The Dimension of Archaeological Culture - Essay Example

?Archaeological Culture Introduction: Culture is an umbrella term used for referring to a wide range of notions and conceptions associated with the human society in general. The culture of a particular society is considered as the identity of that society. When it comes to describing the culture of a particular society, it requires all the phases to be discussed and analyzed including its past and present along with perspectives of its future. The dimension of archaeological culture is comprised of the requisites or material culture remains of the past human societies. That is to say, the study of archaeological culture of a particular society focuses on its material culture remains collected from specific time and place. In order to witness the past culture of a particular society, especially its material culture, archaeological evidences are considered as one of the most significant elements. Archaeological evidence includes artifacts, architecture, biofacts, and cultural landscapes that are the archaeological records of the society. However, the definition of the term ‘culture’ is not free of ambiguity. It has a unique nature of contradictory features. On one hand, culture is a dynamic phenomenon in the sense that it keeps moving and changing through decades and centuries. On the other hand, culture stands tall as a strong static element for societies witnessing various changes through ages. That is to say, the culture of a particular society constructs its own unique identity through ages by being its common image of consistence. This ambiguous nature of culture plays an important role in depicting the cultural lifespan of a society. In the context of archaeological culture, the dynamic as well as static (or unique) nature of culture can be greatly influenced by cultural interaction of different societies. This paper briefly addresses the role of archaeological evidence with regard to describing the cultural life of past human societies. It also looks into the issues of culture contact as well as culture change in terms of determining the consequences of archaeological evidence. Cultural contact: In order to define the term ‘archaeological culture’, an extreme operational concept of culture is required to interpret the archaeological evidence in time and space. That is to say, a holistic approach concept of culture is essentially required to understand and explain cultural relations in a society. Further, the concept of culture is also associated closely with that of identity, both of an individual as well as the collective identity of a society. A commonly defined relationship of culture, ethnicity and individual relates to the broader understanding and conceptualization of ‘identity’. In the context of archaeological culture study, it involves empirical speculation of all such identities. One of the significant aspects to address while speculating identities is the issue of cultural contact or acculturation or cultural fusion. A historically evident and remarkable element of this culture contact is colonialism the presence of which is inevitable in the study of archaeological culture. Colonialism is considered as one of the most significant causes as well as consequences of cultural contact between cities, states and empires. Archaeology has a special role to play in the study and colonialism, and vice versa. While talking about the varieties of colonialism and their similarities (Gosden, 2004, p. 22), he argues that modern colonialism strikingly differs from the ancient times in the context that the previous includes particular features like “the creation of fixed orders of racial and cultural difference which were not found in the same manner amongst the Romans or the Greeks for instance.” Further, the result of colonialism has been remarkable: it “created new worlds through the meeting, clash and sometimes merger of varying values.” (Gosden, 2004, p. 23) Nonetheless, ‘culture contact’ is a broader term that includes a variety of elements other than just colonialism. It comprises of aspects such as culture exchange and cultural integration. Moreover, there are important factors like those of slavery, imperialism and diaspora (Silliman, 2005, p. 58). Culture contact is about interaction of cultures, of identities and of relations. In some societies, this culture contact is prominent in trade as well. As Peck (2011) discusses the archaeological evidence of the cultural life ways of the natives of Northern Plains, he shows that the contact between Sonota and other cultures was evident in the following (p. 311): Exotic shell, obsidian and catlinite recovered from the mound burials The mounds with centrally located pits and human interments reminiscent of Hopewellian sites Speculative evidence that Knife River flint and obsidian have been recovered to the east in Hopewellian sites Culture change: The notion of culture contact is closely associated with the concept of culture shift or culture change. In other words, cultural contact is one of the main reasons behind culture change in many societies. Moving between cultures and nations can and have evidently led many societies adopt the approach of culture shift or culture change. Change in culture is mainly based on the gradual process of acculturation. As Carstens (2008) observes, cultural change is anticipated more radically. According to her, change in a culture is usually provoked by serious reasons such as political or military conquest, or disasters leading to mass migrations, etc. (p. 121) Apart from this radicalism, the aspect of cultural change can also be observed and studied in a positive manner. In this context, culture change can be studied simultaneously with colonialism as argued by Gosden (2004). He believes that cultural changes occurring with the process of colonialism can be explained as a kind of positive energy. In a way, cultural changes can cause more creation than destruction. Describing the concept of Graeco-Persian art, Gosden explains this possibility of creation caused by cultural change. The term refers to a certain stylistic fuse between Greek and Persian art. Gosden gives the example of Achaemenid Anatolia, arguing that the term is strongly based on the assumption that Achaemenid art required Greek expertise in order to alter Persian sterility as well as artistic poverty. Therefore, Graeco-Persian art is considered to be an offshoot of Greek. Going through a deeper and closer speculation, the term also refers to the Persian artistic weakness as well as their indebtedness to the West. In the light of archaeological culture studies, cultural change is conceptualized as an “evolutionary process minimally involving cultural transmission and inheritance.” (Peck, 2011, p. 11) Meskell and Preucel (2006) provide a more comprehensive explanation of cultural change with regard to describing the Roman cultural system. It was “a system of circulation of ideas, values, and material culture.” (p. 174) With the gradual addition of new circuits such as Gaul or Britain, a whole new change took place. The authors state that the change was both fundamental and subtle: “it was not just the Britons that were Romanized through contacts and expansion of Empire, but all Romans, because being Roman was not a state but a process with differing dynamics as the Empire expanded.” (p. 174) Conclusion: Culture is a complex phenomenon webbed by a wide range of social notions and ideas. The process of acculturation or cultural interaction takes place through an evolutionary way involving different time and space as well as various societies and humanities. When cultures come into contact with each other, change is bound to happen. One of the most common causes as well as consequences of cultural contact is colonialism. Most societies have gone through the phase of colonialism in their past. As a result, cultures interacted and change happened. Archaeological evidences support this aspect of acculturation along with cultural change in societies. This aspect of culture contact and culture change not only talks about power politics and colonialism, but also suggests a creative way of the conscious use of cultural power. And this is what matters the most. References: 1. Baltali, S. 2001, ‘Culture Contact, Cultural Integration and Difference: A Case from Northern Mesopotamia’, Stanford Journal of Archaeology, p. 1-17, retrieved on March 3, 2011 from http://www.stanford.edu/dept/archaeology/journal/01Baltali.pdf. 2. Carstens, A. M. 2008, ‘Cultural Contact and Cultural Change: Colonialism and Empire’, p. 119-132, retrieved on March 3, 2011 from http://www.pontos.dk/publications/books/bss-5-files/BSS5_08_Carstens.pdf. 3. Gosden, C. 2004, Archaeology and Colonialism: Cultural Contact from 5000 BC to the Present, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 4. Haviland, W. A., Prins, H. E. L., Walrath, D. and McBride, B. 2008, Cultural Anthropology: The Human Challenge, 12th edition, Cengage Brain, Belmont. 5. Meskell, L. and Preucel, R. W. (eds.) 2006, A Companion to Social Archaeology, Carlton, Wiley-Blackwell. 6. Peck, T. R. 2011, Light from Ancient Campfires: Archaeological Evidence for Native Lifeways on the Northern Plains, Athabasca University Press, Edmonton. 7. Silliman, S. W. 2005, ‘Culture Contact or Colonialism? Challenges in the Archaeology of Native North America’, American Antiquity, 70 (1), p. 55-74, retrieved on March 3, 2011 from http://www.faculty.umb.edu/.../Culture%20contact%20or%20colonialism.pdf. Read More