Theory – Evolution

At the beginning the point must be made that this is not a post about the theory of evolution.  Archaeological evolutionary theory is not interested, per say, in biological evolution (although most archaeologists might assume this and work within that paradigm).  Rather archaeological theory is a look at social evolution and how it is used in the dynamics of culture.

 

Evolution may rightly be called the “ever-present” idea.  A look back over archaeological theory will demonstrate that it has gone in and out of fashion a few times.  This post will explore briefly how archaeological theory has used or not used evolution to explain social change.

 

The late 18^th century and early 19^th century saw the adaption of Darwin’s theory of evolution as an explanation for the change that occurs in culture.  This was called “Social Evolution”.  This was also the era of Enlightenment and Antiquarianism.  Archaeological theory moved away from this during the industrialization of the western world.  The end result was the rise of Cultural Historical approaches.

 

In the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries the problems of industrialization and conflict saw the beginnings of a move from Culture History back toward evolutionary ideas.  By the mid-20^th century New Archaeology became informed by Neo-evolutionism.  This continued with Processualism.

 

From the 80’s until the present, Post-Processual archaeology tried to move away from evolutionary theory but recent trends are starting to show a return to what is called Neo-Darwinian Archaeology, which is mostly Processual with a mix of some Post-Processual ideas.  However, everything begins to overlap at this point.

 

I’m not so sure that social evolution is a solid theory.  I have nothing fundamentally against it, just that I don’t see that it ever has happened in history.  I can see technologies in cultures improving but evolution assumes that there is a process that progresses something from simple to complex and each step along the way is an adaptation that is also an improvement on the earlier form.  The end result is naturally a better product then that, which at first existed.

 

However, is this really what happens?  Evolution suggests a natural process.  However, humans are not  robots.  They are thinking and unpredictable.  Sure they adjust somewhat to the environment that they are in, but they also rule the environment that they are in and shape it.  Evolution was originally (as promoted by Darwin) against the concept of huge jumps and yet we see this over and over again in human culture.  Just because there is process, doesn’t mean that it is an evolutionary process.  This is the fundamental mistake that I see with this cultural theory.