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