Unification and Convergence in Archaeological Explanation: The Agricultural “Wave-of-Advance” and the Origins of Indo-European Languages.

Citation: Wylie, A. (1996) Unification and Convergence in Archaeological Explanation: The Agricultural “Wave-of-Advance” and the Origins of Indo-European Languages.. The Southern Journal of Philosophy 34(S1): 1-30. (RSS)
Internet Archive Scholar (search for fulltext): Unification and Convergence in Archaeological Explanation: The Agricultural “Wave-of-Advance” and the Origins of Indo-European Languages.
Tagged:

Summary

Wylie briefly reviews philosophical theories about explanation by classifying them into three categories: epistemic theories, ontic theories, and pragmatic theories. She thinks that the power of unification in Kitcher’s account depends on the understanding of mechanisms and constitution of explanation of causality. Wylie discusses this argument by examining subsistence driven demic-diffusion model proposed by Colin Renfrew in the 1980s to account contemporary linguistic diversity of Indo-European languages. Based on demic-diffusion model, the linguistic diffusion of Indo-European was driven by the demographic pressure due to advance of agriculture technologies. Language diffused through the introduction of a new agriculture technologies rather than force of arms by Kurdic invasion, which is the previous explanation. Moreover, Renfrew argues that this model can be used to explain other linguistic macrofamilies of the world in addition to the Indo-European language.

Wylie thinks that the philosophical theories about explanation behinds Renfrew’s demic-diffusion model is the nature of the convergence, which is similar to the unificationism proposed by Kitcher, who states that the aim of scientific explanation is to use few pattern to describe a wide range of phenomena. She then discusses how archaeologists interpret the past and thinks that any physical or chemical assumptions relative to evidence are independent of the interpretive principles. Linking archeological evidence to wide range of archaeological theories is a complicated process. Therefore, Wylie questions the relationship between the simplified models and reconstructions of local cultural transition.

Wylie then points out some weakness of Renfrew’s convergence argument. First, Renfrew’s argument depends on the knowledge of linguistic macrofamilies, which is still contentious. Second, Renfrew underestimates that linguistic change can occur without change in material culture. Moreover, demic-diffusion is based on the assumption that Neolithic farmers have an adaptive advantage over hunter gatherers. Besides, there is no absolute relationship between farming and population pressure. Thus, Wylie suggests that it is necessary to consider an ontic explanation, that is, causal explanation or mechanisms for linguistic replacement by Neolithic revolution.