Revolution Research Paper

A “revolution” in the context of ancient cultural change is a concept that all archaeologists have a grasp of, yet none seems to agree on what exactly it connotes. An incredibly popular, and at times clichéd term, “revolution” has had many definitions, uses, and explanations for it over the decades by numerous individuals, ranging from archaeologists to politicians, all looking to serve their own goals. Due to the vagueness and ambiguity of what contends as a revolution in an ancient cultural context, researchers have failed to create a concrete definition for it leaving the floor open to endless interpretation and perpetual debate. Notwithstanding this issue, by considering thoughts from the major models, evidence, and theories of ancient cultural change, a concise and comprehensive definition for “revolution” in an ancient societal context can be made: an event, idea, innovation, or invention introduced to a specific region or culture that significantly and quickly changes how humans live and interact with each other and their environment. While a universally accepted and structured definition for a revolution would be incredibly helpful to the study of the ancient past, in the current state of archaeology the ideas of ancient revolution have hindered greater collaboration, and therefore some advancement, in the archaeological world. Still, the term “revolution”, regardless of how an archaeologist may define it, is an incredibly useful label for distinguishing inflection points in human history. This sentiment is visible in the work of Vere Gordon Childe, the study of the Human Revolution, and the study of the Broad-Spectrum Revolution. 

To create a complete definition of “revolution,” it is important to understand the term’s origins in the field of Archaeology. First proposed by the archaeologist VG Childe in his publications in the 1930s, the idea of ancient revolutions originates from the contemporary movements of the early 20th century (Gathercole 2005: 26-27). Although indirect, Childe lays the framework of what a revolution in archaeological terms entails in his work from the era. As a Marxist, Childe saw the study of ancient societal changes as a study of changes in the socio-economic practices of humans, which ultimately led to major shifts in how people behaved and interacted. Using the English Industrial Revolution of the 18th century as a pretext for his requirements of a “revolution,” Childe wrote extensively about his theories of a Neolithic and Urban Revolution that took place in the ancient Near East. Like the Industrial Revolution, Childe saw the Neolithic and Urban Revolutions as both causing “an upward kink in the population curve” (Gathercole 2005: 28) in a relatively short amount of time. To Childe, then, a revolution is a rapid change in the socio-economic structure of a geographically specific society that inevitably leads to a growth in the population. Despite never explicitly defining what he meant by revolution, Childe’s writing and inspirations provide some clues as to what he may have envisioned a true revolution was. 

Even though he began publishing almost a century ago and is now read “primarily for historical interest” (Gathercole 2005: 29), the longevity of Childe’s ideas about revolutions speaks to the term’s significance to the field of archaeology. Revolution, unlike most of Childe’s work, has not been disproven, changed, or completely overhauled because no other term or designation for the theories Childe proposed in his papers can be created. The domestication of plants and animals witnessed during the Neolithic Revolution and the shift towards permanently stationary and hierarchical society found during the Urban Revolution were events so different than what came before them that no other archaeological concept can fully encapsulate the magnitude of these cultural events quite like “revolution.” It is no mistake the concept of a revolution has survived this long, and while archaeologists have tweaked its meaning over time, revolution’s importance to archaeology and the study of the past cannot be disregarded or understated. 

Of the known revolutions, none are quite as impactful to modern life as the so-called “Human Revolution.” In essence, the Human Revolution is the theory that “modern human behaviors suddenly, and nearly simultaneously” (McBrearty, Brooks 2000: 453) arose throughout the Old World roughly 50,000 years ago. As is common with most ancient revolutions, though, archaeologists are incapable of agreeing on whether the Human Revolution should even be considered a “revolution.” There exist two predominant sides to the revolution wrangle.