Abstract
AbstractMost optimistic accounts of analogies in archaeology focus on cases where analogies lead to accurate or well-supported interpretations of the past. This chapter offers a complementary argument: analogies can also provide a valuable form of understanding of cultural and social phenomena when they fail, in the sense of either being shown inaccurate or the evidence being insufficient to determine their accuracy. This type of situation is illustrated through a case study involving the mortarium, a characteristic type of Roman pottery, and its relation to the so-called Romanization debate in Romano-British archaeology. I develop an account of comparative understanding, based on the idea that humans have a natural desire to understand ourselves comparatively, i.e., in terms of how we resemble and differ from societies at other times and places. Pursuing analogies can provide this type of understanding regardless of whether they turn out to be accurate. Furthermore, analogies can provide a similar form of understanding even when the evidence turns out to be insufficient to determine their accuracy.
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Reference48 articles.
1. Alcock JP (2001) Food in Roman Britain. Tempus, Stroud
2. Ascher R (1961) Analogy in archaeological interpretation. Southwestern J Archaeol 17:317–325
3. Bartha P (2010) By parallel reasoning: the construction and evaluation of analogical arguments. Oxford University Press, New York
4. Binford L (1962) Archaeology as anthropology. Am Antiq 28:217–225
5. Clark JG (1951) Folk-culture and the study of European prehistory. In: Grimes EF (ed) Aspects of archaeology in Britain and beyond. HW Edwards, London, pp 49–65
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献