Blaut and Diffusionism

[Greg Schofield <gschofield@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

REFERENCES
As this debate will be referring to different articles I thought it best to
include references at the top of my email, latter I will place them at the
end for the convenience of readers (I grew rapidly tired of trailing back
through emails to find references when people made specific points).

1) Ellen Wood "Eurocentric Anti-Eurocentrism"
http://www.igc.apc.org/solidarity/atc/92Wood.html (EAE) - 2001

2) James Blaut "Marxism and Eurocentric Diffusionism"
http://www.marxmail.org/euromarxism.htm (MED) - 1999

3) Greg Schofield "On the Vexed Question of Socialism"
http://www.ucc.org.uk/RS/1.1.htm (VQS) - 2001

I note that the ease to which such references can be added to email
discussions bears serious consideration as a means by which debate can be
enhanced and even the reader coming late into discussions can easily
read-up the base materials. I would urge all list contributors to construct
append such references to their emails where appropriate. Furthermore I
would ask Louis to consider whether we could find a way to lodge other
documents on the net (at the UCC for instance, or elsewhere) so that by
debate we also accumulate a reference library to that debate. This is
mentioned in passing but I think it is something well worth thinking about
outside the confines of this particular discussion.
______________________________________________

Blaut and Diffusionism

Diffusionism is not a critical part of Blaut's thesis despite its place in
the title of his article. What I have to say on this really does not
detract from anything said, in fact certain aspects re-enforce a few of his
points, others less so, but none do great damage. My thought was by dealing
with this detail first, it makes it easier to discuss the methodological
questions where real dispute lies.

The concept of Diffusion is a relatively recent development. Before the
concept of diffusion he predominant concept of change in history reflected
the dominant means of change - that is by conquest. Hence when evidence was
found in the first half of the 19th century that Hindi speakers were
linguistically related to most European languages and the same held for
Turkish and a number of other well spread language groups the only way this
was comprehended by scholarship was by invasion.

The concept of Indo-European (or Aryan which was its first name)
superiority rested on this idea that the spread of the language was carried
on spear tips - just as then recent European imperial expansion was carried
on the point of a bayonet. The evidence was seen naturally in the
linguistic evidence, while the speakers themselves so different culturally
and racially (as race was then seen), the concepts of superiority ingrained
in the real superiority of armaments and logistics, thus became both a
foundation to biological racism (before Darwin and then "scietologised"
after him) and theories of cultural superiority loosely identified with
language.

All this draws a lot from some scanty linguistic and cultural material and
all of it was erroneous and overtly ideological. The original
proto-europeans were placed (again based on linguistic evidence, not quite
so strong as that that showed the initial inter-relationships) placed this
human group far out on the steppes, linking them to a superior mode of
warfare (most comfortable to those who deployed gun boats across the world)
the horse, by which they conquered all and sundry.

One can see where Nazisms fixation with the purity of the "volk" comes from
- that is all the rest tempered the bloodline, except those that went to
the far north (literally norfolk). All of this is well known, but what I am
illustrating here is only that the archaeological and linguistic material
was assessed ideologically and appeared because of this to support the
ideology which was itself a reflection of what European capitalism was
doing in practice.

I think it was HunterBear who pointed out that the more vicious outlook,
the one associated with what I have just outlined, was associated more
closely with protestant cultures than catholic, where the mode of
understanding was shaped more by a christianising view of the world. In
general I find this perfectly understandable at the level of ideas and flow
of history, protestant countries pursuing imperialism after catholic
endeavors encouraging a need to shift ideological perceptions grounded on
slightly different imperial objectives.

Now to get to Diffusionism, I am not sure of the origin of this idea, but I
know its first application was in archaeology. Conquest might be a nice
model for your average ideologue, but archaeological remains more often
then not show little evidence of wave after wave of conquering peoples
(considering that the earlier view attributed nearly every change in the
record to invasion - to a degree that was and remains quite ridiculous - we
had conquerors for instance that left everything intact except house
design, followed by others who changed pottery decoration etc etc to
absurdity).

The idea that people would adopt innovation, without requiring direct
conquest appeared to jump out of the archaeological record, and as these
things are often argued by analogy was it not also easy to see at the
beginning of the 20th century that trade via commodities was itself
sufficient to change some societies, sometimes quite dramatically. Just as
through trade European goods and culture diffused around the world, how
much more could be gleaned from the archaeological and now anthropological
evidence using this model.

Now as I said before this all tends to re-enforce Blaut's view - it is in
accord with much that he is saying and I do not mean here to contradict him
in this aspect, just contextualise it a little more.

What happened in the archaeology informed Bourgeois historians who were
moving in the same direction anyhow. Bourgeois culture presented as world
culture and as imperial culture used aspects of earlier political/warfare
images now linked to general diffusionist concepts.

Diffusionism's twin assumptions are superior innovation (as seen in goods
and technique) were transmitted not by the spear point but through the
medium of trade and more especially manifested as ideas (an innovation
necessarily involving practice and theory). Hence ideas diffused sometimes
with objects and sometimes beyond the reach of a particular trade object
(apparently proved in archeology of similar techniques used in different
places where there was no evidence of actual items being traded - which is
common enough).

Diffusionism links superiority and ideas together into one bundle, it is a
particularity good way of disguising imperialism as a natural form and also
accrue to the dominant groups a reservoir of superiority from which the
rest of the beknighted world should be bloody grateful to receive.

Pick up any book of world history at any bookshop and you will see this
garbage presented (Western Civilization by Bronaski - name misspelled - is
a classic of the genre and highly recommended for its over-the-top lauding
of all things Western).

So much for bourgeois ideology, which is not without having an infecting
relationship to mainstream Marxism which I think goes somewhere in Blaut's
direction.

A standing example, very close to the popular origin diffusionism is the
ground breaking work of Vere Gordon Child (whose work should not be
dismissed nonetheless). Child more than any single archaeologist opposed
the simplistic invasion hypothesis then dominant within archaeology.
Lacking all the modern dating techniques which the discipline now commands,
he attempted to pull the whole of European prehistory together based on the
diffusion principle (the origin of innovation being located for him in the
Near East - he was very anti-Aryan superiority arguments with good reason
considering when he wrote).

This Marxist more than any one person created diffusionism as a technique
from which it latter spread as an ideology (much of it directly attributed
to Child's ground breaking work). He succeeded in relating material
cultures together in such a way that it still acts as a foundation to
European archaeology , this despite the revisions brought about, the
limitations of his original hypothesis, and the errors of it. I would
defend him in this however.

One the thesis was more correct than anything then available (especially
when dealing with the material at hand), it was anti-reactionary in
conception, and within its limits worked (ie if there had been no other
developments in techniques it would still be the most logical method for
analyzing archaeological remains). I do not hold him responsible for how it
latter was abused.

A handy concept but one which does not have a good theoretical basis
(archaeology is more art than science despite the technical advances). The
popularisation of the concept (which I suspect predated Child but most
certainly he became the touchstone of its latter development - he was the
most popular writer on archaeology for decades and was translated around
the world), manifests the error without limitation - I do not defend it but
recognise that besides the way the bourgeoisie made use of it, it is
clearly present in much "progressive" writing - it is not present in Marx,
though one might argue (I do not) that the logic of it can be found in him.

Now to end this piece by working back through the examples. Diffusionism is
still the predominant archaeological concept but the writing is on the
wall. Some archaeologists started to note large anomalies in the record (we
speak here of the Near East and Europe as the two most dug and therefore
richest archaeological record in the world).

First of all the sequencing that Child brought to the Danube cultures does
not seem to hold together (a technical topic which revolves around pottery
styles and dating).

Second chemical studies of Egyptian pottery glazes shows an technical
anomaly, in that they depend on techniques of metal working at a time when
metals and metal working as such were scarce and underdeveloped (this has
been disputed but the analysis is very convincing - ie a case of reversed
diffusionism, that is a technique coming from a less developed culture to
as more highly developed culture.

The Third piece of evidence is very well known (there are plenty of smaller
examples), the body of the Ice Man recovered several years ago in the Alps
- you see he carried a bronze axe some 500 years before it made its
appearance in more advanced cultures. There was no question of intrusion of
the artifact as is normally the excuse when things are found out of
sequence - a fairly common occurance and one usually the result of
intrusion - that is dropping something in a hole so that in excavating it
later it looks like it belongs at a lower level.

The three pieces of evidence slide one into the other. That is Europe was
very poorly developed socially when compared to the Near East, but it was
rich in metals whereas the Near East is relatively poor (Copper, Iron
nodules, Tin etc. can be found as pure outcrops and not as oxides from
which they are normally found and mined). The heat required for liquefying
such materials is enough to melt sand into glass and is related directly to
pottery glazing, and glass making, some of which seems to have got a kick
start on the Danube

Now for diffusionism as an archaeological concept to work at all there
needs to be an assumption higher culture = advanced techniques = base for
diffusion. Child could not organise the archaeological material at all
unless he made that assumption - a bit like Lyell in geology where he had
to embrace uniforminism in order to make sense of the record, he disavowed
any possibility of catastrophes being useful concepts and in this he like
Child was right for otherwise there could be no progress in that field
given the available data (please note, reformists in the 19th century
pointed to both Lyell's and Darwin's gradualism to politically support
their views - it is interesting that they pick up not on the solid theory
but instead on the necessary conceptual tools for developing the theory).

Ironically archaeology is showing that Europe did have a material basis for
being a little superior to its far more "cultured" neighbours, it was in
having metals on hand - but as these are now practically mined out I doubt
we need to lose much sleep about it. The point is that the main nexus of
diffusionism is being broken at its birthplace (archaeology) though
archaeologists being what they are (usually one step up from antiquarians)
it may be some time before the penny finally drops.

Therefore Blaut is demonstrably right about the diffusionism being
ideological and  its connection to imperialism and its incorrect base
assumption.

I could not end this email without tidying up the Indo-European question,
one where the old fashioned invasion thesis still holds out. Colin Renfew
has written a wonderful analysis which finds that Indo-Europeans far from
being magnificant warriors where in fact very modest farmers from around
modern day Turkey who dispersed to find valleys in which to farm (yes there
is colonisation involved and displacement but probably very little of it
carried on spear tips). He has been able to cohere the archaeological
evidence and the linguistic evidence into a coherent and persuasive whole
(getting rid of the annoy fact that no-steppe dwelling proto-indo-european
group can be found).

As You can tell I like it as a thesis very much for inherently it also
accounts for latter megalithic building (done to excess in Malta but common
throughout Europe and some indications of it along the Indus). His thesis
is that going in short hops by boats from Turkey to the West, up major
rivers etc, fits pretty well with not only what is found, but also with
many origin myths along the way (amongst celtic speakers mostly). To the
East perhaps the travel was more land based but the archeological record is
very thin.

Based on a single yearly crop, these erstwhile farmers found niches for
themselves in such a way to give rise to most of the European people of
today taking into account the many shifts during historical times (from the
Romans onwards basically). Many of these monolithic monuments
(Stonehenge  being amongst the most famous) have astronomical functions -
if you only have one crop you make bloody sure to plant it at the right time.

For those interested (Renfew does not go into this) the picture seems to
emerging that in the Near East proto-semetic peoples discovered
hordi/agriculture, one arm moving across and intruding  into Egypt creating
a distinct afro-semetic language and culture, the other arm displacing
those in the Tigris and Euphrates and the water sources all the way to the
Mediterranean coast these seem most likely to have been the
proto-indo-europeans hunter gathers, a pocket remaining in the levant
Caanite/ Philistine/ Phoenician, the rest being dispersed into the
mountains of modern Turkey (Catal Hyuk, later Hittites) from where they
boated to Greece, up the Danube and eventually around the Italian and
Spanish peninsulars, around to France, Germany, UK and Ireland, parts of
the Baltic and Norway.

Not so much mighty warriors as perhaps canny farmers slowly extending
themselves valley by valley, and no doubt having all the normal intercourse
with the surrounding pre-established hunter-gathers (the slow progress is
indicative of a very piecemeal approach, the cultural diversity speaks of a
coming together of disparate elements rather than the more intense
situation in the Near East of rivers running through deserts and arid
pastures).


Conclusion:
Blaut's antidiffusionism is well based.