2025/04/22 by Paul Kitching · 1 voice
Social Sciences · #Intellectual Property Law #Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction
paper · doi:10.16995/traj.18451
openalex publication_date 2025/04/22 · openalex created_date 2025/04/23 · openalex updated_date 2026/05/21
Analogy is a ubiquitous but contested feature in archaeological reasoning, used differently in the contexts of discovery, justification and communication. The limitations of the archaeological record make the use of analogies unavoidable, but their role in archaeological reasoning nonetheless continues to be a source of epistemic anxiety. This has direct relevance for Roman frontier archaeology as a politically contested but at times theoretically siloed research area. Establishing firmer epistemological foundations requires a systematic appraisal of analogies in the contexts of discovery and justification, through both source-side and subject-side testing. A discussion of how analogies are used in conceptualising Hadrian’s Wall, specifically the question of its command and control, illustrates and explores these issues. Adopting a systematic appraisal approach, embracing and elucidating the ambiguities in archaeological reasoning, allows archaeologists to mitigate the challenges posed by the quality of the archaeological record without limiting the questions they pose or methods they employ.