Darwinian Archaeologies.

Darwinian Archaeologies. Stephen Shennan notes in his foreword to Darwinian archaeologies thatDarwinism is in tune with the Zeitgeist. And so it seems, finding notonly application throughout academia, as Shennan documents, but alsoresonance with a wider quest for Verb 1. quest for - go in search of or hunt for; "pursue a hobby"quest after, go after, pursuelook for, search, seek - try to locate or discover, or try to establish the existence of; "The police are searching for clues"; "They are searching for the certainty in the face of a newmillennium. But if Darwinism is, as suggested in a recent bulletin ofthe political think-tank Demos, 'an 'ism' for ourtimes', is it also an 'ism' for past times, or at anyrate, for archaeology?The editors of Darwinian archaeologies (DA) and Evolutionaryarchaeology: methodological issues (EA) both believe that Darwinism hasmuch to offer archaeology. They hope that their books will furtherunlock some of that potential by demonstrating workable methodologies(EA) and fostering development of consensus about how Darwinian studiesshould proceed (DA). Despite this optimism, however, both books concedethat Darwinism has thus far made only limited impact on archaeology.O'Brien, in his paper on 'The Historical Development of anEvolutionary Archaeology', takes 'sharp exception' withthose who view the limited number of explicitly Darwinian studies asevidence that the approach is flawed. Nevertheless, there almostcertainly are problems, for as all good Darwinians know: success breedssuccess. The contributors to EA would prefer to see any problems aslargely methodological. In this they are only partially correct: as theeditor and some contributors to DA recognize, there are also theoreticaldifficulties. The extent to which these undermine the attempt toconstruct a Darwinian or evolutionary archaeology depends on the scopeof the project.To judge from the introductory essay to DA, Darwinian archaeology isan umbrella term A term used to cover a broad category of functions rather than one specific item. In many cases, a term is so catchy that it tends to be used for technologies that are a stretch from the original concept. See middleware and virtualization. which can be applied to one or more of three arguablyquite separate projects. One seeks to explain cultural phenomena both interms of the biological capacity for flexible behaviour and in terms ofany biological propensities that influence the content of culture; thisis a project most relevant, though by no means limited to the study ofhuman evolution. Another Darwinian project employs the concept ofadaptation to explain why things were they way they were; this projectbroadly shares its objectives with the functionalist func��tion��al��ism?n.1. The doctrine that the function of an object should determine its design and materials.2. A doctrine stressing purpose, practicality, and utility.3. processualismespoused by Binford and others. A third Darwinian project also seeks toexplain why things were the way they were, but more in terms ofgenealogy than of function per se; this project has closer affinitieswith culture history and the more artefact-centred processualism ofDavid Clarke David Clarke or Dave Clarke may refer to: Dave Clarke, techno DJ from England David Clarke (actor), motion picture and Broadway actor Dave Clarke (football), Scottish football manager David A. .EA does not even hint at the study of the biological capacity forflexible behaviour. Part IV of DA, however, is explicitly dedicated tothis project, containing papers by Steele on 'Weak Modularity andthe Evolution of Human Social Behaviour' and Mithen on 'TheOrigin of Art: natural signs, mental modularity and visualsymbolism'. Both papers are among the most rewarding in the book,but both sit uneasily with its general tenor. One suspects that bothSteele and Mithen are more interested in constructing narratives aboutthe past than they are in the finer points of what would constitute adistinctively Darwinian archaeology. This is not to criticise theircontributions, but to question the rationale for their inclusion in thevolume. The problem is that although Steele and Mithen construct theirnarratives by combining observations of relatively coarse patterning inthe archaeological record The archaeological record is a term used in archaeology to denote all archaeological evidence, including the physical remains of past human activities which archaeologists seek out and record in an attempt to analyze and reconstruct the past. with insights from evolutionary theory ''This article is about the creole theory. You may be looking for the concept of biological evolution. For other uses, see Evolution (disambiguation).Main article: Creole language The evolutionary perspective , thereis nothing specifically Darwinian about their archaeological method.This is in contrast to most of the other papers in DA and all those inEA, which explicitly explore the possibility of drawing on Darwinism toconstruct new archaeological theory Archaeological theory covers the debates over the practice of archaeology and the interpretation of archaeological results. There is no single theory of archaeology, and even definitions are disputed. and method. It seems a littlegratuitous to label the study of the capacity for flexible behaviour'Darwinian archaeology' when it might more accurately becharacterized as the creative use of conventional archaeology in thewider Darwinian project to explain human evolution.Neither DA nor EA include examples of the most frequently encounteredform of Darwinian functionalist processualism: the adaptationistprogramme, which draws on insights from evolutionary ecology Evolutionary ecology lies at the intersection of ecology and evolutionary biology. It approaches the study of ecology in a way that explicitly considers the evolutionary histories of species and the interactions between them. and, inparticular, optimal foraging theory “OFT” redirects here. For other uses, see Office of Fair Trading.A central concern of ecology has traditionally been foraging behavior. In its most basic form, optimal foraging theory . The existence of such studies isnoted in the preface to DA, but the editor considers that they have beendiscussed in adequate detail elsewhere. In their commentary chapter,however, Bettinger and Richerson suspect that there is more to thisomission - of what they see as arguably the most successful area ofevolutionary research - than simple fear of redundancy. They note thatmany evolutionary archaeologists appear to regard adaptationist studiesas devoid of evolutionary content. For example, in their paper on thetransition from biface to flake lithic technology In archeology, Lithic Technology refers to a broad array of techniques and styles to produce usable tools from various types of stone. The earliest stone tools were recovered from modern Ethiopia and were dated to between two-million and three-million years old. , Abbot, Leonard &Jones argue that adaptationist studies do not adequately explainhistorical (evolutionary) trajectories. Bettinger & Richerson rejectthe parallel implication that if we cannot solve all evolutionaryproblems simultaneously then we cannot solve any of them; as they pointout, there are many levels of enquiry where we might fruitfully employDarwinian principles. What Bettinger & Richerson do not makeexplicit, however, is that this debate cuts to the heart of thedistinction between the scope of an evolutionary as opposed to aDarwinian archaeology.The basic assumption of evolutionary archaeology is that changes inthe specific content of culture are potentially, or even only,explicable ex��plic��a��ble?adj.Possible to explain: explicable phenomena; explicable behavior.ex��plic in terms of a process of descent with modification. This isthe genealogical project, and it explicitly aims to build a Darwinianarchaeology replete with appropriate theory and method. EA is entirelyconcerned with this project, and all its contributors advocate or assumean approach known as selectionism. Much of DA is also concerned with thegenealogical project, but in this case the relevant contributions aredivided between parts II and III according to whether they representstrict selectionism or 'revisionist' selectionism. It is clearfrom this arrangement that the editor of DA doubts the utility ofselectionism. It is less clear, however, why he chose to place thepapers by Cullen and Fletcher in part II. Cullen's cultural virustheory (also invoked by Fletcher) is not, as Maschner claims, an'extreme variant of cultural selectionism'. Indeed, byexplicitly locating the primary agency of selection in humanconsciousness and individual action Cullen directly opposes the centraltenet of selectionism. One must presumably pre��sum��a��ble?adj.That can be presumed or taken for granted; reasonable as a supposition: presumable causes of the disaster. attribute this editoriallapse to cultural virus theory's superficial affinity with RichardDawkins' meme concept and Daniel Dennett's (1995) descriptionof the brain as 'a sort of dungheap in which the larvae Larvae, in Roman religionLarvae:see lemures. of otherpeoples ideas renew themselves'.The advocates of strict selectionism are surprisingly dogmatic giventhe doubtful utility of their theoretical position. All selectionistsaccept that the application of evolutionary theory to cultural traitspresupposes one or more non-genetic mechanisms of cultural inheritance.For example, nobody argues that pottery types are coded in the genes ofpotters, rather it is assumed that they are transmitted by some form oflearning. Nevertheless, strict selectionisis do not accept that humanintentionality intentionalityProperty of being directed toward an object. Intentionality is exhibited in various mental phenomena. Thus, if a person experiences an emotion toward an object, he has an intentional attitude toward it. plays any part in the selection of cultural traits.Instead they believe that changes in the frequency of such traits can beattributed to the differential biological reproduction of individualswho possess them, in other words Adv. 1. in other words - otherwise stated; "in other words, we are broke"put differently , to conventional natural selection. Itis true that the strict selectionist se��lec��tion��ist?adj. also se��lec��tion��alOf or relating to the view that evolution or genetic variation occurs chiefly as a result of natural selection.n.One who holds or favors a selectionist view. position is logically defensibleinsofar in��so��far?adv.To such an extent.Adv. 1. insofar - to the degree or extent that; "insofar as it can be ascertained, the horse lung is comparable to that of man"; "so far as it is reasonably practical he should practice as one can envisage circumstances in which the differentialbiological reproduction of individuals could alter the frequency of acultural trait. It is extremely doubtful, however, whether this is whatactually happens most of the time. Strict selectionism fails to graspthat many, if not most, cultural traits are reproduced more frequentlythan biological individuals (indeed this is most probably the adaptivefunction of the biological capacity for culture). As soon as onerecognizes that cultural traits are not solely transmitted betweencognate generations, but horizontally within them and between members ofseparate biological lineages, then it becomes clear that naturalselection is denied much of its efficacy in determining the specificcontent of culture at typical archaeological time scales.Part III of Darwinian archaeologies responds to the flaws in strictselectionism by outlining several 'paths to revisionism re��vi��sion��ism?n.1. Advocacy of the revision of an accepted, usually long-standing view, theory, or doctrine, especially a revision of historical events and movements.2. incultural-behavioural selection'. Maschner and Pattern reiterate theprinciple that natural selection operates on the individual in order toargue that hereditary social inequality is the expected outcome of kinselection. Graves-Brown argues in semi-philosophical vein that it isinappropriate to ascribe agency to genes, memes or artefacts sincenothing actually happens without the struggle of organisms. Use of theterm struggle may better reflect the active role of organisms than doesselection, but this revision is unlikely to alter the models we build.The late Ben Cullen's attempt to tackle the same issue by seekingthe most appropriate biological analogy for cultural replicationpotentially offers greater analytic utility. Fletcher argues that words,actions and material 'things' are transmitted through separatecultural inheritance systems operating at differing frequencies.Although discussion of his spatial case-study suffers from (no doubtenforced) brevity, his basic argument undoubtedly merits furtherresearch. Ames' critique of selectionism's absolute dichotomybetween style and function is supported by a more cogently arguedcontribution from Bettinger, Boyd & Richerson. They argue that it isfallacious to suppose, as selectionists do, that evolutionary processescan be collapsed into selection acting on functional variants and randomeffects acting on stylistic variation. Instead they offer a taxonomy ofcultural evolutionary processes that can result in non-random patternsin adaptively neutral stylistic variation.So, returning to the question posed at the outset, do thecontributions to Darwinian archaeologies and Evolutionary archaeologyprovide convincing evidence that Darwinism is indeed an 'ism'for archaeology? Unlike EA, DA recognizes the two Darwinian projectsthat have to date contributed most to the production of narratives aboutthe past: the project to explore the biological capacity for flexiblebehaviour, and the adaptationist programme. It is not clear, however,that there is any great virtue in labelling these 'Darwinianarchaeologies'. For the most part they simply representarchaeological contributions to the multidisciplinary Darwinian projectthat seeks to explain human behaviour and its products. The only projectwhich really merits designation as a 'Darwinian archaeology'is the project to explain cultural genealogies. This - somewhatembarrassingly - is also the project which has contributed least to theproduction of interesting narratives, most probably because it alonerequires new archaeological method and theory. EA demonstrates that thelack of appropriate method and theory is not entirely for want oftrying, but real progress is likely to require a combination of some ofthe methodological insights of strict selectionism with the theoreticalinsights of 'revisionist' selectionism. For that reason anyoneseeking to assist in the construction of a Darwinian archaeology willwish to read papers in both EA and DA. Those who do not yet know whetherthey wish to participate in a such a project should start with DA,which, despite its omission of the adaptationist programme, representsthe closest approximation yet to a comprehensive survey of the field.ReferenceDENNETT, D. 1995. Darwin's dangerous idea. London: Allen Lane.