Discuss, with examples from the past and more recent times, the influence of political thought on archaeological research and interpretation.

Since the emergence of archaeology as a science, and even before, in the antiquarian times, archaeology had always been a tool for politics. It was such an abundant source for proving the legitimacy of these ideas that, we see archaeology as widely exploited in several ideologies, like imperialism, racism, nationalism and even regionalism. In order to understand this phenomenon completely, one should look at the reasons of the use of archaeology and at the availability of the archaeology, as a scientific discipline for the duty of backing certain ideologies.

The raisons for the use of archaeology by the states and ideologies stands obvious; it is, for example, for legitimizing the System, convincing the masses that what the governing body does is right, lawful and natural. It could be used, on the other hand, for boasting a nation’s self-esteem and pride, generally by linking the intellectual and physical superiority of one nation (race) to the Past.  This notion of historical racism has also been used for justifying the expansionary policies of the superior race’s state.  It has also been consulted in territorial claims, for showing that a claiming ethnic group or nation has been “there” before the current occupant.  Besides the states, regional groups also use archaeological information in order to show that they are different ethnic/cultural entities within a state, since very old times.

A second question comes about the nature of archaeology. Why archaeology is so suitable and was so much used for political purposes? The answer lies on the adaptability of the archaeological data into different ways of interpretation, which risk being quite subjective, if the interpreter is predisposed to a certain political thought or manipulated by a certain ideological system. On the other hand, archaeology is also a discipline that offers perfect material to be employed in vindicating an ideology, and in re-creating the history: artifacts, treasures, cities, civilizations, even physical remains of past people like bones and skulls.  I will try to present the influence of politic tendencies I had cited above into archaeology with examples from past into our days. 

The first important example of this influence comes in the 19^th century, with the rise of imperialism. The researchers of this period sought to explain the differences between the “civilized” Europe and the others. This purpose is apparent in Lubbock’s work, which widely used the notion of Social Darwinism and found out that the native “savages” were biologically inferior and hence were bound to disappear by natural selection. One should not isolate the ideas of Lubbock from the political context of the period: it was that of the regency of the British Empire, and the evolutionary views only served to explain the European expansion and dominance into other parts of the world (Trigger 1989: 118). If one manipulates the famous expression of the natural selection theory “survival of the fittest” into “survival of the strongest”, it becomes a justification for class stratification and rule of the aristocracy too. The “subject” or “colonial” races were labeled as inferior, hence they were fit to be subjugated by the Imperialists (Delanty 1995: 95-97). The ruins of the Great Zimbabwe and the romantic speculations about it were another evidence of archaeology conducted for proving the legitimacy of Imperial expansion. According to the imperial view, these cities were obviously not an achievement of the Black people, and white people, coming from the Near East could only build them. Thus, the white man was coming back to the territories that he used to rule in the past (Trigger 1989: 131).  The imperialist view also ruled in American archaeology, which called the American Indians as inherently unprogressive, and unable to progress. A similar suggestion with that of Zimbabwe was made about the Moundbuilders, that they were not Indians, but a lost race, which came from somewhere else (Trigger 1989: 119-128). According to Trigger, the Indians were purposefully presented as brutal, savage and incapable to progress. It was a suitable reason for occupying their lands and violating the treaties signed. This idea had considerable influence on retarding the professional development of American archaeology with respect to the European archaeology (Trigger 1980: 663).

With the rise of Nation-States, nationalism became the dominant political power throughout Europe. The emergence of nationalism required for a national and patriotic past, to be learned and to be proud of (Trigger 1989:149). Archaeology was necessary in order to link back current people and culture to the past ones, and prove the existence of a nation. If the influence of nationalism was first observed in archaeology in Scandinavian countries, it appears most obviously, even chauvinistically in Germany. There was a strong enthusiasm towards the pagan past and Nordic people. From very early times, this interest was focused on ethnic concepts of the Nordic race, which was described as tall, blue eyed, blonde and having a long skull. Amateur archaeologists, like the physician Wilser or linguist Kossinna, admired the German people as a superior race that remained pure and unmixed until then (Wiwjorra 1996: 172, Trigger 1989: 163-167). Kossinna and Wilser were not singular phenomena in racist studies, as Eugenics was already spread throughout Scandinavia and Germany by that time (Field 1977: 523-529). This study counts the racist studies and practices of “Racial Hygiene” prior to the Nazi regime in Germany.

After the First World War, the archaeologists started argue about the German-Polish border, and sought to find prehistoric evidence of German presence. As the Slavs were considered as racially inferior, attractive findings were attributed to Germans and dull, ugly ones to the Slavic populations. These became convincing arguments in Germany’s regaining of its territories, which were once inhabited by Germanic tribes. It seems that the dispute over the German-Polish border did not end even after the Second World War and land claims are still backed by prehistoric evidences of either German or Slavic presence (Wiwjorra 1996: 164-177).

Russia is also a good example of changing archaeological interpretation with changing political environment. The archaeology in Imperial Russia has strong links with nationalism rather than imperialism. The trend was to emphasize the Eastern Slavic arguments against the Viking theory, which claimed that it was the Vikings who founded the Kievan Rus. Other cultures remaining in Russian territories were simply ignored (Shnirelman 1996:223).

 The Soviet archaeology was born as a response to the nationalist and racist ideas. Soviet archaeologists strictly refused diffusionist and migrationist ideas. They insisted that internal forces play a major rule in the change of social and economic changes. The theory that would characterize this period was the autocthonism, developed by Marr. These developments were in accordance with the Marxist historical materialism. Especially the autocthonic theory was implying that the society could change and improve by its internal force. (Trigger 1989: 221-223). Although the Soviet view rejected nationalism, the studies turned back to ethnogeneticism, and anti-vikingism was adopted again. This was a Soviet nationalism, emerging as a reaction against German claim on the supremacy of German tribes. It was essential for the new, Post-War view to prove that Slavic peoples could found their civilizations independently of all external influences in the prehistoric times (Shnirelman 1996: 235).

The misuse of archaeology will remain together with the search of identity. The Aryan myth and the superiority of Indo-European people issue still linger in our days though concentrated in rather racist environments. The popular story is that of the nomadic, Indo-European speaking people who invades the Indus Valley, and settles its own culture around 1700BC. They are said to be the writers of the Vedic inscriptions. This theory was abundantly used by racist archaeologists like Kossinna, and later by Hitler. I was shocked in my recent discussion with my Lithuanian friend who claimed that Ancient Egyptians were Aryans but the Arabs destroyed their culture. Myths bear other myths. And do all civilizations and cultures have to be attributed to a language group? This seems rather an isolated case (obviously racist), but I think there is no other language family that has been used so much to imply a cultural unity among people who speak it. And it shows us that the old Racist demon is still among us.

 The use of the Past, and hence archaeology still play a major role in political problems, from disputes about the use of the name “Macedonian” between Greece and Macedonia, which is basically the debate about whether the ancient Macedonians were Greeks or not, to the Pan-European claim about the Graeco-Roman culture being the base of the European civilization, although in most of the European cities the Greek-style buildings are only two centuries old.  The new concept of cultural identity, especially that created in today’s Europe, is also problematic in my opinion: a strive for cultural unity, which could only be created at the expense of ignoring cultures and identities of many small groups, thus at the expense of ruling out multiculturalism.

Bibliography:

Trigger, B.G.          1989        A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Delanty, G.             1995        Inventing Europe: Idea, Identity, Reality. London: McMillan Press.

Wiwjorra, I.            1996        “German Archaeology and Its Relation to Nationalism and Racism”  Pp. 164-188 in Nationalism an And Archaeology in Europe. Eds. M. Diaz-Andreu &T. Champion. London: UCL Press.

Shnirelman, V. A.  1996        “The Faces of Nationalist Archaeology in Russia” in  Nationalism an And Archaeology in Europe. Eds. M. Diaz-Andreu &T. Champion. London: UCL Press.

Trigger, B.G.          1980        “Archaeology and the Image of the American Indian”. American Antiquity 45: 662-676.

Field,  G.G.            1977        “Nordic Racism” Journal of the History of the Ideas 38: 523-540.

Cultural Ecology of Thrace

A Cultural and Ecological Survey of Thrace

Introduction:

Although the land called Thrace includes a large part of Bulgaria, Greece and the European side of Turkey, the focus on this paper will be on the Turkish side only. Thrace is an interesting region to study, as it offers a range of different cultures that existed altogether. The geography of the region is simple, where a row of mountains border a large flood plain, that is watered by a number of rivers. One would expect a lot of settlements in such an area, and from the Neolithic on, the region was inhabited densely, and the main Classical cities survived at the same sites until modern times. The paper aims to give a humble depiction of the ecological features of the region in a brief way, and to discuss the settlement patterns and subsistence strategies of the people who inhabited Thrace, in Prehistoric times and in Classical times. A concise study of all features of those sites would be impossible, since the field studies and excavations aimed only at identifying the sites and unearthing them. Many of field surveys give statistical numbers about the amount of pottery collected, but no such studies exist for floral and faunal analysis of the region.

However, it is still possible to reconstruct the past life features, although very partially, from the geological and climatological information. The region is quite close to sea level and because it is a low flood plain, floodings would be probable and do still destroy habitation areas today. However, most of the sites had to be close to rivers, by necessity of acquiring water for use. Another feature of the region is that it is torn by many active fault lines, which caused very serious earthquakes. This also might have influenced the aspects of past life. The region was well irrigated by rivers which took their water from sources sited up in the mountain massifs. However, the weather is generally very harsh in winter and summer brings in very low rainfall and water scarcity. The areas close to the rivers are generally wet and marshy, the areas that are far away are very dry. So the people who inhabited the sites in Thrace might have to tackle with such paradoxal situations and develop strategies for subsistence.

In order to draw a general picture of the region, first a brief outline of “written” history will be given. Then the geology, seismology, floral and faunal characteristics, mineral sources and discussions about their use will be presented. The sites and hypotheses about the settlement and subsistence strategies of the people will be discussed in the third part, in light of the ecological knowledge gathered.

The bibliography relevant to this topic is extremely limited. Some early excavations were done in 20^th century (Mansel 1938; 1943) but these are restricted to classical settlements. Some new surveys have been done by Özdoğan and Erdoğu, but there are no geoarchaeological surveys at all. most of the information is gathered from geology and ecology sources which makes it harder to see how was the picture back in prehistoric times.

The History and Archaeology of Thrace Outlined:

The information obtained through archaeology is quite few in Thrace with respect to other parts of Turkey, namely Anatolia. One reason is that the finds were mainly prehistorical and suracing remains were very few comparing to those of Anatolia. The prehistoric remains of Thrace attracted the archaeologists to the area rather lately, and so far surveys identifying sites have been done. On the other hand, the known Classical sites are under modern cities, and it is hard to know since when they existed there and in which prehistorical/historical periods they were inhabited.

Remains dating to the Paleolithic Age were found in a cave called Yarımburgaz, near Küçükçekmece lake at Istanbul during the season of 1964-1965. The cave has two compartments and the higher compartment is 19 meters above sea level and several finds dating to Late Paleolithic, Neolithic and Chalcolithic Age were discovered. The lower compartment is nerly 1 km long and only remains from the Lower Paleolithic were found there (Kansu, Ş.A. 1965: 22-32; Arsebük, G. et al. 1990, 1991). In Tekirdağ excavations on a prehistoric site continue and an industry of stone toold has been foud so far (Özdoğan, A. 1998).

Another feature of Thrace are Prehistoric dolmens. These are unique to this region and are generally known as European elements. However, due to agricultural activities and tomb robberies these dolmens are being razed one by one (Özdoğan, M.&Akman, M. 1991)

Other field survey in Prehistoric sites of Thrace are being done, especially in the riversides of Edirne and Tekirdağ (Erdoğu, B. 1996, 1998; Özdoğan, A.& Işın, M.A. 1998).

When the litteracy flowered in Anatolia, there was still no writing, no urbanism and no centralized state. The only information about the Thracian language is a ring inscribed with greek letters, but in Thracian(Erzen, A 1994: 87). The mass migration of the Thracian tribes (that Herodotus calls as “Bryges”) is assumed to have caused the foundation of the Phrygian rule in inner Anatolia, but even at that date, there is no historical evidence of a state founded in Thrace itself (Herodotus, Book VII, 73). About 750 BC some Greek colonial cities were founded in Thrace, namely Elaious, Sestos, Selymbra, Byzantion and Ainos. After this era, Thrace saw the invasion of Persians under Darius I and then of Greeks and Macedonians. Finally Thrace was  taken under Roman rule in 47, by Claudius (Umar, B. 2003).

The Geology of Thrace:

The region is bordered at the North by the Istranca massifs, which belongs to the Alpine mountain chain. The massif contains several metamorphic zones and stone groups like granite, diorite, sienite; it emerged during the Hersinian period and contains some tertiary rock covers. The other main geological formation of the region is the Meriç(Maritza) delta and flood plain. The lower Meriç plateau is sited on a low area that emerged by the contraction of Oligocene sediments between the Rhodop mountains at northwest and the Gölcük massif at southeast. The Meriç plateau is channel-shaped and ensured the communication of the sea at south and the Ergene riverbed at north from the Oligocene till the Quaternary. During the Miocene a transgression advanced inside the Ergene basin. During this Miocene transgression volcanic activities took place and the volcanoes spread tufa around this region. The tectonic movements continued during the Quaternary as well and while the neighbouring plateaux continued to be raised by this movement, the river basin sagged further (Atalay 1982: 240).

Several terraces at the coastline and through the plateau witness changes in the sea level . At least five level changes are observable, and this observation has been verified in sea level changes in Southern Aegean . At least five superimposed deltaic sequences are observed in the gulf of Gökova, and the postglacial Holocene sea level rise resulted in a distinct seismic uncomformity throughout the region (Uluğ, A. et al. 2005).  In the narrows near the delta, an old delta that developed during the post-Tirenian regression, whenthe sea level diminished by –110m . the Flandrian transgression inundated the plateaux of Meriç and Ergene rivers in estuaries and its effects are still observable as a thick layer of silt with fossilized seashells. The development of the flood plain and the current delta occured after this transgression when the sea level fell a little and came to today’s level (Atalay 1982: 241). The delta is advancing rapidly, and alluvial erosdional and sedimentary deposits that are found here are very rich in variety. The most conspicious among them is the backswamp deposits. On the other hand, the flood plain also filled due to two reasons: lateral erosion and constant changes in the river bed (Göçmen, K 1999).

In the northern part of the Thrace region, the Paleozoic formations are metamorphic and show inaccuracies with the Eocene limestones. The Eocene and the Lower-Middle Oligocene period however, presents a very soft limestone bed with fossiles of nummulitidae inside (Sirel, E. &Gündüz, H. 1976). In Çanakkale, those fossiles belonging to Sarmatiene and Pliocene were found: mastodon longirostris, Tapes gregarina, Ervilia podolica, Mactra podolica (in limestones), Cerithium priscum, Phoca pontica (in clays and sandstones), Sus erymanthius, Tragocerus amaltheus (in heavy sand and gravel) (Ternek 1987).

The Plio Quaternary is observed north of Kocaeli, in Ergene basin and in Gelibolu. In these areas a large amount of clay, silt and gravel is found, as sedimented by lakes and rivers. Around Gelibolu, conglomeric formations and terraces present the Pliocene. Pleistocene alluvion forms a large terrace in Ergene basin, and can be observed around 50m above the present river beds. The Holocene alluvion is more widespread and is formed of clay, sand and soil. Around the major lakes and rivers of the region, these large deposits can be found (Ternek 1987: 32). Volcanic activities took place in North Thrace and many examples of tufa, andesite and diabase can be found on the Istrance massif. These features cover a large area till North of İstanbul.

The Thrace region enters into the Pontid tectonic unit. This area is very rich in terms of faults, and generally the distribution of volcanic stones and hotwater sources reveal the fault lines. the Harala fault line passes through Harala Meriç, Ergene and Karaağaç; the İpsala Muratlı fault passes through Kurucuköy Hesaskalesi, Paşayiğit; Enez Çorlu fault passes through Keşan to Beşiktepe (a set of small volcanoes). The earthquakes in the region are very common and their epicenter is mainly in the Marmara Sea. Very strong earthquakes are a feature of the region and the South coast of Marmara is included to this range of earthquakes (Ternek 1987: 41-42).

Important Mines:

Although Thrace features a large number of mineral ores and important raw materials for many modern industries, I will only count those which might be exploited and used in the antiquity. Among them are lead, copper, zinc, gold and silver, iron, clay, marble, and construction stones like andesite and limestone.

At the south and east side of Marmara Sea, and north of Istranca mountains are feasible sources of copper and zinc. Lead can be found at the other side of the Marmara Sea, namely at Bursa and Çanakkale, but we have no information whether it was discovered in the antiquity. Gold and silver are generally found at the both sides of İstanbul and in Kocaeli in small amounts. Iron is quite common in the region, and is found in important amounts in Kıklareli and Istranca massif. Around Edirne, a thick layer of clay bed is sited and the clay is rich in illite. On the other hand, kaolin rich clays were found at Kırklareli. Both of those materials can have been used in the antiquity for pottery. The marble sources of Marmara region were famous in the antiquity, and these could be brought to very far sites, including the neighbouring cities of Thrace. In Çanakkale Biga, a soft green marble is quarried. The marbles of Marmara island are known as Procannesian marbles, and smaller sources were found at Erdek and Sarayköy, towns that are very close to Marmara island. Apart from marble, andesite is found abundantly as a volcanic stone around Thrace and there are some limestone sources, although we have no information whether the quality of the stone is good for construction purposes. Traces of basalt stones were found around Enez, Hisarlıdağ (Ternek 1987: 45-48).

Climate and Hydrology:

The climate of Thrace is quite cold and continental. Occasionally a rainy and mild winter is observed, similar to the Black Sea climate. The annual average temperature is 13.5 degrees and the annual average rainfall is between 600-800 mm. The average evaporation is 910 mm and precipitation is high.

A few lakes still exist in the flood plain. One of them is Gala lake, which is a salty lake. Dalyan lake is a soda lake, on the other hand, and its vicinities are very arid. The Taşaltı lake is a sall and very shallow lake, and its coasts are used as rice fields today. A few other lakes are small and salty, however, they are used in fish production today( Gürpınar 1994).

 The most important rivers of the region are Arda, Tunca, Meriç and Ergene rivers, which are flowing on a very flat plain, which causes the plain to flood. The waters of the basin are flowing into the Aegean via Meriç river, however there are important problems of flooding and bad drainage. Because of modern deforestation and practices of agriculture cause the plant cover to disappear more and more and this results in floodings in heavy rains. Ergene river, on the other hand, flows into a small lake and floods its basin annually, which result in big marshy lands and reduce the agricultural quality of the soil.

Soils:

The conditions of precipitation and drainage play an important role on the qualities of the soil. The main kinds of soils found in the region are alluvial, hydromorphic alluvial, noncalcarious brown forest soils, noncalcarious brown soils and vertisols. On the mounatineous areas that encircle the basin, the rainfall şncreases and washes the soils. It resulted in the development of brown forest soils. The brown soils are found at lower altitudes and are mixed with vertisols. Most of the vertisol areas are found around the Ergene peneplaine, and these soils are produced under the hot climate of the basin, where annual rainfall is around 600-800 mm. Vertisols are heavy soils that contain a lot of clay and they dont allow most of the rain and snow to precipitate into the soil. In hot and dry summer days, big and deep cracks develop on the surface of vertisols. These soils are not suitable for agricultural purposes. ( Gürpınar 1994: 14-15).

Flora:

The hydromorphic alluvial soils are naturally near vrivers and lakes, but since their drainage is not always good, generally plants like reeds, carex, Typhae are the natural flora of those areas. Rice is being cultivated on those areas. The north part of the region is included in the North Anatolian phytogeographical area. Here the flora is made of large leaf trees at lower altitudes and pine trees at higher altitudes. Some widespread trees are varieties of Abies, Acer, Carpinus, Corylus, Fagus orientalis, Pinus sylvestris, Quercus, Tilia( fir, maple, hornbeam, pine, oak, linden).  The centre of the region and the Ergene basin are now nothing but anthropogenic steppes, due to extensive agriculture and deforestation. machis, pseudo machis and dry forests cover the Meriç valley and the Aegean coast. 

Among the grass and plants are many cereal types and small seeded legumes, that cover the pasturelands today. Among them are couch grass, plantago,  Festuca glauca, Lotus edulis, Lupinus angostofolius, Dactylis hispanica, Stipa orientale.   (Atalay 1983: 81-96).

The agricultural production is being done in a very extensive way today, and the most popular plants are wheat and sunflower. Then comes barley, rye, vegetables, legumes and fruits (Gürpınar 1994: 27).

However, the plant cover of the region is receding because of  agriculture and increase of population. This causes further erosion and draught.

Fauna:

The fauna of Thrace consists of a homogenous distributrion of animals, mainly of European origin. The evidence shows that a few millenium ago this region was entirely covered by large leaved trees. Although the faune still preserves its characteristics, due to land use it is being reduced to a dangerous amount. The key site for the fauna of the region is the İğne ada region to the north of Istranca massif, where a large proportion of the natural fauna is still preserved (Demirsoy 1999).

From the recent sources it seems that the most popular domestic animal in the region is cattle. Following this are sheep and goat (Gürpınar 1994: 32). It is a natural result since the area is very flat and suitable for the breeding of cattle and sheep.

Archaeological Sites in Thrace:

There are many archaeological sites in Thrace, however most of them are still unexcavated. Together with a number of Greco-Roman towns that are sited where their modern counterparts are now, a large amount of smaller Prehistoric villages were situated near the water sources of edirne and Kırklareli. the field surveys aimed at three points:

1. to find new settlement areas , to assess the cultural transformation and try to explain the relationship between Anatolian and Balkan cultures.

2. to find Late Chalcolitic remains on the area.

3.To find Early Neolithic settlements North of Ergene Basin.

11 settlement areas were found during the surveys along Tunca river (Erdoğdu 1995). Only pottery samples were gathered in order to date the sites. From those sites, Kumocağı/Avarız revealed remains that show parallelism with the Late KaranovoIV-Kalojanovec culture. A lot of white painted black pottery were found, together with a number of flint tools, axes, and bone utensils. This kind of material culture is found in many othr sites of the region, but the earlier cultures found are Karanovo III-Veselinovo cultures (late Neolithic). Around the Northwest of Edirne a number of sites which reveal material that is contemporaneous with Pre-Cucuteni culture found in the area between Roumania and West Ukraine. However, these pieces show rather local characteristics.

A second survery has been done between Meriç and İpsala (Erdoğdu 1998). We know that during the Prehistoric age the Aegean sea was approaching the region as a big eastuary. Short after that, the aluvion and silt brought by Meriç River started to fill the area and create a flat area with small lakes and marshes.

In this region a number of sites were surveyed for dating and identifying purposes. Pottery belonging to Karanovo III- Veselinovo culture, as well as Karanovo II red pottery were discovered in the sites. A large number of stone and bone utensils were found together with pottery. In many of those sites, pottery examples from other periods exist which show that they were still inhabited even in Iron Age, and Classical Age. A flint tool group found in Bozdere (Erdoğdu 1998: 348) is the earliest assemblage found and can be dated to Epipaleolithic, Mesolithic.

A number of studies were conducted by Mehmet Özdoğan in this region in order to shed light on  the Thracian culture and especially about the dolmens that are found in this region. Dolmens are megalithic monuments set upon a tomb and are mostly fund and best researched in North and West Europe, although their distribution comprises a very large area, from Europe till Japan at east, ans India at South. With the last studies the amount of dolmens studied in Thrace reach 74. A few of similar monuments were found in East anatolia as well. In 1983 the Edirne museum moved a dolmen and reconstructed it in the museum garden. The excavations under the dolmen revealed LBA-EIA pottery pieces similar to the culture found in Troy VIIb (Özdoğan 1991: 408). The general opinion about the dating of dolmens is that these were used during LBA and EIA, but their use continues till 7^th-8^th century BC. Özdoğan mentions that many of those dolmens were hiding in the forest but when they were cut for agricultural purposes the dolmens were also eradicated, and few remain to our days.

A Discussion about the Settlement Patterns in Thrace:

Thrace was well fed by several rivers in the antiquity and it seems that until recently, it was mostly covered by large leaved forests, marshlands and grass. A lot of prehistoric and Neolithic sites are discovered along the smaller riversides, but due to heavy silting and marshing, the evidence about any sites along the banks of Meriç and Ergene rivers could not be found.

Although the Prehistoric sites were very small, the occupation is very dense and one would expect the agricultural purposes to open up the forest land a little. With the abundance of wood the inhabitants of this area must have used wood in their architecture and as fuel. Several sorts of grass and early cereals are still found all around Thrace, and with a milder climate and more rain it is probable that they entirely covered the areas devoid of forests. This must have enabled the people to cultivate grains, and to breed large animals like cattle, sheep and pig.

The Ergene Basin as well as the Meriç basin are very flat areas and if there were any habitations in those areas, they would be affected from flooding. The plains covering this area are made from constant flooding of the river, and in the antiquity it is of great chance that these were marshlands. The marshlands have two advantages that they provide much fish, fowl and reed for construction and basket-making purposes. Their disadvantage is that they also provide a lot of mosquitoes, and we know that mosquitoes and malaria were great problems at any site affected from silting.

The wild animal reserve of the Thracian region is more or less the same as that of Europe. In the antiquity one could probably find a lot of wild boars, bears, wolfs and stags, as well as other smaller animals. however, today the fauna is much disturbed due to heavy agriculture and the scenery of the region does not give a hint about how it was in the antiquity.

The resources are many and there were a few mineral sources that the Prehistoric people could have used. The volcanic activities in the region provided a lot of flint, as well as hard stones like diorite, and andesite. Clay was abundantly found everywhere, especially in old river beds. Copper was also available in the region, together with zinc. During the Iron Age we know that the Phrygians used a lot of zinc in the copper and obtained almost brazz-looking bronze utensils, and one could expect the same technology applying here, although there are no much evidence about the Bronze and Iron Age settlements of the region. 

References:

Anonymous

1985                Toprak-Su Genel Müdürlüğü Rapor Serisi-Meriç Havzası Çalışmaları Raporu. Ankara: DSİ.

Arsebük, G. et al.

1990                                “Yarımburgaz1989” KST XII/I. 17-41.

Arsebük, G. et al.

1991                                “Yarımburgaz 1990” KST XIII/I: 1-21.

Atalay, I.

1983                                Türkiye Vejetasyon Coğrafyasına Giriş. İzmir: Ege Üniversitesi.

Demirsoy A.

1999                                Türkiye Zoocoğrafyası Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Yayınları.

Erdoğu, B.

1996                 “Edirne İli 1995 Yılı Yüzey Araştırması” AST XVIII: 273-291.

Erdoğu, B.

1998                 “1997 Yılı Edirne İli Yüzey Araştırması” AST XX. 345-357

Erzen, A.

1994                                Ilkcag tarihinde Trakya: baslangictan Roma cagina kadar  Istanbul : Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayinlari.

Göçmen, K.

1976                Aşağı Meriç Vadisi Taşkın Ovası ve Deltasının Alüvyal Jeomorfolojisi.İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi.

Gurpinar, E.

1994                                Bir cevresel analiz ornegi: Trakya. Istanbul : Der.

sonra Altıncı Yüzyıl’a kadar. İstanbul: Resimli Ay.

Kansu, Ş. A.

1983                “Yarımburgaz Mağarası’nda TTK Adına Yapılan Prehistorya Araştırmaları ve Tuzla Kalkolitiğinde Yeni Gözlemler” .pp. 22-32 in VII. Türk Tarih Kongresi ed. by N. Başgelen. Ankara: TTK.

Mansel, A.M.

1943                                  Trakya-Kırklareli kubbeli mezarları ve sahte kubbe ve kemer problemi Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu.

Mansel, A. M.

1938                Trakya'nın Kültür ve Tarihi: En Eski Zamanlarda Miladdan

Özdoğan, A.

1998                                “Tekirdağ Menekşe Çatağı Kazıları 1997 Yılı Çalışmaları.” AST XX/I: 295-310.

Özdoğan, M.& Akman, M.

1992                                “1990 Yılı Trakya ve Marmara Bölgesi Araştırmaları”. AST XIII: 405-419.

Sirel, E. & Gündüz, H.

1976                                “Kırklareli Yöresi Denizel Oligosenin Stratigrafisi ve Nummulites Türleri”. Türkiye Jeoloji Kurumu Bülteni19: 155-158.

Ternek, I.

1987                İstanbul Bölgesi Açıklamalı Jeoloji Haritası. Ankara: MTA Yayınları.

Uluğ, A. et al.

2005                                “Late Quartenary Sea Level Change, Sedimentation and Neotectonics of the Gulf of Gökova: Southeastern Aegean Sea. Marine Geology: 1-15.

Umar, B.

2003                                Trakya : bir tarihsel coğrafya araştırması ve gezi rehberi
 İstanbul: İnkılap Yayınevi.

 

Semiotics!

Semiotics:

                     

Semiotics is the theory of signs and sign use. It is a hermeneutic discipline and it focuses on construction, deconstruction and representation, considering “texts” as specific combinations of signs yielding meaning.

Semiotics helps us to take a work of visual art as an object whose relevance derives from the processes in which it functions. So it takes art out of formalist idealizations and it also privileges meaning instead of image, studying several aspects and details as signs rather than only material elements.

The concept of semiotics originates in psychoanalytic, narrative and rhetorical theory. As a caution, it helps to avoid fallacies such as excessive realism, intentionalism and non-reflexive projection of anachronistic projections.

According to Charles Peirce, the process of semiotics works in three positions, the sign, the signified and the signifier. While looking at an object, the viewer shapes in his or her mind an image of the thing that she associates with the image. The sign that it creates is an “interpretant”. As soon as a mental image takes shape, it becomes a new sign, which will yield an interpretant, and this continuous process is called semiosis. Because the process is continuous, the interpretant is constantly shifting.

The relationship between the sign and the object leads to a grammar whose most commonly studied aspect is syntax (not to forget that semiotics is originally a linguistic theory).  An icon, according to Peirce, is a sign that possesses the character that makes it significant. An index is a sign, which would at once lose the character of being a sign, if its object were removed, but it would not lose that character if there were no interpretant. For example, a piece of mould with a bullet hole on it is a sign of shot; if there were no shot there would be no hole; but whether the viewer gets that it is a bullet hole or not, the hole is there. A symbol is, on the other hand, a sign which would lose the character of being a sign if there were no interpretant.

Iconic act: when we see a portrait, we imagine of a person that looked like the image and we don’t question the existence of that person; we adopt the iconic reading when we look at the portrait. But the icon is not predicated upon the degree of “realism” of the image. A red field means the “color red” as well as “ what red does or means” to the viewer. The iconic act is to suppose that the image refers to something on the basis of likeness. For example, a romantic music accompanying a love scene in a movie is iconic.

It’s reported that recent publications about the gaze and the look in the painting state that there is an indexical relationship between the looker and the thing looked at. The most obvious use of the concept of index is the “pointer”, where a figure points at a certain direction; our look will follow the figure’s directions.

Narratives: narratives in visual art are problematic, because narrating is a matter of discourse, not of visuality. From a semiotic perspective various theories of narrative have been developed. The best known example is Barthes’ famous book S/Z where he develops an interpretation of Balzac’s short story “Sarrasine” through an analysis of five codes.

Prorairetic code: series of models of actions that help readers to place details in plot sequences – like falling in love, kidnapping, etc. this is a narrative version of an iconographic code.

Hermeneutic code: presupposes an enigma and induces us to seek out details that will contribute to its solution.

Semic code: introduces cultural stereotypes

Symbolic code: the viewer brings in symbolic interpretations to read certain details, like “love”, “hostility”, “loneliness”, etc.

Referential code: brings cultural knowledge like the identity of the subject in the painting, class, ethnicity, etc.

Together, these codes do produce a narrative. On the other hand, Bakhtin’s concept of polyphony in the art historical material yields that the image is not unified. Details that do not fit in are ignored or set aside as “mistakes”. But Bakhtin makes us accept that even when the image is made by one artist, there will be alterities.

The act of looking at a narrative painting is a dynamic process. The semiotic nature of this model would emphasize the sign status. It is important to keep in mind that narrative is not a one-sided structure. “Address” is the way in which the viewer is invited to participate. For example, Manet’s Olympia scandalized its viewers, unlike so many “nue” paintings. Because the body of the model was no longer objectified in an impersonal narrative; but the woman on the painting becomes the first person and addresses directly to the viewer. In this way, the nude Olympia, who was a prostitute-model in real life, was too much a scandal in its time.

In his essay Damisch questions the difference between iconography and semiotics and seeks to find where in art history semiotics can find a way to develop. The author thinks that there’s an equivocal relationship between semiotics and iconography. It can denote a union of meaning as well as opposition, adjunction as much as exclusion or even dependence.

The question here is to find out whether the semiotics’ attempts to analyze the products of art are valid. Or whether the work done by semiotics is original. Although mostly empirical, iconography has already achieved a large part of the analytical work with semiotics. But would that mean that semiotics is just a new label over iconography?

Iconography introduces the problematic of the sign into art. However, it imposes the idea that an art object is intended solely for perception and contemplation. It denies the effort of reading, let alone interpretation. Iconography attempts essentially to state what the images “declare” in their meaning. Iconography, according to the author, is above all an instrument of an art history which can no longer renovate its method and which cannot get help from the fields of linguistics, psychoanalysis and semiotics. He thinks that iconography is concerned with what is signified in images and that it reduces the art object (the signifier) to a question of treatment of style. What the image signifies cannot be reduced to what it gives us to “ see”: for there is often a superposed conventional, or an arbitrary meaning. Iconography implies a reference to pre-existing meanings, which pre-date the meaning, and this knowledge is not merely “anthropological”, inscribed at the mind of every people regardless of culture, on the contrary it is “cultural”, linked to the textual order. At this point semiotics is emerging as a specific discipline, implicit in the practice of iconography.

The author gives the example of “St Luke Painting the Virgin” by Rogier Van Der Weyden. If one looks closely, one will discover that ‘St. Luke’ is not painting, but drawing the Virgin.

Can there be two systems of organization for one figurative material is another question. There must be a split between the figurative level of denotation and symbolic level of connotation. Iconography has its roots deeply attached to the metaphysics of the sign. However, this theory brings the relationship between the image and its signified to that of body and soul- so the body should awaken in the spectator a wish to “know” the soul, however it poses the problem of the articulation of the legible or visible. The symbols within the object of art may not be put to logocentric language. According to Freud’s notion of regression, the image is not the perceptile manifestation of thought; it is both the locus and the product of an activity which allows impulses originating in the unconscious and which have been refused all possibility of verbalization. Peirce, on the other hand introduced a distinction between the icon and the hypoicon, the idea that there is a sign and that, it does not necessarily follow the representation.

Like in the past, the modern image imposes a different concept of “signification” of meaning, and a notion of taste that is irreducible to the norms of communication. Semiotics of art might have a chance to develop in this area.

In her essay about semiotics, Mieke Bal also tries to show how semiotics help to “ read” and art object as sets of signs carrying meaning, but not as realistically made representations of real life. Bal uses the theme of Judith Beheading Holofernes, as painted by Caravaggio and Gentileschi.

The author finds about the Caravaggio Judith that the image is not unified. First of all the age differential between the women is emphasized. There is a serene look in Judith’s face, but the servant woman seems to be excited of the cruel event. Judith is white and fresh; the servant is yellowish and morose.

There is also a tension between Judith and Holofernes. Holofernes is sometimes mentioned as a tragic hero. There is terror and surprise in Holofernes’ face; his open mouth signals us that he is screaming, or is just about to. His head is tracked behind in a difficult position, her fingers coiled in the white bed sheets. On the other hand, Judith is unreal. Her face is too serene, even meaningless if one regards the rest of the scene. Her white shirt is another signaling area in the painting. The whole light is on her and Holofernes’s head and the slaying action is deliberately put in a somewhat unreasonable position, so that the blood coming from the vein doesn’t stain Judith – is this a remark on the pudor of Judith? The blood sprays toward the sheets, parallel to the sword and signals the sword. The blood is iconic because it is red and the direction is indexical. Another red region in the painting is the curtain that is arranged as if there was a red smoke pertaining over Holofernes.

According to the author, because we see the blood, we see the sword. And the difference between Judith’s statuesque (even columnesque) stance and Holofernes’s dynamic one is not caused by stereotypical gender positions. Caravaggio’s female figure is even read as “ a sculpture of an ancient tombstone, a memorial to innumerable victims of violence”. Attie takes this element and turns it into a single index. There is no Judith in the painting; Judith exists, only as a sign.

Gentileschi’s Judith and Holofernes is visually much more difficult. Gentileschi changes the direction of blood. In fact, it is not realistic, because the vein carotis is at the left side of the neck and hence the blood should spur left. So we should look for a sign here. The blood threatens to stain Judith. The author thinks that it is only an index to the confusion of arms and jobs being done, but the blood that – is going to- stain Judith can be a sign implying Holofernes as a threat to Judith’s pudor. The head of Holofernes is at the center and the whirling of the arms frame the head. The arms express strength, labor and determination (just like the painter’s self-portrait). At the faces of the women, several signs can be read; horror, cruelty, and passion. These signs are totally absent in Caravaggio’s Judith.

The later Judith, by Gentileschi is completely different from the previous arrangements. The pose of Judith is interestingly interpreted as similar to Venus Pudica pose, with the hand that covers the genitals – and that holds the sword. We should also note that this time Gentileschi gave her heroine an oriental sabre, instead of a European style sword. This well-feared tool of the battlefields is a sign implying Judith’s ethnic origin.

In the painting, the main pointer is the hand. There is a candle giving light to the scene in a Caravaggio style, but the hand warns and directs the viewer. It is the best lightened object and it enables Judith to see her deed through the light, but it also enables us to see Judith from the shade.

This position of the hand means warning. Judith’s hand warns us that the dangerous task is not over, that the head should be carried off silently.

The servant and Judith are looking towards the same direction – probably towards the beheaded and very dead Holofernes. The body is not in the frame, the head, at the corner of the painting, attracts barely any attention. However, from the direction of the looks we feel that Holofernes is still there.

Relativism and Archaeology

In his very informative article, Knapp gives an account and a critic of Post modernism as a philosophical stream and he comments on side-phenomena as well, like feminism, nihilism, and relativism. On the second part of his article, he comments on the impact of post modernism on archaeology, and on other human sciences in general.

As an anti-thesis of post modernism, modernism came to the scene  with Renaissance, and was powered by the Enlightenment rationalism. Science, reason and objective facts dominated the science area, while “metanarratives” of Marx, Darwin etc. imposed themselves as “truths”.

The emergence of post modernism in the 20^th century is based by the author to the socio-political environment of the era: after the disasters observed in this century, there is little consolation or faith in human reasoning for a better future. One of the reasons was the desperation of the post 70’s generation. 1970’s were black years in Western economies. On one side, there was the oil shock and disturbances in the giant economies of States, Britain etc. As a reaction to this, the “Fordist” welfare economies changed into flexible, defragmented structures, and this change was not without debacles in the society. Post modernism arrives as a denial of this situation marked by industrialization, information technology, and mass media.

The author first comments on the impact of post modernism on feminism. Being more or less contemporary phenomena, these two trends seem to react synchronically. However, the feminists sticking on gender and post structuralism evolved into an authoritarian aspect, while post modernism denies authority. Nihilism, has more in common with the extremist side of post modernism, denying the existence of truth. The nihilist motto in archaeology would be, accordnig to the author that:” We cannot know the past”. Another comment on truth comes by Foucault, who asserts that knowledge (and whatever that is sold us as “truth") is only shaped by the cultural constructs of the observer. The subjectivist relativism will free us from these dictations, and will provide many alternative answers to our question. An important tenet of relativism is that it denies a  methodology in science. But if there is no methodology, against what the interpretations will be tested and whose interpretation will be correct? Correctly, Knapp states that in a polyvocal world as well, some will be dominant and some will be marginalized. It is highly possible that, the observation of the dominant will be affirmed as “truth” again.

The post modernism finds its relative in archaeology as post processualism. There are many positive contributions made by this view into archaeology. Bintliff summarizes them in three tenets: 1- the critical examination of the social, moral, emotional involvement. 2- the questioning of the validity of the ‘fact-sheets’. 3- encouragement of multiple views of the past, awareness of women, non-elites and ethnic minorities of the past. It should be also added that, post processualism was able to define a process: this view was able to link social structures to human agents, and to focus on the individual agent. Another interesting emphasis was made on the symbolic meaning. According to the relativists, the meaning of the “text” (both in litteral meaning and how Hodder uses this word I think) is not inherent in it, depends on how people read it or experience it. so the archaeologist becomes both the reader and the co-author of the evidence.

The interpretive archaeology asserts that, archaeologists are interpreters; that archaeology is social; that interpretation is concerned not with causal explanation, but with understanding; and that interpretation is a multivocal activity.

An application of this view is explained by Hodder, called as “Reflexive Excavation Methodology” in both of his essays. His archaeology has four tenets and these are: reflexivity, relationality/contextuality, interactivity and multivocality. I will first comment on Hodder’s methods then on his ideas about interpretation. Hodder sets several steps of the reflexive method, he is generally involved here with an interdisciplinary team working in parallel, keeping artifacts within their context and having lab visitors pay a daily visit to the archaeological contexts, use of IT -web diaries, video recordings, 3D visuals, virtual reality- which could increase interpretive efficiency, and multivocality. Some of the aspects Hodder is citing seemed quite deja-vu to me. There are many projects working on interdisciplinary basis, and computer technologies that he proudly explains are quite banal ( an Access database is even used by our pharmacy keeping inventory records while many scientific disciplines today have programs specialized according to the needs and requirements of this discipline) although I think computer use in archaeology is very serviceable. The visualisations that Hodder offers by www are data that has been already interpreted, since it’s re-created and/or edited by drawing; so how will the author deal with it?

Another ambitious claim made by Hodder is on interpretation. According to him, interpretation occurs at many levels of research: even the place to be excavated is choosen by interpretation. So there’s no objective data description/collection, so that a subjective interpretation could be made afterwards. In order to dismiss the empiricist contradiction, Hodder comes up with a “flexible” methodology which basically seems to be the idea of including different

interpreting agents into the whole process. The different groups of interpretation, that Hodder counts are interesting: the islamist mayor vs. the Eu representant, the sponsoring bank, local peasants, aryanists, Goddess-worshippers... Although his call for an authoritarian science seems practically impossible to me, I think Hassan is not completely wrong on criticizing Hodder including these groups into archaeological research. If anyone’s ideas are as legitimate as those of archaeologists, why do archaeologists exist after all? Getting practical info from local peasant women about ovens should be praised, and such ethnographic work is being done by a large amount of researchers today, but what has archaeology got to do with the touristic advertisements made by the government or Eu policies? I feel the same discomfort while reading Hodder’s consideration of aryans, goddess worshippers or islamist politicians than Hassan probably felt. How much discomfort Hodder feels about them? And since the interpretation depends on the cultural constructs of the observer, can Hodder claim that he is immune of the Western ideological bias with his overwhelmingly Western team of researchers? After all this long speech about ethics, responsibility to the society, multivocality, I think Hodder could consult his “empathy coming from ages”, common sense or sixth sense at least: because what he states here is just too extremist, and controversial.

In the recent article about crane symbolism in Çatalhöyük, tha authors are involved in a thorough research on the crane bones found in the site. Their interpretation about these bones ( that crane wings were used in a dance imitating these birds) is not without a base. A careful bone analysis is done showing that the birds were not hunted for eating, but for another purpose. On the other hand, there is also a wall painting showing cranes with human feet, which could be interpreted as human dancers. The authors give other examples of crane iconography through other Middle-Eastern sites as well. As an example of interpretive archaeology, many religious links are claimed, and it is discussed that crane dance may invoke sun, fertility, renewal, fidelity etc. I could put a comment here, because I’m not sure if cranes really winter in Anatolia, since their nests (generally built at the minarets) are never distrubed because it is believed that “they will come back” , and common belief is that those who see a crane migrating will travel a lot. If the authors are considering Celtic beliefs about cranes, they could consider these as well.

Flanner s Holistic Archaeology

Flannery’s Holistic Archaeology and Interpretation of Figurines

The Cognitive Archaeology is defined as a subdiscipline, which deals with the study of all aspects of human behavior, which survived in the archaeological record. Flannery and Marcus group these aspects under four topics: cosmology, religion, ideology and iconography. Here they exclude all subsistence and settlement behaviors claming that otherwise, there would be no difference between cognitive archaeology and archaeology. On the other hand, they state that cognitive archaeology should not be formed as a separate branch, because it risks to slip from scientific discipline to the archaeologist’s mental fantasies and even to charlatanism. While defending the cognitive approach, Flannery and Marcus recognize that there must be some limits to its application: that is, the cognitive approach can be used only when there is a body of data rich enough to support it. Otherwise, it would turn into speculation.

Flannery and Marcus coin a new term in their article about Zapotec religion and rituals, the Holistic Archaeology. This new approach seemingly fuses the subsistence-settlement- specific processual approach and symbolism-specific cognitive archaeology. The holistic archaeology gives equal weight to cognitive variables and ecological, sociopolitical and economic variables. The authors find a way of practicing their statements in a very interesting study about Zapotec religion and ritual, using direct historical approach. According to the authors, there has been a dichotomy in Mesoamerican archaeology, since the settlement-subsistence strategies were studied by anthropologists, while cognitive issues were studied by humanists. The sad fact was that, there was no communication between the two sides.

In the article Flannery and Marcus show how the religious, ideological, cosmological and iconographic aspects evolved while the Mesoamerican societies evolved from egalitarian village societies to urban states. Here the authors propose a methodological framework to be applied to cognitive archaeology. The Direct Historical approach refers to working back in time, from the known to the unknown, using ethnohistoric and ethnographic data. Aspects like religion and ritual are appropriate topics for this method to be applied, since they are more or less steady in time. On the other hand, DHA can be used only when there are continuity between the archaeological record and ethnographic data. And change in religion and ritual should also be considered.  The other two methods are “public architecture”, which deals with how religious principles are expressed in physical remains, and “contextual analysis of ritual paraphernalia”, which deals with the non-random relationship between the artifacts and the way they display the nature of the ritual. Here the authors make refer to the cognitive motto, stating that since they are mental constructs, religions cannot be reconstructed but their ritual practices can be recovered on archaeological data.

The ample amount of written documents, from both the Colonial and Pre-Spaniard period, provides a basis for this study. First the authors define the Zapotec religion, ethnohistory and supernatural forces. The written evidence accounts two-room temples, blood-spilling dedications, human and animal sacrifice, and use of narcotics in order to “communicate” with spirits, and religious calendars. The worship of the “lightning” and ancestors’ spirits as clouds is also interesting, since they back Flannery and Marcus’ emphasis on cosmology. The second step is to look for the archaeological evidence that backs this information. The archaeologist should now find two-room temple remains, braziers with sacrificial remains, bloodletting instruments, remains of sacrificial subjects, fossils of narcotics, evidence about “Piye” the religious calendar, depictions of lightning and evidence for ancestor worship. In other words, the archaeologist tests the ethnohistoric documents with the archaeological record.

In the following pages of the article, we see that the authors were successful to back the ethnohistorical data by archaeological evidence.  However, I did not understand why the authors chose to jump from the Spaniard invasion period back into early village times of Zapotec, and then coming to the stratified urban state period instead of going back step by step.  We see that all religious elements did not appear simultaneously, but were a result of a slow evolution. The early evidences show a primitive version of “lightning” worship, the first appearance of social stratification in the quality of stingray spines used to spill blood, and no evidence of the use of drugs. Around 500BC, we observe a fully developed, socially stratified state, with rich noble, priests and ordinary people. The two-room temples are standard, and there are clear representations of the “lightning”. Evidence in the temple remains give ample information about rituals and sacrifices. Besides all this, excavation makes one more contribution to the ethnohistoric evidence: it is found that Zapotec people dedicated elaborate foundation deposits under the floor of the temples. Finally, many of the ethnographically known aspects of the Zapotec religion were found in the archaeological material, and the authors were able to take it back to 1100-1000 BC, the very early periods of the Zapotec civilization. Unlike the opponents of the cognitive approach who condemned it as “armchair archaeology”, Flannery and Marcus were careful in checking the ethnographic material with archaeological evidence. On the other hand, they were also aware of the presence of some bias in the written documents. The authors are cautious about the use of the direct historical approach, stating that this method would be useless unless the historical documents are sufficiently supporting.

Evolutionary Theory

Evolutionary Theory in Archaeology

In their introductory chapter, Barton And Clark question the applicability of evolutionary theory into archaeology. In the 19^th century thought there was a tendency towards unilinear change. Darwin and Wallace proposed an alternative explanation to why and how life changes. Darwinian theory came into archaeology in 1970’s with the contributions of Dunnel and Rindos. It was a trial to take a scientific approach to past human societies and social change.  the evolutionary theory is a theory of change. culture changes from  the different persistences of different behaviors over time. this persistence, according to the authors, can be explained throught the application of a limited number of universal processes- that remain unexplained through the chapter-.

Then the authors explain behavior as the interacting phenotype and environment-so evolutionary theory may apply to behavioral study. Both behavioral and biological systems cause  evolutionary processes. The maintain temporal continuityand tend to expand over time. there are some misconceptions presented about evolutionar theory in the chapter: one of them is the perception of evolutionary theory as dealing only with the interaction between humans and natural environment.another misconception is that evolutionary theory is a revived social Darwinism. Neo evolutionarism, according to the authors, is not about the “survival of the fittest”, nor does it claim that evolution is equal to selection. And it is not about unilinear progression. There are some exceptions to the rule, like maladaptive strategies, uniqueness of culture. The authors cluster the whole concept of culture and cultural transmission in this little section of exceptions to the rule (in fact I have always considered the human being as an exception to nature, but I digress), and underestimate the importance of intent, inventiveness and innovation. This paragraph will be criticized later. on the other hand, it is stated that evolutionary processes did not operate directly on the material culture that form the archaeological record, but on the behaviors that originally produced it. I believe that this sentence is fautive: the material culture as archaeological remains, reflect behavior. Otherwise it would be meaningless to excavate. The authors also fall short of giving satisfactory explanations about how this approach will be applied on complex societies – or, is Neo-Darwinism really a study of hunter-gatherers?-, the un-randomness of certain human behavior- like social learning. The only explanatory sentence is that:” non-genetic transmission of behavior is much more varied and flexible”. If I had read this introductory chapter in the intention of reading the whole book, I would surely change my idea.

In his philospohical chapter about evolutionary theory, Dunnel successfully explains it and compares its application on biology and in archaeology. The author states that, anthough the Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory about variation, the traditional archaeological description is modal, focusing on trends. If we were to apply the Darwinian theory into archaeology, we should first change our archaeological methods.

Materialsim, is about a quantitative view of temporal relations. Application of evolutionary theory requires units, on which selection can act but on the other hand, selection occurs on a continuous basis. The materialist paradox requires us to distinguish units on two dimensions: the location of the unit, and the size of the unit. The author criticizes the Marks-Staski model on evolution in terms of units. Species are taken as “an individual” as given fact. Fror Darwin, species can be both theoretical and epiphenomenal, but species originate in the process of observation, and are empirical. Another study criticized i Durham’s book called “coevolution”. Durham develops a theory of cultural evolution on a biological model. He states that cultural evolution is parallel with biological evolution. Because Durham doesn’t clarify the units, there are much ambiguous statements in the book. he talks about opposition(cultural change working against inclusive fitness) and imposition (manipulation by another group), but imposition requires two groups. So the unit must be the group as the individual- this makes Durham biased.

According to Dunnell, the lack of consensus on units in biology is not so important because evolutionary biologists do agree on the charateristics that an evolutionary-individual must have- reproductive, functional, rapidly responding-. So the scale is an empirical question. In archaeology, however, evolutionary individual in the human lineage is not different from the other social animals until the rise of complex societies. But then, there is a shift in the unit. In complex societies, groups are functionally differentiated organisms that constitute “the individual”

Another question is what kinds of units can be identified in the archaeological record and by what means can they be related to the unit requirements of evolutionary theory. There is little cultural data that can be collected from the remains of the individual organism. Most of the data comes from a number of individuals over time. On the other hand, while the biologic inheritance is constrained by genetics, the cultural transmission is done via several parents.

Then Dunnell points at some methodological problems in archaeology. The theorietical units are defined as collections of components,  while the emprircal units, are defined as manifestations of phases- or components. Another problem is the understanding of the “site”. It is a theoretical construct. The scale here should again change, because traditionally common sense is used in defining it rather than theory. Adopting concepts from biology or anthropology will not contribute to archaeology as long as we use the old methods of observation. An application of evolutionary theory, should begin with the set of units specified.

O’Brien and Holland write about the selection based archaeology, claiming that it is a powerful means of explaining variation. Evolutionary archaeology claims that, humans like any other organisms, are directly affected by selection and the material record reflects the effects of selection. Evolutionarists believe that, humans are not immune from the selection processes by being “culture bearing” animals. the basic premises of evolutionary archaeology are stated as,

-Objects observed in the archaeological record are fossilized remnants of human phenotypes. These fossilized remains can contribute as much info about human fitness and adaptation as can any biological feature;

-The archaeological record is biased;

-Intention’s role on social evolution is trivial.

Here I would like to quote one paragraph from the reading:

“Many early aviators must have leapt from cliffs, propelled by hopeful inventions and the intent of flying. Ultimately it was the ability to overcome gravity-not intent- that determined which aviators survived to pass their genes and inspiration to the others”. This sentence must be an unhappy joke. First of all, it completely ignores the existence of deliberate innovation. This is one of the aspects that differentiates humans from other animals. Second, human beings did not evolve in order to fly (we still don’t have wings and feathers, unfortunately), they did a deliberate invention- the plane, a tool which helps them to go flying. Third, one doesn’t need to bear the noble genes of Wright brothers in order to build a plane and fly: the technology of an airplane was fastly shared throughout the world. This sole statement shows that the authors completely forgot about social transformation, the spill of information among individuals and even among cultures.

In his very informative essay, Shennan sheds some light on those neglected aspects.the author clarifies that, there are two tenets on social evolution. First, natural selection on people’s survival and reproduction can occur through selection on their cultural traditions, not simply on their genes via their genetically inherited dispositions. Second, processes of cultural selection can also operate as a result of conscious and unconscious decision-making. This inheritance system that the author calls as the “meme” operates through social learning. But according to the author, this does not make cultural transmission not Darwinian, because both genetic and cultural inheritance are specific info transfers that permit variation through time.

Humans are capable to alter the effects of natural selection by decision-making. Cultural traditions, are also complex biases that can alter selection. But when we talk about inheritance, there is both genetic inheritance  and cultural inheritance transmitted. The routes of transmission are, through sexual reproduction (DNA’S), and one-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-one versions of cultural transmission.  The author also points at the difference between innovations and mutations. Mutation is rare and random. Innovations are also transmitted from generation to generation but there may be experimentation and improvement later(just like in the aircraft technology). And there is of course, intentionality.

There are three modes of transmission that the author talks about. one is Directly Biased Transmission, where people change their way of doing things as a result of comparing their own method with that of someone else. In the Indirectly Biased Transmission, the individual adopts the cultural attribute of  another individual because that individual appears to be more “succesful” no matter if the attribute concerned effects his success. Another is the Conformist Transmission: people do what most of the other people are doing.

There are some advantages and disadvantages of social transmission. Social learning is more beneficial that individual trial and error method because it requires less time and is less painstaking. On the other hand, by learning, the individual can also make further innovations on the transmission and thus the transmitted info will evolve faster. On the other hand, social learning can also lead to conformism.