Gordon Childe’s 10-criteria defining civilizations

1. Gordon Childe’s 10-criteria defining civilizations

Introduction

The concept of civilization has existed for centuries and is significant to the development of socially, economically, and politically complex urban societies. Anthropological conceptualization of the idea of civilization is incomplete without the consideration of V. Gordon Childe’s 10-criteria for defining civilization. Although Childe’s 10-criteria for defining urban revolution or civilization has faced critics such as lacking universality in their application, many scholars have used them as reference points when trying to understand civilization (Kelly, 2015). In definition, civilization refers to the process by which agricultural villages develop into urban societies with complex political, social, and economic structures. According to V. Gordon Childe, ten formal criteria can explain the concept of urban development or civilization. This article discusses some of V. Gordon Childe’s 10-criteria for defining civilization in order of their importance based on the way they were implemented in the old and new world civilizations.

According to V. Gordon Childe (1950), the revolutions experienced in the new world like the industrial revolutions in England are repetitions of similar significant revolutions that could have occurred once or twice in the preceding centuries. Childe used this argument to propose ten criteria that could have been responsible for such revolutions in civilization. One of the Childe’s criteria that this article finds most famous due to its easy applicability in both old and new world revolutions or civilizations was the criterion of increased settlement size (Thavapalan, 2014). The principle of increased settlement size explains that one of the reasons why civilization occurred in the old world was the increase in population, which led to the rise in settlements sizes or fixity of residence. This explanation fits into the context of both old-world anthropology and new world history (Tisdell, C. A., & Svizzero, 2018).

Many scholars agree that fixity of residence is one of the significant conditions to the development of urbanization, which is closely associated with civilization. The settlement did attract not only political and social construction but also invited economic organization. Such activities existed both in the old and new world civilizations. The fact that settlement size impacted urban revolution in both old and new world civilizations makes the criterion one of the essential criteria in Childe’s 10-criteria for explaining enlightenment.

Another criterion by Childe (1950) that have found a common consensus among scientists and anthropologists is the accumulation of wealth. The approach falls under the underlying principle of availability of food surplus as capital. Anthropologists and scholars of modern revolutions agree that one of the most critical factors that can explain urban development is the ability of an area to produce and store surplus food. The availability of food in surplus s capital can only be affected by the accumulation of wealth. The availability of food attracts trade, settlement, and population growth, which are essential to the development of civilization. However, other factors that also impact the criterion of accumulation of wealth include the availability of a system that ensures the effective exchange and redistribution of goods. Such systems and processes provided urban revolutions in both old and new world civilizations and, therefore, significant to the way they were implemented in both epochs. In the early world revolution, accumulation of wealth led to the development of many ancient cities in Europe and the Middle East, including Mesopotamia, which developed due to the accumulation of agricultural wealth. New world civilizations, such as the Industrial Revolution in Europe and North America, were results of the accumulation of wealth. The criterion is one of the most significant of the 10-criteria for explaining civilization.

Another criterion that is most significant of V. Gordon Childe’s 10-criteria for explaining civilization is the development of knowledge in Science and Engineering. This criterion describes why different forms of revolutions occurred during different periods in many ancient and modern revolutions. The first memorable urban revolution was the revolution in Mesopotamia, which was a result of development in knowledge in agricultural science and engineering (Adams, 2017). Other ancient urban revolutions include Egyptian civilization and Chinese civilization. In modern urbanization, development of knowledge in science and engineering has led to the rise of civilization in the Middle East and Africa. Development of knowledge in science and engineering is one of the essential aspects of V. Gordon Childe’s 10-criteria for explaining civilization. However, the criterion is one of the 10-criteria by Childe (1950) that has faced critics for lacking universality in its application. In essence, some scholars of anthropology argue that the development of knowledge in science and engineering did not lead to urbanization in all parts of the world but only in some (Gaydarska, 2016). Although these critics argue that the criterion is not universally applicable, the common consensus among many anthropology scholars is that the criterion is very impactful in explaining or defining the concept of civilization. Additionally, the availability of evidence from many urban revolutions that are a result of development in knowledge in science and engineering shows the significance of the criterion. Therefore, this article identifies the approach as one of the most important criteria for defining civilization, according to V. Gordon Childe.

Another significant criterion of explaining civilization, according to Childe’s 10-criteria is the concept of writing. Archaeologists prefer to use “writing” as the best criterion for defining civilization because it is the only evidence based approach that they can use to explain civilization. According to Childe (1950), writing is a preferable criterion among archaeologists because it is easy to recognize and has proven to be a reliable index to more profound character. However, writing as a criterion for defining civilization is marred with confusion due to its relationship to literacy. The archaeological view of writing as a criterion for explaining enlightenment seems to represent ‘writing’ to mean literacy in its whole. However, not all forms of writing in archaeological evidence mean literacy and not all that re literate know how to write. The complex meaning of writing and differentiation from literature is why writing is not a preferable approach to explaining modern-day civilization. Additionally, when viewed in the context of literacy, the criterion of writing loses meaning both in Old and New civilization contexts (Childe, 2014). In essence, not all that are literate dwell in civilization and not all who are civilized are literate.

Childe’s (1950) criterion of population density is not a very practical approach to explaining the concept of civilization. This is because the method relies on several other factors to fit in its explanation to the urban revolution. Childe tried to imply that urban revolutions occurred in areas where there was population density in Old world history. However, the criterion has critical flaws because it neither fits in the Old nor New worlds of history (Anderson, 2016). Population density alone did not lead to civilization in the absence of food. Most population density patterns in the Old and New worlds of history show that population density was majorly a result of favourable conditions such as the availability of food, water and pleasant weather. Evidence from North American population in the early civilization shows that areas that were least developed experienced scarcity in society (McGuire, 2013). Additionally, fishing tribes only densely occupied an area with favourable fishing conditions. In New world history, there lacks evidence that point out the association between civilization and population density. Evidence from hunting and gathering tribes in pre-neolithic Europe exhibited scarce populations and only exhibited dense populations in areas with favourable conditions such as food availability. However, the densely populated units whose density was a result of shared interests such as food were weak. The groups broke into smaller groups as soon as the food ran out. The flaws in the relationship between population density and civilization make the criterion by Childe, a weak factor in explaining the concept of urban revolution.

However, Childe’s argument that population density is among the criterion that can explain civilization is based on some minor facts developed from the new world history. According to Childe (1950), looking into population density as a consequence of the Neolithic revolution draws sense in using the concept to explain how civilization happened. In essence, the Neolithic revolution led to population growth, which alternatively led to the emergence of new economies. For a man to sustain himself and his family in the modern economies, the need to produce surplus food emerged. Civilization emerged in the middle of the attempt by man to economically manage the ever-growing amount of surplus production. Therefore, the criterion of population density only makes sense in explaining the concept of civilization when looked at as a consequence of the Neolithic revolution (Linnartz, 2017). However, the limitation in looking at the criterion as a consequence of the Neolithic revolution is that the Neolithic civilization era is only a new world history era. The assimilation of the approach to early world history is limited.

Conclusion

The V. Gordon Childe’s 10-criteria for understanding civilization that this article has discussed above affirm the consensus among scholars that his criteria are not universal. However, Childe’s 10-criteria for understanding civilization is the most famous theories in anthropology as they have been applied across professional and subject boundaries. In Uncovering the level of importance of each criterion, this article has also provided a conceptual understanding of the relevance of various theories in defining civilization. In specific, the relevance and importance of approaches that this article has discussed depended on application across multiple generations of refinement. In essence, this article has considered a criterion that makes only makes sense when applied to only new world history less critical. Similarly, an approach that only makes sense when used in explaining old world history can only be less crucial. Among the V. Gordon Childe’s articles that this essay has found to be most significant to the way that they were implemented in Old and New World civilizations include the stability of residence, accumulation of wealth and development of knowledge in science and Engineering. This article has also identified and provided the reason why some of Childe’s more famous criteria like writing and population density are limited in their explanation of how civilization happened.

References

Adams, R. M. (2017). The evolution of urban society: early Mesopotamia and prehispanic Mexico. Routledge.

Andersson, H. (2016). Urban or Urbanization?. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 49(1), 62-64.

Childe, V. G. (1950). The urban revolution. Town Planning Review, 21(1), 3.

Childe, V. G. (2014). New light on the most ancient East. Routledge.

Gaydarska, B. (2016). The city is dead! Long live the city!. Norwegian archaeological review, 49(1), 40-57.

Kelly, R. L. (2015). Binford versus Childe: What makes an archaeologist influential?. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 38, 67-71.

Linnartz, C. (2017) Who owns the Smart City?.

McGuire, R. H., & McGuire, R. H. (2013). Reading and Misreading V. Gordon Childe in North America.

Thavapalan, S. (2014). Mesopotamian Megacity Re‐imagined in Berlin. Curator: The Museum Journal, 57(1), 137-145.

Tisdell, C. A., & Svizzero, S. (2018). The Agricultural Revolution, Childe’s Theory of Economic Development as Outlined in Man Makes Himself, and Contemporary Economic Theories. History of Economics Review, 71(1), 55-72.