2002, World Archaeology
https://doi.org/10.1080/0043924022013425…
14 pages
It has often been observed that archaeologists are adept at borrowing theory but not very good about building it. Analyses of the uptake by archaeologists of perspectives from a diversity of sources indicate that such borrowings rarely (if ever) lead to the building of archaeological theory. The return of explicit discussion of evolutionary theory within archaeology affords us the chance to explore whether the traditional pattern of borrowing is being repeated once again, and, if it is, to suggest some strategies which might help us to do better. The core of the paper comprises two case studies to support an argument that evolutionary archaeologists need to integrate the development of evaluation strategies into the process of theory building. These studies focus our attention on the need to reconcile interpretation and inference with the temporality of archaeological records, and provide good examples of how a serious consideration of problems that are revealed by this reconciliation can be a positive force in theory building.
1997
As is the case with all scholarly endeavors, there are individuals who played a major role in helping make Rediscovering Darwin a reality, but who-for one reason or another-are not listed in any bibliography. My own realization of the applicability of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory was inspired by a lecture I attended as a graduate student at the University of Arizona in the Fall of 1978. Given jointly by Robert Netting and Keith Basso, the lecture was an assessment of the state of anthropology as a unified discipline. Their conclusion was a rather disheartening prognostication of the potential fragmentation of the field due to the diverse interests of its practitioners and the lack of a general theory of human behavior. Unwilling to accept this pronouncement, it came to me later that evening that Darwinian evolution might provide a much more robust and satisfactory explanatory framework than the 'evolutionary' (i.e., Spencer's, Tylor's, White's, Service's) and other theories Netting and Basso so effectively critiqued. As is so often the case with personal revelations, however, none of my colleagues seemed to appreciate this 'flash of insight'. Several years later, after listening to one of my occasional tirades about the unappreciated potential of Darwinian theory for understanding human behavior, my wife Margaret (also an archaeology graduate student, but at a different university) suggested that I read a book by Robert Dunnell. However, with a title of Systematic* in Prehistory , it didn't seem to have much to do with evolutionary theory nor did it seem relevant to my interests in paleolithic prehistory and Pleistocene environments. As I have long since learned, however, I should have heeded her advice. As it was, I finally read an article by Dunnell in 1987 and realized (with a mixture of disappointment, relief, and a little embarrassment) that I was neither the only one nor the first to recognize the potential of Darwinian theory in archaeology.
One of the few areas of real debate in archaeological theory today is how to classify archaeological theory. Theoretical diversity has become a hallmark of archaeology, and opinions differ as to whether this range can be accommodated within a grander scheme of at least complementary approaches (
International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 2000
Over the past decade or so, an increasing number of archaeologists have begun to show interest in employing Darwinian evolutionary theory to explain variations in the material record. Epistemological and methodological issues surrounding the implementation of Darwinian evolutionism in archaeology are numerous, the most basic of which is that Darwinism embodies a materialist perspective, whereas archaeology traditionally has maintained an
[paper available through link (above) or by request from author] Archaeology has much to contribute to the study of cultural evolution. Empirical data at archaeological timescales are uniquely well suited to tracking rates of cultural change, detecting phylogenetic signals among groups of artefacts, and recognizing long-run effects of distinct cultural transmission mechanisms. Nonetheless, these are still relatively infrequent subjects of archaeological analysis and archaeology’s potential to help advance our understanding of cultural evolution has thus far been largely unrealized. Cultural evolutionary models developed in other fields have been used to interpret patterns identified in archaeological records, which in turn provides independent tests of these models’ predictions, as demonstrated here through a study of late Prehistoric stone projectile points from the US Southwest. These tests may not be straightforward, though, because archaeological data are complex, often representing events aggregated over many years (or centuries or millennia), while processes thought to drive cultural evolution (e.g. biased learning) operate on much shorter timescales. To fulfil archaeology’s potential, we should continue to develop models specifically tailored to archaeological circumstances, and explore ways to incorporate the rich contextual data produced by archaeological research.
2006
It is important to be clear as to whether a theory such as evolutionary archaeology pertains to biological evolution, in which acquired change is obliterated at the end of each generation, or cultural change, in which acquired change is retained. In evolutionary archaeology, (1) the population is said to consist of artifacts, yet (2) artifacts are said to be phenotypic. Neither (1) nor ( ) is necessarily problematic in and of itself, but the two are inconsistent, as the first pertains to cultural change whereas the second to the biological evolution of humans. A first step to avoiding this problem is to recognize that there is a need for a theory of change specific to human culture. Referring to ongoing work using a related approach to cultural change, it is suggested that the inconsistencies in evolutionary archaeology, though problematic, are not insurmountable.
This paper is a review of evolutionary thought in archaeology. It explains why and how the application of Darwinian evolutionary theory to archaeology is possible and, moreover, useful. It expounds what this scientific field gains from considering the study of material culture and, by extension, of cultural change from this perspective. After explaining the main theoretical principles, it develops a his- tory of the application of this epistemology in archaeology, focusing particularly on the tasks of classification and sequencing of data and thus entering into the current field of cultural phylogenetics.
The significance of evolutionary theory for archaeology is fiercely debated: one does not entitle a theory or interpretation, let alone a book, as "Darwinian" without inviting controversy. For many archaeologists the word Darwinism im plies a denial of our humanity and free will and is thought to support a perni cious political agenda by legitimizing selfish individualism. For others, the word invokes quite different ideas: it suggests an attempt to view ourselves as part of, rather than separate from, the natural world with the many positive po litical, social, and economic implications that would follow. Others remain un moved. They simply feel that any reference to biological evolution is irrelevant to the explanation of human behavior and culture change. In short, there is much controversy and little agreement.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 1997
Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, 2008
Evolutionary archaeology needs methods for recognizing how selective retention of cultural variation shaped the archaeological record. One approach that has not yet been exploited fully is to derive adaptive hypotheses from evolutionary design arguments, then to test the hypotheses' predictions by comparing two or more segments of the archaeological record. In order to encourage further development of comparative methods, we discuss aspects of their application within evolutionary archaeology. We also present an example in which comparative observations are used to test a hypothesis about the evolution of local productive specialization and circulation of materials through space.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.
Rediscovering Darwin: Evolutionary Theory in Archaeological Explanation, 1997
Current …, 1998
versity of Washington Press, in press).
Annual Review of Anthropology, 2008
This review begins with a brief outline of the key concepts of Darwinian archaeology. Its history is then summarized, beginning with its emergence as a significant theoretical focus within the discipline in the early 1980s; its main present-day currents are then presented, citing examples of recent work. The developments in archaeology are part of broader trends in anthropology and psychology and are characterized by the same theoretical disagreements. There are two distinct research traditions: one centered on cultural transmission and dual inheritance theory and the other on human behavioral ecology. The development of specifically archaeological methodologies within these two traditions for testing evolutionary hypotheses relating to diachronic questions using archaeological data is discussed. Finally, this review suggests that the greatest challenge for the future lies in finding ways of using archaeological data to address current major debates in evolutionary social science as a whole concerning, for example, the emergence of largescale cooperation.
This paper presents a short history of the influence evolutionary thinking has had on anthropology and archaeology. The focus is on four major "schools" in evolutionist thought: the classical evolutionism of the 19th century, Neo-evolutionism, social biology (sociobiology) and Neo-Darwinian archaeology. The basic conclusion of this text is that the idea of socio-cultural evolution, understood in the broadest sense, has left a lasting impression on anthropological and archeological theory, and that it still represents a useful theoretical framework for new research.
Evolutionary and Interpretive Archaeologies, edited by Ethan E. Cochrane and Andrew Gardner, grew out of a seminar at the Institute for Archaeology at University College London in 2007. It consists of 15 chapters by archaeologists who self-identify themselves as practitioners who emphasize the benefits of evolutionary or interpretive approaches to the study of the archaeological record. While the authors' theoretical views are dichotomous, the editors' aim for the book as a whole is not to expound on the differences between these two kinds of archaeology but to bring forward a richer understanding of the discipline and to highlight areas of mutual concern. Some chapters come across as a bit of a sales pitch, but the majority of the contributions emphasize how each approach can be productively used to address the goals of the other. The book seeks to contribute to a mutually beneficial and more productive discipline, and overall, it succeeds in this effort.
Tim Murray