- there are few clues as to the original environment in which early humans lived
- discovery/analysis of fossil evidence that documents human evolution --> major focus of popular science (New York Times, television programs)
- typical scenes in popular science: made-up moderns, imagined environments, burying dead, painting, foraging, Neandertals, Cro-Magnons, australopithecines
- what attracts us to the study of our ancestors?
- curiosity: we wish to know more
- reassurance: that we've changed from brutish creatures --> civilized existence
- romance and mystery
- isolation from culture/family (due to technology): has created a desire to seek out ancestral roots
- recent finds: for example, discovering "Zinjanthropus" in 1959 (or other relatively recent announcements of very early hominids)
- emergence of new media forms or existing media forms adopting new subject matter: popular science magazines and television stations
- recent genetic studies: human origins research, comparative genetic studies, and thus the assertion that all living people are similar biologically
- critique of Moser's Ancestral Images: the Iconography of Human Evolution (1998)
- in her book, she traces the historical developments of artistic reconstructions (many of which were created before pre-historic evidence was discovered)
- first set (early artistic representations): depict things like pastoral scenes & caves; people have modern physical appearance (body type), but use past "artifacts" like animal bones, furs, clubs - these artifacts are early icons for the primitive; other major themes include pair bonding, language, and fire
- next set (16th - 18th centuries): still portray people with a modern physical appearance; still use icons like fur garments & clubs; many relate to a biblical theme
- next set (mid 19th century): at this point, the existence of prehistory was accepted; people depicted as grotesque (non-European) instead of modern in terms of physical appearance - this new imagery reinforces the believe that white European culture is advanced and superior; icons still persist (example: 1940s textbook compares Neandertal skull with those of Australians/Africans instead of modern Europeans)
- final set (past 75 years): least satisfactory part of the book - Moser doesn't say much about modern interpreters of the past, nor about their impact on both academic and public visualization of early humans
- The Neanderthal Flint Workers (painting by Knight from 1924; Moser mentions it in her book)
- here, the anatomical details and icons are not as important as the facial expressions and body postures of the subjects
- they look unhappy, as if watching imminent extinction
- these are savage brutes with no connection to modern humans
- central figure is a woman
- the faces and bodies of the subjects imply that they are competent and capable
- these are suitable human ancestors
- usually she is very insightful when it comes to these things - consider the following examples:
- 1992: she examined reconstructions of the La Chapelle-aux-Saints Neandertal skeleton; concluded that variations in reconstruction reflected the 2 competing theories (at the time) about the origins of modern human species - pre-Neandertal or pre-Sapiens?
- 1999: she examined scenes of the human evolutionary past portrayed in museum dioramas; concluded that their continued use is problematic, despite their popularity as a means for relaying info to non-specialists - they produce stereotypes, present singular visions of the world, and are mostly imaginary
- the recreation of our ancestors remains highly subjective
- problem: the imagined elements of an image (facial expressions, hair distribution, etc) are usually the most memorable parts of the scene
- problem: most of these recreations still use icons that were established long ago
"Archaeological Representation: The Visual Conventions for Constructing Knowledge about the Past", Moser
- knowledge of the past is constructed through different modes of representation
- academic modes: archaeological writing, conference presentations, illustration
- non-academic modes: museum displays, popular books, print media, fiction writing, film, television
- non-academic forms of presentation are not merely by-products of academic research - they have a life of their own
- the ways in which we write the past play a significant role in determining its meaning
- "archaeological poetics": the devices used to communicate archaeological knowledge
- are academic modes of representation more important in shaping archaeological knowledge or are non-academic modes more important?
- archaeology has been slow to recognize the role of popular representations
- public archaeology isn't considered an important field
- popular representations are seen as not having a significant impact on the production of knowledge about the past
- thus, those who use academic modes (like archaeologists) think they are immune from the non-academic modes
- this exemplifies a false distinction between science and culture!
- many times academics assume that these representations are unproblematic and don't require any interpretation
- but this view is incorrect - these representations influence the wider public's perception of archaeology and even affect the archaeologists (who are, whether they like it or not, members of the wider public too)
- popular representations contribute to the process of making meaning; they make their own statements and have the ability to create ideas about the past
- they even shape the ideas of professionals (scientists are driven by the myths)
- a lot of the scientific community uses a "diffusionist model" to explain why culture and science are separated (knowledge is created by scientists and then diffused/reused into popular culture via a one-way process)
- the diffusionist model is wrong!
- for example: the dinosaur imagine has become a vehicle for both reporting scientific knowledge and for regulating and redefining the process of scientific thinking and discovery
- another example: drawings of hominid ancestors constitute theories about human evolution all by themselves
- many different genres of communicating the past: illustration, museum display, site presentation, film, magazines, souvenirs, re-enactment, children's books, computer / multimedia, 3d reconstructions
- out of these, visual images are the most influential
- archaeologists cannot escape this influence - they continue to fit their ideas into established (iconic) pictorial frameworks
- contemporary society is fascinated with the visual
- in pictorial representations, meaning is produced through a visual language of communicating the past (i.e. pictorial conventions)
- visual representations are not second-rate illustrations of ideas - they have the ability to convey information, pleasure, displeasure, style, consumption, and power relations
- likewise, they have the ability to communicate meanings that we may not be aware of or wish to convey
- pictorial conventions that appeal to our sense of reasoning:
- iconography - representations contain icons; for example, 1548 woodcut in a German translation of Vitruvius' De architectura establishes fire as a symbol for the transition of human ancestors from brutes to civilized beings; icons are frequently repeated, function like stereotypes, and reduce information to its bare essentials; they communicate an idea immediately and effectively, but this idea is restricted by lack of explanation
- autonomy - representations have a life of their own; for example, 1585 painting of an ancient Pict by Jacques Le Moyne de Morgues exploits creative freedom at the expense of historical accuracy - based on an ambiguous piece of knowledge, its subject is lavished in decorative, detailed tattoos - this artistic choice might garner greater artistic success, but it came from the artist's imagination; creative afterthoughts like these go on to influence subsequent conceptions even though they are innacurate
- longevity - representations replicate and recycle aspects of earlier images; for example, 1616 engraving of ancient Germans by Philip Cluverius shows its 17th century audience something they are already familiar with; iconic images are extremely difficult to replace because they are usually visually successful and pre-constructed (thus, no extra work involved with creating something new)
- authenticity - representations incorporate as much detailed evidence as possible; for example, 1779 illustration of ancient Britons by Joseph Strutt aimed to correct previous inaccuracies by using meticulous detail and "composite reconstruction" (a wide range of ancestors in one scene); variety and realism create the illusion of authenticity
- singularity - representations depict a precise moment in time in order to convey some essence of what life was like in the past; for example, 1887 illustration in a book by Henri Cleuziou depicts an engaging and active "man vs. beast" theme; the problem with singularity is that it is limited to one view of the past - a lot is left out
- dramatism - representations have a long-lasting impact on the viewer; for example, 1888 painting of prehistoric France by Paul Jamin is constructed to shock and entertain its viewers by capturing aspects of human experience which cannot be captured using words; dramatism creates a sense of immediacy that attracts attention, regardless of the subject's origin; the problem with dramatism is that it reduces the importance of background props (usually important artifacts)
- persuasiveness - representations are full of familiar ideas that appeal to our sense of reason; for example, 1924 painting of ancient artists by Charles Knight portrays its subjects in a familiar "art studio" setting, despite the fact that there is no archaeological evidence to support it; in the attempt to create persuasive representations of the past, artists and archaeologists slot archeological evidence into familiar pictorial compositions
No comments:
Post a Comment