How Valuable is the Use of Ethnographic Analogy in Archaeological Interpretation? A Skeptical Stance. Interpreting Archaeological Evidence: Material Culture and Environment by Karen M. Spence (original) (raw)
ARC4ICA Essay: Analogy and ethnography: a straitjacket for archaeological explanation?
Analogy is inextricably linked with human perception, discovery and cognition (Edgeworth, 2003, pp. xiii, 13). Analogical reasoning is a form of inferential logic whereby likely relationships are implied between similar entities with varying degrees of probability (Binford 1967, p. 1; Van Reybrouck 2000, p. 42; Wylie 1982, pp. 392-393). Since the 19th Century, archaeologists have used ethnographic analogy to understand the human past behind the archaeological record (Charlton 1981, pp. 133-134, 136; Wylie 2002, pp. 137-138). They illustrated ancient prehistoric hunter-gatherers' lifeways using ethnographic analogies. Sir John Lubbock utilised general analogical research to "throw some light on" (1865, pp. xiii, 1) prehistoric peoples. He contended that contemporary Inuit scrapers were "absolutely identical" to common prehistoric tools, so their use is thus "entirely explained" (Lubbock 1865, p. 407), regardless of dissimilarities (Van Reybrouck 2000, p. 71). William John Sollas (1911, pp. 91, 94) similarly believed that knowledge of modern hunter-gatherers was useful for analogies to understand prehistoric people, by directly comparing Tasmanian Aboriginals with Palaeolithic peoples. Yet, without this ethnographic-based beginning, "few identifications or comparisons would be possible" (Kent 1994), as the archaeological record "cannot speak to us ... cannot tell us how or why they were made or what they mean" (Peregrine 2001, p. 1). However, such uncritical social evolutionary-based similarity studies are not useful archaeological tools (Stiles 1977, p. 89).
Ethnographic analogy, the comparative method, and archaeological special pleading
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 2015
Ethnographic analogy, the use of comparative data from anthropology to inform reconstructions of past human societies, has a troubled history. Archaeologists often express concern about, or outright reject, the practice--and sometimes do so in problematically general terms. This is odd, as (or so I argue) the use of comparative data in archaeology is the same pattern of reasoning as the 'comparative method' in biology, which is a well-developed and robust set of inferences which play a central role in discovering the biological past. In pointing out this continuity, I argue that there is no 'special pleading' on the part of archaeologists in this regard: biologists must overcome analogous epistemic difficulties in their use of comparative data. I then go on to emphasize the local, empirically tractable ways in which particular ethnographic analogies may be licensed.
Archaeological Theory and Snake-Oil Peddling: The Role of Ethnoarchaeology in Archaeology
Ethnoarchaeology, 2009
By the 1970s ethnoarchaeology took on a more central role in archaeological method and theory. During that era some of the classic ethnoarchaeological projects took place across the globe, all with the general aim of making archaeology more anthropological. Since that time, there have been an increasing number of ethnoarchaeological projects serving not just the original Processual Archaeology goals but also the concerns of an expanding archaeological theory. Despite this increase in ethnoarchaeology, there is a general belief that it does little to serve the concerns of those doing "real archaeology, " that is excavating and making inferences about past activity. Through an analysis of citations in American Antiquity, I assess how ethnoarchaeological work has been used by prehistorians and whether there truly is a disjunction between ethnoarchaeological research and prehistoric reconstructions. In doing so, I explore the role of ethnoarchaeology in theory building, whether archaeological theory really matters, and the most productive way to employ ethnoarchaeological research. It is argued that archaeological theories come and go like snake-oil cures but those that last focus on the relationships between people and material culture. One such theory, a performance-based approach, is offered and contrasted with agency and practice theories.
Archaeology and Anthropology: Brothers in Arms? - On Analogies in 21st Century Archaeology
The relationship between the disciplines of anthropology and archaeology has been repeatedly debated over the years. It is safe to say that the flow of ideas has mostly been one- directional. Archaeologists have frequently, and somewhat uncritically, adopted traditional, anthropological models and frequently employed practices and beliefs of contemporary low-scale societies as a way to “put flesh back on the bones”. Archaeologists, it seems, lack faith in the material record as sufficient for social analysis. A somewhat strange attitude, as the past is in many respects “unknown” to us and not necessarily similar to practices of the contemporary world. These arguments call for a reconsideration of the future relations between anthropology and archaeology. We may actually find that the traditional big brother – little brother relationship between anthropology and archaeology may be turned upside down! In this text, I shall identify some main problems in the use of cross-cultural data in archaeology and anthropology and focus on other ways to employ different “knowledge” of social practices in our analysis of the past.
The Play of Tropes in Archaeology: Ethnoarchaeology as Metonymy
Ethnoarchaeology, 2010
The language of archeology is infused with figurative speech or tropes such as metaphor and metonymy. Since tropes mark symbolic representations in archaeological language and reasoning, it is critical to develop a strongly reflexive posture regarding how archaeologists make interpretations, name artifacts, and carry out bridging arguments through ethnoarchaeology. The misuse of analogy rhetoric in ethnoarchaeology is particularly problematic, for it obscures how analogy is displaced by metonymy to create transformed identities between the past and present. The action of metonymy within ethnoarchaeology further obscures, through amplified metaphorical tension, critical differences that may feed further archaeological inquiry. The solution to this conundrum is a strictly comparative approach that abandons the analogy framework and that seeks to explain how and why differences arise.
Ethnoarchaeology: critic, consolidator and contributor
World Archaeology, 2016
The papers that make up this debate section acknowledge the fact that ethnoarchaeology has increasingly been marginalized by archaeology, but deserves a central role in the evaluation and development of archaeological theory. The interactions of ethnoarchaeologists with functioning societies and real people make it hard for them to ignore the complex and multi-faceted interrelationships between humans and material culture that frequently make archaeological interpretations challenging. Lyons and Casey rightly point out that ethnoarchaeology should be thought of as a methodologyone engaged in studying the complex relationships between material culture and living peoples. Following Hicks (2003), they (and similarly Cunningham and MacEachern) argue that the role of ethnoarchaeology is to broaden the experiential understanding of other cultures that we use to interpret archaeological situations. For instance, the expansion of concepts like 'landscape' and 'environment' to encompass such ideas as 'viewscapes', 'soundscapes', 'sense-scapes' and 'affordances' reflects a growing awareness in archaeology that humans live in a multi-sensory world. Working with people and focusing on their 'lived experience' in dealing with material culture, ethnoarchaeology is well positioned to contribute to archaeological understandings of the diverse perceptions, filtered by culture and biology, through which people interact with their physical and social environment. As Sillar and Ramón Joffré and other contributors point out, analogies have always been a foundation of archaeological theory. Ultimately, all archaeological interpretation is based on analogy, and archaeologists who have attempted to deny this are fooling themselves. We were not there, we did not see the people act, we cannot ask them to explain the underlying intangible rules that structured what they did and made. We can understand the past only by reference to something we do know, even if it is as removed as an ethnographic report on a culture we have never visited or a common-sense understanding of how people somewhat similar to ourselves might be likely to act. Obviously, we should avoid the assumption that our ways are the only ways or the imposition on the past of a familiar analogy without consideration of alternatives. Perhaps the most important function of ethnoarchaeology is the study and evaluation of archaeological theory. Ethnoarchaeology has the potential to challenge even our most fundamental ideas, as Brady and Kearney demonstrate in their discussion of the living nature of rock art. Archaeologists who believe that they are interpreting the past in the absence of reference to the present are deluding themselves. This is true, as Lyons and Casey point out, for theory as well as
Interpreting the Past Through Each Others' Eyes: Critically Approaching Ethnographic Analogies
Diversity in Archaeology. Proceedings of the Cambridge Annual Student Archaeology Conference 2020/2021, 2022
Fourth session in the publication 'Diversity in Archaeology. Proceedings of the Cambridge Annual Student Archaeology Conference 2020/2021' Free download at: https://www.archaeopress.com/Archaeopress/Products/9781803272818 Ethnographic analogies have always been a part of the process of interpreting the archaeological record. Throughout shifting paradigms, the use of ethnographic analogies has gone from naïve to complex reasoning, demanding that time aspects, ecological settings, and deep structures are to be considered in the search for large-scale processes or ideologies. Recently, posthumanist theoretical perspectives, including the ontological turn, new materialism and human-animal relations, have shifted focus from top-down, large-scale processes or ideological approaches to a bottom-up approach celebrating local contexts, which values relational over human agency and diversity. Posthuman approaches are thus regarded as more inclusive. However, ethnography is still a tool designed to meet Western epistemological needs and faces the challenging prospect of balancing Indigenous ways of knowing with the need to be scientifically rigorous. This in turn highlights pervasive colonialism and the lack of multivocality, where Indigenous voices are often discredited for being subjective (Kovach, 2010), even within posthuman archaeologies. Ultimately, posthuman approaches can risk the same universalities that they discredit. This session welcomes (but is not limited to) papers that demonstrate new and diverse applications of ethnographic analogy to prehistoric and historic contexts, as well as heritage studies that celebrate local ways of understanding the past.
ETHNOGRAPHIC ANALOGY IN ROCK ART INTERPRETATION
This paper refutes the validity of ethnographic analogy as a tool to assist in the interpretation of rock art. It also rejects the ability of the modern observer of ancient rock art to determine with scientific veracity what is depicted in rock art, or what its meaning is. It even challenges the reliability of ethnographic explanations, pointing out their deficiencies. The nature of objective links between unrelated arts via universals is explained.
Ethnoarchaeology: A Non Historical Science of Reference Necessary for Interpreting the Past
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 14, No. 2, June 2007, 153-178., 2007
Ethnoarchaeology appears nowadays as a poorly formulated field. However, it could become a real science of reference for interpreting the past if it was focused upon well-founded cross-cultural correlates, linking material culture with static and dynamic phenomena. For this purpose, such correlates have to be studied in terms of explanatory mechanisms. Cross-cultural correlates correspond to those regularities where explanatory mechanisms invoke universals. These universals can be studied by reference to the theories found in the different disciplines they relate to and which are situated outside of the domain of archaeology. In the domain of technology, cross-cultural correlates cover a wide range of static and dynamic phenomena. They allow the archaeologist to interpret archaeological facts-for which there is not necessarily analogue-in terms of local historical scenario as well as cultural evolution. In this respect, it is shown that ethnoarchaeology, when following appropriate methodologies and focussing on the universals that underlie the diversity of archaeological facts, does provide the reference data needed to climb up in the pyramid of inferences that make up our interpretative constructs.
ARCHAEOLOGY AS ANALOGY. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE TAXONOMY OF ICONIC MODELS BASED ON ANALOGY
On the basis of Rom Harré's theory, scientific knowledge is constituted mainly by models. The relationships between models, in turn, are based on analogical relations. The two main groups of models are paramorphs and homeomorphs. In archaeology, homeomorphs are constructed according to the attributes discernible from artefacts. These models, then, are normally called typologies and taxonomies. We cannot get any information about the classes or taxa concerning artefacts without 'extra' knowledge. Paramorphs, on the other hand, are models with which we bring about knowledge concerning human actions and structures of societies. With paramorphs we explain the silent and passive artefactual findings of archaeology as products of social and cultural human actions. In this article, Harré's theory of models is revisited and re-evaluated considering the role and uses of analogy and analogical reasoning in archaeological theory.
Material Evidence: Learning From Archaeological Practice
2015
How do archaeologists make effective use of physical traces and material culture as repositories of evidence? Material Evidence takes a resolutely case-based approach to this question, exploring key instances of exemplary practice, instructive failures, and innovative developments in the use of archaeological data as evidence. The goal is to bring to the surface the wisdom of practice, teasing out norms of archaeological reasoning from evidence. Archaeologists make compelling use of an enormously diverse range of material evidence, from garbage dumps to monuments, from finely crafted artifacts rich with cultural significance to the inadvertent transformation of landscapes over the long term. Each contributor to Material Evidence identifies a particular type of evidence with which they grapple and considers, with reference to concrete examples, how archaeologists construct evidential claims, critically assess them, and bring them to bear on pivotal questions about the cultural past. Historians, cultural anthropologists, philosophers, and science studies scholars are increasingly interested in working with material "things" as objects of inquiry and as evidence – and they acknowledge on all sides just how challenging this is. One of the central messages of the book is that close analysis of archaeological best practice can yield constructive guidelines for practice that have much to offer practitioners within archaeology and well beyond. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1. Material Evidence: Learning from Archaeological Practice Alison Wylie and Robert Chapman Part I. Fieldwork and Recording Conventions 2. Repeating the Unrepeatable Experiment Richard Bradley 3. Experimental Archaeology at the Cross Roads: A Contribution to Interpretation or Evidence of ‘Xeroxing’? Martin Bell 4. ‘Proportional Representation’: Multiple voices in Archaeological Interpretation at Çatalhöyük Shahina Farid 5. Integrating Database Design and Use into Recording Methodologies Michael J. Rains 6. The Tyranny of Typologies: Evidential Reasoning in Romano-Egyptian Domestic Archaeology Anna Lucille Boozer Part II. Cross-field trade: Archaeological applications of external expertise and technologies 7. The Archaeological Bazaar: Scientific Methods for Sale? Or: ‘Putting the ‘Arch-’ Back into Archaeometry’ A. M. Pollard and P. Bray 8. Radiocarbon Dating and Archaeology: History, Progress and Present Status Sturt W. Manning 9. Using Evidence from Natural Sciences in Archaeology David Killick 10. Working the Digital: Some Thoughts from Landscape Archaeology Marcos Llobera 11. Crafting Knowledge with (Digital) Visual Media in Archaeology Sara Perry Part III. Multiple working hypotheses, strategies of elimination, and triangulation 12. Uncertain on Principle: Combining Lines of Archaeological Evidence to Create Chronologies Alex Bayliss and Alasdair Whittle 13. Lessons from Modelling Neolithic Farming Practice: Methods of Elimination Amy Bogaard 14. Evidence, Archaeology and Law: An initial Exploration Roger M. Thomas 15. Law and Archaeology: Modified Wigmorean Analysis Terence Anderson and William Twining 16. Traditional Knowledge, Archaeological Evidence, and Other Ways of Knowing George Nicholas and Nola Markey Part IV: Broader perspectives: Material Culture as Object and Evidence 17. Evidence of What? On the Possibilities of Archaeological Interpretation Gavin Lucas 18. Meeting Pasts Halfway: A Consideration of the Ontology of Material Evidence in Archaeology Andrew Meirion Jones 19. Matter and Facts: Material Culture and the History of Science Simon Werrett
Application of Comparative Ethnology in Archaeology: Recent Decades
Anthropologie, 2023
The use of ethnographic and ethnohistoric data to inform reconstructions of past human societies has a long tradition. While simple ethnographic analogies have been used since the beginning of archaeological research, since the 1950s there have been several efforts to rationalize and systematize their use. This led to the development of several new methods, including direct historic analogy, ethnoarchaeology, and comparative ethnology. The latter is now experiencing a resurgence, stimulated by the digitization of large ethnographic databases and the development of new analytical methods. As part of a broader cross-cultural research approach, comparative ethnology explicitly aims to answer questions about the incidence, distribution, and causes of cultural variation. Based on the statistical evaluation of theories and large samples of cultures, this approach not only illustrates variation in cultural practices, but also provides supporting arguments for archaeological hypotheses. Specifically, it can (1) reveal archaeological indicators of human behavior, (2) test causal and non-causal associations between diverse cultural and ecological variables, and (3) reconstruct the evolutionary paths of specific cultural traits. Despite significant development in this field over recent decades, the application of comparative ethnology to the study of the human past is still relatively rare in the archaeological community. Our aim is to (re)introduce this method and demonstrate its potential to address archaeological questions through several recent case studies from two thematic research areas: hunter-gatherers and kinship systems. This paper demonstrates the breadth and variation of topics that can be studied using comparative ethnology.
ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANALOGY INTERARCHAEOLOGIA 6 ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANALOGY
ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANALOGY Papers from the Eighth Theoretical Seminar of the Baltic Archaeologists (BASE) Held at the University of Helsinki and Tvärminne Zoological Station, Hanko, Finland, November 30th–December 2nd, 2017. Marko Marila, Marja Ahola, Kristiina Mannermaa and Mika Lavento (eds), 2020
ANALOGY AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROCESS: CREATING PLACES IN THE SCANDINAVIAN DIASPORA OF THE VIKING-LATE NORSE PERIOD C. AD 800–1200
eds. Debating Archaeological Empiricism: The Ambiguity of Material Evidence (Routledge Studies in Archaeology 18. New York: Routledge, 2015, viii+199pp., 16 figs., hbk, ISBN 978-0-415-74408-9) Robert Chapman and Alison Wylie, eds. Material Evidence: Learning from Archaeological Practice (New York: Routledge, 2015, xx+361pp., 69 figs., 3 maps, 5 tables, pbk, ISBN 978-0-415-83746-0) Guy Gibbon. Critically Reading the Theory and Methods of Archaeology: An Introductory Guide (Lanham: AltaMira Press, 2014, viii+245pp., 5 illus., 4 tables, pbk, ISBN 978-0-7591-2341-0) practicalities of what archaeologists dothe character of archaeological reality and
anthropology', by which we mean forms of collaboration and relationship that do not straightforwardly reproduce existing understandings of disciplinary hierarchy and asymmetry. 3 It is important to acknowledge that this book focuses predominantly on the ways in which this relationship has played out in the context of British institutional and theoretical contexts (although see Lucas, and Robinson, this volume). Nonetheless, it picks up on wider issues concerning the underlying epistemological foundations of archaeology and anthropology, and the possibilities and problems for collaborative relationships between these. The American 'four-fold' system (of cultural, physical and linguistic anthropology, and archaeology) has often been held up as a model for such collaboration. However Segal and Yanigisako's (2005) recent account points to a situation in the US that is more similar to the European academic context than archaeologists and anthropologists have often cared to admit, characterised, as they and other contributors to the volume suggest, by misunderstandings, ruptures and profound theoretical differences.