The Main Argument
The main argument presented by Kent Flannelly is that research on the evolution of civilizations requires a systematic approach that includes both ecological and humanist elements. However, he writes that higher-level societies are more difficult to analyze, with the state being the most difficult. Such elements as social stratification, socio-environmental stresses are described in how they can affect a developing civilization. To show the process of evolution, Flannelly presents several visual representations of the evolution based on a specific scenario. In the final section, Flannelly (1972) compiles a list of rules for use in research.
The Building of the Argument
In the first section of the paper, the author presents the idea that previous research on the evolution of civilizations was inconsequential due to the focus on either an ecological approach or humanitarian approach but never a combination of the two. This led to the loss of elements of civilization that the author states are essential for effective research on this topic. Flannelly (1972) calls for both approaches to be less focused on the extremes and attempt to provide a complete impression of the civilizations they examine.
Then the author presents a description of all the evolutionary levels of civilizations. Bands, tribes, chiefdoms, and states are briefly described as well as some of the factors that may dictate the type of society that they are likely to become. This section also examines how research is often complicated by various factors. For example, the author states that the population is often considered as a cause for change rather than the outcome of it, while both can be the case. Other prime movers are also examined. The author attempts to show that there is a great variety of factors that affect the evolution of civilizations (Flannery, 1972).
The final section of the paper describes in detail a possible way of how a more systematic model of the evolution of civilizations can be utilized with visual representations of the complex interaction between various elements of the model. As an example, he presents a scenario that revolves around the progression of Mesopotamia. It is not a complete analysis of the situation, but it presents the ideas of Flannelly in a relatively clear way which shows that his theory may be an effective approach to research of civilizations. By going from stating a perceived problem in the early section of the paper, examining the types of civilizations, and the factors that affected their evolution, the author allows the reader to get a basic understanding of the complex model of research that he proposes (Flannery, 1972).
Personal Opinion
I believe that the arguments that Flannelly makes are rather convincing for a multitude of reasons. His description of the progression of various civilizations is consistent with the one presented by Jared Diamond (1997) in Guns, Germs, and Steel. The reasons for the evolution of civilizations are described in detail in the paper, and such aspects as population size, political system, and ideology are also responsible for various changes in the civilization evolution.
The same reasons are described by Diamond (1997) as some of the more common ones. The special attention to irrigation being an important mover for civilizations is also an interesting point that adds credibility to Flannelly’s paper. His description of the issue of varying approaches is also very clear, and I agree that more elements should be considered when researching civilizations.
References
Diamond, J. M. (1997). Guns, germs, and steel: The fates of human societies. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co.
Flannery, K. (1972). The cultural evolution of civilization. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 3(1), 399–426.