The Hominid Individual in Context: Archaeological Investigations of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Landscapes, Locales and Artefacts.

Editors: Clive Gamble and Martin Porr
London: Routledge, 2005
326pp.
ISBN 0-415-28433-3

Reviewed by Rebecca Wragg Sykes

References

The publication of this edited volume represents an attempt by Palaeolithic archaeologists to ‘catch up’ with their colleagues studying later periods, by demonstrating that not all people in this field are environmental determinists. It is high time a substantial work such as this has been brought forward to follow in the earlier steps that Gamble took with The Palaeolithic Societies of Europe (1999). Where that volume broke ground in acknowledging social practice in the Pleistocene and earlier, The Hominid Individual attempts to move a step further towards the current epistemological paradigm prevalent in much recent of archaeological discourse, through acknowledging the role of individuals as well as groups in shaping social relations, and affecting change (both socially and culturally).

The volume (the result of a session at the 1999 EAA conference) is a collection of 15 articles, including introductory (Gamble and Porr) and concluding (Dobres) chapters that discuss Palaeolithic spatial and artefactual data. Most of the papers have a clear goal in somehow ‘finding’ the individual in their work, and of these most are successful, although in varied ways. The Preface acknowledges that the aim of the book as a whole is not to simply ‘see’ individuals in the record, but also acknowledge their role as the source for social and economic life. It is also clearly stated that ‘Palaeolithic Pompeiis’ such as Boxgrove are not the only way to achieve this, and that the diverse approaches taken in the volume are entirely appropriate for the varied contexts discussed. However some papers, although well written and interesting, seem somehow out of place, failing these aspirations of the Editors by simply noting that individuals were present.

Gamble and Porr’s introductory piece is a fitting review of the development of epistemological approaches within the Palaeolithic, and to some extent, why it has remained a step behind in archaeological discourse. Many topics are covered, such as thinking in terms of practice rather than behaviour to avoid reductionist perspectives, are nothing new in theoretical terms, but it is refreshing to have this discussed with explicit reference to the particular challenges that apply to the Palaeolithic record, such as temporal resolution. This chapter alone should be mandatory reading for students intending to specialise in Palaeolithic archaeology: nowhere else is this perspective so clearly outlined by heavyweight scholars. There are some previous studies of these issues, but it is the mainstream accessibility of this chapter and entire volume that is important.

The most intellectually challenging (but ultimately rewarding) paper is by Field, and represents an admirable attempt to discuss the potential for other ways of being in the Palaeolithic through the concept of dividuality. I felt that the text is somewhat dense, and a previous knowledge of aspects of social theory certainly helps in following it. I also felt a little let down by the case studies, in that they did not appear to directly support the presence of dividuality. A better title for the chapter might have been ‘Transformations in identity’. However this paper was the most advanced in its discussion and explanation of the approach used; some of the other papers did not include such detail which in my opinion creates the impression of a limited grasp of the theoretical issues.

Other papers were successful in providing methodological and analytically useful approaches to using the kind of data available for the less spectacular Palaeolithic sites that make up the majority of the record. Gowlett’s chapter suggests that statistical manipulations of morphometrics can be used to outline idiosyncrasies in biface manufacture, pointing towards individuals practising within as well as subverting structures of knowledge. The chapter by Sinclair and McNabb runs along similar lines. and argues for the presence of differing aspects of identity between the ESA and MSA assemblages from the Cave of Hearths based on the presence of standardisation and performance of technical skills.

More disappointing were the chapters by Mania and Mania, and Thieme. Despite being well-written summaries of these flagship sites, the chapters failed to engage with the general theme of the book, i.e. a focus on the individual, and felt more like a simple opportunity to publish an extended account of the archaeology in English (previously being predominantly available in German). Thieme’s concluding speculations about ‘taboos’ on spear use and horses’ souls seemed even less appropriate given the attempts of the other authors to construct possibilities within theoretically-supported frameworks. Mania and Mania underline evidence of intentional placement of bones and lithics at Bilzingsleben, but become bogged down in ascribing cognitive significance to linear incisions on bone fragments, which might have proved interesting if explored at a deeper level than simply stating that they are proof of existence of language.

The theme of engraved lines is also found in the chapter by Henshilwood and d’Errico, discussing the famous ochres from Blombos cave, however here it is dealt with more imaginatively. The authors explore this through analysing the gestures needed to create the engraving and they suggest that they were likely to be symbolic representations, reproduced by individuals following a learned repertoire of movements. They also deal with artefact innovations, a significant aspect of the assemblage at Blombos. While they have to defer conclusions about the origin of innovations, due to the temporal resolution in the sequence, the relevance of this issue to the question of the emergence of modern cognitive capacities is examined.

Hosfield’s chapter is overtly concerned with scales of analysis, and how one might be able to discern the impact of individuals as agents (‘generic individuals’) in palimpsest data, which amounts to the vast majority of Palaeolithic artefacts, whether in cave assemblages in gravel deposits. Drawing upon the notion of ‘tacking’ from one scale of data/inference to another, previously proposed by Gamble (1996) as a method for approaching Palaeolithic palimpsests, and combining this with work by Shennan on cultural transmission, Hosfield links the levels of innovation present to the social conditions created by small group sizes.

Petraglia, Shipton and Paddayya also discuss the problems of scales of analysis, noting that this is reflected in a lack of communication between evolutionary and social theorists, despite the potential for studying similar concepts such as context-driven behaviour. By examining different scale sites within a single basin including a high-resolution quarry at Isampur, they discuss the technological choices and abilities of the hominins, within a situation of social learning. Petraglia et al then use the data to explore knowledge of landscape and the structuring of space within the quarry that implies the co-presence of individual knappers and separate areas for different stages of reduction. They also fix social learning within the entire lifespan of individuals, showing its basic ontological presence, and suggest that rather than using the individual as the smallest unit of analysis, social learning would be a more productive ‘dimension’.

Porr focuses on a much smaller scale, looking at handaxes, and explicates their style within socially learned and mediated power relations; essentially seeing them as material expression of social structures that previous to their appearance existed solely through individual interactions. He uses as social analogues not ethnographic examples of modern humans but chimpanzees, an approach which is just as appropriate for examining the role of individuals in social interaction. Moreover he underlines the presence of style in gesture and practice (‘dynamic style’), suggesting that the making of the handaxes may have been the socially significant act rather than their final use, as a reaction to the new social tensions created by frequent access to meat from hunting or scavenging carcasses.

Another chapter focusing on dynamics but at a landscape level concerns Boxgrove (Roberts and Pope). This is a re-examination of the enormously rich spatial data from what is probably (and justifiably) the most famous Lower Palaeolithic site in Europe. Although the basic patterning has been published elsewhere (Pope, 2004), the discussion follows more detailed lines. Evidence of structured discard of bifaces is present, suggesting that context is important in shaping action. This view is extended generally to the Lower Palaeolithic. Roberts and Pope also concentrate on tranchet sharpening as a particular feature of the Boxgrove bifaces, and suggest it is related to the tension between mobility and availability of lithic affordances. They conclude with a consideration of whether the previous use of locales, evidenced by discarded lithics, would itself have created a response in hominins, imparting information and reinforcing the structure of individuals’ actions.

Structuration theory is used by Hopkinson and White to explore the variety (or lack thereof) of Acheulean ‘projects for living’ in Europe. They describe the long-term apparent continuity in not only the lithic technocomplex of the Acheulean for which the Palaeolithic is famous, but also the settlement patterning it is associated with. They suggest this shows a preference for stable environments with high resource-proximity as a buffer against the frequent climatic oscillations of the Pleistocene. This stasis is explained as stemming from a different dynamic present in Lower Palaeolithic social structure, with individuals not appearing to challenge the ‘norms’ of their lives, with any innovation less ‘readily institutionalised’, though not because of a cognitive deficiency. The restricted scale of Acheulean lived lives is invoked: due to remaining in their preferred environments, they have fewer possibilities for encountering new people and ideas.

Adler and Conard’s chapter incorporates a landscape approach that is interested in diachronic variability in hominid movements, using the concept of the landscape of habit. Through following the ‘trail’ of individual knappers across the site at Wallertheim, mapped against a background scatter attesting to the passage of others across the area previously. The raw material evidence suggests small-scale activities, with the maintenance of this territory structuring social actions taking place within it. Contrasting with this is an overlying pattern of occasional long-distance movements, perhaps seasonally. However, they acknowledge the difficulty in correlating the behaviour of individuals we can observe with that apparent at larger demographic scales, and suggest ‘tacking’ as the solution.

Perhaps the most successful paper is focused not on the more prevalent topic of lithics, but faunal data. Gamble and Gaudzinski’s chapter is a satisfying approach to exploring individually negotiated actions using a ‘relational, rather than rational’ approach (at a locale and landscape level) through the concepts of fragmentation and accumulation of carcasses. It is also a well-argued discussion of why the archaeological record, including that of the Palaeolithic is fundamentally social in nature. The chapter is a powerful reminder of the way we should conceive the experience of Palaeolithic people’s lives:

People are related to the world and everything in that world. They are not detached from it and playing games against it. pp 161

Using this perspective at Salzgitter-Lebenstedt they argue for consumption over fragmentation, suggesting a low level of enchainement across the landscape between individuals.

The concluding chapter is an articulate comment by Dobres. She clearly supports the aims of the volume, and emphasises a point missing from the other papers, that the individual (micro-scale) analysis now possible is of a unique meaningfulness, both for understanding the past on its own terms (the experience of hominins living their lives) but also for the relevance of archaeology to the rest of the modern world. She also underlines that the kind of questions and approaches used are entirely rigorous and legitimate for Palaeolithic archaeology to consider, and that it is feasible to find empirical evidence of individual actions from hundreds if not thousands of generations ago, even within coarse, palimpsest data. But Dobres also emphasises that there is still some way to go in developing methodologies for understanding how individual action fitted into their social milieu, and how this translates to the large scale changes AND stasis we see in the record in terms of technology or sociality. Fitting individuals in to a materialist paradigm is not enough: we need to explain how ’everyday material praxis was a feature in …social reproduction… as well as a likely arena of social change’.

A logical point made by Gamble and Gaudzinksi underlines the obvious potential for a social archaeology of the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic: that if activities such as hunting (and indeed knapping flint) are generally acknowledged as relational (i.e. co-operative and socially based), then why can this approach not be extended to the products of these practices, the lithic artefacts and carcass pieces that are moved around the landscape? This then allows us to discuss the sociality and cultural environment of the period, using individuals as the agents, in a landscape without the ‘social beacons’ found in later periods such as cave art, villages and monuments.

As Palaeolithic archaeologists, we are sometimes asked - in ignorance or jest - whether we study dinosaurs. At least we can now point to this volume as defence against comments from our archaeological colleagues that we are not theoretical dinosaurs ourselves.

References

Gamble, C.S. 1996 Hominid Behaviour in the Middle Pleistocene: an English Perspective. In C.S. Gamble and A.J Lawson (eds) The English Palaeolithic Reviewed. Salisbury: Trust for Wessex Archaeology pp 63-71

Gamble, C.S. 1999 Palaeolithic Societies of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Pope, M. 2004 Behavioural implications of biface discard: assemblage variability and land-use at the Middle Pleistocene site of Boxgrove. In Lithics in Action E. Walker, F. Wenban-Smith, F. Healy (eds) Oxford: Oxbow pp. 38-47

The Reviewer

Rebecca Wragg Sykes is a Doctoral student at the University of Sheffield researching Neanderthals in Britain through lithic technology and human mobility in the landscape. She studies under the supervision of Paul Pettitt. Any comments can be forwarded to r.wraggsykes@shef.ac.uk

© Wragg Sykes 2006
© assemblage 2006

Top issue 9 contents assemblage home

assemblage - the Sheffield graduate journal of archaeology
Research School of Archaeology and Archaeological Sciences
University of Sheffield
2 Mappin Street
Sheffield S1 4DT
Tel: (0114) 222 5102 Fax: (0114) 272 7347

Valid XHTML 1.0!