Compare and Contrast the Theories That Have Used To Explain The Evolution of Complex Societies - Essay Example

2000 WORDS ARCHEOLOGY ESSAY By Compare and Contrast the Theories That Have Used To Explain ‘The Evolution of Complex Societies’ Introduction The evolution of complex societies is different from other societies both in the number of differentiated societal parts and in decision-making functions of the components of the society (which are not constant and generalized). The term ‘state’ holds within it a specific subsystem for decision-making. This bureaucracy or subsystem has the power to mobilize particular resources which are not totally entrenched within the different societal components. This essay compares the theories that have been used to explain the evolution of complex societies in two books: Ancient Civilizations and Patterns in Prehistory. Students and instructors of world history have faced the challenge of trying to investigate the rise of different complex societies or civilizations in various regions of the world. One key technique of facilitating this investigation is to recognize the common features of these complex societies and the aspects that have influenced their development that can be distinguished from the archaeological evidence. The renowned authors have provided various methods with their theories for the advance of complex societies, such as the multiple effect theory. According to their works, innovations in one subsystem or aspect of culture boost and influence other cultural aspects via positive feedback. The authors argue that the cumulative impact of the interaction between these diverse subsystems due to these innovations is the emergence of civilization. This theory of multiplier effect in force is demonstrated by deducing the assortment of artifacts from the diverse cultures of the Aegean Bronze Age during the 3rd millennium BCE and examining seeds, animal bones, and architectural remnants collected from archaeological sites located in the area that date to this period. The authors’ explanation of the evolution of complex cultures during the Aegean period has persisted to dictate the way Aegean archaeologists approach this subject. Their ideas have widely endured the examination of Aegean archaeologists, raising the question of whether this theory can effectively explain the evolution of various diverse complex cultures worldwide. For instance, questions have been raised as to whether the theory can explain the complex societies that emerged in the lower Mississippi valley in the 2nd millennium BCE. This culture is most recognized by the huge earthworks in northeast Louisiana at Poverty Point. Examination of the archaeological data and artifacts of the Poverty Point society offers a positive answer to the questions raised. Despite the despite the immense differences between the societies in terms of their religion, art, architecture, and economics, the archaeological data point out this theory, as the authors explain (Stanish 2005). For a study of two such contrasting societies, that exist in very different surroundings, showing that they were influenced by the same exact processes, the theory offers students an instrument which they can connect to the archaeological data to assist them understand the universal influence that the evolution of complex societies had on human societies. This comparative approach has an additional instructional advantage in that students are able to expand their appreciation for the distinctive factors of each specific culture based on the artifacts that each society produced (Tainter 1988). As a result, in the process of studying one early complex society after another, students can discover to acknowledge how particular kinds of relics expose similar practices at work in the evolution of complex societies and the diversity in these societies. This comparative approach can be demonstrated by first identifying the main factors that characterize a complex society as categorized by the two authors. The authors use the neutral terms "simple" and "complex" to describe societies that were once referred to as "savage" and "civilized" respectively. These descriptions have been substituted as a result of their sensitively charged implications. Simple and complex societies have different characteristics: i. Complex societies are characterized by specialization, which does not exist in simple societies. People in complex societies are assigned specialized responsibilities within their societies such as a soldier, priest, farmer, or artisan. ii. Such specialization requires a surplus. Food producers must offer adequate goods both to support their own requirements and to feed those experts that are engaged in other ventures not directly related to food production. Furthermore, there must be a scheme of exchange in which these experts, whom in most cases reside in urban areas, offer their services or goods in exchange for food produced by those living in the countryside. Simple societies have a subsistence economy whereby families staying in small communities make sufficient food to fulfill their individual instant needs. Specialization rarely takes place in these societies because people have to dedicate a better part of their time to feeding themselves and acquiring other necessities such as shelter and clothing. iii. In a complex society social stratification groups individuals and families into distinctive graded levels (strata) based on their status and wealth. Furthermore, complex societies can be further grouped into categories based on religion, language, occupation, or place of residence. On the other hand, simple societies are much smaller in population, and have no such groupings, and there’s a slight variation in status and wealth from one family to another. iv. Complex societies are ruled by states, which have solitary authority to inflict the rules and laws in that society and to gather and allocate resources for the common good of the people. In contrast, in simple cultures, kinship relationships perform the task of allocating resources and maintaining order in society. For instance, clan elders in simple cultures settle conflicts and disputes instead of a system of courts or the government officials. v. Complex societies have a formal religion that offers a framework of common concepts and values concerning the supernatural which frequently acts to legitimize and validate the social order. This is an explanation as to why the state and religion are in most cases entangled in complex societies. In contrast, there exists no state in simple societies, and therefore no formal religion is required to legitimize it. In simple societies, religious views are not organized into a system that can be regarded as a formal set of beliefs. One estimate approximates that simple societies have been dominant in 99.8 percent of the history of humankind. Complex societies are therefore a considerably new and recent development. The authors viewed the evolution of these infrequent complex societies springing from the contact of positive feedback arising from innovations in the diverse cultural aspects to explain the multiplier effect. There are five distinctive subsystems that operate within both complex and simple societies which are subject to these innovations: i. The social subsystem involving the trends of interpersonal behavior either in a social or economic context. ii. The subsistence subsystem entails the tasks associated with the production and distribution of food. iii. The trade and communication subsystem is related to the movement of people, ideas, and goods from one region to another within the population. iv. The technological subsystem involves the raw materials and human resources required for the manufacture of goods within the society. v. The symbolic or projective subsystem entails all the diverse ways in which a society recognizes and depicts the connection between the world and human beings by the use of art, language and religion. (Smith 2012). The authors stress that for a complex society to evolve considerable innovations and changes in one subsystem must be tied to innovations in another subsystem. For instance, the production of food surplus using innovative techniques in the subsistence subsystem will not solely lead to the development of a complex society unless it occurs together with improvements in the projective and social subsystems which lead to the emergence of a formal religion or social stratification. The theory is certainly just one of various methods used in the study of evolution of complex societies. Recently, some archaeologists have questioned the possibility of identifying common systems or processes in operation in societies. They prefer to study each society as a separate and unique entity and employ different methods and theories to construe the archaeological data (Sanders et al 1984). The evolution of complex societies remains one of the most remarkable questions in all the social sciences. Scholars seek to explain the theories behind the evolution of species that have long adapted to a life in small free groups, to new social entities in which they live in highly civilized, very large, social systems. These exceedingly complex questions have resisted definitive answers although scholars in this area have worked hard and achieved considerable progress. With regard to political evolution, the classical theories of explain this subject. Both are generally related to how egalitarian societies evolve through transitional stages into modern complex societies. These theories are significant analytic tools that can assist to understand the evolution of complex societies despite their narrow explanatory value and lack of reflection of the fullness of social reality. The authors assert that complex societies are in no way characterized by total equality but they are of course are grouped based on authority by sex, age and personal ability. In most cases, even economic impartiality is not accomplished within these societies owing to disparities in merit and the apparent generosity (or lack thereof) of individuals (Ford 1983). Many scholars have studies these issues related to hierarchy in complex societies, and the development of evolutionary theory s used in archaeological record is still at a comparatively primitive stage. There still exist key questions regarding how concepts such as “scale of selection” can be used in societal analyses. A remarkable current trend in evolutionary analyses entails non-systems analyses and the “emergent” characteristics of complex systems. According to many scholars, the modern theory of evolution has on no account actually been applied to archaeological record. A significant challenge has constantly been that the articles of the archaeological data reproduce differently from the way in which people do, and therefore it is difficult to apply the rules of genetics. In addition, while change in the biological sphere takes place through the fairly slow processes of selection, drift, and genetic mutation, cultural changes can be transmitted fast and pervasively from one society to another (Wenke 1999). Both authors discuss the evolution of the subsistence subsystem as a significant element in the evolution of complex societies. It was characterized by the growth of a more varied agricultural economy. Farmers started cultivating oats, wheat, barley, grapes and olives and also reared goats, sheep, pigs, and cattle. The development of grape and olive cultivation was particularly significant because it enables farmers to plant crops on land unsuitable for production of wheat, thus considerably increasing the food supply.  The expanding food production led to considerable improvement in nutrition. A bigger food supply and improved nutrition, in turn, led to an increase in population. For instance, archaeological records on Crete have indicated that the amount of settlements increased extremely from the end of the Neolithic period (Fitzhugh 2003) These developments in the subsistence subsystem came along with new progress in the technological subsystem. The archaeological data offers proof that artisans were able to specialize and dedicate more time to perfecting their expertise, a sign that part of the agricultural surplus was apportioned to artisans. Tremendous advances in metallurgy were witnessed in the third millennium in the Aegean. Artisans around this period first manufactured bronze, an alloy of copper and tin, and therefore instated the end of the New Stone Age and the start of the Bronze Age (Scarre & Fagan 2008). Together with silver and gold, metallurgists used this material to manufacture tools, weapons, jewelry, and drinking vessels. Even as the agricultural surplus allowed artisans to specialize, it is also possible that the need for manufactured goods offered a motivation for farmers to raise production to enable them to exchange their goods for those of specialists. Therefore both authors agree that the archaeological record illustrates that the increase of an agricultural surplus, growth in population, and advances in technological are al linked to another. The exchange of goods between farmers and artisans necessitated innovations in the social subsystem too. Throughout the period of evolution, large numbers of bone and stone seals appeared in the archaeological record, indicating some exchange processes. The seals are adorned with different designs and were utilized for stamping imprints on ceramic storage vessels, to enable the owner of a seal to indicate that they own what is in the vessel. By examining the theories of evolution of complex societies using this comparative approach, it is possible to view archaeological data from the perspective of an archaeologist (Wenke 1999). Reference list Fitzhugh, B. (2003). The evolution of complex hunter-gatherers: archaeological evidence from the North Pacific. New York [u.a.], Kluwer Acad. / Plenum Publ. Ford, A. (1983). Conditions for the evolution of complex societies: the development of the central lowland Maya. Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of California, Santa Barbara. 1981. Sanders, W. T., Hoijer, H., Wright, H. T., Adams, R. M., & Earle, T. K. (1984). On the evolution of complex societies: essays in honor of Harry Hoijer, 1982. Malibu, Published for the UCLA Dept. of Anthropology by Undena Publications. Scarre, C., & Fagan, B. M. (2008). Ancient civilizations. Upper Saddle River, N.J., Pearson Prentice Hall. Smith, M. E. (2012). The comparative archaeology of complex societies. New York, Cambridge University Press. Stanish, C. (2005). Ancient Titicaca the Evolution of Complex Society in Southern Peru and Northern Bolivia. Berkeley, University of California Press. http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=227280. Tainter, J. A. (1988). The collapse of complex societies. Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, Cambridge University Press. Wenke, R. J. (1999). patterns in prehistory: humankinds first three million years. New York, Oxford University Press. Read More