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.
I totally agree with you on that combining the two "schools" is the most beneficial to understanding prehistoric cultures. Taking the archaeological knowledge and applying an ethnographic approach will be the most effective while utilized together.
ReplyDeleteI also agree. I think it was genius for Laming-Emperaire to draw all those arrows and conduct an in depth study. Even though we won't truly know what went on in the caves we can look at the patterns and from those draw a very interesting story. I think she was mainly concerned with anthropologists applying things cross culturally when those ideas/patterns aren't universal. I actually think that would be a huge mis-use of ethnography and disrespectful to the culture it's being applied to.
ReplyDelete