Archaeological Theory —

Analogy as a Critical Element of Archaeology /

Ethnoarchaeology in Action
Thinking about People
• gender as cultural construction
• two-spirit people
• social organization
• worldview
• nature of chiefdoms
• kinship

Isn’t this all cultural anthropology?

The Challenge

“When it comes down to it, contemporary archaeology is

not about discovering the past; instead it is really the process
by which we come to know what we know about the past.
Along with astronomers, cosmologists, and just a few others,
archaeologists can never view directly what it is we study—
ancient human behavior, but only the fragmentary traces of
human activity hundreds, thousands or more years removed.
This is a formidable epistemological challenge that makes us
dependent upon inference and analogy—what Alison Wylie
refers to as “thinking from things.” Even experimental
archaeology, ethnoarchaeology, taphonomy, and other
actualistic and experiential approaches at best provide only
proxies.”
GN
Review of Laurie Wilkie’s Strung Out on Theory
The Puzzle

The archaeological record is incomplete and fragmentary; it

is a jigsaw puzzle with no picture on the box and no edge
pieces, of which most of the pieces are missing and the
shapes and designs of the others change in relation to the
questions we ask of them. In addition, the materials we
excavate do not come out of the ground with labels
attached; we have to assign meanings to them. Thus what we
know of the past is as dependent on the questions that
direct our research as it is on the methods we use.”
GN
“On the Goddess Myth and Methodology,” Current Anthropology 1994
 Why is this difficult?
Here’s an example as to why…
What is This?
What is This?
What is This?
Are You Certain?
How Do You Know?
A Functional Classification,
Roger’s Rockshelter, Missouri (by Stan Ahler)

Projectile points
Projectile points/Hafted cutting tools
Hafted cutting tools
Generalized cutting tools
Hafted scrapers
Transverse scraper/grinders
Irregular scrapers
Perforators
Chipped stone axe/adzes
A Functional Classification,
Roger’s Rockshelter, Missouri

Projectile points
- artifacts used only as tips for spears, darts, or arrows;
- characterized by small size in relation to all other points from site;
- relatively high frequency of impact-fractured and complete specimens
Hafted cutting tools
- specialized tools that functioned other than as tips for projectiles;
- wear patterns indicate a variety of uses involved, ranging from slicing to
cleaving, sawing, and scraping.

etc.
A Functional Classification,
Roger’s Rockshelter, Missouri

Projectile points
A Functional Classification,
Roger’s Rockshelter, Missouri

Hafted cutting tools

A Functional Classification,
Roger’s Rockshelter, Missouri

Generalized cutting tools

A Functional Classification,
Roger’s Rockshelter, Missouri

Hafted scrapers
A Functional Classification,
Roger’s Rockshelter, Missouri

Transverse scraper/grinders
A Functional Classification,
Roger’s Rockshelter, Missouri

Irregular scrapers
A Functional Classification,
Roger’s Rockshelter, Missouri

Perforators
A Functional Classification,
Roger’s Rockshelter, Missouri

Chipped stone axe/adzes

A Functional Classification,
Roger’s Rockshelter, Missouri

Projectile points
Projectile points/Hafted cutting tools
Hafted cutting tools
Generalized cutting tools
Hafted scrapers
Transverse scraper/grinders
Irregular scrapers
Perforators
Chipped stone axe/adzes
A Functional Classification,
Roger’s Rockshelter, Missouri

Projectile points/Hafted cutting tools

A Functional Classification,
Roger’s Rockshelter, Missouri

Projectile points
- artifacts used only as tips for spears, darts, or arrows;
- characterized by small size in relation to all other points from site;
- relatively high frequency of impact-fractured and complete specimens
Projectile points/Hafted cutting tools
- unspecialized, multipurpose implements that functioned first as tips for
lances or darts, and secondarily as some form of hafted, cutting,
scraping, sawing or prying tool;
- functional diversity suggests a removable foreshaft;
- characterized as medium to large size relative to all other site points
Hafted cutting tools
- specialized tools that functioned other than as tips for proejctiles;
- wear patterns indicate a variety of uses involved, ranging from slicing to
cleaving, sawing, and scraping.
A Functional Classification,
Roger’s Rockshelter, Missouri

Identification / classification based on:

- use wear patterns
- impact fractures
Analogy
 Behavioral Archaeology is dependent upon
“actualistic” studies, observing behavior and
its material correlates, via:

- experimental archaeology
- ethnoarchaeology
- taphonomy and related studies

We use analogy to extend those into the past

What is Analogy?

An analogy notes similarities between two entities and

infers an additional attribute of one is also true of the
other:

• An archaeological object has attributes

A, B, C, and D.

• The ethnographic analogy is characterized by A, B,

C, and D and has the function E.

• Therefore, the archaeological object

also has the function E.
Types of Analogy

Formal Analogy: If two objects or situations have

common properties, they probably also have other
similarities.

Relational Analogy seeks to determine some natural or

cultural link between the different aspects in this
analogy.
Types of Analogy

Formal Analogy
If two objects or situations have common properties (i.e.,
forms), they probably also have other similarities:
- refers to most archaeological applications
- relatively weak since observed association of shared
characteristics can be fortuitous
- use of corroborative evidence (e.g., use wear) to
strengthen correlation
Types of Analogy

Relational Analogy seeks to determine some natural or

cultural link between the different aspects in this analogy.

- generally strong because it involves “some necessary

relation between the various aspects of the analogy”
(Hodder 1982: 19).
The Use of Analogy

Ian Hodder (for next week)

1982 Ch. 1, The Use of Analogy. In The Present Past: An Introduction
to Anthropology for Archaeologists. Pen & Sword Books, London.

In this chapter, Hodder explores both the utility and (potential)

limitations of ethnographic analogy and the use of ethno-
archaeological research. He examines the criteria for the proper
use of analogy and, in particular, emphasizes the need to
consider the meaning and interpretation of material cultures
within the total social and cultural contexts.
“The Use of Analogy” — Ian Hodder
Ch. 1, The Present Past 1982
“The Use of Analogy” — Ian Hodder
Ch. 1, The Present Past 1982
The Use of Analogy (Reading Guide Questions, 1)
- How has analogy traditionally been used to support
archaeological interpretations?

- And then what are the potential problems of its use,

especially in terms of making assumptions (re: Clark’s
work at Star Carr)

- Are analogies “unreliable,” as Hodder suggests? If so, what

are the implications?

- What are the primary criticisms of the use of analogy in

archaeology?
Questions?
Intermission

Kendrick Scott Oracle– “Cycling through Reality”