Ethnographic analogy,the comparative method,and archaeological special pleading |
| |
Authors: | Adrian Currie |
| |
Affiliation: | 1. Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, University of Oxford, Dyson Perrins Building, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3QY, UK;2. School of Archaeology, University of Oxford, St Hugh''s College, Oxford, OX2 6LE, UK;1. Biodiversity Research Centre, University of British Columbia, 2212 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada;2. Management and Information System Division, The Sauder School of Business, 2053 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2, Canada |
| |
Abstract: | 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. |
| |
Keywords: | Ethnographic analogy Comparative method Archaeology Evidence Uniformitarianism |
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录! |
|