Ascher Analogy 1961

8/11/2019 Ascher Analogy 1961

1/10

University of New Mexico is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Southwestern Journal of Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

Analogy in Archaeological InterpretationAuthor(s): Robert AscherSource: Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 17, No. 4 (Winter, 1961), pp. 317-325Published by: University of New MexicoStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3628943Accessed: 24-08-2014 19:13 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 24. 14.168.50 on Sun, 24 Aug 201 4 19:13:52 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=unmhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3628943http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3628943http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=unmhttp://www.jstor.org/


2/10

ANALOGY IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION

ROBERT ASCHER

THE

WORK of the archaeologist an be divided into four tasks. First thereis the formulation and refinement of concepts; second, data gathering andprocessing; hird, the interpretation f the data, and finally, synthesis. The fourtasks are obviously related n an hierarchical cheme: concepts enable meaningfulsynthesis, synthesis depends on interpretation, and interpretation s ultimatelyfounded on archaeological ata.

Substantial progress has been made in approaches o the first, second, andfourth tasks in recent years. Productive work on concepts s illustrated by the suc-cessful Seminars n Archaeology of the Society for American Archaeology. The

appearance f the new journal Archaeometry nder the auspices of The ResearchLaboratory at Oxford, with its concentration on the application to archaeologyof instruments developed n other disciplines, ndicates how vigorous he attack onthe second task has been. The ambitious work World Prehistory by GrahameClark, if not wholly successful, demonstrates hat a synthesis of human prehistoryon a global scale is now feasible. What can be demonstrated or concept formula-tion, data gathering, and synthesis, annot be easily shown for archaeological nter-pretation. If it is granted that acceptance of synthesis must vary with confidencein interpretation, t becomes apparent hat interpretation warrants attention.

The most widely used of the tools of archaeological nterpretation s analogy.In its most general sense interpreting by analogy s assaying any belief about non-observed behavior by referral o observed behavior which s thought to be relevant.The purpose of this paper s to examine his single interpretative ool. Concentra-tion is on analogies where no historical records are available as aids. Evidencewhich suggests that there is cause for concern with the present status of analogyas an interpretive ool is presented and some suggestions are sketched.

The introduction of analogy into archaeology an be traced to the era of theclassical evolutionary deology. Analogy in this period was elementary: f it were

true that certain living peoples represented arly phases of human history, thenthe interpretation of the remains of extinct peoples could be accomplished bydirect reference o their living counterparts. A monument o this logic is Sollas'Ancient Hunters. In this work the Tasmanians, Australian Aborigines, Bushmen,and Eskimos were enlisted as modem representatives f four successive paleolithiccomplexes. The question of the use of any class of palaeolithic ools could be satis-fied by direct referral o one of the four groups. For example:

317

VOL. 17, 1961

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/10

SOUTHWESTERN JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGY

Anthropologists re generally agreed that the Palaeolithic coup de poing" wasnot provided with a haft, but was held directly n the hand; and that it was not usedsimply as a "chopper": t is extremely ratifying herefore o find that the Tasmanians

had no notion of hafting their homologue, r rather analogue, f the "coup de poing,"and that t served variety f purposes, mong others as an aid in climbing rees.1

Interpretation n this mode, however, was not without its anachronisms. twas noted that living representatives f early periods occasionally njoyed the useof classes of objects which were thought to be distinctive of later periods. In dis-cussing the Australian Aborigines, or example, Sollas noted that polished stoneaxes ". .. are supposed o be the exclusive characteristic f the Neolithic period;but as the Australians are still in a Palaeolithic stage of culture, they present usin this case with an exception, or which various explanations may be found." Inresolving this problem Sollas calculated that they might have invented it them-selves or borrowed t from neighbors, but he eventually concluded with the sug-gestion that the Australian Aborigines learned to polish stone via an extensivenetwork which at one time stretched rom Australia o Europe.2

The critical reaction to the evolutionary assumptions, oupled with both the

unexplained esidues resulting from this early approach and the recovery of newdata, forced reconsideration. s a result analogy was partitioned, nd now at leasttwo broad categories of analogy are recognized.3

The firstcategory encompasses

he classicalevolutionary usage

withappropri-ate shrinkages n the length and breadth of the time and space dimensions. n those

areas of the world where history grades nto archaeology, r where, n the absenceof written documents, analysis of current or recent practices and archaeologicaldata indicate continuity, archaeological ata is interpreted y analogy to historicalor living groups. In parts of the Near East, for example, archaeological videncefor the process of beer brewing can be interpreted y referral o both ancient extsand contemporary ractices. The folk-cultures f Europe exhibit arming ools andpractices, tructures uch as houses and granaries, and devices for transportation,which can be linked

directlywith the

prehistoric ast.What is called the "folk-culture approach" y students of Old World archae-ology is paralleled n the New World by the "direct historical approach." Both

1 Sollas, 1911, p. 74.2 Idem, pp. 179, 207-209.3 A third category has sometimes been distinguished. This third category includes analogies

to properties common to all men such as the need for capturing energy and the possession of alanguage. For purposes of interpretation his third category is meaningless. One does not needto undertake archaeological nvestigation to know that the individuals in a particular culture en-gaged in these activities. The question which the archaeologist seeks to answer is what were theparticular patterns of a prehistoric people in carrying out these and similar activities.

318



4/10

ANALOGY IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL NTERPRETATION

approaches dmit the initiation of study from either end of the time scale. It is

legitimate, presumably, o study the historically known prior to close examinationof the

archaeological unknown, or, reversingthe

order,to

procedefrom the

archaeologically nown to the historically unknown. If there is any sutble differ-ence between he Old and New World approaches t is only that the longer timespan in the Old World encourages he conception of smooth continuous passagefrom archaeology nto history whereas n the New World the line between he twois more severely drawn.4

The withdrawal f the application of analogy from archaeological ata where

living representatives ere assumed, o data where iving or documented epresen-tatives could be demonstrated, eft uncovered a vast temporal and spatial tract for

which archaeological ata existed. In order to cover this tract, consisting of overninety-five percent of human history and a large proportion f the globe, a second

category of analogy came into use. This second category is here called the new

analogy to distinguish t from analogy where historical continuity was assumed,as in the past, or is demonstrated, s in the present.

Anxious to avoid the mistakes of the early evolutionary chool, and in the ab-sence of any universal and unique model to guide in the recasting of interpretativetools, the new analogy has been set in a restrained ormat. In effect, the new anal-

ogy consists of boundary conditions or the choice of suitable analogs. A consid-eration of the canon for the selection of analogs, the qualifications laced on thepower of the tool, and an example may characterize he theoretical posture of thenew analogy.

According o Clark the archaeologist hould ". .. restrict he field of analogyto societies at a common level of subsistence," nd should ". . attach greatersignificance o analogies drawn from societies existing under ecological conditionswhich approximate hose reconstructed or the prehistoric ulture under nvestiga-tion than those adapted to markedly different environments."5 Willey would

select cultures on ". . . the same general evel of technological development, per-haps existing under similar environmental ituations."6 V. Gordon Childe advisedthat an analog ". . . drawn from the same region or ecological province s likelyto give the most reliable hints. . ."7 In summary, hen, the canon s: seek analo-

gies in cultures which manipulate imilar environments n similar ways.The qualifications n the new analogy are weighty. The mass of archaeological

data yields subsistence r subsistence-connected nformation; hence, relevant anal-4 Compare teward, 942with Hawkes, 954. 6 Tax, et al., 1953,p. 229.5 Clark, 953,p. 355. 7 Childe, 1956,p. 51.

319



5/10


ogies are to be initially restricted o this domain. The archaeologist s cautionedthat the new analogy can provide only ". . . useful clues to general conditions, tcan be a

dangerous guideto the

particularmanifestations of culture . . .,"8 or

may ". . . in fact afford only clues in what direction o look for an explanationin the archaeological ecord itself."9 The connection between the living cultureor cultures and the archaeological ulture n question s purely formal; there is noimplication f direct generic relationship or are any dimensions f space and timeimplied.

The following citation, from the interpretation f the mesolithic site of StarCarr, s an excellent example of the new analogy:

The character f the finds suggests hat we have to deal at Star Carr with a com-munity rather han with the activities f a specialized roup. The masculine lementis sufficiently mphasized y the importance f hunting and by the evidence of greatactivity n the manufacture f tools and weapons. On the other hand, to judge fromanalogy with the hunting peoples of North America and Greenland, he importanceof skin-working t Star Carr argues or the presence f women. Among the Eskimosgenerally women are mainly responsible or flaying he kill and preparing he skinsfor use. Men certainly play their part, especially n the hard task of thin-scrapingcaribou kins or when for some magical reason, as in preparing rum-skins mongthe Caribou Eskimos, t is considered rong for women o undertake ome particulartask. Generally, hough, t is agreed hat the task is predominantly eminine and in

fact constitutes he main part of women's abor.10It would be misleading o imply that the restraint advocated n some quarters

is practiced wherever archaeological data is interpreted by analogy. In fact, itwould not be difficult o cite numerous cases in which less caution in the choiceand use of analogs s clear. Consider, or example, he following attempt to inter-pret the absence of the caudal vertebrae of the otherwise well represented ovidsin the important Australopithicine ites in the Makapansgat valley.

To "tail" anything till signifies o "track t down." The leaders f Bushmen unt-ing parties, when tracking down their prey, signal to one another ilently with thebushes or tails of the Cape fox. Tails spontaneously orm flexible whips or flagella orbeating hickets and grass-lands fter game. The flagellum was one of the badges ofthe Pharaoh he brush f a fox is the trophy f the chase. The warriors f PredynasticEgypt all wore bushy ails, that look suspiciously ike fox-tails, and Pharaohs re de-lineated on Egyptian monuments etreating rom the presence f gods looking backand trailing he bushy ails of an animal behind hem. Horse-tails sed to be emblems

8 Clark, 1953, p. 355.9 Childe, 1956, p. 49. See also Clarke, 1951.10 Clark, 1954, p. 10.

320



6/10


of rank ormerly n Turkey, he rank depending n the number f tails (e.g., a pashaof three ails). Every South African witch-doctor arries n animal's brush preferablythat of a wildebeste s every European witch carried a broom. t seems likely fromthe significance ttached o tails universally y mankind n myth and history hat theirdisappearance rom the Makapansgat reccia s significant; hey were all probably ngreat demand as signals and whips n organized roup-hunting utside he cavern.ll

In the engaging, less extreme example below an attempt is made to interpretthe persistence f certain ceramic motifs in northern Georgia, U. S. A. Unlike the

previous example, an awareness of boundaries s shown, if not rigorously ad-hered o.

I am not quite sure to what extent we can measure general ethnic continuity nterms of ceramic ontinuity. Modern women of our civilization eem much bolder hanmen n quickly dopting ew fashions which eem o display no continuing volutionaryor gradual developmental tages, although these fashions definitely run in cycles.Modern women's tatus and functions, however, are of course quite different romthose of the average outhern quaw. Perhaps n the aboriginal outheast, mportantnew cultural raits hat appeared uddenly nd are the criteria or many of our majorarchaeological eriod designations ere exclusivelymale interests: ew weapons, pyra-midal mounds, cult paraphernalia, hings adopted by conquered r converted men;while the ladies tayed at home and made pottery hat changed only gradually s thegenerations assed. Or perhaps we might better ook at our own china dishware o see

an expression of conservatism in spite of almost annual changes in foreign policy,Kinsey attitudes, emlines, nd hairdos. Even the atomic age will probably ot changeour chinaware, except maybe to break more of it.12

If the caution of the new analogy did not curb many, it did inhibit others tothe point of not undertaking nterpretation t all. In 1948 Taylor's A Study ofArchaeology confronted New World archaeologists with their hesitancy to ven-ture contextual nterpretations. What Taylor did not realize was that to some con-scientious archaeologists he strictures on interpretation, at least interpretationby analogy, may have in practice appeared formidable. More importantly, onestudent has argued hat the new analogy s ineffectual n important areas, a secondthat interpretation y analogy s untenable; a third has abandoned hope of makingany impartial udgment of the reasonableness f an archaeological nterpretation.It will be instructive o consider hese three points of view.

Hawkes perceives several kinds of cognition in archaeology. The distinctionbetween hem is marked by the degree to which history can be used in the inter-pretation of archaeological ata. The kind of cognition for which the new analogy

11 Dart, 1957, pp. 167-168.12 Wauchope, 1949, p. 23.

321



7/10


must be employed s ". .. a world wholly anterior o textual-historical vidence."In this world, Hawkes contends, interpretation annot penetrate much beyond

technology and subsistence. t is in these very aspects that man, according toHawkes, s most similar o other animals. Where man is most unlike other animals,for example, in the possession of social, political, and in particular, religiousinstitutions and systems, interpretative ools are near powerless.13 An extremeposition is taken by Smith: "It used to be thought," Smith writes, "that studiesof surviving primitive peoples would provide he necessary analogies for interpret-ing prehistoric ocieties; but in the event the extension of ethnological tudies hasonly served o show what an incredible ariety of codes of behavior n fact actuatehuman conduct." Given this diversity, o ask for interpretation which utilizes iving

groups, s to demand "logical alchemy." Statements resulting rom interpretationsby analogy are assertions, not arguments, according o Smith. Imagine a situationin which at a given site one house structure s larger than all other house structures.If the larger structure s called an X, and not a Y or a Z, where X, Y, and Z referto uses of a single large structure n living groups, then "You can't really say thatyou know that it is [an X], and if someone criticizes your assertion, t is impossibleto produce sufficient evidence to convince him you are necessarily right." Smithfinds interpretation y analogy indefensible and argues for its abandonment.l4 Athird position is taken by Thompson. He grants primacy o the role of analogy

in interpretation but contends that an evaluation of its use in any particularinstance can be made only by assessing the competence of the user. Thompsondismally maintains hat there s no way to improve his situation other than hopingfor ".. . improvements n the methods of measuring he amount of faith we placein an individual's work." 5

From the foregoing discussion t is apparent hat there s no general agreementon the new analogy, either in theory or practice. Certainly a call to abandonmentis sufficient ause for discomfort. f it were not for the fact that analogy n archae-ological interpretation as suffered chronic ambiguity since the nadir of classical

evolutionary implicity, an impasse could be said to exist. The following sugges-tions are sketched o aid in placing analogy on a firmer oundation.

1. For any given archaeological ituation here usually exists more than a singleanalogy which can be used in the interpretation f the data. The real problem sto select from this finite range of possible analogs the one which offers the bestsolution. Selection of the best solution is most efficient when the least satisfying

13 Hawkes, 1954, pp. 161-162.14 Smith, 1955, pp. 4-6.15 R. H. Thompson, 956, pp. 331-332.

322



8/10


solutions are eliminated n a systematic way. Thus, a first elimination may be madeon the basis of the economies, a second on the basis of the distances from the

archaeological ituation to the possible analogs as measured n terms of space,time, and form, and a third elimination may be based on the closeness of fit of therelationships etween forms in the archaeological ituation with relationships be-tween forms n the hypothesized nalogous ituations. t may be that archaeologistsin seeking analogs work in a systematic manner; but if they do it is seldom evidentin the final solutions offered. Consider he following example:

In this new soil, which was sticky and grey compared o the loose brown material nwhich he painted pottery had been deposited, we found polished-stone xes, polished-stone chisels, and flint sickle blades shiny from grain gloss. There was a brief alertwhen we thought we had come upon a burial, but it was a false alarm. Lying side byside n the soil were wo arge human highbones, rown nd shiny, polished rom muchhandling. As they were completely lone, they were not part of a burial at all. All Icould hink of to explain heir presence was that the ancient nhabitants f the CanaryIslands, who were Neolithic people, had consecrated heir kings by holding just sucha pair of bones over their heads, and that pairs of thighbones were also used in therituals f some of the Nilotic tribes of the Sudan. Perhaps he kings of Hotu had beensimilarly nitiated nto office.Who knows? 6

If a systematic approach were used (it is not clear whether or not it was used

in the above example), and the alternative solutions for a particular situationstated instead of the usual statement of a single solution (as above), there wouldbe no need to examine credentials (which, in the above case, are extraordinary),but only the argument and the result. There is no touch of alchemy n the pro-cedure outlined. Solutions to any problem are at best approximations rrived at bythe elimination of those least likely. Simply, what is being suggested s the intro-duction of a clear systematic approach and considered statements of results interms of degrees of likelihood.

2. It has been argued that the existing ethnological iterature s inadequate or

the purposes of archaeological nterpretation because t contains either ideal de-scriptions of technologies, detailed descriptions without behavioral correlates, orno descriptions f technologies. On this basis t has been proposed hat the archae-

ologist turn to the living community o compile his own inventories.17 here is no

question as to the merit of this suggestion.18 f the argument which leads to the

16 Coon, 1957, p. 186.17 Kliendienst and Watson, 1956, pp. 76-77.18 This idea is of course not novel. For an excellent example see D. F. Thompson, 1939.

Unfortunately most of the studies of this type have been directed at demonstrating that manyaspects of a culture are not preserved n archaeological data.

323



9/10


suggestion s valid, however, hen the procedure utlined n section 1 above mightbe acceptable n theory but not possible n practice. Is the argument valid?

There does exist, as has been emphasized y Kidder and Forde, a rich and suit-able literature which s neglected by the archaeologist.19 he store of informationon pottery manufacture and its associated behavior, or example, s copious. Acodification of this literature and other similar information banks would be use-ful. There are, further, at least some quantitative models based on ethnographicdata which are available and qualitative models can be designed o fit the needs ofthe archaeologist.20 ehavioral interpretation, n terms of degrees of likelihood,beyond subsistence-connected ctivity, s only apparently emote.

3. The past and the present, t is often claimed, serve each other: archaeology

depends on ethnographic ata for interpretation; thnology can make use of tem-poral depth that studies of the past may provide. This dogma, useful as it may befor certain purposes, has contributed o drawing a fast distinction between theongoing and the extinct, the living and the dead. It is my contention hat no cleardistinction exists with regard o the material evidence of culture. The point is nottrivial, for the generally assumed polarity between the ongoing and the extincthas resulted n the total neglect of striking relevant data.

Every iving community s in the process of continuous change with respect othe materials which it utilizes. At any point in its existence some proportion of

materials are falling into disuse and decomposing, while new materials are beingadded as replacement. n a certain sense a part of every community s becoming,but is not yet, archaeological ata. The community becomes archaeological atawhen replacement eases. What the archaeologist isturbs s not the remains of aonce living community, topped as it were, at a point in time;2l what he does

interrupt s the process of decomposition. The observational ields of ethnologyand archaeology verlaps on that proportion f a living community which s in theprocess of transformation. t is the study of this very special corpus of data withinthe living community which holds the most fruitful promise or analogy n archae-

ological nterpretation.BIBLIOGRAPHY

ASCHER, ROBERT1959 A Prehistoric opulation stimate Using Midden Analysis nd Two Popu-

lation Models (Southwestern ournal of Anthropology, ol. 15, pp. 168-178).

1961 Function nd Prehistoric rt (Man, vol. 61, pp. 73-75).19 Tax, etal., 1953, pp. 231-232.20 For examples of the use of both types of models see Ascher, 1959 and 1961.21 This erroneous notion, often implicit in archaeological iterature, might be called the

Pompeii Premise.

324



10/10

ANALOGY IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL NTERPRETATION

CHILDE, V. GORDON

1956 Piecing Together he Past (New York).CLARK, J. G. D.

1951 "Folk-Culture nd the Study of European Prehistory" in Aspects ofArchaeology n Great Britain and Beyond: Essays Presented o 0. G. S.Crawford, W. F. Grimes, d., pp. 49-65, London).

1953 "Archaeological heories and Interpretations: ld World" (in Anthro-pology Today, A. L. Kroeber, d., pp. 343-360, Chicago).

1954 Excavations t Star Carr (Cambridge).COON, CARLETON .

1957 The Seven Caves (New York).DART, RAYMOND A.

1957 "The Makapansgat Australopithecine steodentokeratic ulture" (inThird Pan-African Congress n Prehistory, . Desmond Clark and SoniaCole, eds., pp. 161-171,London).

HAWKES, CHRISTOPHER1954 Archaeological Theory and Method: Some Suggestions rom the Old

World (American Anthropologist, ol. 56, pp. 155-168).KLEINDIENST, MAXINE R., AND PATTY TO WATSON

1956 "Action Archaeology": he Archaeological nventory of a Living Com-munity Anthropology omorrow, ol. 5, pp. 75-78).

SMITH, M. A.1955 The Limitations f Inference n Archaeology The Archaeological ews-

letter, vol. 6, pp. 1-7).SOLLAS, W. J.

1911 Ancient Hunters (London).STEWARD, JULIAN H.

1942 The Direct Historical Approach o Archaeology American Antiquity,vol. 7, pp. 337-343).

TAX, SOL, L. C. EISELEY, . ROUSE, C. F. VOEGELIN (EDS.)1953 An Appraisal f Anthropology oday (Chicago).

THOMPSON, DONALD F.

1939 The Seasonal Factor n Human Culture (Proceedings f the PrehistoricSociety, ol. 5, pp. 209-221).

THOMPSON, RAYMOND H.

1956 The Subjective Element in Archaeological Inference (Southwestern Jour-nal of Anthropology, vol. 12, pp. 327-332).

WAUCHOPE, ROBERT1949 The Evolution and Persistence of Ceramic Motifs in Northern Georgia

(American Antiquity, vol. 15, pp. 16-22).

CORNELL UNIVERSITY

ITHACA, NEW YORK

325

This content downloaded from 24 14 168 50 on Sun 24 Aug 201 4 19:13:52 UTC
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

Ascher Analogy 1961

Documents

Transcript of Ascher Analogy 1961