Navigating the Interpretative Dilemma: Making progress through failed analogies
Channel: Recording Archaeology
Date: 2019-04-10

‘The Interpretative Dilemma’ (Wylie 2002) is a pertinent challenge for archaeology, namely whether to focus on questions which are easily testable but relatively uninteresting, or on more interesting but evidentially precarious hypotheses. Take analogies. On the one hand, analogies with known societies provide rich and compelling hypotheses about the cultural practices of the past. On the other hand, many archaeologists worry that analogies rely on the unfounded assumption that the past will resemble the familiar. One response is to emphasise how archaeological evidence can ‘bite back’ (Wylie, 2017); that is, the ability of archaeologists to uncover mistakes and biases in previously accepted interpretations. However, many (perhaps most) analogy-based interpretations will still turn out to be false or misleading. So why should archaeologists pursue them in the first place? This paper presents a philosophical account of progress in archaeology, which emphasises the value of learning from failures and of ‘honouring ambiguity’ (Gero, 2007). Using a case study of the role of analogies in interpretations of Pompeian household artefacts (Allison, 1999; 2009), it will demonstrate how archaeologists can secure valuable insights about the past (and our relation to it) by exposing the limitations and biases of apparently compelling analogies. 


Rune Nyrup (University of Cambridge)