Continuing from the previous post
discussing the nature of most scientists regarding the understanding of
cultures, dating of sites and artifacts, and the development of events in
pre-history, and the stages, periods, and method of diffusion they use. Several
examples of diffusion were listed in the previous post, and others will be
included here.
But first, one of the problems is
knowing that to the scientist there are stages and periods of human
development, and it is their view that when one stage of development is
determined (found) during excavation, study, linking, that it is assumed a
previous stage existed before that…and one before that, etc.
A few pottery shards
to the archaeologist sometimes creates an entire civilization, maybe even an
empire
Consequently, if broken pottery
is found in the ground, it is automatically assumed by the scientist that a
pre-pottery period existed before that. And if a pre-pottery stage existed,
then there had to be a stage before that. If the ruins are found of an ancient
fortress, there had to exist a pre-period of lesser building ability, and a
non-polity period before that. If an advanced agricultural area is found, with
terracing, aqueducts, channels, etc., then there had to be a pre-agricultural
period before that, etc.
In its purest form, there was the
Early Stone Age, Middle Stone Age, Later Stone Age, Post-Stone Age, the
Neolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age, Classic Middle Ages, Pre-Pottery, Pottery,
Archaic, Post-Archaic, Formative, Classic, Post-Classic, Pre-Contact,
Post-Contact, Settlement, Post-Classic, etc. There are also the Roman Age,
Early Medieval Period, Medieval Period, Post-Medieval Period, Industrial and
Modern; there was also the Ice Age, the Epipaleolithic, Mesolithic,
Chalcolithic, and the Hellenistic, Byzantine, and Ottoman periods.
The point is, to the
archaeologist there is always a series of stages and periods of human
development, progress and history. These stages and periods vary considerably
from continent to continent, and from region to region, with three main stages:
Stone Age, Bronze Age, and Iron Age, based upon identifying tool manufacture
and use in a given area, site, or culture.
Once the stage or period is
determined, then there is the concept of diffusion—that is, how did this
culture move about, affect, or determine the advancement of another culture,
location, or people. Scientists use as an established example the use of cars
and Western business suits in the 20th century to show how diffusion
has worked recently.
On the other hand, the concept of
diffusion meets similar difficulties to determine a single culture, or multiple
ones. Take their example of the car—in contrast it should be noted that before
and after World War II, American cars were exported to almost every country
around the world—following the rebuilding of Japan, Japanese cars were exported
to most countries, and with the impact of German technology after rebuilding,
they appeared in countries around the world—without names and logos on these
cars, it would be hard to tell who engineered and built them, and if something
similar was to be found in pre-history cultures, we would find the
archaeologist creating a single culture as responsible for this phenom, rather
than the many cultures (countries) responsible.
Top Left: King’s Day
ride in Britain of 1930s Fords for George V in 1935; Right: 3 American cars in
Paris in 1950, including 1941 Nash and 1948 Cadillac; Bottom Left: Several
Chevrolets in Istanbul, Turkey in 1965; Right: 2 American cars and several in
background at East Gate, Chester, England in 1970s
In addition, contrary to the diffusion
concept of archaeology, most foreign car makers did not get started as a result
of diffusion, that is, the spread of automobile manufacturing to neighbors or
from contact, but as independent inventive processes by people not known to one
another and in far flung countries, most at the very same time. In addition, China
is a perfect example of the very opposite of diffusion. Their automobile
industry is state owned, state directed, state funded, etc., yet in 2009,
became the largest manufacturer in production and sales of cars in the World, and
by 2011, were producing more than twice the amount of the U.S. and Japan
combined. Their origins did not begin with the U.S. or Japan, the two largest
manufacturing companies at the time, nor with Germany, England, or Italy, who
were the oldest automobile manufacturing companies in the world—but with Russia
(Soviet Union), from whom they bought manufacturing plants and set up help. In
fact, in 2011, three of the top auto manufacturers were Chinese.
Left: China’s BYD Company S6 SUV; Right:
China’s Chery Company ZAZ Forza.
As for Western business suits,
they have not been a constant in America, or other Western cultures, since they
alter as cultures intermingle, but also alter based on “created style.” Take,
as an example, the western wearing of Eastern Nehru jackets, though this was
not based on intermingling, but a style change, which were similar to, but
shorter than, the achkan or sherwani, and worn by western
businessmen and women, in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Then there was the
introduction of Leisure Suits in the 1970s that did not come from intermingling
at all, but a design creation. There was the mock knit turtlenecks worn under
suit jackets to eliminate the wearing of ties that again was simply a design
introduction. There were the drindle
skirts from Germany, the Romanian and Polish peasant blouses, etc., that swept
through Western clothing.
Left: Nehru jacket worn in America 1960s-1970s;
Center: Leisure Suit worn by men in America 1970s; Right: Turtle neck with suit
worn by men in America in 1980s-1990s
In addition, since fashion played the main role in clothing
changes, rather than any type of cultural infusion, there was the Zoot (zuit)
suit, Western suit, Nudie suit, Beatle suit, Mod suit, Safari suit, the Disco
suit, and the Power suit. Many of these suit styles were restricted to specific
areas, specific groups, and in some cases, strictly racial trends. They did not
diffuse into other groups or cultures. The Zoot suit was strictly a Chicano and
African American apparel, created by Chicago, Detroit and Memphis tailors in
the 1930s and 1940s. In France, at the same time, there was the Zazous suit, a
fashion developed in reaction and rebellion against the Nazi occupation.
Left: The Zoot suits of the 1940s; Center: The Western (cowboy) suit;
Right: The rhinestone covered Nudie suit; all of these and numerous other
styles were not established through diffusion and did not pass on through
diffusion to other cultures
Is all of this to suggest a
common culture, an intermingling culture, or simply change? If such was found
in pre-history cultures, we would find the archaeologists creating an entire
culture out of each of these, and considering it a “well-attested and also
uncontroversial phenomenon.”
We are told by the scientist
that: 1) Inter-cultural diffusion can
happen in many ways, such as migrating populations carrying their culture with
them. On the other hand, they can adopt the new culture and their previous
culture completely disappear—which is what happened to the Mulekites;
2) Ideas can be carried by trans-cultural visitors, such as merchants,
explorers, soldiers, diplomats, slaves, and hired artisans. Yet, it is hard
to imagine a singular person or small group having any impact on a large,
existing culture as science proclaims—Marco Polo had little, if any, impact on
Chinese culture. His return had little impact on European culture, other than
expanding their knowledge and worldview [foods of course, are separate from
this—Marco Polo brought back a knowledge of spices and chocolate not previously
known, which were quickly adopted, though it took a hundred years for the
potato, brought back from Peru in the 16th century, to be adopted
into European cuisine]).
(See the next post, “Archaeological
Ideas, Diffusion, and Cultural Change – Part III,” for more on this subject)
No comments:
Post a Comment