Conclusion: Where do we go from here?
You may be wondering now if we'll be providing answers to the various questions we asked you throughout the case studies, or if we'll offer up a list of which societies are complex and which aren't. And our answer is... no. To be honest, we don't have good answers to a lot of those questions ourselves, and you'd be hard-pressed to find any consensus regarding complexity in the archaeological community as a whole. What, then, was the purpose of this whole exhibit, if not to reach concrete conclusions about past societies? Well, we do have a few key things that we want you to take away from this exhibit. The first is a better understanding of the theoretical depth surrounding this area of study. In the introduction, we presented ways in which archaeologists approach the study of complexity in past societies through theory. Such models include:
- Evolutionary Models: defining complexity via trajectory or progression,
- Marxist Models: complexity based on economy,
- Multi-linear Evolutionary Models: development of complexity relative to each society, accounts for many different pathways,
- Non-Linear Models: defining complexity relative to each society based on interactions within each society which account for changes in complexity over time,
- Systems Models: complexity built out of many components that interact with one another in order to make up a system as a whole.
Archaeologists are restricted to the materials left behind by past peoples to understand their societies, interactions, beliefs, and values. This leaves a great deal of room for interpretation. We must be aware of biases that are present when representing different societies: not every society is similar to our own. More often than not we compare other societies to our own because it is what we are familiar with, this is called ethnocentrism, and we must be aware of it when we conduct our own research and when reading the research of others. However, archaeologists attempt to present the societies that they study subjectively through hypothesis testing and by revisiting and revising theoretical understandings of past societies. Archaeology, like any scientific study, is a process that is never completed and can always be built-up or revised. When approaching complexity within societies, both in the past as well as the present, we must also be aware that no society is better than any other. Each society and culture is different and organized in a way in which works for that society as a whole. We must be respectful and approach each society with an open mind and with awareness of our own biases.
In the exhibits of each society, we have attempted to make you aware of the different ways in which complexity is expressed in each society. We have also attempted to showcase several elements which archaeologists utilize to study complexity including environment, technology, economy/subsistence, social organization, and ideology. These elements are combined and interact with one another uniquely in each society, creating diversity and variation.
We hope at the end of this virtual tour of complexity you have a better understanding of how complexity is studied by archaeologists. Complexity is a very complicated concept to define and understand, there is no solid definition and criteria for complexity. In addition, complexity is not synonymous with civilized. Ideally, we hope to have challenged your previous notions of complexity within societies and to make you aware of the difficulties and various methods that are part of studying complexity.
We hope you have had fun and have learned a thing or two! If you are particularly interested in these societies to move on to our Further Reading section which will provide you with various sources about these societies. We also encourage you to leave us questions, comments, or any sort of feedback, it is always welcome! Thank you for visiting!
