Friday, March 22, 2013

Archaeological Ideas, Diffusion, and Cultural Change – Part I

According to archaeologists and anthropologists, an archaeological culture is “a recurring assemblage of artifacts from a specific time and place, which are thought to constitute the material culture remains of a particular past human society.” The connection between the artifacts is based on archaeologists' understanding and interpretation and “does not necessarily relate to real groups of humans in the past.”
The concept of archaeological culture is fundamental to culture-historical archaeology. Different cultural groups have material culture items, which differ both functionally and aesthetically due to varying cultural and social practices. Advocates of culture-historical archaeology use this notion to argue that sets of material culture can be used to trace ancient groups of people that were either self-identifying societies or ethnic groups.
The classic definition of this idea comes from Gordon Childe in The Danube in Prehistory, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1929, pp.5-6: “We find certain types of remains - pots, implements, ornaments, burial rites and house forms - constantly recurring together. Such a complex of associated traits we shall call a cultural group or just a culture. We assume that such a complex is the material expression of what today we would call a people.”
Gordon Childe seeking artifacts, and his book: The Danube in Prehistory
It should be kept in mind, however, that the basis of this idea, which has become a cardinal rule of archaeology, and used for all cultural interpretation, was the result of studies and findings in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century in Europe, the Middle East, and Egypt, crystalizing in 1929. Though it is used today without change or alteration, it has no relationship to the Western Hemisphere, which developed under a totally different means, nor does it embrace all the new technology and advances made in pre-historic cultural understanding.
In addition, this concept of an archaeological culture was crucial to linking the typological analysis of archaeological evidence to mechanisms that attempted to explain why they change through time. The key explanations favored by culture-historians were the diffusion of forms from one group to another or the migration of the peoples themselves. A simplistic example of this process might be that if one pottery-type had handles very similar to those of a neighboring type but decoration similar to a different neighbor the idea for these two features might have diffused (spread) from the neighbors.
The problem with this theory is simply that it assumes without question that there is a connection. The idea that two separate peoples could not come up with the same idea, design, or color system, is beyond the imagination of the archaeologist. Yet, such an idea should be commonly understood since artists of the past few hundred years have shown a tendency for the same ideas, paint, canvas, strokes, etc., in very divergent areas.
But continuing with the idea of diffusion, archaeologists claim that if one pottery-type suddenly replaces a great diversity of pottery types in an entire region this might be interpreted as a new group migrating in with this new style. Again, the idea of change, new ideas, new techniques, or new methods, among the same people is not considered. Today that would be like saying the French impressionist movement of the 19th century was created by a different culture than what preceded it—that is, where they were French before, Impressionism establishes the fact that some other people, say the Spanish, Danish or Germans, invaded France and replaced the previous culture. Instead, of course, we know that radicals within the art community violated the rules of academic painting and created an entirely new art form.
Top Left: Peruvian; Center: Colombian; Right: Mochica; Bottom Left: Nazca; Center: Moche; Right: Chimu. Archaeologists call these separate cultures made by entirely different people in different times; however, there is no reason to believe that a single culture with several talented pottery makers with different artistic talent made them all
The problem with all of this is the archaeological theory of Diffusion, or what they call trans-cultural diffusion. As an example, in cultural anthropology and cultural geography, cultural diffusion, as first conceptualized by Alfred L. Kroeber in his influential 1940 paper Stimulus Diffusion, or trans-cultural diffusion in later reformulations, is the spread of cultural items—such as ideas, styles, religions, technologies, languages, etc.—between individuals from one culture to another.
While this may happen, of course, though not as often as archaeologists think, it does not allow for spontaneous development of the same or similar ideas, styles, religions, technologies, languages, etc., to “spring up” independently of another area. As an example, religion, as espoused by a single God, could inspire someone or a group within different cultures that have nothing to do with one another, to develop the same religious tenets. Thus, it is not within archaeology’s reasoning to allow for Christ to be known in a totally different pre-history culture prior to his birth into another culture, or stated differently, for the Lord to be known to the Nephites, yet be born in a different culture in Jerusalem.
Yet, though diffusion claims the same ideas, styles, religions, technologies, languages, etc., can be innovated within a single culture by different individuals, it is their shown tendency to claim the individuals are, in reality, representative of different, unrelated cultures. A case in point is shown in Andean Peru, where numerous cultures are claimed to have existed, when in reality many or most of these so-called separate cultures were actually the same culture developing over time and establishing different tendencies as they grew and became more experience, knowledgeable and capable.
Despite all the examples to the contrary, archaeologists claim that diffusion across cultures is a well-attested and also uncontroversial phenomenon. For example, they claim, the practice of agriculture is widely believed to have diffused from somewhere in the Middle East to all of Eurasia, less than 10,000 years ago, having been adopted by many pre-existing cultures.
Note, however, that “somewhere in the Middle East” is rather vague for something to be considered an “uncontroversial phenomenon.” If you do not know where it originated, how can it be said it spread from there? At the same time, diffusion does not allow for agriculture to “spring up on its own without being brought from somewhere else”—yet, certain areas, like Andean Peru, had agricultural items in pre-history found nowhere else in the world, such as the potato, yam, sweet potato, tomato, chili peppers, maize, Lima beans, pumpkins, squash, avocado, etc.; and from Mexico corn, Zucchini, Butternut, etc.) It would seem that agriculture would have been something that any and every isolated culture would have developed sooner or later on their own.
Besides, the Neolithic Revolution or Neolithic Demographic Transition, sometimes called the Agricultural Revolution, which was the movement of human beings from the hunting and gathering stage to one of agriculture and settlement when supporting an increasingly large population. According to Gordon Childe, he describes eight locations in the world where agriculture more or less originated independently from other peoples, which was outlined in an earlier post.
Map of the world showing approximate centers of independent origin of agriculture and its spread in prehistory, according to Vere Gordon Childe, "Man Makes Himself," 1928 (as described in an earlier post)
Other established examples of diffusion include the spread of the war chariot and iron smelting in ancient times. We have already covered iron smelting and shown how far different it actually was than archaeologists have claimed. And who is to say that the war chariot was the result of intermingling of cultures. Certainly it has been found in the Middle East from Mesopotamia to Egypt—but who is to say that two countries didn’t come up with the idea simultaneously in far flung areas, such as one in Assyria and one in Egypt? We simply do not know, but that does not stop the Archaeologist from making such intermingling claims that are specific and "uncontroversial."
(See the next post, “Archaeological Ideas, Diffusion, and Cultural Change – Part II,” for more on this subject)

No comments:

Post a Comment