold it. Catastrophe. Even with heating the mold, it stuck and then came out messed up. Bad mood. Bad bad mood. Then, sat down to have wine, pate and Sky Flakes. A dog got in the way; dogs likes paté. Argument over the dog. End of pate and wine…and Sky Flakes.  I did return, alone, another day, to the pate, and it was tasty. But except for the crackers, the fun was gone.
Sky Flakes, however, go way back in my Philippines oriented life. I always loved saltines back in the State of Maine, or oyster crackers with oyster stew.  There’s something homey and comforting about this kind of food. So, I had a predilection for this style of crackers. Simply put, Sky Flakes became a comfort food in the Philippines and later in Hawaii. I traveled to the Philippines in the summer of 1972, shortly before martial law was declared. I visited Palanan, Isabela and the Agta along Disuked beach and north up to Malibu River in Cagayan. I ate Sky Flakes. I had no idea how essential the crackers would become as my wife Annie, our son Marcus and I returned for long-term anthropological research among our Agta hosts. The Agta are an ethnic group, one of the Philippine’s many, but one which still then lived in little family clusters and by hunting forest game, riverine fishing, and gathering of forest and littoral foods. Food was never plentiful; hungry days  were frequent. Among the Agta all food is shared. Tucking away a bit for a private moment is not the everyday pattern.
           Annie, Marcus and I lived with families of Agta, first in Palanan and during our second field session on coastal Cagayan by the Malibu and Nanadukan Rivers. We lived in in lean-to shelters in the dry season and in tiny thatched houses during the rains from October or November through into January. Usually we stayed two or three months before a break. The rainy season was cold and wet. A struggling fire of wood collected from the forest kept us warm. Cans of Sky Flakes and, with luck, butter cookies kept morale high. We shared Sky Flakes with our Agta hosts when we arrived from a trip out to Palanan town or from Manila. We didn’t share all our supply. I admit it; we engaged in mild hoarding.  We needed late night pick-me-ups, as some need a drink of gin or whiskey. Oh so quietly we’d pry the lid off the can. Yes, in those days Sky Flakes came in reusable cans with lids that were air tight unless abused and bent. Lid off, a few crackers were carefully, silently extracted and slowly savored nibble by nibble. Then, lid back on, the can went into semi-hiding.  Empty tins were useful and treasured as water proof containers for cameras, film, anything that rain splattering into the lean-to might soak and ruin. The tins were sized right for carrying in a backpack as we moved from campsite to campsite or back and forth from  Manila. But the  heart of it all is a lean-to dwelling, by a river up in the mountains or in back of a surf rumbling beach on the Pacific coast, a low fire smoking, and cups of instant coffee , or perhaps ground burned corn kernels, with butter cookies or Sky Flakes. Best of all Sky Flakes. This kept the anthropologists safe and sound -psychologically. This is food nostalgia at its best.
Annie reminds me of Sky Flakes in her past and a context a bit less nostalgic. Growing up in a provincial Philippines town, she knew Sky Flakes earlier than did I. When ill one of her foods was, yes, Sky Flakes. So sometimes the two are brought together, yet illness and food provisioning has it upsides too. Her beloved grandmother, her mother’s mother, cared for her in many ways, so in illness she may not only recall her food but her grandmother’s presence. So with me, in rural Maine, USA. No Sky Flakes when sick, but when lucky my mother and grandmother, my mother’s mother again, providing toasted bread laden with butter and poppy seeds right out of the oven, or Nabisco saltines with hot soup.
Back in Hawaii one encountered little pleasures. Imagine visiting China Town down King and Beretania Streets, visiting Chinese and Filipino stores and discovering up on a back shelf, Yes! Sky Flakes in the great square tins. Life was good. And year later, in Chesapeake, Virginia, where Marcus worked and where innumerable Filipinos lived, finding plentiful Sky Flakes. Surely this is part of the Filipino diaspora. Now that Annie and I have returned for good to the Philippines, Sky Flakes are always in the cabinet by the bar, back from the dining table (where I began with wine, paté and the crackers.
Sky Flakes have evolved, for good and bad. Now one can buy tingi-tingi packets, three crackers in a cellophane wrap, or buy scads of these in a larger pack. Keeps things fresh and crunchy, I suppose. I usually buy these as it favors limiting my intake. But I do miss the metal boxes. The plastic boxes are ok but not for carrying into the wilds. Here in the house they are used to store rice, cookies and so on, and to sit empty one on top another in the panty. Sky Flakes have evolved other ways too. No longer is one limited to the unique taste of the white original. An explosion of variants tempt one. Garlic flavored, Omega 3 (ugh), Oat Fiber, and as I sit here and write, I am testing Onion & Chives Sky Flakes. Not bad, but my standbys are the oldy and goody, the original. As an aside, I refuse to try the latest thing, Sky Flakes with sweet flavored fillings between two “original” crackers. I know its is good marketing; Filipinos are mad over sweetness and flavors, but one has to draw a line. Heavens, I stopped at an expressway gas station convenience store back along and sought to buy Sky Flakes to munch on as we drove on to Baguio. None! Or only a variety of filled “cookie” Sky Flakes. No way, Jose.
Sky Flakes have lots of uses. A meat loaf is enhanced with crushed crackers. A mac and cheese is best baked with a Sky Flakes topping. Classy imported jams and jellies, or even the overly sweet Baguio strawberry jams make a coffee and Sky Flakes offering for drop-in guests. I might even deign to eat this if the jam is from Europe. Sky Flakes and French blueberry jam!  Or the Maine, USA, Peach Amaretto Jam by Stonewall Kitchen from Rustans…hoo boy. The plain crackers with Clara Olé Mango Jam is A-OK.  Sky Flakes and Philippines made durian jam can’t be beat. Well, lots of Philippine products go with the crackers. Sardines, liver spread, boiled tongue, peanut butter (of course!) and you name it.
As I write I live in a house with nine dogs. I call my residence Dogistan. So what, you say? Well, EVERY TIME I go to the cabinet to get a pack, Sam is immediately by my side. As soon as the plastic wrapper crinkles, Pinky, Pablo and Buddy are standing by. I have to take two packs. I have to share. It is expected. Dogs like Sky Flakes too.
Sky Flakes did give me a small crisis of conscience back along. Shopping in  Holiday Mart on Bokawkan Road, I had picked up some Sky Flakes when I walked past a rack that featured Rebisco Whole Wheat Crackers. Now anything with whole wheat attracts me. I looked. I thought…I wonder…am I being disloyal? Unfaithful? Is this like adultery? I would like to try, to taste. I weakened and grabbed a package. You know, they tasted good. Sweet as sin. I do add Rebisco to my diversified palate now. No regrets. I can still always have Sky Flakes on hand. And someday, hopefully in the far future, as I lie on my deathbed, someone will hand me Sky Flakes. The original please. Just leave the box.

Monday, September 23, 2019

Ethnoarchaeology draft Apache Farmers, Agta Hunters and Bunong Elephant Keepers: A Career in Ethnoarchaeology. Ethnoarchaeology 5(1)56-72

Classics Review

Apache Farmers, Agta Hunters and Bunong Elephant Keepers: a Career in Ethnoarchaeology

P. Bion Griffin, Emeritus Professor, University of Hawaii at Manoa (pbiongriffin@gmail.com)

 NPhotographs in a separate posting.
I spent much of my life interested in prehistoric and modern hunter-gatherer, or forager, societies. This professional exploration has been through concepts, tools, and passions of some aspect or another of ethnoarchaeology. An ecological approach and material focus to modern hunters has led me to seek both the basis of today’s humid tropics foragers and to consider the many models associated with human biocultural evolution from the Plio-Pleistocene through the development of farming.
I believe that a broad four-field anthropology with considerable seepage and cross-fertilization into related fields has given archaeologists and ethnographers a solid platform for researching our hunter-gatherer or forager basis of becoming and being human. Ethnoarchaeology, like anthropology, is properly a broad, diverse and multi-faceted field for joining attempts to “know how we know” a cultural present and a past through patterned material remnants. Ethnoarchaeology, as I comprehend its power, focuses on seeing the behavior extractable from patterns in the present that may build theoretically solid and testable alternative models of humans’ patterns in the past. I will tell you in the following pages how I first began and now many years later continue my journey through anthropology and ethnoarchaeology. Much of my story is one of good luck, good timing, and many supportive teachers, colleagues and students.

The 1960s was an incredibly intellectually exciting time to begin training in American archaeology. Anthropological archaeology, ethnoarchaeology, and ecological anthropology provided hotbeds of thinking, innovation, and quarreling in our field. The Man the Hunter Conference (Lee and DeVore 1968) with its integration of Plio-Pleistocene hominid behavior with possibilities of the adaptation of modern hunter-gatherers was a natural synergy for pulling the writings of Marshall Sahlins (1968) and Sahlins and Elman Service (1960) and Julian Steward (1955) into modeling possible trajectories of social organization and change among humans from the remotest past through the Holocene. Jane Goodall (1971) began rewriting our knowledge of our closest primate kin; Richard Lee (1968, 1969) and Lorna Marshall (1976) opened the doors to the rewards of living among and reporting on extant hunters. In the late sixties, I wished to join the club of those showing the new ways of an innovating post-WWII anthropology by finding “my own” foragers. Moreover, I was continuing a life’s path many others must have begun in their younger years. 
In telling my story, I believe I should maintain a personal perspective that reaffirms the importance of young people being exposed to and encouraged in following their intellectual dreams. My story begins with interest in anthropology through early and voluminous reading.  I remember the influence of Chad Oliver’s (anthropologist C. Symmes Oliver) Mists of Dawn science fiction novel (1952) involving a boy, a malfunctioning time machine, and “the Neanderthal/Cro-Magnon interface.” Long before Jean Aurel’s Clan of the Cave Bear, (1980) Oliver was weaving a tale that both inspired the imagination of young readers and pinpointed an anthropological problem that two generations later still excites us (Finlayson 2009).  Mists of Dawn led to an eighth grade science project on fossil “men,” drawing heavily on Ruth Moore’s (1953) Man, Time, and Fossils. I topped the report off by carving a wooden Neanderthal skull replica. The die were cast, it seems.
As Malcolm Gladwell (2008) in Outliers: the Story of Success  tells us, some people are born lucky and find a measure of success due to the year of their birth and to support from family, friends, professors, and being in the right places at the right times. I entered the University of Maine following federal aid to education and the availability of student loans.  Being somewhat unsure of how to get where I wanted to go, I majored in history (U Maine ’63) until converted by master teacher Richard Emerick and “Introduction to Anthropology.” Emerick’s own unpublished films on Inuit plus the Marshall’s film The Hunters (1957) sold me on the direction I should chart my life. Reading, good films, and great teachers matter for a future anthropologist and they mattered greatly in my case.
I began graduate studies at the University of Arizona in the fall 1965 with Bill Longacre’s core course in archaeology. What a transformative experience it was! Again, as per Gladwell, the timing was perfect for me. Bill was new to Arizona, the New Archaeology was coming to a boil, and wild new work was coming out! Through Bill I encountered this thing call ethnoarchaeology, learned of Dick Gould’s (1969) ethnoarchaeology in Australia, the insights of the Kalahari Project, Colin Turnbull’s (1961) social anthropology with Mbuti, James Woodburn (1968) with the Hadza.  Most compelling was the exploration of aspects of social organization and the world of artifacts. From the Cibeque area of the Fort Apache reservation came the Apache wickiup (Longacre and Ayres 1968:151-160). Seeing the wickiup first hand as a student in 1966 at the Grasshopper Field School further solidified my interests in social behavior and material culture.
While establishing a strong foundation in Arizona archaeology, I began to plan for eventual ethnoarchaeological research. The first chance came working in Cibeque with Apache elder Dewey Case along with Mark Leone and Keith Basso (1971) at Chedeskai Farms. Mr. Case walked us over the abandoned residential and farming landscape where he grew up, explaining the still standing structural remnants, the fields and their irrigation ditches, and the subsistence that existed in those early 20th century days. Mr. Case later invited me to his personal gan curing ceremony in Cibeque, an experience and honor I will never forget. I was convinced I could never restrict myself to only excavation-based archaeology, but must work with people and their material culture.  Luck was with me in meeting this generous man and his pointing me to a new direction.
While the lure of further Apache ethnoarchaeology was strong, I left it for other venues. Again timing favored my success.  In 1969 American universities were hiring without a care. Three years later the market died, but by then I was in a career slot in the Department of Anthropology, University of Hawaii. Hawaii had called with an Assistant Professor position and the agreement that, in addition to Hawaiian archaeology, I could seek my hunter-gatherers in Southeast Asia. At this time I was, as were a few others, interested in the relationships of social unit boundaries, material culture and style in artifacts. The Carter Ranch and Broken K pueblo researches of Bill Longacre (1970) and Jim Hill (1970) respectively fostered an ethnoarchaeological concern with style. The pueblo studies had suggested correlations of social unit residence and the patterned distribution of elements of style in ceramics. Scholars began fanning out among societies still producing various traditional materials; the Kalinga project was begun (Longacre and Skibo 1994 and others), Polly Weissner researched among the Kalahari Bushmen (Weissner 1977) as did John Yellen (1977) Kent Flannery and Frank Hole’s Iranian village archaeology may have spurred the ethnoarchaeology of an Iranian Village (Kramer 1982). Claudia Chang (1992, 1993), whose research has long influenced me, focused her early ethnoarchaeology on pastoralists in Macedonia.
<A> Agta Hunter Gatherer Research
As a junior faculty member at the University of Hawaii, I was directed by the late Henry Lewis to the Agta of Palanan, Isabela Province, Philippines and to scattered groups of these hunter-gatherers living in family clusters along the beaches and up the rivers into the mountain interiors. Men in loincloths, beads, armed with bows and arrows…what more could an aspiring ethnoarchaeologist want? On first visiting one remote valley in 1972, I felt as if I had walked into the earliest Neolithic with its tiny plots of root crops and grains adjacent to palm frond lean-tos. In the mountain interiors, I was among the Philippine’s last true hunters. And, the several groups of Agta made an amazing assortment of arrowhead designs. This was the perfect place to begin ethnoarchaeology. I was interested in two foci: foragers and their adaptation in a humid tropics environment and the nature of style in their arrow complex. Finally, north of Palanan in Cagayan Province, as I visited a campsite, two women walked in carrying bows and arrows. Asking what they were up to, I got the answer “They’ve been hunting”  (Figures 1 and 2). Wait a minute – the Man the Hunter conference said…men hunt, women gather…for the next few years my wife and I, accompanied by our son and eventually with students, concentrated on arrow style, settlement pattern, ecological adaptation, and on Agta women hunters.

 Figure 1.  Two young Agta women in an ambush position during hunting.
Figure 2. Taytayan, an Agta grandmother and superb hunter, draws her bow during a forest hunt.

After securing funding from Wenner-Gren, the National Science Foundation and the University of Hawaii, we began our ethnoarchaeological research, living with several different family clusters of Agta within the municipality of Palanan. This first major fieldwork began in June 1974 and ended in February 1976, excluding R&R in Manila.
The Agta are an ethno-linguistic unit of people residing along both sides of the Sierra Madre, a chain of mountains running the length of eastern Luzon (Estioko and Griffin 1975; Estioko-Griffin 1986, 1985, 1984; Estioko-Griffin and P. Bion Griffin 1981a, 1981b; P. Bion Griffin  1997, 1989, 1984; P. Bion Griffin and Marcus B. Griffin 2000). Popularly known as “Negritos,” or small blacks, and as “Dumagats,” people by the sea, they are among the various related dialect groups scattered along the beaches, up the rivers into the mountain interiors, and over the divide along the western flanks of the mountains above farmer’s settlements. Of special interest is a “rough” territorial clustering of dialect and sub-dialect groups of related Agta; once we learned the dialect boundaries, we knew we could compare kinship, language, and style variation in arrowheads and perhaps other artifacts.
Agta are of special interest to an ethnoarchaeologist seeking to work with material culture in the context of non-western technology, some degree of traditional continuity with a foraging lifestyle and separation from more complex societies. The Aga adequately fit these criteria. They live in family clusters of three, four, or five nuclear families with three generations usually present. They dwell in temporary shelters that vary in style and location depending on the season and on subsistence activity undertaken. Their food getting technology has adopted new materials yet functions largely as earlier technologies did. They emphasize hunting of wild pig, deer, monkey, lesser game, and fish in the rivers and ocean littoral zones. They gather shellfish, honey, an assortment of forest plant foods, and often plant small plots of maize, upland rice, sweet potato, cassava, and miscellaneous vegetables and fruits, such as pineapple.  Their planted foods are not adequate for year around consumption needs.  Meat and fish are traded to non-Agta farmers for basic carbohydrates, most preferably rice. Seasonality forces settlement and subsistence shifts that lead to great potential in ethnoarchaeological explorations. A dry season has intermingling typhoons; a rainy monsoon season comes at the coldest time of year: November through January. During the latter, people may congregate into somewhat larger residential clusters with small post houses placed where flooded rivers, landslides, and falling trees cannot harm the occupants. In the dry season small lean-to shelters usually are placed on beaches near fresh water outlets or on dry riverbeds beside the diminished rivers and streams. Wild pigs are fattest and most desirable during the rainy season; deer and fish dominate the drier months. Flooded rivers cannot be fished, since most fishing is by underwater spear use.
In addition, variation among Agta groups along lines of subsistence emphases adds ethnological interest. Some groups live relatively near lowland farmers, engage in frequent exchange, and often are paid laborers in fields. A few family groups maintain traditional territories in the mountain interior, depending mostly on hunting, riverine fishing, and collection of wild plant foods.1 All this added up starting in 1974 to fascinating ethnography and ethnoarchaeology.
The Agta research began as ethnoarchaeology; interests were primarily in stylistic variation in projectile points, in the patterns of activities on the landscape, and on subsistence activities (Figure 3). These were briefly reported in the 1970s, following research from mid-1974 through early 1976. Aside from an arrow point related article in the magazine Archaeology (1978), the publications described subsistence patterns, variations among Agta groups, and considerations of an adaptation minimally involving horticulture. The paper in Olofson’s 1981 Adaptive Strategies and Change in Philippine Swidden-based Societies (“The Beginning of Cultivation among Agta Hunter-Gatherers in Northeast Luzon”) presented an explanation of variation in commitment to cultivation of crops among Palanan Agta. Other articles looked more closely at variation among Agta groups. Unfortunately, the promised analysis of variation in arrowhead shape and social variables has never been published.2 This is in spite of many hours of students’ work at metric description and on-paper tracings of arrowheads and the collection of arrows itself. A lengthy chapter describing Agta arrows is found in Estioko-Griffin (1984) and an updated analysis is in Heide Knecht’s edited volume Projectile Technology (1997). “Technology and Variation in Arrow Design among the Agta of Northeastern Luzon” provides the springboard for an eventual and hopefully relevant correlation of metrically derived variation of arrows among the various dialect groups ranging through the two provinces.
Insert Figure 3 here Griffin tracing Agta arrowheads for later analyses
The subsistence and settlement data has, in retrospect, proven more valuable to our general knowledge of hunter-gatherer societies than to modeling Plio-Pleistocene hominin organization. Perhaps the one area of Agta research that speaks ethnoarchaeologically to prehistoric hunters, as well as to theories of gender organization, came out of the research inspired by the Agta’s comment in 1972, when the two women walked into camp with bows and arrows, “They have been hunting.” The “woman the hunter” research initially drew less on then current interests in the anthropology of women than on the notion that possibilities in the formation of human societies and of gender organization in the Pleistocene could be elucidated by the Agta case. As work progressed, however, the lure of the Pleistocene model faded and the importance of the Agta gender system grew.
We introduced Agta women hunters before the main period of fieldwork, introducing “woman the hunter” in Florence Dahlberg’s edited volume Woman the Gatherer (1981). We laid out what we knew and planned to learn. At this time, interest in women’s roles in non-western societies was burgeoning and we were lucky to have good timing. In addition, the anthropology of hunters-gatherers was maturing, with several theoretical approaches well developed. Evolutionary ecology raised questions about the viability of women as hunters: too dangerous, would affect reproductive success, women foragers more productive in gathering and childcare, and so on. The power of these arguments helped drive a deep look into the real nuts and bolts of women who did or did not hunt, and to what else they did, especially in reproduction. As in the ethnoarchaeology of 1974-76, in 1980-82 Agnes Griffin, Marcus Griffin (wife and son) and I began teamwork among a Cagayan Province group especially known for its women hunters. We also continued recording arrowhead data and collecting specimens.
The ethnoarchaeology of women hunters, and of all members of the camps, was designed to quantitatively understand men’s, women’s, and children’s participation in subsistence activities, to explore demographic variables associated with child bearing and child rearing, and to look at variations within the population. We reasoned that if women were successful hunters, did not succumb to dangers, and still reproduced and raised children, we could both suggest that an elaboration of the “woman the gatherer” model was realistic, that the model might be archaeologically tested among Pleistocene societies, and should expand our knowledge of women’s gender roles among traditional societies. In addition, we suggested we might find male’s roles as both supportive and complementary of women’s roles. Lastly, we wanted to inquire into child rearing and childcare practices, and to relate those to the women’s subsistence work.
The research to satisfy those ends demanded sampling detailed work activities, including all subsistence tasks, travel, and childcare. In addition, fertility records and body fat measurements were appropriate. Each woman provided information on menarche age, on failed and live births, childrens mortality, and her own weight, height, and, through skin fold measurements, body fat. Women who often, seldom, and never hunted were compared. The who, what, when, where and how of hunting, fishing, gathering, horticulture, hired labor, childcare, and rest/play were recorded over about twenty months of fieldwork. Distance travel was estimated, animal kills were weighed and distribution noted, and joint activities recorded.  Technology used was detailed. The idea was to find similarities, differences, and variations between and among men and women. Agnes, Marcus and I lived with our host Agta, building our own rattan-frond thatched house (or lean-to in season), engaging in data recording and participant observation. We spoke the dialects of the Agta groups hosting us and shared what they ate, or didn’t eat. We traveled on some hunting trips and joined in on the kill occasionally. We traveled widely at times, building a census for the region, collecting data on women, and talking about women and their work. The anthropologists lives were, at least looking back, wonderful and the Agta were gracious and enthusiastic hosts. What more could an anthropologist want? Never mind illnesses, hunger, weight loss, and discomfort; they are all good for one (at least looking back in time).
The results of the Agta Woman the Hunter project are, in my opinion, our principal and most significant research contributions to ethnoarchaeology and to anthropology in general. We demonstrated, in spite of the naysayers, that some Agta women are successful hunters and they also birth and raise children. Among hunter-gatherers, at least in certain environments, women may undertake work that is reserved for men in other societies and environments. Variation is a rule and women do not hunt exactly as do men among the Agta. Some Agta women, and this varies among groups and residential clusters, and especially in subsistence option contexts, do not hunt, period. Others love to hunt. Some women who were never seen to hunt, claimed to be able to do so, but chose not to.
The women who hunt the most, and bring in the most kills, are young grandmothers. Mothers with babies on their backs may opportunistically hunt, or at least kill a game animal that they happen upon while gathering or traveling. They are nearly always armed with at least a long knife. In our study, women brought in more kills than did men, but the weights of individual kills were less than those secured by men. The biggest, most dangerous wild pigs tended to be found through solitary stalking or ambushing. Women almost never hunted alone; sisters, husband and wife, aunt and younger niece, or some other combination was the rule. Women usually hunted with dogs. The dogs helped find and channel the deer or pigs to the waiting hunters. Men and women were not differentiated in terms of prestige, influence, or place in the family group. No one was lauded for hunting success; the person who killed an animal usually did not carry it into camp, but he or she did usually butcher and divide the carcass. Each household received the same allotment of meat (or fish), including the anthropologists, but since everyone was related, cooked meat made a second casual redistribution to make sure children were fed. The anthropologists always sent our cooked monkey meat to children. It looked too human for our tastes!
The Agta women and their hunting came at a great time. The anthropology of women found the work interesting; the general reading public also tuned in. The widest distribution came through Agnes Griffin s (1986) paper in Natural History magazine: “Daughters of the Forest”. Reprinted in several undergraduate anthropology collections over the years, this introductory article has steered scholars and non-scholars towards the available publications. Griffin et al. (1985) and Goodman et al. (1985) take us deeply into the relationships of Agta female hunting practices and their reproductive characteristics. These\ data speak to the hunting capacities of women in other hunting based societies, past and present. Surprisingly, an internet search reveals that the early (1981) article in the edited volume Woman the Gatherer has attracted more academic attention than later and more detailed papers. Some papers do probe back to prehistoric and even Pleistocene societies in queries about gender roles and women hunting. Even Neanderthal women have not escaped!  So, perhaps the issue of women hunters will continue to help build archaeological models of temporally remote societies.
The publications have argued that forager adaptations to the humid tropics often vary in important ways from the arid tropics or northern temperate regions. Gender lines may be less rigidly drawn. In Southeast Asian forests women tend to share most of the work that men do; Agta men often cook and tend children, especially if more than one youngster is present in a nuclear family. Decision-making is a family affair conducted over the morning or evening campfire. We suggest that in some environmental contexts in the Pleistocene we cannot exclude females from major roles in subsistence beyond woman the gatherer. Did Homo erectus of earlier females hunt, and if so, what are the implications for the developing human family system? Fire and cooking, story-telling, language, and art and dance may have played their roles, but perhaps so did women procuring foods through hunting. Aspects of Agta adoption of very modest horticulture may shed insights to jungle use by terminal Pleistocene foragers. Agta, for example, may plant tiny plots of root crops at scattered locations throughout their domains. In time of need or with a happenstance passing by, the few roots may be dug and cooked for a meal. Likewise, the small plots of upland rice, cassava, and maize seen in our work show the processes of integrating plant cultivation with hunting, fishing and wild food gathering. The harvests are small, may be shared widely, and suffice for food only at specific times of the year. This is a model of a shift from solely foraging to an emphasis on horticulture.
Contemporary anthropological issues in gender studies have drawn the Agta women into debates ranging from psychology to area studies. These are a far cry from ethnoarchaeology, to be sure, but ethnoarchaeology results can find homes in many places.  For example, I recall Carol Kramers (1982) book Village Ethnoarchaeology: Rural Iran in Archaeological Perspective was pointed out in a US Army Human Terrain System context as a good way to possibly study an Afghan village especially noted was the village map enclosed in the book.3 Thomas Headland and Lawrence Reid built off questions of Agta subsistence options projected over the last several thousand years and developed the wild yam hypothesis (Headland 1987; Headland and Reid 1989). The hypothesis questioned the viability of the humid tropics for foragers without farming trade partners. Agta ethnoarchaeology helped foster the debates and tropics wide research.
Other Agta ethnoarchaeology undertaken remains incomplete. In 1987, I was intrigued by the orthodoxy that North American Clovis mammoth hunters utilized spears or atlatl cast shafts, headed by the classic Clovis fluted points. Clovis points are big, heavy and well-suited to their tasks. I thought that the case for NOT using the points on arrows, cast by bows, was arguable. I secured several skillfully flaked and accurate replicas and took them to my Agta friends, who stated they certainly would work on arrows, but Theyd break too easily. Agta steel arrowheads are often larger and heavier than Clovis points, as are a variety of ethnographically known arrow assemblages. One Agta, Tomba, an old friend, took it upon himself to mount the Clovis points on shafts as he, not I, saw fit. I photographed and annotated each step. The end result was a fletched hard wood shaft with a wooden insert shaft to which the point was bound with a meter long cord. The cord connected the secondary shaft to the main arrow shaft. The principle is that the point would penetrate into an animal, then the main shaft would fall off to catch on vegetation while the line played out. When the line fetched up, the arrow point would stay inside the animal, causing more damage. Since hunting and procuring wild pig and deer by the Agta is a daily necessity of life, we decided not to use the points in actual hunting, and I baulked at buying a local domestic pig on which to try out the arrows power. In any case, a big pig is still not a small mammoth.4,  That Clovis points make fine arrowheads demonstrates little except the early Native American hunters could have, technically speaking, used bows to launch Clovis points attached to arrow shafts. If the Agta could do it, other hunters could too. The details remain to be published.
During the Agta research in 1982, I took a break to be a senior advisor for the Association of Southeast Nations (ASEAN) ethnoarchaeology field school run by the National Museum of the Philippines in Atulu, Iguig, Cagayan. The villagers made paddle and anvil earthenware pottery that they sold around the province. The entire process from digging clay in the nearby Cagayan riverbanks to firing in open air, wood-burning piles, was as traditional as it can get. My advising on analyses of design elements in the ceramic assemblages surely had Emil Haury thrashing in his grave in Arizona; his take on my knowledge of ceramics back in graduate school days was well known!5 With junior professionals attending from around Southeast Asia, many conversations and views on how to understand ethnoarchaeology were a daily affair.
Between 1992 and 1994, I Directed the UH Center for Southeast Asian Studies. In that capacity we secured a Henry Luce Foundation grant that funded our faculty, graduate students, and undergraduate students as well as junior faculty at Universitas Pattimura in Ambon, Maluku, Indonesia. We together undertook a cross-disciple study of the cultural, environmental, and economic contexts of the indigenous sago palm, a principle food source. As noted below, doctoral student Kyle Latinis undertook an enthnoarchaeological study of tribal arboriculture on the Island of Seram, while Ken Stark did doctoral research in the archaeology of subsistence of early foragers, initiating an investigation into the providence of tropical forests’ carbohydrates in pre-horticultural contexts (Latinis and Stark 2005).
Mentoring Students
While I value my Agta research in its many aspects, and especially in ethnoarchaeology and gender studies, I equally value the achievements of my University of Hawaii students. These scholars and their researches make my contributions take second place. Certainly, I am especially proud of my anthropologist wifes Agta publications, and my sons own doctorate (University of Illinois, Anthropology, 1996) on Agta kinship and culture change. My students deserve special discussions herein as many are relevant to ethnoarchaeology. Tom Headland (1987), Navin Rai (1982), Karen Mudar (1985), Connie Clark (1990), and Melinda Allen (1985) all wrote important contributions concerning the Agta. While by and large ethnographies, the work develops the foundations the Griffins build that apply to ethnoarchaeology.
Tom Headland is a premier and decades long scholar of Agta culture; his doctoral dissertation under my supervision built on decades of living with and studying Agta in Casiguran south of Palanan. His early-unpublished description of Agta arrows inspired me to pursue the subject in depth. His challenging any of my facile statements kept the level of my research at top- level. The Agta women in Casiguran did not hunt in the fashion of those in Cagayan; his queries forced close attention to detail.
Navin Rai (1982) resisted pressure to return to Nepal and study an indigenous society there, instead insisting on working with a different culture. I plunked him down with a remote group of Agta on the western side of the Sierra Madre, people who were related to the folk I studied in the 1970s, and he produced a great volume on those Agta. His data on subsistence, mobility, exchange, and marriage allowed in depth modeling of variation in Agta society   Connie Clark (1990) followed our stay in Cagayan, living among the same families and looking at new variations in subsistence strategies. Karen Mudar (1985) and Melinda Allen (1985) joined us in the Cagayan fieldwork for a time in 1981. Melinda, a part of the original grant, was the team botanist. She collected and helped identify the economic plants of the forest, giving a solid knowledge of the use of tropical forest flora (Allen 1985). Karen, an archaeologist, collected wild pig skulls and mandibles and related cultural data for her zoology masters degree on Sus barbatus, the wild pig hunted by the Agta. Her aging and sexing the crania provided additional data for the carcass weight measures we collected whenever possible (Mudar 1985). The sample of skulls and mandibles was much larger than the weighed animals sample, given the Agta custom of keeping mandibles as trophies. A portion of the specimens were sampled for DNA in the quest to trace the Southeast Asian spread of pigs and to delimit genetic lines of pigs, especially as related to human movement through the archipelago. (Larson 2007) Im pleased to have played a minor role in the controversy over the origins and spread of the Proto-Austronesian speaking peoples.
Lye Tuck Po (1997) would not call her doctoral research among the Batek of Pahang, Malaysia, ethnoarchaeology, but her sophisticated ethnography feeds directly into the understanding of Agta adaptations to the Philippines humid tropics. Comparison among foragers in the same general geographic area and environment allows insights into variations as well as similarities. Indeed, the Batek and similar groups in Malaysia show strong similarities in gender assignments of labor when compared with Agta (K. Endicott 1981).
Ethnoarchaeology took a new twist with Barbara Moirs (1989) stay on Takuu Island, a Polynesian Outlier deep in the heart of Melanesia. Barbara investigated ongoing and past use of the huge Tridacna gigas, a bivalve shell used both as cultivated fauna for consumption and the shell as tool material, especially adzes. The shell adzes performed both practical and symbolic function. Barbaras research had applications to the archaeology of Polynesians adaptations to small atolls with scare resources and limited plant cultivation potentials. Akira Goto (1986), another specialist in Polynesian archaeology, brought ethnoarchaeology to bear on Polynesian fishing and fishing technology.
Kyle Latinis (1999, 2000) completed a major project in ethnoarchaeology while living in the interior of Seram, Indonesia. He produced an understanding of arboriculture in a forest context and dug deeply into the technology of sago palm production. Contributions were made to the archaeology of the spread of humans through the archipelago and into the Pacific and to buttressing the case for continued sago cultivation. Kyles researched included ethnographic and historical dynamics of arboreal-based subsistence economies particularly in Maluku and Greater Near Oceania.
Bertell Davis (n.d.) undertook what arguably may be the most extreme stretch in ethnoarchaeology by going back and forth on Vietnamese water management change and the development of the classic Khmer water reservoir system. Bert, one of my more unorthodox students, put boots on the ground while a member of a military/civilian team recovering US Airmens remains from crash sites in Vietnam and on other trips talked with Khmer farmers while walking over the present day remaining Angkorian water systems. The ethnoarchaeology paid off with new insights into the relationships of the Western Baray and its use, or lack thereof, for irrigation.
Most recently, Stephen Acabado (2012, 2010) distilled archeology, ethnography, GIS analyses, and work with informants on site to understand the origins, technology, and functions of the famous Ifugao rice terraces around Banawe, the Philippines.  His ongoing, long-term study shows the intimacy possible through ethnoarchaeology in attacking such a complex problems as the agricultural terrace systems in Southeast Asia.
A reviewer of an early draft of this paper charged me with ignoring my roles as an administrator and as a teacher at the University of Hawaii, arguing that readers should appreciate the need for researchers and teachers to also accept the usually onerous duties of helping out in departmental and college administration.  Early in this paper I noted the influences of great teachers on my career. I was Chair of the Department of Anthropology during the terrible budget cut years of 1996-2001.  I recall the budget and faculty position retention efforts of myself and my ally, archaeologist Michael Graves, then the Special Assistant to the Vice President and Vice Chancellor anthropologist Carol Eastman, as we hammered away on the College of Social Sciences Dean, Dick Dubanoski. Of the departments in the college, anthropology alone lost no positions as we struggled to maintain our reputation and quality as a leading Pacific-Asia oriented program.  I suspect Dick thought Michael and I were a bit unreasonable and rough on him, but that was our job! Administration is largely managing social relations in order to achieve ones goals. Given the fractious nature of departmental faculties, a chairpersons job is thankless, at least while it is ongoing. Dick eventually decided to solve the problem by making me his Associate Dean, and Michael moved to the chairs position.  From my new position, I was supposed to not favor my own department, but anthropology runs deeply in the blood! One thing is for sure, however. Maintaining a serious research profile while chairing or deaning is decidedly difficult.  As soon as I hit the old working class magic age of 65, I retired with an extensive if leisurely research agenda in place and funded. I do not regret the years of administration since I was able to have positive effects on the department while still advising students. 
Early in this paper, I noted the influences of great teachers on my career. Equally important in my mind it undergraduate and graduate teaching. While devotion to quality teaching may not bring academic fame, my own debt to my teachers always kept me emphasizing teaching. I especially enjoyed teaching introductory undergraduates. So many special and appreciative students entered my life through those classes, sometime even taught in the local movie theater. The highlight of my final year was to be the recipient of the first Graduate Mentor award of the University of Hawaii. With that, new research became possible, along with a permanent residential move from Hawaii to the Philippines, and close to my Agta friends.
Moving Into the Future
My own love of and belief in the value of long-term field research now leads me back to the Agta, working in a team again with my son, Marcus, and wife, Agnes. The drifting away from Agta in the 1990s grew out of regret over many of my friends killed as a result of guerilla warfare in the area, of the need for fresh perspectives, and because of new opportunities involving funding in Indonesia and Cambodia. I am now especially interested to see how Agta technology has changed and how a likely greater emphasis on farming has moved their subsistence practices, residential patterns, and mobility away from a forager mode.
That said, another ethnoarchaeology and ethnography project is now in progress and will continue off and on over the next few years. In 2005 and 2006, I secured initial funding and began the research project The Ethnography of Cambodian Elephant Husbandry (2009-10). The goal of the project is both ethnographic, as in all my work now, and ethnoarchaeological. Beginning in 1995, I co-headed the University of Hawaii/East-West Center/Royal University of Fine Arts program in the archaeology, anthropology, art history and architecture of Cambodia. This led me to overseeing the programs involvement in Cambodian archaeology and inevitably into interest in the evolving Khmer society between 300 b.c.e. to 1300 c.e. From that I wanted to understand the place of animals in the society, and especially the ubiquitous working elephant. I found living, working elephants and realized that little anthropology existed on this fabulous animal and its place in ancient Asian kingdoms. The only answer was to undertake my own research. I initially combined working among the elephant keeping Bunong people of Mondul Kiri Province, Cambodia with training in Thailand on elephant driving and care. We have participant observation again, an approach to anthropology I hold essential for any work I could conceive.
The research starts from the elephant, in my case. My University of Arizona professor Jim Downs in his Ethnology of Pastoral People course stated that if one is to understand an animal keeping people, one must understand their animals. I took that to heart. Eventually I will, hopefully, understand the possible dynamics of human-elephant interactions, work possibilities and limitations. A further goal is to take the ancient Khmer record and place the elephant in the context of the development of that agrarian state society. Another goal is to record the place of the elephant in traditional cultures, to the extent that traditional cultures are still extant.6 Moving beyond Mondul Kiri Province, planned research includes southern Lao and, if possible, Burma. The Asian elephant was once a war machine as well as a draft animal pulling logs, hauling harvests, and carrying passengers through jungle fastness. Todays elephants among the Bunong still are a farm animal, not unlike the American draft horse, and is in harness for all but warfare. The Bunong once captured wild elephants for breaking and then service with the Khmer royalty. I cannot study this part of the peoples work, since capture is illegal and severely punished. But, elephants work should allow estimation of their inputs and outputs in centuries past. The reputed 4000 elephants once resident at the Kings city at Angkor may eventually be understood through ethnoarchaeology (Griffin 2000).
Reflections on the power of ethnoarchaeology to bring knowledge into archaeology return me to the foundations of four-field anthropology and to cross-fertilization from many of the natural and social sciences. I have interests in animal-human interactions in general, hence the elephant husbandry project. Southeast Asian pigs have also been considered (Griffin 1998). In the Agta work, we dealt with wild pig and deer biology and behavior, with the Luzon forest ecosystem, with climatology, land form change, human biology and demography, and, yes, even kinship.  Actually, kinship analyses, long out of favor with anthropologists, are central to seeking patterns of variation among classes of arrow style and socio-linguistic boundaries. Site formation processes and the distribution of residues depend on a long-term understanding of rainfall patterns, the effects of typhoons, observations on discard and subsequent taphonomic processes. Even what dogs do to residues, artifacts, and the surface of  the sites is absolutely critical. As with elephants among the Bunong, dogs among the Agta must be observed and considered in the creation of archaeological sites.
The permeability or irrelevance of boundaries; knowledge of the inter relationships of human behavior, the artifact world, and the environment, apprehended and interacted with- material as culturally constructed and contextualized in the external world, the external world as a material creation of people
Some have said the Agta research is barely ethnoarchaeology. I disagree. Ethnoarchaeology must be a hugely broad field of inquiry and of theory building. Myriads of types of testable models applicable to the archaeological record must be possible. The adaptations to the humid tropics of Asia may be better approached through an understanding of the Agta, as well as of the Batek, the Onge, the Jarawa, and others. Simply the realization that in some cases females as hunters may be an adaptive advantage allows new ideas brought to Pleistocene studies and to gender issues in archaeology and the general social sciences.
My career as an ethnoarcheologist has been eclectic. This is due in part to the luck of opportunities, the influence of students, colleagues, and teachers, as well as a firm belief that diversity of experience and wide interests make an anthropologist, ethnoarchaeological or otherwise, better. Engaging in ethnological studies has been important in this. I am fortunate to be part of a mode of inquiry that sheds light on the human condition and the many ways it is expressed. I have done my best to foster the excitement in students I first felt and continue to experience doing anthropology. I am grateful to them for their inspiration and look forward to interesting fieldwork and learning yet to come.
1. These characterizations apply for the time period from 1972 through 1995. Agta culture has changed over time; some individuals now have cell phones, speak English, and live much as their lowland Filipino counterparts. One “Beauty Queen” pageant winner recently surfaced. An Agta, Juliet Chavez of Palanan, in 2005 became the town’s Sabutan Festival Queen.
2. Collected specimens of Agta arrows from two provinces numbers 166; paper tracings with associated social data number over 300. These await final publishing, being stored in my research facility in the Philippines. Mea culpa
3. In reality, no such undertaking has been attempted. Seldom are HTT members in a village for any length of time.
4. Back in graduate school in those glorious Clovis days, I recall C. Vance Haynes thinking of getting a team together to go to Africa to experiment with a Clovis killing of an (old? sick? unsuspecting?) elephant. I of course wanted to join, but I graduated and left for Hawaii. Can’t win them all.
5. Dr. Haury as a member of the National Academy of Sciences was an  advisor to the  NASA team that planned a mid-1980s manned trip to Mars and considered including an archaeologist in the crew. Dr. Haury suggested I go. I do not think he had ethnoarchaeology in mind.
6. The use of elephants in the Southeast Asian royal courts is nearly extinct. Elephants are used in logging in Burma and Laos. Scattered tribal groups still maintain working elephants. Most elephants in Thailand are used in tourism.

References Cited
Acabado, Stephen Bercasio. 2012. Taro before rice terraces: Implications of radiocarbon determinations, ethnohistoric reconstructions, and ethnography in dating the Ifugao terraces. In Irrigated taro (Colocassia esculenta) in the Indo-Pacific: Biological and historical perspectives,  ed. M. Spriggs, D. Addison, and P.J. Matthews,78:285-305, Senri Ethnological Studies. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.
_____. 2010. The archaeology of Ifugao agricultural terraces: Antiquity and social organization.     Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawaii, Manoa.
Allen, Melinda S. 1985. The rain forest of Northeastern Luzon. In The Agta of Northeastern Luzon: Recent studies, eds. P. Bion Griffin and Agnes E. Griffin, 45-68. Cebu City, Philippines: University of San Carlos Press.
Aurel, Jean. 1980. Clan of the cave bear. New York: Crown Publishers.
Chang, Claudia. 1993. Pastoral transhumance in the Southern Balkans as a social ideology:   Ethnoarchaeology in Northern Greece.  American Anthropologist 93(3):687-703.

_____. 1992. Archaeological landscapes: The ethnoarchaeology of pastoral land use in the           Grevena Region of Greece. In Place, Time, and Archaeological Landscapes eds. J.            Rossignol and L. Wandsnider, 65-89. New York: Plenum Press.
Clark, Constance. 1990. The trading networks of the Northeastern Cagayan Agta. MA thesis,      University of Hawaii, Manoa.
Davis, Bertell D. n.d. Baray, water table, and irrigation at Angkor. Unpublished ms. in authors possession.
Endicott, Karen. 1981. The conditions of egalitarian male-female relationships in foraging         societies. Canberra Anthropology 4:1-10.
Estioko, Agnes A. and P. Bion Griffin. 1975. The Ebukid Agta of Northeastern Luzon. Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society 3(4):237-244.
Estioko-Griffin, Agnes A. 1986. Daughters of the forest. Natural History 95(5 May):36-43. [Reprinted in Anthropology: Contemporary Perspectives, 5th Ed, 1987. Ed. Phillip Whitten and David E. Hunter. 234-237. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.]
_____. 1985. Women as hunters: The case of an Eastern Cagayan Agta group. In The Agta of Northeastern Luzon: Recent studies. eds. P. Bion Griffin and Agnes A. Estioko-Griffin, 18-32. Cebu City, Philippines: University of San Carlos Publications.
_____.1984. The ethnography of Southeastern Cagayan Agta hunting. Master's thesis in anthropology, University of the Philippines, Diliman.
Estioko-Griffin, Agnes and P. Bion Griffin. 1981. The beginnings of cultivation among Agta Hunter-gatherers in Northeast Luzon. In Adaptive strategies and change in Philippine swidden-based societies, ed. Harold Olofson, 55-72. Laguna, Philippines: Forest Research Institute, College,...
_____. 1981 Woman the hunter. In Woman the gatherer, ed. Frances Dahlberg, 121-151. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Finlayon, Clive. 2009. Humans who went extinct: Why Neanderthals died out and we survived. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gladwell, Malcolm. 2008. Outliers: The story of success. New York: Little, Brown and Company.
Goodman, Madeleine J, Agnes Estioko-Griffin, P. Bion Griffin, and John S. Grove. 1985. Menarche, pregnancy, births spacing and menopause among the Agta Women foragers            of Cagayan, Luzon, the Philippines. Annals of Human Biology 12(2):169-177.
Goto, Akira. 1986. Prehistoric ecology and economy of fishing in Hawaii: an      Ethnoarchaeological approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawaii, Manoa.
Gould Richard A. 1969. Yiwara: foragers of the Australian desert. New York:Scribner.
Griffin, P. Bion. 2009-10. Of elephants and men: the ethnography of elephant husbandry in Cambodia. In Focus: Journal of the Center for Khmer Studies 7:14-16.
 2000. Four thousand elephants at Angkor? Invited paper in a symposium      honoring  Patrick Culbert. Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology. Philadelphia, PA.
_____. 1998 An ethnographic view of the pig in selected traditional Southeast Asian societies. In Ancestors for the Pigs: Pigs in Prehistory, ed. Sarah Nelson, 27-37. MASCA Research papers             in Science and Archaeology15.
_____. 1997 Technology and variation in arrow design among the Agta of Northeastern Luzon. In Projectile Technology, ed. Heide Knecht, 267-286. New York: Plenum Press.
_____. 1989. Hunting, farming, and Sedentism in a rain forest foraging society. In Farmers
as Hunters - The Implications of Sedentism, ed. Susan Kent, 60-70. Cambridge: University Press.
_____. 1984. Forager land and resource use in the humid tropics: the Agta of Northeastern Luzon, the Philippines. In Past and Present in Hunter Gatherer Studies, ed. Carmel             Schrire, 95-121. New York: Academic Press.
            1978. Ethnoarchaeology of Agta hunter-gatherers. Archaeology 31 (6): 34-43.
Griffin, P. Bion, Agnes Estioko-Griffin, Madeleine J. Goodman and John Grove. 1985. The Compatibility            of Hunting and Mothering among the Agta Hunter-Gatherers of the Philippines. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research l2(ll/l2): 1199-1209.
Griffin, P. Bion and Marcus B. Griffin. 2000. Agta hunting and sustainability of resource use in Northeastern Luzon, Philippines. In Hunting for sustainability in tropical forests, eds.     John G. Robinson and Elizabeth L. Bennet, 325-335. New York: Columbia University
Griffin, P. Bion, Mark Leone and Keith H. Basso. 1971. Western Apache ecology - From horticulture to agriculture. In Studies in Apachean Culture History and Ethnology, eds. by Keith H. Basso and Morris Opler, 69-73. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. 69-73.
Goodall, Jane. 1971. In the shadow of man. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Headland, Thomas N. 1987. The wild yam question: How well could independent hunter-    gatherers live in a tropical rainforest ecosystem? Human Ecology 15:463-491.
Headland, Thomas N. and Lawrence A. Reid. 1989. Hunter-Gatherers and their neighbors           from prehistory to the present. Current Anthropology 30:43-66.
Hill, James N. 1970. Broken K Pueblo. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Kramer, Carol. 1982. Village ethnoarchaelogy:Rural Iran in archaeological perspective.                      New York: Academic Press.
Latinis, D. Kyle. 1999. Subsistence diversification in Southeast Asia and the Pacific: Where           does Maluku fit? Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawaii, Manoa.
_____. 2000. The development of subsistence system models for island Southeast Asia and near Oceania: The nature and role of arboriculture and arboreal-based economies.  World Archaeology 32(1): 41-67

Larson, Gregor et. al. 2007. Phylogeny and ancient DNA of Sus provides insights into Neolithic expansion of Island Southeast Asia and Oceania.  PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, doi:10:1073/pnas.0607753104.
Latinis, D. Kyle., and Kenneth Stark. 2005. Cave use variability in Central Maluku, Eastern Indonesia. Asian Perspectives 44 (1):119-36.

Lee, Richard B. 1969. !Kung bushman subsistence: an input-output analysis. IN Environment and cultural behavior ed. A. Vayda. New York: Natural History Press.

            1968. What hunters do for a living or how they make out on scarce resources. Man the hunter eds. R. Lee and I. DeVore. Chicago:Aldine Publishing Company.
Lee, Richard B. and Irven DeVore, Eds. 1968. Man the Hunter. Chicago: Aldine Publishing    Company.
Longacre, William A. 1970. Archaeology as anthropology: a case study. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Longacre, William A. and James E. Ayres. 1968, Archaeological lessons from an Apache          Wickiup. In New Perspectives in Archaeology, eds. Sally R Binford and Lewis R.       Binford, 151-160. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
Longacre, William A. and James M. Skibo. 1994. Ed.  Kalinga ethnoarchaeology. Washington:         Smithsonian Institution Press.

Lye, Tuck Po. 1997. Knowledge, forest and hunter-gatherer movement: The Batek of Pahang,      Malaysia. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawaii, Manoa.

Marshall, John. 1957. The hunters. Boston: Harvard Film Studies Center.

Marshall, Lorna. 1976. The !Kung of Nyae Nyae. Boston: Harvard University Press.

Moir, Barbara. 1989. Mariculture and material culture on Takuu atoll: Indigenous cultivation of        Tridacna gigas (Mollusca bivalvia) and its implications for pre-European technology,           resource management, and social relations on a Polynesian Outlier. Ph.D. dissertation,     University of Hawaii, Manoa
Moore, Ruth. 1953. Man, time, and fossils. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Mudar, Karen. 1985. Bearded pigs and beardless men: Predator-prey relationships between pigs and Agta in Northeastern Luzon, Philippines. In The Agta of Northeastern Luzon: Recent Studies, eds. P. Bion Griffin and Agnes Estioko-Griffin, 69-84. Cebu: University of San Carlos Press.
Oliver, Chad. 1952. Mists of dawn. New York: Winston.
Olofson, Harold, Ed. 1981. Adaptive strategies and change in Philippine swidden-based societies. Laguna, Philippines: Forest Research Institute, College, Laguna.
Rai, Navin K. 1982.  From forest to field: A study of Philippine Negrito foraging in     transition. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawaii, Manoa.
Sahlins, Marshall D. 1968. Notes on the original affluent society. In Man the hunter, eds. R. Lee and I. DeVore. 85-89. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
Sahlins, Marshall D. and Elman R. Service (eds.) 1960. Evolution and culture. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Steward, Julian. 1955. Theory of culture change: the methodology of multilinear evolution. Urbana:University of Illinois Press.
Turnbull, Colin. 1961. The Forest People.New York: American Museum of Natural History Press.
Wiessner Polly. 1982. Risk, reciprocity and social Influences on !Kung San economics. In Politics and History in Band Societies, eds. Eleanor Leacock and Richard Lee, 61-84. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Woodburn, James. 1968. In Man the hunter. R. Lee and I. DeVore (eds.) Chicago:Aldine Publishing Company.

Yellen, John. 1977. Archaeological approaches to the present: Models for reconstructing the            past. New York: Academic press.