Advertisement

Evolutionism and Arch(a)eology

  • Guy Freeland
Part of the Australasian Studies in History and Philosophy of Science book series (AUST, volume 2)

Abstract

A difficulty with commemorative volumes is that the author tends to feel a certain compulsion to make the strongest case to which the arts of sophistry can aspire for the commemorated hero. Writing, as I am, on evolutionism on the eve of the centenary year of the death of Charles Robert Darwin, I cannot but feel the undertow of long-established cultural mores encouraging me to argue the thesis that The Origin of Species, if not the sole fans et origo, was at least the major formative influence in the development of modern arch(a)eology.1 The straws at which counsel for The Origin could clutch are not difficult to discern. Wasn’t it Darwin’s Origin of Species which, in spite of the fact that Darwin barely mentions the matter in The Origin, opened up the whole question of the descent and antiquity of man? Wasn’t arch(a)eology one of the principal beneficiaries of the vastly expanded horizons of the prehistory of man? Aren’t the concepts of the evolution of culture and of societies, a legacy of Darwinism, central to arch(a)eological thinking? Hasn’t post-Darwinian arch(a)eological theory been dominated by the clash between evolutionists and diffusionists? And, as a final accolade delivered in good time for the centenary of the Master’s death, hasn’t the sustained attack on diffusionist theory, particularly since the advent of the so-called Second Radiocarbon Revolution, left the field clear for a new chapter in the history of a triumphant evolutionary arch(a)eology?

Keywords

Nineteenth Century Organic Evolution Cultural Evolution Physical Anthropology European Arch 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. R. E. Leakey and R. Lewin, Origins (London, 1977 ).Google Scholar
  2. G. Daniel, A Hundred and Fifty Years of Archaeology (London, 1975), p. 366.Google Scholar
  3. C. Schuchhardt, Schliemann s Discoveries of the Ancient World tr. E. Sellers (New York, 1979, 1st edn, Schliemann’s Excavations: An Archaeological and Historical Study, 1891 ).Google Scholar
  4. P. J. Fowler, Approaches to Archaeology (London, 1977 ).Google Scholar
  5. S. Y. Edgerton, The Renaissance Rediscovery of Linear Perspective (New York, 1975 ).Google Scholar
  6. G. Daniel, op. cit. (Note 3, 1975), pp. 38–56, pp. 77–84Google Scholar
  7. G. Daniel, op. cit. (Note 12, 1971 ), pp. 81–85.Google Scholar
  8. S. Piggott, William Stukeley: An Eighteenth-Century Antiquary (Oxford, 1950 ).Google Scholar
  9. G. Daniel, op. cit. (Note 3, 1975 ), pp. 372–374.Google Scholar
  10. G. Daniel, The Idea of Prehistory (London, 1962 ).Google Scholar
  11. G. Daniel, op. cit. (Note 3, 1975 ), p. 52.Google Scholar
  12. G. Archey, Sculpture and Design: An Outline of Maori Art (Auckland, 1960,1st edn, 1955), p. 10.Google Scholar
  13. C. Renfrew, op. cit. (Note 35, 1976 ), p. 145.Google Scholar
  14. E. B. Gasking, Investigations into Generation 16511828 (London, 1967 ).Google Scholar
  15. G. Daniel, op. cit. (Note 3, 1975 ), p. 45.Google Scholar
  16. L. R. Binford, ‘Archaeology as Anthropology’, American Antiquity XXVIII, 1962, pp. 217–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. S. R. Binford and L. R. Binford (eds), New Perspectives in Archeology (Chicago and New York, 1968 ).Google Scholar
  18. C. Renfrew, op. cit. (Note 35, 1976 ), p. 19.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guy Freeland
    • 1
  1. 1.University of New South WalesAustralia

Personalised recommendations