As archaeologists, we seek to understand variation and change in past human societies. This goal necessitates a comparative approach, and comparisons justify the broad cross-cultural and diachronic scope of our work. Without comparisons we sink into the culture-bound theorizing against which anthropology and archaeology have long sought to broaden social science research. By undertaking comparisons that incorporate long-term social variability, archaeologists not only improve our understanding of the past, but also open the door to meaningful transdisciplinary research. Archaeologists have unique and comprehensive data sets whose analysis can contribute to dialogues surrounding contemporary issues and the myriad challenges of our era.

In the past two decades, the pendulum seems to have swung away from comparative research in archaeology. Many archaeologists focus on detailed contextual descriptions of individual cases, and only a few have dedicated themselves to explicit comparative work. Yet in that same time span, fieldwork has expanded tremendously throughout the world, leading to an explosion of well-documented diachronic data on sites and regions. We now have substantial detail on the variation inherent in phenomena such as cultural assemblages, settlement patterns, and economic activity. New methods, from dating techniques to digital data processing, promote comparative analysis and greatly advance our understanding of human societies and change. The time is ripe for a renewed commitment to comparative research in archaeology.

Archaeology is inherently comparative. Comparison is necessary to understand the material record, for one cannot identify or understand an object never before seen without comparing it to a known object. Comparison is also necessary to understand variation over time and space, for one cannot identify or investigate variation unless one has examples spanning a range of variation, nor can one examine change without examples spanning a range of time. Comparative analysis is the only way to identify regularities in human behavior, and it is also the only way to identify unique features of human societies. Indeed, to Bruce G. Trigger the comparative nature of archaeological data and analysis places archaeology at the heart of the most important issues in the social sciences:

In this chapter we outline the ways archaeologists have used comparison to understand the material record and to explore variation over time and space. After a brief history of comparative research on ancient societies, we review the variety of approaches used by the authors of this volume using seven dimensions of the comparative method in archaeology.

Tell Mardikh lies on an arid plain to the east of Hamas, Syria. It is not an unlikely place for an ancient city, nor is it a particularly obvious one. It is surrounded by tillable land, and is adjacent to the Orontes River valley. It is not a particularly impressive site. It has massive walls, the ruins of which can be seen for several miles, but they are no larger than those surrounding many tell sites in northern Syria. What makes Tell Mardikh special are the more than 15,000 clay tablets discovered in situ in what appears to have been a royal archive, tablets that offer a remarkable portrait of an ancient empire (Matthiae 1981). Without the archive of tablets, Tell Mardikh is one among several Early Bronze Age city-states in northern Syria, each controlling a modest hinterland of agricultural fields and pasturage (e.g., Wilkinson 1994). With the archive, Tell Mardikh becomes the center of control for an empire that stretched across much of what is today northern Syria and Iraq and southeastern Turkey (Pettinato 1991).

Tell Mardikh illustrates an assumption that underlies the rest of this chapter: The past is more complex than the archaeological record makes it appear. This assumption is, in my opinion, a fairly uncontroversial one, and is a logical extension of what we know about the archaeological record. However, it also problematizes much of traditional thought in archaeology, for example, Yoffee’s Rule, which asserts that “if you can argue whether a society is a state or isn’t, then it isn’t” (Yoffee 2005:41).