1.6 Consilience
13
web of evidence on which we base the enlarged view of Pacific prehistory that we
present.
The second point we need to make here is that the structure of our book is unusual
in that each chapter explores part of a new context and each context provides a
new window through which we invite the reader to view the past. We are seeking
by this means to create a wider framework in which to understand the past. But
we are also seeking cumulatively to achieve a synergistic effect through drawing
together the insights from many different contexts, scientific disciplines and fields
of evidence. In this sense we see science as a means, not an end. In using science to
illuminate prehistory, what we are hoping to achieve is not scientific proof so much
as a consilience of evidence that widens present understanding.
The implications of the word “consilience” deserve some comment. Our book is
unusual in combining scientific evidence with evidence inherent in ancient tradition.
Science can contribute to the art of history by certifying and establishing some of
the facts around which history is woven. But history involves many elements more
guessed than scientifically certifiable. For history is about people, their motivations,
impulses and actions. It is about events whose causes are often multiple and sometimes hidden. Ancient history is even less knowable, less accessible than modern
history. So much information has been lost that scenarios have to be constructed
from fact-based surmise as well as from recovered artefacts.
Consilience has a role in underpinning surmise. It is a concept currently receiving new attention. The concept was advocated by E.O. Wilson [13], a modern
scientist who, in the words of Iain McCalman [14], “strenuously advocated a
return, Renaissance-style, to teaching the unity of knowledge”. McCalman notes
that Wilson draws inspiration from William Whewell [15], an early 19th century
British philosopher who invented the term “scientist” and also advocated the less
familiar idea of consilience. Wilson defines consilience as “a jumping together of
knowledge by the linking of facts and fact-based theory across disciplines to create
a common groundwork of explanation”.
We find Wilson’s definition of consilience to be a good description not only of
the concept itself but also of what we are attempting to do in this book. In the
academic world specialization is the norm. The integration of knowledge tends to
involve the combination of findings from a limited number of precisely delineated,
currently popular, areas of specialized knowledge. Knowledge that does not belong
to these areas tends to be forgotten or disregarded. We have gathered evidence from
many areas and disciplines in this book. Perhaps the most original and interesting
arguments in the book depend on the non-archaeological evidence we have drawn
from areas that are rarely exploited as tools for prehistory. In calling on this new
evidence and marrying it with the old and in combining traditional and scientific
evidence, we have attempted to establish a consilience of evidence from the many
areas and contexts, old and new, that we explore. We have tried, as Wilson puts it,
“by the linking of facts and fact-based theory across disciplines to create a common
groundwork of explanation”.
The results are surprising. They have led us, for example, to argue that a “common groundwork of explanation” for the prehistory of the Spice Islanders can
13
web of evidence on which we base the enlarged view of Pacific prehistory that we
present.
The second point we need to make here is that the structure of our book is unusual
in that each chapter explores part of a new context and each context provides a
new window through which we invite the reader to view the past. We are seeking
by this means to create a wider framework in which to understand the past. But
we are also seeking cumulatively to achieve a synergistic effect through drawing
together the insights from many different contexts, scientific disciplines and fields
of evidence. In this sense we see science as a means, not an end. In using science to
illuminate prehistory, what we are hoping to achieve is not scientific proof so much
as a consilience of evidence that widens present understanding.
The implications of the word “consilience” deserve some comment. Our book is
unusual in combining scientific evidence with evidence inherent in ancient tradition.
Science can contribute to the art of history by certifying and establishing some of
the facts around which history is woven. But history involves many elements more
guessed than scientifically certifiable. For history is about people, their motivations,
impulses and actions. It is about events whose causes are often multiple and sometimes hidden. Ancient history is even less knowable, less accessible than modern
history. So much information has been lost that scenarios have to be constructed
from fact-based surmise as well as from recovered artefacts.
Consilience has a role in underpinning surmise. It is a concept currently receiving new attention. The concept was advocated by E.O. Wilson [13], a modern
scientist who, in the words of Iain McCalman [14], “strenuously advocated a
return, Renaissance-style, to teaching the unity of knowledge”. McCalman notes
that Wilson draws inspiration from William Whewell [15], an early 19th century
British philosopher who invented the term “scientist” and also advocated the less
familiar idea of consilience. Wilson defines consilience as “a jumping together of
knowledge by the linking of facts and fact-based theory across disciplines to create
a common groundwork of explanation”.
We find Wilson’s definition of consilience to be a good description not only of
the concept itself but also of what we are attempting to do in this book. In the
academic world specialization is the norm. The integration of knowledge tends to
involve the combination of findings from a limited number of precisely delineated,
currently popular, areas of specialized knowledge. Knowledge that does not belong
to these areas tends to be forgotten or disregarded. We have gathered evidence from
many areas and disciplines in this book. Perhaps the most original and interesting
arguments in the book depend on the non-archaeological evidence we have drawn
from areas that are rarely exploited as tools for prehistory. In calling on this new
evidence and marrying it with the old and in combining traditional and scientific
evidence, we have attempted to establish a consilience of evidence from the many
areas and contexts, old and new, that we explore. We have tried, as Wilson puts it,
“by the linking of facts and fact-based theory across disciplines to create a common
groundwork of explanation”.
The results are surprising. They have led us, for example, to argue that a “common groundwork of explanation” for the prehistory of the Spice Islanders can