Evolutionary Archeology

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Evolutionary Archeology [ iːvəˈluːʃnri ɑːkiˈɒlədʒi ] (also Darwinian Archeology , Selective Archeology ) is a theoretical stream of archeology , which explains the development of past human societies with findings of the evolution theory. It is closely related to sociobiology and other Darwinian branches of research.

Evolutionary archeology has been a widely used term in scientific discourse since the 1990s . However, there is no standard definition of its meaning. Originating from prehistoric research, the theory of Evolutionary Archeology can be applied to all branches of archeology.

overview

The characteristics of evolutionary archeology , processual archeology, and post-process archeology .

The Evolutionary Archeology wants to classify large periods and diverse natural areas of time, human behavior in a system. She looks for recurring patterns of development to which she can assign regularities. She uses the methods of Darwinism . It criticizes the deconstructivist relativization of archaeological knowledge that has been advancing since the 1980s and sees itself in direct competition with post-processual and interpretative archeology . The Evolutionary Archeology argued that human societies are the product of cultural evolution, which in turn can be explained by universally valid laws. Unlike post-process archeology, it sees historical developments not as the result of consciously decisive individuals, but as the result of unconsciously running adaptation mechanisms . In archaeological investigations, the focus should therefore not be on the individual person, but on large structures. The British evolutionary archaeologist Stephen Shennan writes:

“[…] Archaeologists do not need to be failed ethnographers, forever regretting the demise of the people they would like to talk to. [...] archeology should investigate the past in a way that plays to archeologists' strengths. These undoubtedly lie in the characterization of long-term patterning in past societies and their material products. "

“[...] Archaeologists don't have to be failed ethnographers who forever regret the passing of the people with whom they would like to speak. […] Archeology should examine the past in a way that plays into the hands of the strengths of archaeologists. These undoubtedly lie in the characterization of long-term structures of past societies and their material products. "

Theoretical discussions in German-speaking archeology

In order to be able to understand the international anthropological theoretical currents since the Second World War in a German-speaking context, the country-dependent, methodological differences between the knowledge cultures must be understood. Like many theoretical movements in archeology, Evolutionary Archeology is of Anglo-American origin. In Central Europe there is often a certain delay in taking over discussions from abroad. Some archaeologists speak of a “hostility to theory” in this context, which would prevail in the German-speaking world.

Examples

The German professor of prehistory and early history Ulrich Veit compares the Central European archaeologists and their English-speaking colleagues in an example with explorers. Landing on the coast of an unknown continent, the German would first try to map the exact course of the coast realistically, but would refrain from speculating about the size and shape of the entire continent. Instead of hypothetically plotting the new landmass, he'd rather leave the unexplored parts of the map white. Only if there was a congruence with the records of his colleagues would he agree to the connection of different mappings to a "big picture". His Anglo-American colleague, on the other hand, would be little interested in the small topography, but would soon try to recognize the shape of the entire continent. He would combine the few clues that are known to him and accept that the resulting cartographic representation has little in common with the real appearance of the land mass. For him, the focus is on the possibility of incorporating the new continent into the systems of the known world and using it to try out new world models. This characterization of the differences between German and English-speaking prehistorians can also be applied to the somewhat more international categories, "traditional" and "modern" archaeologists.

Research history

The term Evolutionary Archeology first appeared in contributions by David Leonard Clarke and Robert Dunnell in the late 1960s . Above all, Dunnell explained the principles of Darwinian archeology in articles in 1978. The real origins of evolutionary archeology can be found, as the name already shows, in the second half of the 19th century, when the theory of evolution gained increasing support. With his works On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, Charles Darwin contributed decisively to the emergence of the movements later known as Darwinism in many Fields of modern science.

In archeology, on the other hand, comprehensive theoretical explanatory models were not in the foreground until the middle of the 20th century. In the period up to the 1960s, which archeology calls the "classificatory-historical" period, more emphasis was placed on the dating of individual sites and the creation of regional chronological systems. In the 1940s, archaeologists began using the ethnologist Julian Steward's concept of Cultural Ecology . The thesis was followed that cultures not only simply interact with each other, but also with the environment. Increasingly ecological, environmental explanations for historical changes were used. After the Second World War there was a rapid development of scientific "auxiliary disciplines" such as radiocarbon dating . These developments in the mid-20th century finally paved the way for a major upheaval in archaeological methodology. Lewis Binford's article Archeology as Anthropology from 1962 marked the beginning of this change called New Archeology . It was initially discussed primarily in the English-speaking world. Her followers took a critical look at the works of their predecessors, which in their eyes were too historical and linear, and called for a "scientification" of archeology. This new generation, also known as procedural archaeologists, was looking for explanations rather than descriptions of past cultures. A culture should be analyzed as a system. Generalizations were made, which should allow everyone - similar to the natural sciences - to recognize the same laws when repeating the experiment as desired. The tendency towards modeling, as well as the factor of environmental influences already emphasized by Bindford, indicate a certain relationship between New Archeology and evolutionary archeology . In 1976 appeared The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins . His theory of memes gave the Darwinian tendencies, which had long appeared "unattractive", a boost again.

From the 1980s onwards, a new theoretical current emerged from the critical attitude towards procedural New Archeology . The term post-process archeology , coined by the British archaeologist Ian Hodder , now provided a heading for many post-modern disciplines such as Marxist archeology or gender archeology . Post-process archeology advocates the thesis that archeological science is the product of contemporary social processes. According to this theory, current political, economic and cultural interests form the basis of the modern understanding of past behavior. Post-process archeology no longer sees the past as a truth that can be deciphered with "incorruptible" (natural) sciences, but as an easily malleable mass that is formed by interpretations brought in from outside. It is thus diametrically opposed to Evolutionary Archeology , which bases its theses on fixed principles and does not regard humans as the triggering agent for social developments.

The Evolutionary Archeology was formed in the 1990s and 2000s as a leading theory flows out. During this period, it had a unifying effect on its critics, who were initially independent. The opponents who belonged to the various currents of post-process archeology were increasingly united under the term interpretative archeology . While the 1980s were still characterized by intensive theoretical discussions, the first decade of the 21st century showed a strong separation of the various theoretical currents. Although the two schools, the interpretive and the Darwinist archaeologists, see each other with their models as competitors, there was only limited dialogue.

Examples

Based on the widespread change from hand axes to knock-off blades observed in prehistoric North America , the differences between the procedural archeology, which has been widespread since the 1960s, and the relatively young Darwinian approach can be sketched.

  • William Parry and Robert Kelly demonstrated in their 1989 article "Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism" how procedural archeology explains this technology change. The structure of their argumentation can be seen as typical of this procedural methodology, which partially dominated the second half of the 20th century. The following steps are taken:
  1. Empirical research shows that a change in technology was taking place across North America.
  2. Ethnological observations of cultures that are currently still practicing the knock-off technique for the production of blades are used to understand the behavioral patterns of prehistoric producers. It is found that when knocking off, no distinction is made between "good blades" and waste. Apparently no value is placed on controlling the shape of the resulting reductions through the production method. Knife-off blades are easier to make, but because of the amount of rock required, it is more difficult to get the raw material. The exact opposite is true for hand axes.
  3. We are looking for a connection between the prehistoric change in technology and changing environmental conditions such as the climate. But since no direct correlations are recognized, the only thing left is to look for a change in lifestyle that has taken place at the same time. It is found that with the appearance of the knock-off blades, the producers began to settle down .
  4. These observations lead to the assumption that the easier-to-produce knock-off blades were a more useful alternative for sedentary people compared to the more complex, double-sided hand axes. With greater mobility during the non-sedentary phase, on the other hand, the fewer hand axes required and therefore less degradation-intensive brought advantages. In this procedural investigation, the new, sedentary way of life is considered to be the ultimate cause of the technology change.
  • Darwinist or selective archeology uses a fundamentally different method for the same find situation. It assumes that evolutionary explanations for human developments are by definition independent of the behavior of the people examined and therefore relate to environmental factors. Human adaptation processes are only the result of an original, ecological cause. Accordingly, evolutionary archeology cannot conclusively explain a certain behavior (change in the manufacturing technique from hand axes to knives) with another behavior (increasing sedentariness). Instead, it does the following to find the causes:
  1. The change to a new technology, following the terminology of the originally biological theory of evolution, is interpreted as a reproductive success. This reproductive success can thus either be the product of stochastic processes , selection or sorting.
  2. A stochastic process, i.e. a purely random process, is ruled out because the technology change in many different regions of North America shows the same direction of development (from hand axes to knives).
  3. Selection appears possible, since the uniform development direction indicates an adaptive advantage of the new technology. Adjustment is made through selective pressure. This selection pressure, in turn, has an overriding cause. Since evolutionary archeology does not accept human behavior as the ultimate culprit, Parry's and Kelly's thesis of sedentariness cannot serve as a conclusive explanation either. Instead, an unknown environmental change comes into question.
  4. However, environmental factors do not have to be directly responsible for the technology change. The introduction of the knock-off blades may be the result of another adaptation to an original cause. This process is known as sorting. In Darwinian theory, it is therefore conceivable that the new manufacturing technology for stone tools was apparently caused by human behavior on the surface. For example, the maize cultivation, which can be observed for the first time at the same time as the increasing chopping blades, is a possible superficial cause.
  5. Evolutionary archeology therefore sees various possible explanations for the change in technology. For example, the tee technique could have been favored by a reduced mobility. The reduced mobility would in turn be the product of an external selection pressure favoring sedentary maize cultivation. In each variant, however, the direct (selection) or indirect (sorting) adaptation to non-human environmental factors is the actual cause.

criticism

Evolutionary Archeology is particularly criticized by supporters of interpretative currents of theory. They argue that man is a cultural being whose individual decisions cannot be explained by scientific laws. The most important points of criticism are:

  • Idealization of the informative value of the archaeological findings : Critics accuse evolutionary archaeologists of identifying every (temporal) change in the frequency of find types as a sign of evolutionary processes. In doing so, they see changes that show a direction of development as evidence of selection mechanisms and in directionless fluctuations in the frequency of finds an example of evolutionary drift. In doing so, they ignore the fact that the strict structure of the theory of evolution relies on complete, uninterrupted findings. Archeology can never meet this requirement for purely quantitative reasons.
  • Overestimation of one's own "scientific character": Although it is discussed within Darwinian archeology whether the theory of evolution should be applied more in the sense of a metaphor than a regularity, it communicates a superiority to the outside through its supposedly strict use of "natural laws". This exclusivist truth claim, perceived by colleagues as arrogant, prevents a stronger exchange between the theoretical currents.
  • Ignorance of human irrationality: Since Darwinian archeology regards all human decision-making behavior as an adaptation mechanism, it fails to recognize the existence of irrational behavior. As a thinking individual, humans also make counterproductive decisions that cannot be explained in evolutionary terms and that do not fit into the scheme of selection and adaptation.
  • Illusion of neutrality: Supporters of post-process archeologists accuse Evolutionary Archeology of believing that past behavior can be examined neutrally with the help of scientific methods. According to Jacques Derrida , however, every exotic culture is shaped by the gaze of the beholder, who applies the categories known to him to the unknown.

literature

  • James Boone, Eric Smith: Is It Evolution Yet? A Critique of Evolutionary Archeology . In: Current Anthropology , No. 39, pp. 141-174. Chicago 1998.
  • Ethan Cochrane, Andrew Gardnervo (Eds.): Evolutionary and Interpretive Archaeologies: A Dialogue . Walnut Creek 2011, ISBN 978-1-59874-660-0 .
  • Manfred Eggert, Ulrich Veit (Hrsg.): Theories in archeology: For discussion in English . Münster 1998, ISBN 3-89325-594-X .
  • J. Johnson, C. Morrow (Eds.): The Organization of Core Technology . 1987.
  • Tim Kerig, Stephen Shennan : On the cultural evolution of Europe in the Neolithic - definition and task. In R. Gleser, V. Becker (ed.): Central Europe in the 5th millennium BC Münster 2012, pp. 105–114.
  • Herbert Maschner (Ed.): Darwinian Archaeologies . In: Michael Jochim (Ed.): Interdisciplinary Contributions To Archeology . New York 1996, ISBN 0-306-45328-2 .
  • Colin Renfrew , Paul Bahn: Basic knowledge of archeology: theories, methods, practice . Translation, Helmut Schareika. London 2009, ISBN 978-3-8053-3948-3 .
  • Stephen Shennan: Genes, Memes and Human History: Darwinian Archeology and Cultural Evolution . London 2002, ISBN 0-500-05118-6 .
  • Alan Simmons: The neolithic revolution in the Near East: transforming the human landscape . Tucson 2007.

further reading

  • Mathew Johnson: Archaeological Theory: An Introduction . Oxford 1999, ISBN 0-631-20296-X .
  • R. Lee Lyman , Michael O'Brien: The Goals of Evolutionary Archeology . In: Current Anthropology , No. 39, pp. 615-652. Chicago 1998.

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Herbert Maschner, Stefen Mithen: Darwinian Archaeologies: An Introductory Essay . In: Herbert Maschner (Ed.): Darwinian Archaeologies . In: Michael Jochim (Ed.): Interdisciplinary Contributions To Archeology . 1996, p. 5.
  2. ↑ Stephen Shennan: Genes, Memes and Human History: Darwinian Archeology and Cultural Evolution . 2002, p. 9 f.
  3. ↑ Stephen Shennan: Genes, Memes and Human History: Darwinian Archeology and Cultural Evolution. 2002, pp. 9-10.
  4. ↑ Ulrich Veit: Between tradition and revolution: Theoretical approaches in British archeology . In: Manfred Eggert, Ulrich Veit (ed.): Theories in archeology: For discussion in English . 1998, pp. 49-53.
  5. ↑ Ulrich Veit: Between tradition and revolution: Theoretical approaches in British archeology . In: Manfred Eggert, Ulrich Veit (ed.): Theories in archeology: For discussion in English . 1998, p. 51.
  6. ^ David Leonard Clarke : Analytical Archeology . 1968.
  7. ^ Robert Dunnell: Style and Function: A Fundamental Dichotomy . In: American Antiquity, 43 (2) . 1978, pp. 192-202.
  8. ↑ Colin Renfrew , Paul Bahn: Basic knowledge of archeology: theories, methods, practice . 2009, p. 24.
  9. ↑ Lewis Bindford: archeology as Anthropology . In: American Antiquity , No. 28, 1962, pp. 217-225.
  10. ^ Alan Simmons: The neolithic revolution in the Near East: transforming the human landscape . 2007, p. 16.
  11. ↑ Colin Renfrew, Paul Bahn: Basic knowledge of archeology: theories, methods, practice . 2009, p. 26.
  12. ↑ Ulrich Veit: History of Archeology and the Present: On the structure and role of reflection on the history of science in recent English-language archeology . In: Manfred Eggert, Ulrich Veit (ed.): Theories in archeology: For discussion in English . 1998, p. 327.
  13. ↑ Ulrich Veit: History of Archeology and the Present: On the structure and role of reflection on the history of science in recent English-language archeology . In: Manfred Eggert, Ulrich Veit (ed.): Theories in archeology: For discussion in English . 1998, p. 327.
  14. ^ Mathew Johnson: A Visit to Down House: Some Interpretative Comments on Evolutionary Archeology . In: Ethan Cochrane, Andrew Gardnervo (Eds.): Evolutionary and Interpretive Archaeologies: A Dialogue . 2011, p. 307.
  15. ^ William Parry, Robert Kelly: Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism . In: J. Johnson, C. Morrow (Eds.): The Organization of Core Technology . 1987, pp. 285-304.
  16. ^ William Parry, Robert Kelly: Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism . In: J. Johnson, C. Morrow (Eds.): The Organization of Core Technology . 1987, pp. 287-299
  17. ↑ Alysia Abbott, Robert Leonard, George Jones: Explaining the Change from Biface to Flake Technology: A Selectionist Application . In: Herbert Maschner (Ed.): Darwinian Archaeologies . In: Michael Jochim (Ed.): Interdisciplinary Contributions To Archeology . 1996, pp. 37-40.
  18. ↑ Alysia Abbott, Robert Leonard, George Jones: Explaining the Change from Biface to Flake Technology: A Selectionist Application . In: Herbert Maschner (Ed.): Darwinian Archaeologies . In: Michael Jochim (Ed.): Interdisciplinary Contributions To Archeology . 1996, pp. 37-40.
  19. ↑ James Boone, Eric Smith: Is It Evolution Yet? A Critique of Evolutionary Archeology . In: Current Anthropology , No. 39, 1998, pp. 141-174.
  20. ^ Mathew Johnson: A Visit to Down House: Some Interpretative Comments on Evolutionary Archeology . In: Ethan Cochrane, Andrew Gardnervo (Eds.): Evolutionary and Interpretive Archaeologies: A Dialogue . 2011, p. 310.
  21. ^ Robert Layton: Violence and Conflict: Warfare, Biology and Culture . In: Ethan Cochrane, Andrew Gardnervo (Eds.): Evolutionary and Interpretive Archaeologies: A Dialogue . 2011, p. 155 f.