Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T14:02:02.603Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comment on Mithen's Ecological Interpretation of Palaeolithic Art

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2014

G. A. Clark
G. A. Clark*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-2402, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Steven Mithen's ‘Ecological Interpretations of Palaeolithic Art’ (PPS 57, 103–14) reminded me of a Chinese meal — initially satisfying, but it doesn't stick with you for very long. While I subscribe to broadly similar paradigmatic biases at the level of the metaphysic, the ‘thoughtful forager’ model itself, proposed to relate various aspects of the art under the aegis of a particular kind of adaptationist perspective, seems to be conceptually muddled and operationally problematic. Also, Mithen's starting-point, the notion of an inherent contradiction between human creativity and an adaptationist point of view, is a red herring—wherever did he get it?! I will confine these brief remarks to three points that bear on different conceptions of adaptation and how they effect construals of pattern and the meaning of pattern in Palaeolithic art. I also respond to referees' comments.

Mithen takes me, Straus and Gamble to task for omitting the individual and individual decision-making in our conceptions of adaptation (pp. 104, 105). A conception of adaptation that is focused on the group is juxtaposed with one invoking selection operating at the level of the individual organism in a direct analogy with group vs. individual selection in biological evolution.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 58 , Issue 1 , 1992 , pp. 107 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Altuna, J. 1983. On the relationship between archaeo-faunas and parietal art in the caves of the Cantabrian region. In Clutton-Brock, J. & Grigson, C. (eds), Animals and Archaeology 1: Hunters and their Prey, 227–38. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.Google Scholar
Bahn, P. 1991. Review of Thoughtful Foragers: A Study of Prehistoric Decision Making (S. Mithen). Antiquity 65, 158–62.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1981. Bones: Ancient Men andModern Myths. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Clark, G. A. 1991. Epilogue: paradigms, realism, adaptation and evolution. In Clark, G.A. (ed.), Perspectives on the Past: Theoretical Biases in Mediterranean Hunter-Gatherer Research, 411–39. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinde, R. A. 1991. A biologist looks at anthropology. Man 26, 583–605.Google Scholar
Jochim, M. 1983. Paleolithic cave art in ecological perspective. In Bailey, G. (ed.), Hunter-Gatherer Economy in Prehistory, 212–19. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mithen, S. 1990. Thoughtful Foragers: A Study of Prehistoric Decision Making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mithen, S. 1991. Ecological interpretations of palaeolithic art. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 57, 103–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Straus, L. 1991. Human geography in the late Upper Paleolithic in western Europe. Journal of Anthropological Research 47, 259–78.Google Scholar
Wiessner, P. 1983. Style and social information in Kalahari San projectile points. American Antiquity 48, 253–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiessner, P. 1985. Style and isochrestic variation? A reply to Sackett. American Antiquity 50, 160–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiessner, P. 1990. Is there a unity to style? In Conkey, M. & Hastorf, C. (eds), The Uses of Style in Archaeology, 102–15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wobst, J. M. 1977. Stylistic behaviour and information exchange. In Cleland, C. (ed.), Papers for the Director: Research Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin, 317–42. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology.Google Scholar