Ethnology Versus Ethnographic Analogy: A Common Confusion in Archaeological Interpretation

Archaeologists must use analogies to interpret the archaeological record. In recent years a number of archaeologists have made a strong case that many of the analogies commonly used are inappropriate because they are based on contemporary societies with potentially very different worldviews, interactions, and even adaptations from ancient societies. However, the distinction between analogies based on single ethnographic cases and analogies based on holocultural comparisons is rarely made. Moreover, the distinction between various methods of holocultural comparisons is completely disregarded. This article argues that Murdock's method of ethnology produces analogies that are not as problematic as either single-culture analogies or other methods of holocultural comparison. The article goes on to describe a variety of ethnological findings that may be useful for archaeological interpretation, and gives an example from the author's research on the late prehistoric Mississippian culture of North America.