Comparing Cultures and Comparing Processes: Diachronic Methods in Cross-Cultural Anthropology

Abstract

If cross-cultural researchers hope to contribute to cultural evolutionary theory, methods must be developed to describe and explain cultural processes. The distinction made by Boas between historical and comparative methods limited scholarly interest in the analysis of patterned historical change. Numerous techniques have been developed to draw diachronic inferences from synchronic ethnographic data, with varying degrees of success. The use of archaeological and historical data to draw diachronic inferences similarly has had mixed results but requires fewer assumptions and allows a more direct comparison of cultural change. Shifting the unit of analysis from the culture to the event allows events to be compared with one another. A case study from the evolution of numerical notation systems shows the potential of rigorous diachronic methodologies to complement synchronic ones. Although synchronic analysis is highly useful for studying correlations between traits, diachronic analysis is far better for analyzing processes of change.

The signs of the sacred: Identifying shamans using archaeological evidence

“…This is especially true for the study of religion, which is in its formative years in archaeological research (Rakita and Buikstra, 2008;VanPool et al, 2006a). Examining difference and similarities between past cultures will provide greater insight and a more intellectually robust anthropological study than a return to extreme cultural particularism (Chrisomalis, 2006;Peregrine, 2004).…”

The Adaptive Nature of Culture: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of the Returns of Local Environmental Knowledge in Three Indigenous Societies

“…In small-scale, isolated societies, where writing is mostly absent, such external mechanisms are greatly attenuated. Last, we selected societies in different areas of the world to minimize effects of cultural influence, or what in cross-cultural research is known as Galton’s problem (see Ember and Ember (2000) and Chrisomalis (2006) for a review). Below we share some glimpses into the nature of the studied societies and additional references for the interested reader.…”

Testing Ethnological Theories on Prehistoric Kinship

“…In conjunction, these movements could pave new perspectives and methods to research prehistoric kinship. The sociolinguistic emphasis on context-based semantic term manipulation could replace "culture" comparisons with context-based, or "event-based" (Chrisomalis, 2006), cross-cultural research to better inform ethnological interpretation on prehistory. Some efforts are already underway to develop ethnological databases to explore kinship and agency (e.g., Carmichael & Rijpma, 2017), specifically the relation between kin terminology and practice (e.g., Heady, 2017).…”