email   Email Us: phone   Call Us: +1 (914) 407-6109   57 West 57th Street, 3rd floor, New York - NY 10019, USA

Lupine Publishers Group

Lupine Publishers

ISSN: 2690-5752

Journal of Anthropological and Archaeological Sciences

Opinion(ISSN: 2690-5752)

Anthropological Concerns in Modern Interdisciplinary Research Volume 4 - Issue 5

CT Michael*

  • Laboratory of Archaeometry, Institute of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology N.C.S.R. “Demokritos”, 153 10 Ag. Paraskevi, Attiki, Greece

Received:July 20, 2021   Published: July 28, 2021

Corresponding author:CT Michael, Laboratory of Archaeometry, Institute of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology NCSR Demokritos, 153 10 Ag Paraskevi, Attiki, Greece

DOI: 10.32474/JAAS.2021.04.000197


Abstract PDF


Main subject of study of the interdisciplinary area of archaeometry, consciously or subconsciously, are the main concerns of the human spirit, such as: Where do we come from? How did human being proceed? How did he produce his culture and technology, etc. These concerns inevitably are related with more important questions such as: how was the world made? Where is it going? etc. Human is the only animal species that produces culture and the beginning of this culture defines the time limits of his appearance.


The Scientific theory of Darwin (1809-1882) and others related with the evolution of biological species have been- deliberately or not- misinterpreted and have unfortunately led to disorientation of thought, which can easily happen on such matters. It should not be considered that creation and evolution are two opposing views which can not be reconciled with each other. The view that the world and nature are the creature of an omniscient Creator and Lawgiver does not necessarily deny the evolutionary course of world. We can suppose that world is an evolutionary creature (evolutionary creation) [1]. However, the spontaneous-random evolution presupposes the existence of the natural laws, without explaining how they originate.


Science does not even know, how the first cell was made from materials without life, after so many efforts to this direction. Despite the great advances in genetic engineering, it was not possible to completely achieve an artificial cell. The only that has so far achieved is a cell with a synthetic genome (Gibson et al., 2010). Namely, in the nucleus of a preexisting cell, the genetic material was transplanted, that was manufactured in the laboratory. This achievement of modern science is not creation of life from non- living matter, and we do not know if it is possible to be attained. At the present, the experiment and the practice always confirm the theory of Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) whereby: “life always arises from life”. He also said at Sorbonne Scientific Soir of April 7, 1864: “The doctrine of spontaneous generation will never recover from the mortal blow inflicted by this experiment”. It is the famous experiment from which resulted the technique known as pasteurization [2]. The today’s importance of the theory of Pasteur is that it continuous to be valid after 150 years. It is remarkable to realise that, from the viewpoint of Bible, the aspect of the evolutionary origin of human being from the ape, should not be excluded. We can assume that the human body resulted from the evolution of some species of ape - i.e., from soil, as is referred in Genesis - and, finally, in a certain moment, Creator blew in this anthropoid “the spirit of life”, that is the human spirit. This assumption of the evolutionary creation could be considered entirely consistent with what is written in Genesis. When referring to the subject of the origin of human being, we must first give the definition of human being as a biological species. According to the ancient philosophers (Plato), but also according to Genesis, human being is the biological species that has all mental faculties so that to be able to produce culture, i.e., he has the sense of beauty, the ability of speech and also the perception of good and evil [3].

From the above definition it results that “less than human being” does not exist. Either, one has the sense of beauty and also of good and evil, or, he does not have it, even if his perception for them is different from that of others. An intermediate situation between these two possibilities cannot exist. We can conclude that a particular biological species has the sense of beauty, of good and also of the true only if spontaneously, i.e., in the nature, this species is observed to be interested or involved with something that has no relation to the instincts of self-preservation and procreation, e.g., creating something just for reasons of aesthetics or worship [4]. It could be said that the view of sudden appearance of the real human being, is essentially suggested by the researchers who believe that only Homo Sapiens had the sense of good and beauty. One of them is Francis Collins (Collins, 2006), the head of the laboratory in the U.S. which studied the human genome, who recently wrote the book “The Language of God “ about his faith in God and his scientific views. He states: “I can say with certainty that only human beings have the ability to understand the law of good and evil…. It is the perception of good and evil, the self-consciousness, the development of speech and the ability to imagine the future, the potentials that the scientists refer in order to enumerate the specific characteristics of Homo Sapiens” [5].

Evolutionary Creation

The view of evolutionary creation, that there is no less than human being, has enormous importance in social and political terms. Indeed, we must understand that possible dispute of this view can have very unpleasant consequences for humanity. Some researchers of history indicate that the theory of spontaneousrandom evolution was one of the main causes of the two world wars. In National World War1 Museum, Kansas City, USA is referred that one of the causes, which led to the decision of the two factions to confront each other, so that to prevail the stronger, was the “principle of natural selection”. This principle is deterministically valid in nature according to the “theory of spontaneus evolution”. This view, of course, does not prove the truth of the evolutionary creation. However, this makes scientists to realise their responsibilities with regard to the proposed theories by them. Many archaeologists mention that” Neolithic revolution” was the most important event in the human history. Jacques Cauvin, the excavator of Natoufian culture (10500-8000 BC) in Mureybet of northern Syria, expressed the view that the Neolithic revolution was the result of a revolutionary change in human psychology (intellectual transformation), as indicate religious figurines and the methodical selection of specific devotional objects. This view is in accordance with the evolutionary creation, and we could say that the man of evolutionary creation, that is, the man of Genesis, is the man of Neolithic revolution. According to Cauvin’s view, the explanation of Neolithic change should be searched in the nonmaterial world (Cauvin, 2000).


R. Braidwood (Braidwood et al., 1960) and J. Cauvin hypothesized that the driving force which transformed the moving hunter-gatherers of food into the first societies having the village structure and the early human beings into farmers in the Near East, should be sought at the level of the human option rather than in necessity or the climatic and environmental changes. According to existing archaeological data this transformation could have happened earlier, “the idea and the will simply had not appeared”. But who inspired them? Could the technology be developed without the evolutionary creation of man? Of course, could not. So, what was the cause of the evolution of the world up to the appearance of human beings? Could the time alone have worked for this result? Stephen Hawking (Hawking, 1998) and other scientists state that this is extremely unlikely. The probability for this to happen is so small that in every other case would be considered as zero. This is in accordance with the Second Thermodynamic postulate that claims: disorder, or entropy always increases over time and therefore the time should be considered as destroyer rather than creator. What is the reason for considering as correct possibility the spontaneous-random evolution, for which the probability is almost zero according to the recent calculations? In addition, spontaneousrandom evolution presupposes the existence of the laws of nature, but nobody knows who made them.


  1. Daniel G. Gibson, John I Glass, Carole Lartigue, Vladimir N Noskov, Ray Yuan Chuang, et al (2010) Creation of a bacterial cell controlled by a chemically synthesized genome. Science 329(5987): 52-56.
  2. Jacques Cauvin (2000) The birth of the Gods and the origins of agriculture (English edition with Trevor Watkins of Naissance des divinités, with updated postscript). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, USA.
  3. RJ Braidwood, LS Braidwood (1960) Excavations in the plain of Antioch. I, The earlier assemblage phases A-J, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, coll. Oriental Institute Publications vol. 56.
  4. Stephen Hawking (1998) The Illustrated A Brief History of Time. Mohn Media.
  5. Francis Collins (2006) The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Free Press.

Online Submission System

Drag and drop files here


Browse Files
( For multiple files submission, zip them in a single file to submit. For file zipping software Download )