Variation on a theme: Mycenaean early civilisation in a comparative perspective

Author:

Bajema Marcus

Abstract

To determine the usefulness of comparative studies to understand Mycenaean palatial society, it is first necessary to discuss early civilisations as a comparative category. In this regard it is important to note that the level of generalisation concerns a specific set of societies with similar emergent properties, which are subject to two complementary forms of evaluation. Firstly, models of early civilisations need to correspond to the archaeological and historical records of single cases, and, secondly, there needs to be a cross-cultural coherence to the models used. The interpretive strength of a comparative category depends on its success in this balancing act. Comparative studies are of limited use for evaluating the correspondence between models and data for specific societies. At most the differences in available sources between distinct cases might reveal biases, being the result of a reliance on a limited set of sources. The use of analogy to make inferences for a case based on another case is not comparative, and is not used here. The significant use of comparative categories lies in the coherence they bring to model building, as well as the stimulus provided by interpretive debates on particular aspects of early civilisations.

Publisher

Archaeopress Publishing Ltd

Subject

General Medicine

Reference197 articles.

1. Adams, R.M. 1966. The evolution of urban society. Early Mesopotamia and Prehispanic Mexico. Chicago (IL): Aldine Publishing.

2. Alberti, M.E. and N. Parise 2005. Towards an unification of mass-units between the Aegean and the Levant, in R. Laffineur and E. Greco, (eds) Emporia. Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean: 381–391. Liége: Université de Liége.

3. Althusser, L. 2006. Philosophy of the encounter. Later writings, 1978–1987. London: Verso.

4. Andrianov, B.V. [1969] 2016. Ancient irrigation systems of the Aral Sea area. The history, origin, and development of irrigated agriculture. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

5. Arnason, J.P. 2003. Civilizations in dispute. Historical questions and theoretical traditions. Leiden: Brill.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3