Archaeological vs. Ethnographical

Annette Laming-Emperaire pinned down an important issue in decoding prehistoric artifacts: objective documentation versus the molding of an interpretation.  “Sclerotic rigor on one side, a lively but unreliable creation on the other (p.141)”, as she puts it, will either leave us idle or lead us astray in the understanding of these artifacts. While I believe both strategies have their usefulness, the later seems to more likely lead us to a self-fulfilling prophecy. What you see depends on what you’re looking for. Despite the insightful interpretations that could come from the second school, I would place myself in the first school. The fact of the matter is we can never truly know what these cave paintings were for and what they meant. We were simply never there, and no one was with written documentation. Therefore, it’s hard for me to buy into theories of religious ritual uses or totemism. Stories of such are certainly intriguing and worth looking into, but I’m a skeptic and so until proven, it is just a story. 

I would prefer to examine the site objectively, recording and documenting by focusing on gathering an exhaustive list of data. For the purposes of learning, what good do hypotheses do without a collected foundation of hard-evidence? Organizing material before you interpret it allows a “home base” to refer to, either confirming or rejecting ideas. (I love the way Laming-Emperaire replaced the figures with symbols like arrows and recreated the scene to study. Taking images out of context can spotlight patterns, and finding patterns can open up doors for interpretations.) You can’t create a rational picture of the culture’s behavior if you don’t fully examine and understand the details first. Providing an archaeological reference allows others to interpret the information as they please. However, avoiding interpretations can leave topics like these dry and uninspiring. Many times it is easier for one to understand something by visualizing it or forming a story from it. Therefore an ethnographical approach makes the idea seem more wholesome. In reality a combination of the two schools would be the most beneficial to our understanding of prehistoric cultures.

"Making Special"

This week’s blog assignment was to write about “making special” and how we personally do. After I studied my personal space however, I felt a little depressed. My space back home is decked out from floor to ceiling with paint, pictures, art, posters, and things I’ve collected. Almost everything had to stay home since I had to fly here. I stuffed whatever I could in three suitcases, leaving very little room for extras. Campus Apartments doesn’t provide much space for decoration anyway, but the two tapestries I did bring went up by the couch.

The desk area looked deserted, so I’ve begun to display things I normally wouldn’t to make it feel more like home. Take for example my Campbell’s recipe box, or my beverage bottles, or my hats by a pile of rocks from Agate Beach, and posters I’ve collected from around campus. I also cut up my Beatles folder and displayed it on my wall. With this in consideration, I’ve certainly “made special”, but it doesn’t feel very special yet. A little happiness worms its way into my heart as I look down at my doodles on my notebook.

I’ve always been a doodler, drawing on everything I could and shouldn’t. Since I’ve been here I’ve been slightly stressed and haven’t been feeling too creative, but I found myself doodling again today! I don’t have a specific pattern or theme to what I doodle, but it’s usually constant for each individual object I’m drawing on. Except for my Jansport backpack back home (I wish I had a picture to share) which is my favorite; complete with dinosaurs, cassette tapes, palm trees, nautical stars, lyrics, and more. Drawing is my favorite form of making my things and space “special” and unique. It not only looks neat when it’s finished (which it rarely ever is) but it usual means something to me. It often speaks of a mood I was in or a thought that was dominating in my noggin for the moment. Ellen Dissanayake states “… one intends by making special to place the activity or artifact in a ‘realm’ different from the everyday.” My activity of doodling is an aesthetic realm entirely, but the temporary transition into a little more interesting zone makes all the difference in my attitude.

Investigating Creative Expression: Papunya Tula

One of this week’s blog options asked us to choose a type of creative expression and explain how an anthropologist would investigate the form and substance. Australian Aboriginal culture has always captured my curiosity. So here is my chance to look into one of their more contemporary forms of art. Popularly known as “dot painting” this creative form of expression is called Papunya Tula! Its story begins in 1971 in a dessert settlement in Central Australia. 

You, as an anthropologist might begin studying the surface or aesthetic qualities of these paintings. Depending on the time frame that the piece was finished, you will find different styles. From 1971 to 1972 the paintings were bright in color and used whatever material was at hand. Particle board and other metal sheeting was recycled to paint on. At first glance these paintings look abstract - full of circles, ovals and other strange shapes.

 But after 1972, the paintings apparently begin to change. As pieces were starting to sell outside of their small settlement, natives worried that sacred things would be discovered by outsiders. So the paintings take on a "dotted" look instead. Canvas and composition board are much more commonly used underneath the paint. Now, the pieces of artwork seem even more abstract and color schemes are toned down. 

Understanding that not everyone everywhere has the same idea for what is "beautiful" I will refrain from using that term. But you would have to notice the lovely patterns and symmetry in these pieces. There's a harmonic flow to each painting and the use of color seems well planned out. 

However "aesthetically pleasing" these paintings are from the outside, what is more important to the anthropologist is likely the story from the inside. You might be curious to know why these began specifically in 1971. A little bit of research or a look into Papunya Tula: Art of the Western Desert by Geoff Bardon (Available through the HSU book exchange if you're curious: http://library.calstate.edu/humboldt/worldcat/record/28667308?source=regional) would reveal much of its history. You would find that the settlement was a meshed group of Australian Aboriginal people from different language groups forced together by an oppressive government. Journeys were a large part of their culture, but denied the right to travel, the people grew frustrated and felt helpless. Geoff Bardon arrived in he witness the children drawing in the sand. So he encouraged them to paint. Hesitant at first, the elders of the settlement allowed the children to paint and express their "dreams" (which are also crucial to Aboriginal culture). Unfortunately years later after paintings were being sold outside of the community, the natives became much more secretive about the stories and their meanings in the paintings. An intriguing job for an anthropologist would be to encounter these people about their artwork. There is a group that exists today called Papunya Tula Artists Pty Ltd. There are 120 artists and they have works in galleries world-wide. 

http://www.papunyatula.com.au/history/

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/aug2001/tula-a24.shtml
http://www.aboriginalartstore.com.au/aboriginal-art-culture/papunya-tula-aboriginal-art-mov.php