Many archaeologists make use of analogies based on the technology, style, and function of cultures as they are defined archaeologically. J. G. D. Clark (1952) wrote an economic prehistory of Europe in which he made systematic and judicious use of analogy to interpret such artifacts as freshwater fish spears that were still common in historical European folk culture. This type of analogy is secure enough, as are those about small, pointed pieces of stone claimed to be arrowheads (Wylie, 1985). Enough of these have been found embedded in the bones of animals and people for us to safely acknowledge that such tools were most likely projectile points. Still, we have no way of knowing if the points were part of ritual activity as well as the hunt. Similarly, archaeologists will have information about how houses were constructed and what they looked like, what plants were grown and how these were prepared for food, and perhaps some facts on grave furniture. But they will not know what the people who lived at this site thought a proper house should look like, which relatives would be invited to help build a house, what spirits were responsible for making crops grow, who in the house customarily prepared the food, or whether the people believed in life after death, or even how such practices might have changed over the life of the site. Most analogies drawn from the ideas and beliefs of present-day people are probably inadequate.