Darwinian Evolutionism Is Applicable to Historical Archaeology

Over the past decade or so, an increasing number of archaeologists have begun to show interest in employing Darwinian evolutionary theory to explain variations in the material record. Epistemological and methodological issues surrounding the implementation of Darwinian evolutionism in archaeology are numerous, the most basic of which is that Darwinism embodies a materialist perspective, whereas archaeology traditionally has maintained an essentialist outlook. Stemming from this dichotomy are fundamental differences in such things as how units are created and how they are used to measure change. As archaeologists grapple with these issues, specific examples of how Darwinian evolutionism can be used to build historical narratives and create historical explanations are appearing with more frequency, but with few exceptions, proponents have focused specifically on the prehistoric record. This gives the impression that Darwinian evolutionism is not applicable to the more-recent material record, which is decidedly not the case. The kind of evolutionism proposed here transcends the age of the record under investigation.     

On Disciplinary History and Textbooks: or Where Has Spatial Analysis Gone?

Change within the academic discipline of geography comes about as a result of internal struggles for disciplinary hegemony, for its ‘heart and soul’ and for resources. One approach to the study of these struggles is through examination of textbooks, authoritative statements of the discipline's contemporary condition. Analysis of a small number of recent texts shows that they reflect a current contest within human geography between two groups, stereotyped as ‘spatial analysts’ and ‘social theorists’. The former are being ‘written out’ of disciplinary history, despite their continued vitality. Reasons for the continued presence of, and investment in, spatial analysis within human geography are rehearsed.