Evolutionary Approaches to the Study of Archaeology - Essay Example

?Archaeology: How important are evolutionary approaches to the study of archaeology? Introduction Evolutionary approaches or theories have had a significant role in understanding archaeology and its theories ever since the establishment of the discipline. The concept of modern evolutionary thought in archaeology was seen within the discipline itself and various experts in the field of archaeology and antiquarianism have accepted the impact of evolutionary approaches and theories to archaeology. This paper now seeks to understand the importance of evolutionary approaches to the study of archaeology. It will seek to evaluate the theories of evolution and how they impact on the understanding of archaeology and the elements which also surround it. This study is being undertaken in order to establish a detailed and critical analysis of the subject matter in the hope of establishing an academic foundation for archaeology and related theories. Body Evolutionary approaches to archaeology were seen through the theories of Gordon Childe, Julian Steward, and Leslie White. Through the evaluation of the original elements of Classical cultural evolutionism, the Historical school, the Functionalist Approach, and the neo-evolutionary theory were established (Eddy, 1991). With the work of Childe, the idea of revolutions in human economy and how it can be fulfilled through an evolutionary response was also established (Eddy, 1991). Steward’s concern was based on establishing how evolution is set within parallel lines which are based on varying environmental changes. White also discussed that universal evolution can be blamed on the technical usage of energy (Garbarino, 1977). These theories highlighted the importance of the environment as a means of supporting cultural evolution (Giacobbe, n.d). The cultural ecology theory of Steward included the observation of the environment and how such environment impacts on technology. Steward further discussed how this would also be seen in other elements of culture (Willey and Sabloff, 1980). These ideas impacted on the cultural evolutionary tools including the theory of hydraulic despotism which was utilized to describe the beginnings of large scale irrigation and the evolution of complex civilizations in Mesoamerica (Willey and Sabloff, 1980). Steward’s theories on multilinear evolution also had a significant impact on evolutionary approaches. Such concept secured various theories in different cultural manifestations. In so many ways, these theories were a rich and dynamic fount of knowledge where the range of global cultural differences were understood based on reasonable strategies and ideas (Willey and Sabloff, 1980). Leslie White believed that cultural evolution was also a valid theory. White discussed that the issues which classical evolutionists have encountered while implementing theories were based on standard measures in cultural change (Garbarino, 1977). He also indicated that such measurement must be based on universal concepts covering all societies and different levels of development. His theory was labelled as neo-evolutionism and his ideas were expanded and reformulated; and it later opened the door to New Archaeology founded on evolutionary theory and thought (Garbarino, 1977). The ideas of White and Steward and New Archaeology were bridged through the work and ideas of Elman Service and Marshall Sahlins. These theorists were among the first to admit how cultural evolution is very much related to biological evolution (Wenke, 1981). They established the idea of universal evolution in relation to the manifestation of human culture. They also pointed out that not all cultures go through the same stages as discussed by White. Sahlins and Service (1960) pointed out that the biological and cultural evolution shifted in different directions at one and the same time and they believed that evolution leads to diversity and the progression of certain adaptations. These two theorists further indicate that diversity causes changes which then lead to new forms and new concepts emerging from older concepts (Sahlins and Service, 1960). Progress relates to situations where evolution has more complex forms and the great evolution involves various stages in dynamic cultural development (Sahlins and Service, 1960). Based on the theoretical concepts of Sahlins and Service, the cultural evolutionary theory had a huge part in the development of New Archaeology (Sahlins and Service, 1960). The Spencerian concept of cultural evolution which highlights directionality, teleology and other pre-planned stages of development are now accepted as viable concepts (Giacobbe, n.d). These New Archaeologists have accepted and supported this perception of cultural evolution. Other theorists like Dunnell and Kirsh have also accepted the Darwinian approach to cultural evolution. Robert Adams also applied cultural evolution to archaeology. He evaluated the development of civilizations in Central America and Mesopotamia (Willey and Sabloff, 1980). He also discussed the dynamism and the interdependence of events causing major stage transformations, often requiring contextual analysis as a transitional phase in chronological assessment and processual evaluation (Willey and Sabloff, 1980). The present evolutionary theory in archaeology has now gotten to a point where it is slightly less than a paradigm state (Kirch, 1982). Most archaeological theorists evaluate evolutionary processes as the primary tool of cultural change. These can be specified under the Spencerian evolutionary view which sees cultural evolution as directorial and stage organized. The Darwinian view does not agree to these principles and understands that evolution moves through adaptation (Kirch, 1982). Such adaptation is based on environmental distress and is based on natural and other specific forces. Dunnell (1981) forwards the use of Darwinian biological theory in his analogy for the cultural evolution. He discussed that cultural evolution cannot be directly associated with Darwinian evolution, however since culture is adaptive and exists based on environmental measures, a sufficient analogy can be taken from it (Dunnell, 1981). Cultural persistence and continuity can be viewed based on the fact that cultural phenomenon in society are historically linked with each other (Dunnell, 1981). He also believes that cultural evolution is supported by change and that the differences or the similarities in the adaptive links are not significant, only that they can be used as culture-based explanations for adaptations (Dunnell, 1981). He also discusses that evolution is selective and its manifestations can be seen as the shifting of the qualities of specific variables. Selection is based on three basic elements of evolution including empirical variation, transmission of such variation, and the differential manifestation of the variables in various cultural places (Dunnell, 1981). Dunnell (1981) did not agree with the Spencerian cultural evolutionists who believed that change was equal to progress. He pointed out that progress was misplaced in cultural evolution and it is not the inevitable end result of evolution. Instead cultural evolutions lead to changes in the different adaptive scores and strategies (Dunnell, 1981). More often than not, these changes include the increase in cultural diversity and complexities; however, it is not necessarily an inevitable or mandated aspect. Various cultures have manifested issues in complexity in terms of adaptive responses. Based on Spencer’s discussion, this would be considered devolution; but from the Darwinian viewpoint, this is not different from other strategies established to handle environmental changes (Dunnell, 1981). Spencer’s theory does not seem to be a fitting model in explaining the changes in culture which did not include increases in complexity (Dobzhansky, 1982). Darwin’s theory secures much room within theoretical limits in order to manage changes in complexity, and it has the tools to explain it. This is the main reason for the Darwinian focus on natural selection. Naturally discerning pressures often choose the adaptive choices which provide better survival options for culture (Dobzhansky, 1982). In the Catastrophe Theory of Carl Renfrew, he suggested ideas similar to Dunnel while explaining the collapse of the Mayan culture (Renfrew, 1978). He believes that the Mayan people were able to attain homeostatic equilibrium in their cultural and environmental system. They reached their full carrying capacity and in some instances, they went beyond the efficient cultural processes (Renfrew, 1978). Following the years of environmental destruction, the environmental situation shifted and was no longer considered robust. The cultural processes did not react or adapt well, causing the collapse of their cultural system. In relation to equilibrium, the cultural processes went through long periods of homeostasis, interrupted by significant changes in adaptive tools (Renfrew, 1978). The Mayan system still exists, however, it is based on another era of homeostasis after reaching an adaptive period of stability. Dunnel (1981) believes that the processes of evolution need to be redefined for applicability in culture. He also believes that a strong analogy is present to move one theory to another in various aspects of archaeology. He also believes that processes of natural selection and gene drift or even mutation have analogous tools in the biological and cultural evolution (Dunnell, 1978). He believes that the primary roots or use of new elements is not highly significant; and he associates mutation with invention and innovation. An important element of evolutionary theory is the function of adaptation. Most theories of cultural evolution include adaptive processes into explanatory standards. Adaptation has been used to explain cultural traits (O’Brien and Holland, 1992). The occurrence of new traits is not sufficient; only after the trait is reproduced and repeated would it then impact on other people and become accepted as a cultural entity (O’Brien and Holland, 1992). Moreover, stylistic elements are often considered those which do not affect adaptability and cannot be placed under selective control (O’Brien and Holland, 1992). These elements provide sufficient support for considerations made by evolutionary theorists on archaeology and adaptive changes in society. Conclusion Human experiences are very much complex and can be evaluated and explained in a variety of ways. Religion, art, and history indicate the varying perspectives which can be used to understand the past. Among the many fields of study which discuss the human experience, archaeology and anthropology use the scientific tools to evaluate the past. Archaeology highlights behavioural processes or culture which makes people unique beings. The scientific paradigm does not necessarily attribute archaeology with a more accurate claim on truth about man’s history; it also does not indicate that the quality of human experience is not more accessible to archaeology. However, based on the success of the materialistic considerations of western science, applying archaeology to the human experience can also secure valuable viewpoints. Archaeology does not provide sufficient tools in understanding the human past, however it can provide the aesthetic tools needed to appreciate it. The analysis above embraces the evolutionary approaches in understanding archaeology and the human experience. References Dobzhansky, T. 1982. Genetics and the origin of species. New York: Columbia University Press. Dunnell, R., 1981. Evolutionary theory and archaeology. In Advances in archaeological method and theory: selections for students from volumes 1 through 4. London: Academic Press. Eddy, F., 1991. Archaeology: A cultural-evolutionary approach. London: Prentice Hall. Garbarino, M. 1977. Sociocultural theory in anthropology: A short history. Illinois: Waveland Press. Giacobbe, J., (n.d). The current role of evolutionary theory in archaeological thought. Environmental Management Group [online]. Available at: http://www.nakedscience.org/evol1.htm [Accessed 23 October 2012]. Kirch, P., 1982. The archaeological study of adaption: theoretical and methodological issues. In Advances in archaeological method and theory: selections for students from volumes 1 through 4. London: Academic Press. O'Brien, M., Holland, T., 1992. The role of adaption in archaeological explanations. American Antiquity, 57(1), 36-59. Renfrew, C., 1978. Trajectory discontinuity and morphogenesis: the implications of catastrophe theory for archaeology. American Antiquity, 43, 203-222. Sahlins, M. and Service, E., 1960. Evolution and culture. Michigan: University of Michigan Press. Wenke, R. 1981. Explaining the evolution of cultural complexity: a review. In Advances in archaeological method and theory. London: Academic Press. Willey, G., and Sabloff, J., 1980. A history of American archaeology. London: W.H. Freeman and Company. Read More