I've been meaning to ask: can you explain exactly what the "comparative method" is, and what are alternatives to it? I think I'm missing it. As I read the book, as a layperson, I presume there is both anthropological and archaeological evidence that's being brought to bear to paint a picture of how people of a certain time and place lived. I'm not sure I understand (or perceived) where this comparative method comes in.
Sorry for the late response. I've been obsessed lately with understanding the comparative method in anthropology. Let me attempt to do a short incomplete version of what I have learned.
According to Matei Candea (a scholar I have been reading on this subject). There are two general types of comparison happening in anthropology - frontal and lateral comparison. Frontal is when we compare and contrast another culture as a reference to insights about ourselves. Our (comparative) presence as a reader or scholar is implied in the text. Lateral is when we lay the cases side by side and the position of the scholar or reader is absent when we do the analysis.
My criticism in the book is that, they compare the living contemporary practices with the past haphazardly in some cases. For instance, in ethnohistory, we use the living cultures to extrapolate on what could have been the use for object X like pottery. So there has been analytical clues to how people dispose of trash in settlements. But whether or not they are environmentally conscious is going to be a big jump in reasoning. We just know this is how people throw trash and if we find another a data point (like distance of the trash away from the house) indicate how people estimate 'safety' or 'hygiene' would be a much more better way of following evidence to insight. You would see a lot of instances like this in the book - democracy being used for other features that may not be that.
Why we do comparisons is because we want to examine the binary of sameness and differences, between objectivity and reflexivity, and tracing (conceptual) relations or tracking indicators of change. I don't think there are alternatives to it except to examine how or why we are doing comparison would be good practice to be more transparent to the reader.
I would just like them to explain how they are comparing across time, space, and concepts to make it clear how they came up with that final argument. In some instances they do, in some sections they don't.
I'm so excited to have found this! I'm actually re-reading the book- very, very rare for me for non-fiction. I consider myself a member of the educated lay public; this book has changed my worldview profoundly. And thank you for articulating what I did not put into words- it is rambling, and helpful to read the end of chapter summaries first (almost like reading an academic paper).
Hi, TSW! I'm glad to hear that this motivated you to pick up this book again! This book also changed my perspective on human (pre)history and my commitment to writing. I am writing this from the future, that is chapter nine, and looking back, I see how the authors' arguments have slightly changed but also stayed on course. Keep on commenting! I love the conversation and hear what you're rediscovering in your re-reading!
Thanks! What did you think? Do you need more details or my POV?
I've been meaning to ask: can you explain exactly what the "comparative method" is, and what are alternatives to it? I think I'm missing it. As I read the book, as a layperson, I presume there is both anthropological and archaeological evidence that's being brought to bear to paint a picture of how people of a certain time and place lived. I'm not sure I understand (or perceived) where this comparative method comes in.
Hi TSW,
Sorry for the late response. I've been obsessed lately with understanding the comparative method in anthropology. Let me attempt to do a short incomplete version of what I have learned.
According to Matei Candea (a scholar I have been reading on this subject). There are two general types of comparison happening in anthropology - frontal and lateral comparison. Frontal is when we compare and contrast another culture as a reference to insights about ourselves. Our (comparative) presence as a reader or scholar is implied in the text. Lateral is when we lay the cases side by side and the position of the scholar or reader is absent when we do the analysis.
My criticism in the book is that, they compare the living contemporary practices with the past haphazardly in some cases. For instance, in ethnohistory, we use the living cultures to extrapolate on what could have been the use for object X like pottery. So there has been analytical clues to how people dispose of trash in settlements. But whether or not they are environmentally conscious is going to be a big jump in reasoning. We just know this is how people throw trash and if we find another a data point (like distance of the trash away from the house) indicate how people estimate 'safety' or 'hygiene' would be a much more better way of following evidence to insight. You would see a lot of instances like this in the book - democracy being used for other features that may not be that.
Why we do comparisons is because we want to examine the binary of sameness and differences, between objectivity and reflexivity, and tracing (conceptual) relations or tracking indicators of change. I don't think there are alternatives to it except to examine how or why we are doing comparison would be good practice to be more transparent to the reader.
I would just like them to explain how they are comparing across time, space, and concepts to make it clear how they came up with that final argument. In some instances they do, in some sections they don't.
I'm so excited to have found this! I'm actually re-reading the book- very, very rare for me for non-fiction. I consider myself a member of the educated lay public; this book has changed my worldview profoundly. And thank you for articulating what I did not put into words- it is rambling, and helpful to read the end of chapter summaries first (almost like reading an academic paper).
Hi, TSW! I'm glad to hear that this motivated you to pick up this book again! This book also changed my perspective on human (pre)history and my commitment to writing. I am writing this from the future, that is chapter nine, and looking back, I see how the authors' arguments have slightly changed but also stayed on course. Keep on commenting! I love the conversation and hear what you're rediscovering in your re-reading!
Short and sweet. Can’t wait for the “remarkable yet long chapter two” to be posted here soon.