Atlas of Cultural Evolution

= an archaeological database created by Peter N. Peregrine, showing that there is 'unilineal evolution' in human history.

URL = https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245534439_Atlas_of_Cultural_Evolution

Contextual Quote

"Cultural evolution appears to be multi-causal, and as we move towards explaining cultural evolution, we must avoid the desire to overly simplify what appears to be a complex, multivariate set of relationships. The Atlas of Cultural Evolution provides a set of data to begin exploring this complex set of relationships."

- Peter Peregrine [1]

Description

"The Atlas of Cultural Evolution provides basic data on the evolution of cultural complexity using the Outline of Archaeological Traditions sample. The Outline of Archaeological Traditions constitutes a sampling universe from which cases can be drawn for diachronic cross-cultural research, an activity I refer to as archaeoethnology. Data for the Atlas were drawn from entries in the Encyclopedia of Prehistory, a nine volume work providing summary information on all cases in the Outline of Archaeological Traditions, thus the Atlas also demonstrates the utility of the Encyclopedia of Prehistory as a basic tool for archaeoethnology."

(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245534439_Atlas_of_Cultural_Evolution)

Data Set

"The data set presented and analyzed here is based on a revision of Murdock and Provost's (1973) ten-item Cultural Complexity Scale. The original scale items were each comprised of five-point scales, while Table 1.B.1 shows that for the Atlas of Cultural Evolution data set these variables were recoded into three-point scales (also see Peregrine 2001b). The reason for this revision was to make coding easier with archaeological data. The five-point scales required too much inference from the available archaeological record, while the three-point scales made coding decisions considerably easier. The scale items are summed for each case to create its total score for Cultural Complexity. All coding was done by the author from entries for the Encyclopedia of Prehistory as they were received for pre-publication review and editing. Thus cases were coded in a haphazard manner. This procedure should have eliminated any bias from coding cases in a predetermined order (such as oldest to most recent), or systematic inter-coder errors (lack of reliability). It must be noted that these revised scales have not been evaluated for reliability, so that if future coding is done to add cases to the data set, a reliability study should be performed simultaneously. It should also be noted that coding relied exclusively on information provided in the Encyclopedia of Prehistory entries. Since these were written by over 200 scholars representing more than 20 foreign nations, it is highly unlikely that any systematic bias due to a particular theoretical perspective or political orientation is present (cf. Shanks and Tilley 1992:245). Basic descriptive statistics for the cases are provided in Part 7. In addition to the scale items, a number of basic identification and pinpointing variables are also included in the Atlas of Cultural Evolution data set. These include the tradition name; start, end, and midpoint dates; locational information; and time-series variables. These are presented in the Codebook in Part 6. Maps are also provided in Part 5 to show the location of each archaeological tradition, along with digital files and the MapMaker Gratis software package, allowing scholars to employ a Geographic Information System in the examination of these data."

Scale 1: Writing and Records

1 = None

2 = Mnemonic or nonwritten records

3 = True writing

Scale 2: Fixity of Residence

1 = Nomadic

2 = Seminomadic

3 = Sedentary

Scale 3: Agriculture

1 = None

2 = 10% or more, but secondary

3 = Primary

Scale 4: Urbanization (largest settlement)

1 = Fewer than 100 persons

2 = 100–399 persons

3 = 400+ persons

Scale 5: Technological Specialization

1 = None

2 = Pottery

3 = Metalwork (alloys, forging, casting)

Scale 6: Land Transport

1 = Human only

2 = Pack or draft animals

3 = Vehicles

Scale 7: Money

1 = None

2 = Domestically usable articles

3 = Currency

Scale 8: Density of Population

1 = Less than 1 person / square mile

2 = 1–25 persons / square mile

3 = 26+ persons / square mile

Scale 9: Political Integration

1 = Autonomous local communities

2 = 1 or 2 level above community

3 = 3 or more levels above community

Scale 10: Social Stratification

1 = Egalitarian

2 = 2 social classes

3 = 3 or more social classes

(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245534439_Atlas_of_Cultural_Evolution)

Discussion

Measuring Cultural Evolution

Peter Peregrine:

"Cultural evolution is conventionally defined as change in societal scale, complexity, and integration (Blanton et al. 1981:17). Scale refers to the physical size of a society, measured through population, geographical extent, or, more typically in archaeological and cross-cultural research, through the size of the largest city (see McNett 1970). Complexity refers to the number of different roles available in the society. Integration refers to the number of interconnections between social roles. All three aspects of cultural evolution are captured in Murdock and Provost’s (1973) Cultural Complexity Scale. Societal scale is measured through Murdock and Provost’s scale items four (urbanization) and seven (density of population). Gary Chick (1997) has also argued that societal scale is one of two underlying factors that comprise the Cultural Complexity Scale, a factor built from scale items four and seven, along with items two (fixity of residence) and three (agriculture). Here I refer to this as the Scale Factor. Societal complexity is measured through Murdock and Provost’s scale items five (technological specialization) and ten (social stratification). It could be argued that complexity is also related to items one (writing and records), six (land transport), seven (money), and nine (political integration), as these typically require specialists. Gary Chick (1997) has suggested these items form a second underlying factor within the Cultural Complexity scale, which I refer to as the Technology Factor. Finally, societal integration is measured through Murdock and Provost’s scale item nine (political integration), and perhaps through items one (writing and records) and seven (money). Unfortunately, there is little variation in the ACE on the latter two variables, and thus they are of little use in the examination of societal integration."

(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245534439_Atlas_of_Cultural_Evolution)

Measuring Changes in Societal Scale

< societal scale has increased in a roughly linear fashion over the past 12,000 years >

Peter Peregrine:

"Societal Scale: Changes in societal scale are perhaps best measured by the Urbanization and Population Density variables. Graphs showing the means of these variables at 1000-year intervals for the last 12,000 years are given in Figures 2.A.4 and 2.A.5. Means have clearly increased over time, and in a roughly linear fashion; indeed, R-squared values for these two figures are 0.904 and 0.978, respectively. With these results one could argue that societal scale has increased in a roughly linear fashion over the past 12,000 years. That is, cultural evolution in terms of societal scale has taken a single, unilineal form (but see section 2.B below)."

(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245534439_Atlas_of_Cultural_Evolution)

Measuring Societal Complexity

Peter Peregrine:

"It seems clear that societal scale, complexity, and integration have all increased in a roughly linear fashion over the past 12,000 years. Thus, there is clear evidence for unilineal trends in cultural evolution such that societal scale, complexity, and integration all tend to increase over time. The presence of these unilineal evolutionary trends clearly supports the validity of cultural evolutionary research, and contradicts critiques made by scholars such as Goldenwiser (1937), Lowie (1946), Nisbet (1969), and Giddens (1984) that research into unilineal evolution is invalid because such unilineal trends cannot be demonstrated to exist. These data illustrate that unilineal evolutionary trends do exist, and their existence begs the question of why they exist.

...

Societal complexity appears to have increased in a roughly linear fashion over the past 12,000 years, as illustrated in Figures 2.A.7, 2.A.8, and 2.A.9. Figure 2.A.7 shows the mean values of Technological Specialization plotted at 1000-year intervals, while Figure 2.A.8 shows Social Stratification. Both illustrate linear trends with R-squared values of 0.960 and 0.935, respectively. Figure 2.A.9 shows the mean values for the Technology Factor (which sums the Technological Specialization, Social Stratification, Writing and Records, Land Transport, Money, and Political Integration variables) plotted at 1000-year intervals. It, too, illustrates a linear trend with an R-squared value of 0.949. It should be noted that the "dip" at 1000 years ago evident in each plot is probably due to the more complex cases being dropped from the sample once they gain writing and become historic (this should be particularly true in Figure 2.A.9, where the Writing variable is included in the Technology Factor)."

(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245534439_Atlas_of_Cultural_Evolution)

More information

• Archaeoethnology

• Cultural Evolution