Ethnographic analogy from the Pacific: just as analogical as any other analogy

Abstract

This paper is a comment on previous papers in World Archaeology by Spriggs (2008 Spriggs, M. 2008. Ethnographic parallels and the denial of history. World Archaeology, 40(4): 538–52. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) and Roscoe (2009 Roscoe, P. 2009. On the ‘pacification’ of the European Neolithic: ethnographic analogy and the neglect of history. World Archaeology, 41(4): 578–88. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) on the use of Pacific analogies in archaeology. It is argued that the discussion needs to be put into a context of the general use of analogy, as Pacific analogies are just as analogical as any other analogy. Furthermore, the concern with analogy outlined by Spriggs and Roscoe is bound up in a dated definition of analogy which emphasizes similarities and assumes static societies. A better definition of analogy emphasizing not only similarities but differences and relevance is proposed. This definition makes it possible to modify analogies when confronted with refined archaeological data. Thus, we need not abolish the use of analogy, only use it in a more case-specific way, allowing for the ethnographic and archaeological record to modify the analogy and including the progress already reached through the study of analogy over the last sixty years.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 23 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.