Until the 1970’s, Paleolithic art was classified into two major groups: parietal art, including cave and rock art, and portable art. The clear difference between the two is that one form is moveable and the other is not. This classification gave rise to a bias in understanding and interpreting Paleolithic art, especially when considering portable and nonfigurative representations.

Many archaeologists derived working concepts of art from art historians when looking at style, perspective and form. However, the bias that arose from this method came as a result of art theory ideals prevalent since the Renaissance. There was an emphasis and focus on the “naturalistic” ideal in which artists were praised for their accuracy in representing the world. These guidelines then put great importance on cave paintings, which had more “realistic” art representations, and often underestimated or ignored portable artifacts and ornaments.

To further this bias, 18^th century Europe saw the growth of public art museums, such as The British Museum and the Spanish Royal Museum of Painting and Sculpture. With this new appreciation for aesthetics, crafts were pushed aside and judged as mechanical and unrefined. During this period, the parietal/portable classification of Paleolithic art, which already rejected portable work for its lack of naturalism, started to adapt to the fine arts/crafts distinction in which portable art was seen as naïve or infantile. At this time, some archaeologists assumed that painting was an indicator of higher cognitive function as compared to the skills in making portable pieces.

What is clear is that if art theorists were captivated by paintings yet denigrated crafts, archeologists followed suit, ignoring many portable works while celebrating cave paintings, such as those at Altamira and Niaux.

Many culminating factors, such as the globalization of Paleolithic art studies and the development of new approaches to art and symbolism, led to a change in archaeologists’ viewpoints in 1970. These new methods took into account that the making of artifacts was the culmination of the artistic experience. To understand the value of the piece, the creator’s stance toward a work of art must be considered. Furthermore, portable art and personal objects, while previously ignored, were now recognized for their value in assessing the social culture of Paleolithic groups. While parietal images on a wall might serve as landscape markers, portable objects are now regarded as indicators of social and individual identities. Since portable objects have the potential of traveling distances, it is acknowledged that these artifacts and art pieces could have been used to express the social statuses of individuals or groups within a larger Paleolithic culture.

Overall, social stigma derived from art theorists and artistic culture previous to 1970 influenced archaeologists interpretations of Paleolithic art in such a way that cave paintings were generally overemphasized relative to portable art pieces. However, with the rejection of this Eurocentrism and an anthropological turn in the conceptualization of Paleolithic art, movable and fixed forms of art are now considered distinct yet equal in their insight into different aspects of Paleolithic culture.

Works Cited:

Renfrew, Colin, and Paul G. Bahn. Archaeology Essentials: Theories, Methods, and Practice. New York, NY: Thames & Hudson, 2010. Print.

Moro Abadía, Ór 2013, ‘Paleolithic art cultural history’, Journal Of Archaeological Research, 21, 3, pp. 269-306, Anthropology Plus, EBSCOhost, viewed 27 September 2014.

Image 1: http://www.thehistoryhub.com/cave-of-altamira-facts-pictures.htm

Image 2:http://ns1.wynja.com/hohlefelsvenus.html

Additional Reading:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10816-010-9085-9/fulltext.html

http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3630753.pdf?acceptTC=true&jpdConfirm=true

Link to original post in Reall Archaeology

Biologists often study the population dynamics of other animal species. Population sizes are described as being controlled by factors such as resource availability and prevalence of predators. Populations fluctuate in size based on the combined effects of these various influencing factors.

The world’s human population, in the last several hundred years, has been increasing exponentially and relatively undeterred. This has contributed to many contemporary problems. There is major strain on natural resources which has resulted in extensive ecological destruction. There is much social and political strife, often by way of the aforementioned environmental pressures.

Image 1: World population growth over the last 12 000 years. Population size is correlated with types of society over the time scale.

However, human populations across the globe and through time have existed in varying types of societies. One major characteristic of a society is its population size. The relationships between population dynamics and society are intricate. Does the size of a population influence the type of society in which it is found? Or conversely, does a type of society influence its population size?

One common question refers to whether human populations can exist in a more “natural” or “balanced” state, more similar to those of other animal species. And if so, what does this mean for the type of society in which such a population would have to exist?

The San peoples of Southern Africa are the last living remnants of a wide group of peoples that pre-existed even the Bantu-speaking nations of Africa, let alone the Europeans. This wide group of peoples were Stone Age hunter-gatherers who inhabited most Africa for thousands of years. The hunter-gatherer way of life which these peoples employed is still in existence today in the remote populations of San peoples.

Image 2: A group of San men in Namibia. Note the arrows (one being prepared) which are used in hunting.

This hunter-gatherer lifestyle encourages a small population size to exist. The nomadic lifestyle is certainly more easily achieved with a smaller group size and, even more importantly, a small population size allows for the ability to “live off of the land” in the gatherer fashion. Conversely, this heavy reliance upon already limited natural resources also acts as a population check, keeping the size of the population fluctuating but small.

Lifestyles such as that of the hunter-gatherer San peoples are easily romanticised. In comparison to overpopulated, stately societies around the world, they appear to conduct a lifestyle much more near a balance with their surroundings. Or at least they appear to have much less of a negative impact upon their environment.

However, many people view the modern way of life in more state-orientated societies as simply better. There are even opinions, similar to those of social Darwinism, that describe a progression over time from more basic nomadic societies to intricate and large state societies. The reality is that small mobile hunter-gatherer groups still exist today, descended from societies that have existed for thousands of years. Is that simple fact perhaps enough proof of a successful, less destructive, way of life? Ultimately, as contemporary state societies face ever-increasing problems from the socio-political and environmental arenas, time will indeed shed more light upon the situation.

Additional sources of information:

The novel Ishmael by Daniel Quinn explores types of societies, their origins, and ultimately compares them in search for a better, more ideal way of life. The book is available from the Vassar College Main Library:

http://vaslib.vassar.edu/search~S1?/aQuinn/aquinn/1%2C150%2C276%2CB/frameset&FF=aquinn+daniel&1%2C%2C3

For more information about the San peoples, their history, lifestyle and archaeology, visit South African History Online:

http://www.sahistory.org.za/people-south-africa/san

Citations:

Renfrew, Colin, and Paul G. Bahn. Archaeology essentials: theories, methods, and practice. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Thames & Hudson, 2010.

South African History Online. “The San.” http://www.sahistory.org.za/people-south-africa/san

Image 1: http://econosystemics.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/world-population-chart.jpg

Image 2: https://wetu.com/ImageHandler/1280×1280/24445/Nhoma-Safari-Camp-Tented-Lodge-Resdest-Namibia-Tsumkwe-Bushmenland-BushManLife3.jpg

Link to original post in Reall Archaeology

Whenever I visualize what a typical archaeologist looks like, what comes to mind is a nerdy, white male, shovel in hand, wearing a sunhat and those pants that zip off at the knee. Although this image may be specific to me, I’m sure that many people’s visual representations of an archaeologist would share one aspect in common with mine: the male gender. Women have only fairly recently been admitted into the field of archaeology, yet, this imbalance in the field isn’t the only way in which women have been overlooked- ancient women themselves have been unfairly overlooked in archaeology, therefore being left behind in the archaeological record.

In the 1960s emerged feminist archaeology, which seeks the gendered experiences of the past through three objectives: first, to expose and correct the male bias in archaeology; second, to balance the imbalance of women’s professional participation in archaeology; and third, to spotlight the roles of women in the past. An archaeological site in Israel serves as a perfect example that incorporates these three objectives into its excavation.

Excavation at Tel Abel Beth Maacah began because it was referenced in the Bible and holds the potential to inform us about northern Israel during the Bronze and Iron Ages. In 2014, Dr. Naama Yahalom-Mack, Dr. Nava Panitz-Cohen, and Prof. Lauren Monroe (all female archaeologists) implemented the “Gender Agenda” program at the site. The “Gender Agenda” served to excavate with the sole purpose of identifying engendered activities such as locating cooking and grinding areas, ovens, pottery, etc. Students a part of the “Gender Agenda” program learned how to collect samples for micro-archaeological analysis that can be used for understanding diet, modes of economic production and how activities were carried out within the home sphere, and other aspects of daily life. Students also conducted an ethnographic study by visiting and interacting with local Arab women at the Center for Women’s Traditional Crafts in a nearby village. By explicitly searching for the physical remains of women’s day-to-day lives, the archaeologists behind the “Gender Agenda” validate the often-marginalized history of women in antiquity. Women’s history was often overlooked because their activities weren’t believed to have contributed anything important to the society since they served as rulers of the private, home sphere. The archaeologists at Tel Beth Abel Maacah recognize the contributions that women add to society through their search for engendered activities.

Students at Center for Women’s Traditional Crafts in Arab village.

“Gender Agenda” co-director Lauren Monroe with husband and son on site.

Why is a focus on gender so important? Some argue that since gender assignments are untestable to a certain extent, then therefore gender is irrelevant in the archaeological record. This is not true. By analyzing and interpreting the gender roles established by a society we can get an overview of the social organization and structure of the society. Most importantly, we are acknowledging every person, rather than overlooking a group of people, and looking to understand their individual function within the society.

Additional Links:

http://anthrojournal.com/issue/october-2011/article/gender-in-mesoamerica-interpreting-gender-roles-in-classic-maya-society

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/digs-2014/gender-in-archaeology-at-abel-beth-maacah/

Sources Used:

http://www.abel-beth-maacah.org/index.php/12-seasons/2013-season/78-gender-agenda

Renfrew, Colin, and Paul G. Bahn. Archaeology Essentials: Theories, Methods, and Practice. New York, NY: Thames & Hudson, 2010. Print.

Photos:

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/digs-2014/gender-in-archaeology-at-abel-beth-maacah/

http://www.abel-beth-maacah.org

Link to original post in Reall Archaeology

Under Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal program resources were given to create jobs preserving the nation’s monuments to protect them for posterity. Thousands of people were called upon to conduct large scale excavations across the lower 48 states. Archaeological projects were first funded through FERA or the Federal Emergency Relief Agency and then the WPA or Works Progress Administration. Archaeological programs worked closely with the Federal Writers Project to create state guides that provided a historical, cultural, and archaeological view of each state, while employing more people and encouraging tourism.

Figure 1: A CCC excavation in Nevada’s “Lost City”

The archeology practiced by these teams was not always the best form but it ultimately resulted in an increased understanding of archaeology in the public sphere and exposed people to the archaeological process. The crews would enter a site and often end up destroying much of the critical context around the finds and removing them from their associated objects. This was partly because modern sampling strategies using parallel and intersecting lines and squares had not yet been developed and also because most of the workers had no professional training in archeological field work or theory. So significant amounts of data have been lost about many of the Native American sites and colonial ruins that were excavated under the New Deal.

The archaeology done under the new deal was a form of Processual Archaeology and part of the period known as the “classificatory historical period”. The goals were to create a chronological narrative of a region as was common in the time. The narrative element also lent itself well to the creation of the State Guides.

The Cover of the FWP State Guide for Illinois

And through these state guides the history and archaeology of the country was opened up to the rest of the population instead of the elite intellectuals of the country. Among the programs of the New Deal the archaeological projects created more public awareness of the historical context of the United States and brought us more new information. Many other programs like the CCC and WPA just improved on existing things in the United States by restoring buildings, National Park maintenance, and building projects, but archeological programs took the bleakness of the Great Depression and used it to create opportunities for research and collecting knowledge from resources right outside our doors. And even if the processes were not perfect in the grander history of archaeology they widened the foundation of American Archaeology and made room for organizations like the Society of American Archaeology and other groups that serve to protect and preserve America’s archaeological resources.

References

http://onlinedigeditions.com/publication/?i=70732#{“page”:39,”issue_id”:70732}

http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=692

http://onlinedigeditions.com/display_article.php?id=738654&id_issue=70732

Florida WPA Archaeology: Hillsborough County

http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/states/illinois/memory.html

http://newdealarchaeology.com/

Renfrew, Colin, and Paul G. Bahn.Archaeology essentials: theories, methods, and practice. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Thames & Hudson, 20102

Link to original post in Reall Archaeology