Paleolithic Art: Ecological Interpretations Mithen's

Paleolithic Art: Ecological Interpretations Mithen's ecological approach The argument that Steve Mithen puts forward in "Ecological interpretations of Paleolithic Art" ( 1996) is convincing on a number to levels. In essence he extends the definition and understanding of the concept of ecological archeology and suggests a more comprehensive and less limited view of ecological research and methodology. Mithen posits the following cogent argument at the beginning of his article.

He states that on the one hand it is seemingly absurd to reduce an understanding and interpretation of the art of the Paleolithic era to "adaptations" and to conventional ecological interpretations. (Mithen, 1996, p.79) He states that, "Upper Paleolithic art is one of the great cultural achievements of humankind & #8230;so when faced with either the great bulls of Lascaux or just scratches on a broken pebble, surely it must be trivial to notions of adaptation and ecology?" (Mithen, 1996, p.

79) He however contradicts this rhetorical assertion with the view that ecology is in fact not a trivial or incidental perspective in the interpretation and understanding of ancient forms of art, culture and society. The stance that Mithen takes and which is discussed in the rest of the paper is that ecology and adaptation should not be seen or understood as aspects that have only a peripheral or limited bearing on our understanding of archeological research into forms of ancient culture.

He bases his argument on the stance that there is a "…mistaken view of what adaptation and ecology means in terms of art and archeological discovery and what adaptation from an ecological perspective actually entails'. (Mithen, 1996, p. 79) in this light he sets out to show in his paper that "…within an ecological framework & #8230; we can begin to understand the meaning of art and other forms of cultural activity in the Paleolithic." (Mithen, 1996, p.

79) The paper therefore suggests a re-definition and an extended version of the conventional notions about ecology and adaptation. In the first instance, Mithen defines ecology as having to do with "wholeness" and the context of "environment." (Mithen, 1996, p. 80) it is clear from the outset that what the author is suggesting in this insightful paper is a more holistic and inclusive understanding of the term ecology.

In term of archeological research and an archeological understanding of art, Mtihen believes that, "…an ecological approach is one that believes that art must be viewed as part of the whole set of thoughts and actions undertaken by the Paleolithic hunters." (Mithen, 1996, p.

80) in other words, using the ecological approach as Mithen conceives of it, cultural aspects and high art are placed in "context." The word context is extremely important as it suggests that the concept of ecology is to be understood as much more than just the relevance of the physical surroundings. Rather ecology is understood as being integral to the entire living milieu of the people of the time. As Mithen clearly states "…it is a misconception that this context is only the physical environment." (Mithen, 1996, p.

80) This is the central crux around which Mithen builds his argument for the value of an ecological approach in archeological interpretation In the sense that Mithen interprets ecology it refers to the connections between, for example, the social patterning in the culture and art creation and production. He directly links human adaptation to social interaction. Mithen expands on this view and envisages the term ecology as encompassing a wide web or network of interactions and relationships within the society.

In other words the ecological model is one that can be extremely useful in the interpretation of ancient cultural artifacts and creations. Mithen goes on to state that we can use the ecological models to understand the fact that there was no real division in Paleolithic culture between art, society and economy. He asserts that such distinctions are essentiality "artificial." (Mithen, 1996, p.

80) This stance tends to contradict to a certain extent other theoretical views, such as the Marxist mode of interpretation, where divisions in society are used as a basis of understanding and interpretation. In contrast, the ecological model that Mithen suggests is one that is extremely holistic and inclusive in its interactive intention. The author continually emphasizes the importance of understanding connections and interconnections between different aspects or parts of a culture and their significance in the interpretations of the archeological art.

To this end the author focuses on the theme of adaptation in an ecological sense. He tests this inclusive and holistic ecological model by looking at the two aspects of imagery and distribution and attempts to show how these two aspects are dependent on one another. The author stresses the holistic and integrative aspects of archeological research and interpretation: "…an 'ecological interpretation of Paleolithic art' is one that seeks to take a holistic view of Paleolithic society." (Mithen, 1996, p.

80) in other words, the art of this age is interpreted in terms of the varied and intricate interconnections with the other aspects of society, culture and environment in general, which can also possibly have an impact on the plethora of questions surrounding the art. This view of archeological research is both inclusive and comprehensive and provides a platform for an insightful and productive methodology in the field of archeological inquiry.

Within the ambit of his this framework Mithen investigates the interactions between aspects such as the economy and art and between technology and art. The benefit of this method is that art become a locus or a focal point that is not exclusive and biased in any sense but rather sheds light on the other aspects of the culture and society, and vice versa. Furthermore, in focusing on the adaptive approach in archeological ecology, Mithen discusses the repertoire of collective social response related to adaptation. 2.

Discussion and comparisons There is little argument with the way that Mithen understands and presents ecology and its relationship to context. The links that he makes for example between social patterning, social interaction and ecology are very clear and insightful.

But is it possible that this definition of ecology and adaptation is too wide and loosely conceived? Is it not biased in a sense towards integrative aspects and does it not avoid the possibilities of socials stratifications and demarcations as aspects of archeological interpretation? The view that is presented in Mithen's article also has antecedents and support from similar research. Flannery and Marcus (1976) and Rappaport (1971) also discuss how symbolism and ritual can be seen as part of the larger human ecology.

The expanded view of ecology that Mithen suggests can also be seen as part of evolutionary archeology. However, as one critic notes there are differences between Mithen's view and evolutionary psychology. Mithen's approach "…attends to all facts of ancient life - art, religion, economy - and does not divorce cognition from the rest of society." (Hodder & Hutson, 2003, p. 40) it is essentially an interdisciplinary approach which is characterized by a "...rather progressive understanding of adaptation which takes into account individual decision-making and the importance of creativity." (Hodder & Hutson, 2003, p.

40) There are in some sharp differences in a comparison between this approach to archeology and more materialistic and structured views such as the Marxist theoretical stance. This refers to interpretations based on the assumption of tensions that may have existed in the societies. These tensions and disparities in Marxist terms are related to class and groups interests and to the differences between forces and the means of production in those societies.

Therefore Faris ( 1983) suggests that "… in the Upper Palaeolithic in Europe men appropriated the products of the labour of women and maintained a position of dominance at the expense of women." (Hodder & Hutson, 2003, p. 76). It is from this perspective that aspects such as art are interpreted. It is also from this stance that Faris analyses apparent disparities between and mobiliary and parietal art. In this analysis, parietal art mainly "…depicts big game animals which require a lot of skill in hunting.

The art itself is skilled and must have involved considerable effort, including the construction of scaffolding in some places." (Hodder & Hutson, 2003, p. 81) Faris points out that many aspects that were common in the society and environment, such as plants and small animals are not depicted in this art. This implies a bias towards certain male -- centered forms of importance and production. This view is augmented by the fact that female figures are also misrepresented in terms of reality.

In this form of mobiliary art, "….it is the mid-body sexual and reproductive parts that are emphasized at the expense of arms and facial features - the image is not of a working body." (Hodder & Hutson, 2003, p. 81) Faris therefore suggests that in general in the art of this period it is the male group and their associated activities and predilections.