Response to Apel and Darmark: Evolution and Material Culture

Abstract

Evolution is, and has been throughout the history of archaeology, a tempting perspective for many archaeologists. However, unlike most other sciences archaeology has seldom had to stand responsible for the political and social consequences of a wrongly used evolutionary theory. Instead archaeology has fed and tempted politicians, scientists from other disciplines, the media, the public, popular culture and so forth with its evolutionary hypotheses that are mostly related to a remote Stone Age, a time period often described in a very simplistic and straightforward manner. It is respectable that Apel and Darmark agree that older cultural evolutionary theory had problematic faults. However, in their opinion the evolutionary theory of today has a high scientific level and any faults done in the past will never be repeated. In this reply I will show that this is not the case. I will also explain why cultural evolutionary theory is a dangerous temptation that should undergo a serious examination by an international board of experts in ethics and scientific theory. To give some perspectives on the depth of the problem, let me start with a question: we would hardly make use of today's cultural evolutionary theory to explain the election of Barack Obama, so why use it on a remote Stone Age? In a liberal world that accepts different interpretations there is always a risk that some cannot resist the temptation to dominate. I am not stressing that this is what Apel and Darmark wish to do, but the perspective that they argue for cannot exist side by side with other