Analogy in Archaeology

8/13/2019 Analogy in Archaeology

1/6

13th April 2012 Student Number: 0954119

9C: How valid is the use o analo!" in the pro#ess o ar#haeolo!i#al interpretation$

The outputs of any archaeological investigation should lead to the production of a final

narrative, or synthesis, based on an interpretation. (Ascher, 1961: 317, arver !""9: !97#$%. &nterpretations can be produced fro' the results of previous synthesis,

eperi'entation or co'parison )ith current hu'an behaviour, each ea'ple being reliant

on the application of analogies borro)ed or independently developed. arver goes on to

state that the synthesis is carried out for the benefit of the researcher, the future ecavator

and the public, )hose interest in archaeology has never been higher. A)areness of one*s

heritage has been a gro)ing sub+ect for so'e ti'e, as can be seen by the popularity of

genealogy, history and ancestry based television productions including the co''unityoriented archaeology of hannel *s Ti'e Tea'. -tephanie oser su's up the public

epectation of archaeology )ith the /uote *It is no longer acceptable for archaeologists to

reap the material and intellectual benefits of another societys heritage without that society

being involved and able to benefit equally from the endeavour'(oser et al., !""!: !!1%.

0acilities such as the The orvi2 i2ing entre in or2 eist as per'anent ehibitions for

archaeology and the stories behind it, a feature so often 'issing fro' 'useu's. &an

4odder*s definition of interpretation as *translation* sits co'fortably )ith the )ell#used

description of the past as a foreign country and these translations can e'po)er social and

cultural groups to establish and build on lin2s to their past (4odder, 1991: 15%. 4o) then,

is the *correct* interpretation established

To produce the narrative it is necessary to include the hu'an story in the interpretation,

despite it being i'possible to 2no) eactly ho) or )hy an event in the past unfolded and it

is through the use of analogies constructed in the present that this is achieved. ith so

'uch infor'ation ta2en at face value by the general public there is a social obligation on

the archaeological co''unity to *get it right*. According to 8inda llis, )ith particular

reference to 'useu's but undoubtedly relevant to other presentation 'ethods, 'e'bers

of the public are rarely, or not at all able to asses the accuracy of infor'ation (llis, !"":

6"%. &nterpretations are subconsciously constructed during ecavation in an atte'pt by

the observer to 'a2e sense of the evidence. &n doing so the observer is using his or her

o)n eperiences or epectations to find an analogy (Andre)s, arrett, ; 8e)is, !""":

5!6%. &ndeed, it is possible for the ecavation itself to be influenced by preconceptions of

1 of 6


2/6


3/6



behavioural assu'ptions can be. Carl 4eider observed the >ugu' >ani tribe of the >ani

region )hich, ecept for the lac2 of pottery, had the characteristics of a eolithic culture.=n the sub+ect of technology it )as noted that although the benefits of different 'aterials,

applications and techni/ues, as varied as body ar'our and tobacco pipes, )ere 2no)n to

'ultiple groups it did not necessarily follo) that they )ere adopted by all (4eider, 1967:

61%. 0urther'ore, the )or2ing ethic of this population )as not as intensive as applied

during the eperi'ent )ith 4eider observing that 'uch ti'e )as spent relaing or

socialising (4eider, 1967: 57%. The =>? )eathering eperi'ent has a significant

lifespan of perhaps 1!$ years ($$% and although 'odern tooling and techni/ues )ereused in the construction phase the vast 'a+ority of the eperi'ent )ill be observation of

natural processes. This is about as close as it is possible to get to a recreation of the

original conditions and although the sectioning eperi'ents )ill be conducted on an

historically 2no)n site it is still far younger than the original. The absence of daily hu'an

activity on the site and its affects on the archaeology )ill need to be recognised.

eyond the artefact and sites analogies can be applied to cultural groups. Analogical

&nference is the application of present#day (or historic% ethnographic observations to the

interpretation of archaeological features. thnographic co'parisons are predicated on the

assu'ption that the culture under observation behaves in the sa'e )ay as the historic or

prehistoric one and has therefore not been affected by the passage of ti'e. The first

failing )ith this pre'ise is that 'odern *pri'itive* cultures have the'selves developed and

advanced fro' the archaeological ti'e under investigation. 0rederi2 0ahlander argues

that there have never been any societies operating unchanged and *out of ti'e*

(0ahlander, !"": 193%. To i'prove the validity of such co'parisons a level of relevance

is re/uired, in other )ords )here the culture under investigation archaeologically is the

sa'e as that observed ethnographically a high degree of i'portance, or relevance, is

achieved. 8ess relevance is achieved )ithout this continuity but can be obtained through

observation of cultures in a si'ilar environ'ent (Ascher, 1961: 319 , inford, 1967: !%.

Analogical inference is also a 2ey ele'ent to 8e)is inford*s iddle


4/6



universally applicable rules )hich 'anifest the'selves as signature patterns recognisable

in the present and being the sa'e as those that created the archaeology in the past(?ierce, 19$9: 3%. This also assu'es a degree of stasis )ith the archaeology unchanged

and accurately representing a snap#shot of the culture at the point of loss or abandon'ent

etc. llis argues that it )ill have changed and therefore any interpretation of it is affected

(!"": 6"%. The 'ain proble' )ith analogy at all levels )hen pertaining to lost societies,

particularly )here no historical record eists, is that it is not testable. 4o) then can a

satisfactory analogy be identified if the end product is still not available as a chec2

inford re/uires that credibility of the analogy can only be gained by validating the'ethodology (?ierce, 19$9: 3%. &n reality this only serves to validate the ability of the

person )ho developed it. This )as a vie) stated by >onald Tho'pson as cited by Ascher

(1961: 3!!%. 4eider*s )or2 in e) Buinea is one )here less relevance eists than )ould

other)ise have been assu'ed and )as intended as a cautionary tale on the use of

ethnographic co'parisons. 0or ea'ple, the typical settle'ent consisted of a group of

t)o to five co'pounds, )as fre/uently dis'antled and 'oved and )ith social relationships

nor'ally spread across 'ultiple settle'ents they )ere often e'pty for long periods of

ti'e. onsidered archaeologically 4eider suggested that the interpretation )ould be of a

village organisation )ith a population t)ice that observed (4eider, 1967: 5$%. 0ro' a

general approach ho)ever, the recognition that the re'ains )ere of a settle'ent )ill hold

a high degree of relevance and it is only etension of the analogy that causes the

infor'ation to beco'e suspect. ?aul


5/6



be dra)n bet)een the' (ylie, 19$5: 7!%. ryony =r'e su's up the opinions of a

nu'ber of archaeologists, including inford, by reinforcing the correct use of analogy)hich is to provide a range of possible interpretations rather than singling out one (=r'e,

197: !1"#11% and no 'atter ho) plausible an interpretation see's does not render it

accurate (inford, 19$3: 75%.

At the general level analogy can be applied relatively safely. =b+ectively a post#hole is a

post#hole. &t has been sho)n ho)ever that even a si'ple artefact based theory on the

ethnic origins of a group of people can be disproven by the advent of ne) technology. Asan interpretation epands there is less securityD a ring of post#holes considered ob+ectively

is +ust that but sub+ectively it 'ay be a d)elling, an enclosure or a ritual feature.

peri'ental archaeology has been sho)n to have so'e value although the data

gathered and eperiences recorded should only ever be regarded as representative of

)hat *)e* can achieve )ith *their* tools and undoubtedly 'ore relevance is gained )ith

'ini'al conte'porary influence. As the etent of an interpretation gro)s to include the

*)hy* ele'ent the application of cultural analogies has been sho)n to be 'ore

proble'atic. The 'ethodologies e'ployed in their for'ation beco'e 'ore co'plicated

)ith the identification of eceptions such as 4eider*s e) Buinea tribe. Any atte'pts to

narro) the nu'ber of possible analogies by i'proving the 'ethodology in deriving the' is

potentially a circular argu'ent if the product can never be proven.

To achieve any interpretation analogies are essential and it 'ust therefore be accepted

that there )ill be 'ultiple analogs, and hence 'ultiple narratives. 4o)ever, if in all cases

they are readily accessible and it is clear that any narrative presented is only one of a

nu'ber of possibles, then archaeology has done as 'uch as is currently possible.

Analogy clearly has its uses, 'ore relevant at the lo)er levels of artefacts and sites and

perhaps less relevant at the cultural level )here the /uestion see's to beco'e 'ore

unans)erable. =n this basis the overall use of analogy has its li'itations but retains

validity.

5 of 6


6/6



%iblio!raph"

Andre)s, B., arrett, @. ., ; 8e)is, @. -. . (!"""%. &nterpretation not record: the practiceof archaeology.Antiquity, 74, 5!5#53".Ascher,

Analogy in Archaeology

Documents

Transcript of Analogy in Archaeology