K.M. Price:

ONE VISION, ONE FAITH, ONE WOMAN: DOROTHY GARROD AND THE CRYSTALLISATION OF

K.M. Price

Centre for the of Human Origins, School of Humanities (Archaeology), Avenue Campus, University of Southampton, SO17 1BF, UK. Contact email: [email protected] ______

ABSTRACT

Dorothy Garrod is considered a pioneer of the development of early prehistoric archaeology. She was an advocate of prehistory on a global scale, excavating over a wide geographical area and making connections between continents to achieve her vision. Garrod‘s work strongly contributed to the development of prehistoric archaeology as a defined subject in its own right. Garrod was renowned as a field archaeologist, continuing to research and excavate up until her death in 1968. It is her excavations at for which she is most famous, through which she contributed towards the foundation of the chronology of the prehistory of the , the basis of which remains to this day. Garrod was the first women to be appointed to the Disney Chair of Archaeology at the , subsequently training the next generation of prehistoric archaeologists and lecturers who took prehistory out into the World. Garrod was not herself keen to be thought a feminist figurehead but today she is considered a pioneer within the disciplines of the Archaeology of Women and Gender Archaeology, providing inspiration even today. As a committed Catholic throughout her life, Garrod‘s humility, thoughtfulness and gentleness is evident within her work and no doubt provided her with strength throughout her extensive career.

Full reference: Price, K.M. 2009. One vision, one faith, one woman: Dorothy Garrod and the crystallisation of prehistory. In R. Hosfield, F.F. Wenban-Smith & M. Pope (eds.) Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Special Volume 30 of Lithics: The Journal of the Lithic Studies Society): 163–183. Lithic Studies Society, London.

Keywords: Dorothy Garrod, prehistoric archaeology, world prehistory, Levant, , SW Asia, Middle Palaeolithic, Upper Palaeolithic, Natufian, , religion in archaeology, Cambridge University

INTRODUCTION forward-thinking prehistoric archaeologists was born: Dorothy Annie Elizabeth Garrod. One hundred and fifty years since Prestwich and Evans‘ breaking of the ‗time barrier‘ Dorothy Garrod first became interested in (Gamble & Kruszynski 2009), and the archaeology after the First World War during publication of On the Origin of Species by her time in where her father, Sir Charles Darwin, prehistoric archaeology is Archibald Garrod, a prominent physician, now a subject to be studied in its own right, had been stationed during the war as director and taught in universities throughout the of war hospitals (Champion 1998: 187; Clark world. Thirty-three years after the revelation 1999: 401). Having already obtained a in the northern French quarry, one of the History degree from Cambridge University most respected, influential, inspiring and in 1916 (Davies 1999a: 1), on her return to

163

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

Britain she enrolled at University in concept of inter-disciplinary work in teams 1921, and gained a distinction in the and her publications throughout her career Archaeology Diploma in 1922 under the testify to this. Garrod‘s dedication to direction of Professor R.R. Marett (Davies fieldwork highlights her awareness of the 1999a: 2). Following this she travelled to value of first-hand experience of a range of to study for two years with the Abbé archaeological material, and the need to Breuil at the Institut de Paleontologié validate and test old hypotheses, and Humaine, (Clark 1999: 402; Roberts formulate new ones in the light of 1995: 203). Garrod had first met Breuil developing evidence. Through her quest to while studying for her Oxford diploma expand prehistory and increase the wealth of (Davies 1999a: 2), and he became her the archaeological record, she was the first to lifelong mentor, colleague and friend consider looking for, and subsequently find, (though their relationship would cool open-air sites in the Levant somewhat towards the end of Breuil‘s life). (Ronen et al. 1999). Her development of a Garrod‘s training and experience in France worldwide prehistory also included her under Breuil provided her with confidence, a British homeland (especially at the start of firm basis in archaeological excavations, her career), where her research brought the prehistory, the analysis of stone artefacts, Upper Palaeolithic of Britain into a broader and no doubt fuelled her mind with ideas. research framework for the first time (Garrod 1926, nd). Garrod was a highly respected Dorothy Garrod first came to prominence pioneer female archaeologist, though with her excavation of the Devil‘s Tower, reluctant to be considered as one, and in her , in 1925, and at the end of her day-to-day interactions with others showed career was still involved in active research in great humility, perhaps a result of her and France, until her death in 1968. commitment to her Catholic faith. During her forty-five years as a prehistoric archaeologist, she contributed extensively to This paper examines her major contributions the development of early prehistory, lithic in piecing together the picture of early research and exerted much influence within prehistory from the archaeological evidence the archaeological community. In the last and also considers Garrod‘s less obvious decade, inspired partly by the rediscovery of contributions and the endurance of her her archives at the Musée des Antiquités legacy, through her work in the development Nationales, St. Germain-en-Laye, her of world prehistory, her faith, and her interests and legacy have begun to be re- influence in the role of women within explored (Davies & Charles 1999). It is only archaeology. fitting once more that she be included in a volume that commemorates the birth of the subject she contributed to so extensively. DOROTHY GARROD AND THE ADVENT OF A WORLD PREHISTORY Garrod‘s interests lay in chronology and the spatial distribution of the archaeological Dorothy Garrod advocated a worldwide evidence, though in the formulation of her approach to prehistory, taking prehistory ideas and the piecing together of prehistory beyond Europe, and excavated throughout she was frustrated by the limitations of the her career across a large geographical area. archaeological record of the time. She This perhaps is her most important and contributed extensively to increasing the significant contribution to piecing together archaeological record through her numerous the fundamentals of early prehistory. excavations that were designed to explore Through her worldwide approach, Garrod her global perspective on the Palaeolithic. highlighted south-west Asia as an important Through these, Garrod developed the area for prehistoric research, developed a

164

K.M. Price: Dorothy Garrod framework of chronology for Levantine considered within a larger theoretical and prehistory — the basis of which is still in geographical framework. In his biography of existence today (Belfer-Cohen & Bar-Yosef Garrod, Clark (1999: 410) attests to the fact 1999) — and investigated connections that Garrod was one of those most between and within continents and cultures, responsible for the emergence of a world significantly contributing to a re-definition prehistory. Garrod‘s commitment to a world of the Upper Palaeolithic industries of prehistory can be seen through her many Europe (Davies 1999b). Garrod introduced publications which consider the available the terms ‗Châtelperronian‘ and ‗‘ archaeological evidence on a far-reaching to replace Breuil‘s ‗Lower Aurignacian‘ and scale (e.g. Garrod 1938, 1953 & 1965). ‗Upper Aurignacian‘ respectively, and even though today Garrod‘s terms are applied on During her time as Disney Professor at more of a localized scale than they were in Cambridge following the Second World 1936, the name and of these two War, Garrod introduced a module on World industries remain part of the Upper Prehistory (Clark 1989: 91), perhaps Palaeolithic sequence to this day (ibid). unsurprising given that she was also the first Through her extensive excavations, Garrod prehistorian to hold the chair. She expanded extended the analytical framework for the existing module to include territories Europe. She shed light on flaws in lithic outside France and Europe, where previously analysis by cementing the obsoleteness of de it had been essentially French in character Mortillet‘s classification scheme (Roberts (ibid). Such a development must have been 1995: 221), breaking away from a seen as intrinsic to the development of Eurocentric classification though her prehistory and archaeology as a whole: Levantine lithic analysis (Davies 1999b: Trigger (2006: 383) records this very event 271) and upholding the position that the in his History of Archaeological Thought. It labels Lower, Middle and Upper Palaeolithic was so important to Dorothy Garrod that should only be used as a chronological students should travel and visit markers, rather than simply to infer typology archaeological sites that she bequeathed (Garrod 1938: 2). Garrod also developed money for a fund to provide travel grants to new fieldwork methods and practices, Cambridge students, especially if they were pioneering a woman workforce at the El- travelling abroad (Roberts 1995: 226). This Wad excavations in Palestine (Callander & fund still exists today in the form of the Smith 2007), and she was the first to Dorothy Garrod Travel Fund. incorporate aerial photography into her excavations (Anderson 2001). Dorothy Garrod as a Worldwide Excavator Breuil and Garrod were the first prehistorians to consider prehistory on a Garrod, first and foremost, was an excavator, global scale, most importantly by extensive assisting with, and directing, excavations travel and excavations throughout the world, from the very beginning to the very end of and to a lesser extent through familiarization her career, spending a total of nearly 5 years with the literature (Davies 1999b: 263). actively engaged in the field. Garrod Garrod was the first of the two to extend excavated over a wider geographical area prehistory firmly beyond Europe. Research than any of her contemporaries, and her was at this time being undertaken outside specialism was not limited to a specific Europe, though such excavations were country but extended over continents. She confined to limited areas, for example excavated over twenty three sites in seven , in 1921 (Lanpo et al. countries, across two continents: in Britain, 1990) and Taung, in 1924 (Dart France, Gibraltar, , Anatolia, 1925). These excavations were not Palestine, and Lebanon (Table 1). As

165

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

Davies (1999b: 266) rightly informs us, it is the results obtained increase the quality of the geographical range of her practical the end results. The combined efforts of expertise which makes her work significant. Petraglia (Petraglia et al. 2007, 2008; Petraglia & Allchin 2007; Petraglia & Rose Today, specialisation of a particular 2009) and Rose (2004, 2007; Rose & Bailey geographical area is the norm, as is the 2008) take in research across two continents, comparison of archaeological material on a Africa and Asia, including the Arabian large scale. It is rare to find teams of Peninsula, while addressing one of the archaeologists following in Garrod‘s archaeological questions that concerned footsteps and excavating across more than Dorothy Garrod, the emergence of Homo one continent, though where this is occurring sapiens. it is evident that the practical experience and

Year Country Site Notes 1923–1934 France Assisted Henri Martin France Isturitz Assisted Saint-Perier France Correzi Assisted Bouyssonie 1924 Britain Torbryan Valley, Devon Initial exploration of a series of sites 1925–1926 Gibraltar Devil‘s Tower Mousterian artefacts and burials uncovered 1927 Britain Langwith Cave, Derbyshire Exploration of the cave; discovered scanty (late Upper Palaeolithic) remains, heavily disturbed 1928 Palestine Shukba, Wady en Natuf, W. Judaea identified 1928 Iraq Kirkuk, S. Kurdistan Mousterian 1928 Iraq Hazar Merd, S. Kurdistan Mousterian 1928 Iraq Zarzi, S. Kurdistan Late Upper Palaeolithic 1929–1933 Palestine El-Wad, Mount Carmel Middle Palaeolithic, and Natufian 1930 Palestine El-Kebara, Mount Carmel Garrod dug a small test trench in this cave. Turville Petre directed the 1931 excavations. Neanderthal burials in abundance. 1929–1934 Palestine Tabun, Mount Carmel Middle and Upper Palaeolithic 1932 Palestine Es-Skhul Mousterian burials 1935 Palestine Atlit quarries Survey

1938 Anatolia Reconnaissance Proposed excavations met with resistance, so went to Bulgaria instead 1938 Bulgaria Bacho Kiro Szeletoid Late 1940s France Fontéchevade Assisted Henri Martin 1948–1963 France Angles-sur-l‘Angin With de Saint-Mathurin 1958 Lebanon Abri Zumoffen Upper Palaeolithic rock shelter 1959–1960 Lebanon Ras el-Kelb Mousterian Cave 1963 Lebanon Bezez Cave Middle and Upper Palaeolithic

Table 1: A comprehensive list and brief description of Garrod‘s excavations

Though primarily a research excavator, two Haifa harbour (Roberts 1995: 207), and, in of the sites which Dorothy Garrod excavated 1959, excavations at the Mousterian cave could also be considered ‗rescue site of Ras el-Kelb, Lebanon were carried archaeology‘. Excavations at Mount Carmel out in advance of a new autoroute to extend only began in earnest due to their threat of though the headland on which the cave was being quarried away in order to build the situated (Copeland 1999: 154). It must be

166

K.M. Price: Dorothy Garrod noted however, that once the archaeological evidence are evident throughout her career, significance of Mount Carmel was and led her to assess these important established, it was never quarried. The myth attributes throughout the Levant and Europe, still perpetuates that only commercial allowing discussion of population archaeology is involved in ‗rescue movements and cultural influence between archaeology‘, whereas the research sector is groups (Garrod 1953; Davies 1999b). She blessed by an infinite amount of time and did not, however, much consider spatial money (Coelho 2009). Many ‗research distributions at the intra-site scale, perhaps excavations‘ today are indeed ‗rescue with the exception of her Natufian sites excavations‘ in disguise. Research (Garrod 1957). excavations investigating modern humans in Southern at the site of Jwalapuram are Pioneering the Chronology of Levantine constantly under threat due to ash mining Prehistory (Haslam & Petraglia 2009). ‗Rescue archaeology‘ emphatically affects In 1929, Garrod agreed to direct the cave archaeology both commercial and research. excavations at Wadi el-Mughara, Mount It is impossible to imagine what the Carmel, Palestine as a joint venture between archaeological record would have looked the British School of Archaeology in like had Dorothy Garrod not excavated at Jerusalem and the American School of Mount Carmel. Prehistoric Research (Roberts 1995: 207; Figure 1). Clark (1989: 46) notes that the It is important to mention Garrod‘s first decision to excavate ―…proved to be one of internationally-renowned excavations at the the most productive research projects ever Devil‘s Tower, Gibraltar, between 1925– mounted in Palaeolithic studies‖. 1926, as this firmly established her reputation as a prehistoric archaeologist In total, excavations were carried out in four (Davies 1999: 3). It was the discovery of over a period of almost twenty two Mousterian individuals at Garrod‘s site in months, over seven seasons, recording an Gibraltar and at Turville-Petre‘s Zuttiyeh almost unbroken Palaeolithic succession cave near the Sea of Galilee that had led from the end of the Lower Palaeolithic to the Grant MacCurdy to consider the Mesolithic, firmly placing the prehistory of geographical extent of the Neanderthal Palestine on the archaeological map (Roberts Mousterian in south-west Asia (Roberts 1995: 208). Garrod classified and analysed 1995: 205; Clark 1999: 403). This ultimately all 92,000 artefacts (Caton-Thompson 1969: led to one of the most prolific series of 348; Clark 1999: 404). excavations to occur in the history of prehistory, which Dorothy Garrod was to The results from Mount Carmel were direct as part of an Anglo-American unprecedented. Garrod recognised the collaboration: Wadi el-Mughara, Mount presence of local forms which seemed Carmel. The series of over twelve excavation indigenous to the area and were not seasons discovered over thirteen individual encountered in Europe (Belfer-Cohen & Bar- Neanderthal and modern human burials, Yosef 1999: 121). Garrod ascribed them new thousands of stone tools ranging from the names, and noted that some cases resembled Middle Palaeolithic to the Mesolithic and African artefacts (ibid). Through this, laid the foundation of the prehistoric foundations for the Levantine prehistoric sequence for south-west Asia (Garrod & sequence were established (Boyd 1999: 209). Bate 1937). The chronology for the prehistory of the Levant has inevitably altered through time, Garrod‘s interests in chronology and the but it is Garrod‘s groundbreaking research in spatial distributions of the archaeological Palestine, combined with that of Rene

167

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

Figure 1: Dorothy Garrod (third from the left) with Powers and P. Levy, Palestine 1928. [Pit Rivers Museum, ; PRM 1998.294.154]

Neuville‘s in Palestine and ‘s in typological change in Mousterian industries , that provides the basis of the throughout the Middle Palaeolithic, Levantine prehistoric sequence that exists preferring to rely on biostratigraphic changes today (Belfer-Cohen & Bar-Yosef 1999; as more of a reliable marker than the Boyd 1999). presence or absence of a particular type of artefact (Hovers 2009: 12). Bordes was Through the Levantine evidence, Garrod correct in considering that different dismissed once and for all the idea of a technologies could be in use simultaneously, Eurocentric prehistory in which all evidence though it is Garrod‘s theories and thinking could ultimately be tied into the French data, that have stood the test of time and research firmly establishing prehistory outside and form the basis of the Levantine France. Garrod disagreed with French chronology today (Belfer-Cohen & Bar- theoreticians, and especially with Bordes Yosef 1999). during the 1950s and 1960s (Hovers 2009: 12). Bordes advocated on typological Making Connections and Re-defining the grounds that different technological Upper Palaeolithic of Europe traditions could have been present at the same time, based on the patterns in Garrod emphasised a concentration on the Levallois-Mousterian material resulting from details and relationships of ‗cultures‘, the process of branching evolution over time realising that interpretations of the past (ibid.), and recognised Mousterian depended on the patterning within the assemblages based on a fixed typology of available evidence (Davies 1999: 263). As a tool types (Bordes 1961; Prior 1977). result of applying this to her Levantine However, Garrod believed in a linear path of research, it subsequently led Garrod to re-

168

K.M. Price: Dorothy Garrod define the nature of the European sequence. coherent understanding of the archaeological evidence. Garrod coined the term ‗Chatelperronian‘ to replace Breuil‘s ‗Lower Aurignacian‘ and Garrod‘s publication remained the only ‗Gravettian‘ in preference to his ‗Upper monograph on the subject for half a century Aurignacian‘ for the European sequence in (Jacobi 1999: 35); it was used as the starting 1936 (Davies 1999: 266), and applied them point for the doctoral thesis of Grahame in subsequent publications (Garrod 1938). Clark (Clark 1989: 53), and even today The geographical distribution of these remains an important introduction to the industries has narrowed in light of new subject (Swainston 1999: 41). For this evidence (Davies 1999: 266), but they are pioneering book Garrod received a BSc from still identified today as an established part of Oxford University (Davies 1999a: 2), which the sequence of the Early Upper Palaeolithic serves to highlight the importance attached industries of Britain. In her 1938 paper, to this research at the time of publication. Garrod (1938) made connections between During the late 1950s/early 1960s Garrod ‗cultures‘ across Europe, the Middle and updated her views on the British , and North Africa, with her new Palaeolithic, revisiting the evidence from industries firmly in place, and proposed that and Kent‘s Cavern as well as such blade cultures developed outside incorporating the results from McBurney‘s Europe (Garrod 1938: 3). This could be seen excavations in Wales. However, as this as emphasising a global view of prehistory, document was kept in St. Germain-en-Lave and highlighting the inappropriateness of a and not published, it was only her original Eurocentric attitude. Garrod argued that thoughts on the British Palaeolithic in 1926 connections should be made where that were prevalent. appropriate, unnecessary typological splits should not be made, while real differences if The Upper Palaeolithic of Britain was present should be reflected in the Dorothy Garrod‘s first serious publication of terminology used (Garrod 1937). Garrod‘s her career. In this publication the direction of viewpoints differed from those of Bordes her thoughts, which evolve in later (see above) and to an extent from her mentor publications, become apparent; in the Breuil; Garrod gives consideration in her summary of the book, Garrod begins to make 1953 paper to the possibility of convergence tentative links between the collected data, in tool form, while Breuil argues for and that of the French archaeological record evolution within tool types (Davies 1999b: (Garrod 1926). Throughout the book she 271). followed Breuil‘s lithic classification (Roberts 1995: 218), as this was the accepted Dorothy Garrod‘s research in the British classification at the time, and her Palaeolithic culminated in the publication of background to date was firmly within the The Upper Palaeolithic of Britain in 1926. prehistory of France. However, Garrod was This publication was the first to address the already issuing warnings about the continued Upper Palaeolithic of Britain on a national usefulness of the de Mortillet-Breuil scheme scale, and the first serious study on Upper for regions beyond western Europe: Palaeolithic lithic research in Britain, enabling the wealth of information to be ―…we can no more expect the classification accessed worldwide. The book is significant of Gabriel de Mortillet to hold good over the as it signals an important step in the Palaeolithic world than we could expect the advancement of lithic research. Through geological strata of a whole continent to be Garrod‘s dedication, the scattered pieces of everywhere at the same time…‖ the British Upper Palaeolithic were bought (Garrod 1926: 194) together to enable, for the first time, a

169

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

Within this publication Garrod considered Regardless of subsequent criticism, it the British variant of the classic achieved its intentions: to be distinct enough from the rest of Europe as to warrant its own name (Roberts 1999: ―…A general survey of the Upper 21): Palaeolithic in Britain shows that in spite of scanty material and imperfect records it is ―…I propose tentatively ‗Creswellian‘, since possible to distinguish some kind of outline, Creswell Crags is the station in which it is which, incomplete in itself, may yet serve as found in greatest abundance and variety…‖ a basis for future work in this field…‖ (Garrod 1926: 194) (Garrod 1926: 191)

What constitutes the ‗Creswellian‘ today has It was Garrod‘s knowledge, experience and been revised and now refers to, in a British skill in her fieldwork methods and lithic context, only to the Late Magdalenian-style analysis that led her to pioneer the industry (Jacobi 1991). Garrod‘s Creswellian chronology of the Levant, re-define the has been a part of the British Upper European sequence, and synthesise the Palaeolithic industries for over eighty years, British material. Her skill as a lithic expert is only recently questioned by Jacobi and directly linked to her role in developing Pettitt who prefer to subsume the world prehistory. Garrod possessed a ―Creswellian‖ within the Late Magdalenian command of the principles of lithic analysis, (Jacobi & Pettitt 1991). For a first understood the importance of an objective publication, to identify and name a new outlook in actively attempting to approach ‗culture‘ which is still recognised eighty lithic analysis without a pre-conjectured years on, can only be a reflection of her cultural affinity in mind, and had a archaeological ability even at the very confidence in the artefacts and the ability to beginning of her career. extract from the artefacts the information she knew they held. These skills are fundamental On reflection, Roberts (1995: 220) considers when faced with new assemblages that are Garrod‘s publication to be ―…disappointing addressed with questions to be answered not …‖, though this judgement isn‘t entirely fair. just on a local scale, but with those which The Upper Palaeolithic of Britain is written have connotations on a global scale, i.e. the in a clear and concise manner (as was to be origins of modern humans. the hallmark of Garrod‘s publications), with more attention given for sites considered of Subjective and Objective Lithics greater importance; Kent‘s Cavern and Creswell Crags, which are still regarded as Lithic classifications and typologies were such today. We must also remember and introduced and have been refined from as praise accordingly the immense task Garrod early as the 1870s (de Mortillet 1872) to the chose to undertake as her first academic present day (Clarkson 2009). The publication. preconceptions of those undertaking lithic analysis, a subjective approach, were most Whatever the criticism regarding the nature prevalent within the early attempts at of the publication, the fact still remains that classification, e.g. de Mortillet (1872) and it was then a pioneering book, synthesising a Bordes (1950), whereas today a more complex period for an entire country, and objective approach is advocated, considering that is what gives it its importance. The the artefacts independently from the publication provided a comparison for other preconceptions of the lithic analyst sites and new research, encouraging (Andrefsky 2005; Clarkson & Lamb 2005). connections and inter-continent comparisons. Garrod was aware of the limitations of the early classificatory schemes (Garrod 1928)

170

K.M. Price: Dorothy Garrod and through her Levantine lithic material in her decision to consider the industries as attempted to address these limitations. local phenomena, and her subsequent recording of them using local names. Dorothy Garrod‘s lithic training background was, as that of most prehistorians at the time, Ronen (1982: 26) heavily criticised Garrod‘s grounded within a French world. De handling of the Mount Carmel material, Mortillet‘s original classification scheme had saying her reports show a ―…careful been subject to a radical revision by Breuil observer uninterested in details…‖ and that between 1906 and 1912 (Davies 1999b), on the whole, Garrod‘s work has needed a though parts of it were still in use later on, as great deal of substantiating over the last fifty Garrod highlights its limitations in her years as the terms she used were not precise publication in 1928 (Garrod 1928). Garrod enough for thorough understanding. herself was operating within Breuil‘s revised Garrod‘s work was designed to answer her classification (Davies 1999b), and by 1938, research questions, which focussed on the with the expansion of prehistory out of Palaeolithic record of the Near East, and its Europe, it was finally realised that de importance as a ―gateway of prehistoric Mortillet‘s scheme was only applicable on a migrations‖. She was also interested in the localised scale. Garrod takes delight when social and economic nature of the Mesolithic referring to the ―…demolition as a system of and the Natufian (Garrod & Bate 1937). world-wide application…‖ (Garrod 1938: 1) Ronen‘s comments seem too harsh a of de Mortillet‘s classification, arguing that judgement when you consider Garrod was regional scales of analysis would allow more attempting to develop a chronology for the reliable interpretation of artefacts. Levant while working within a Europe- focussed era, though attempting to ‗break the It was Garrod‘s work at Mount Carmel that mould‘ but lacking comparable data and contributed to this ‗demolition‘ while evidence from the archaeological record at securing the prehistoric chronology of the the time. Garrod understood more than Levant. Even though Garrod initially anyone else in her field the problems of the followed the original French subdivision of existing methodologies (Roberts 1995: 215), the Upper Palaeolithic, as was the ‗norm‘ and constantly pointed out the limitations (Belfer-Cohen & Bar-Yosef 1999: 121), this surrounding nomenclatures and typologies was where it also ended. Garrod tried to (Garrod 1926, 1938, 1946). It is right to classify the artefacts objectively without too agree with Belfer-Cohen & Bar-Yosef many preconceived notions as to their (1999: 130), who praise her decisions in chronology, through considering the various developing the Levantine nomenclatures and assemblages as primarily local phenomena typologies as displaying ingenuity and (Belfer-Cohen & Bar-Yosef 1999: 130), foresight. proposing changes to the then current French terms (Copeland 1999: 163), and by In her 1938 paper, Garrod takes the idea of considering the artefacts on their own merit, change in classification one stage further and as independent from the established proposes that ―…the time has come when the European criteria rather than subjectively labels Lower, Middle and Upper Palaeolithic incorporating them into the then current should be used exclusively in a Eurocentric cultural framework. Garrod chronological sense without any typological compared the Levantine material to Europe, connotation whatsoever…‖ (Garrod 1938: though she did so in order to emphasis its 2). difference, e.g. her ―Tayacian‖, ―Acheulean‖ and ―Levalloiso-Mousterian‖ of Tabun Garrod recognised that these terms were (Garrod 1937). Belfer-Cohen & Bar-Yosef used more or less synonymously with (1999: 130) paid tribute to Garrod‘s insight handaxe, flake and blade industries

171

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) respectively (ibid). Garrod heeded this North Arabian Desert, summarising the warning in 1938, but this connection was widespread distribution and temporal nature still being taught at an undergraduate level of the artefacts which included Acheulean- only ten years ago. It is only in the last type bifaces, Levallois-Mousterian cores and decade that steps have truly been made to flakes and Upper Palaeolithic scrapers attempt to view our subject in a more (Garrod 1946: 19). This testifies to Garrod‘s objective way with regard to the awareness of the importance of corroborating development of lithic industries and their together evidence over a large geographical chronologies, moving away from scale rather than a specific area in order to assumptions of certain time periods, e.g. the assess and compare the nature of lithic Upper Palaeolithic, being synonymous with assemblages and the hominins who made particular industries, e.g. blade technology them, to address such issues as the origin of (Bar-Yosef & Kuhn 1999). Upper modern humans. As research develops in Palaeolithic elements occur within the Arabia, it will be interesting to see the nature ‗Middle Palaeolithic‘, and can be associated of the artefact assemblages, the possible with ‗Middle Palaeolithic‘ hominins, e.g. connections with other geographical areas, (Foley & Lahr 1997). There is especially the Levant, and perhaps compare also more emphasis on technological with Garrod‘s initial observations eighty analysis as opposed to rigid typological years ago. classifications (Clarkson et al. 2009). This shift has occurred due to recognition of the What is also interesting to note about the significant role that the environment played research being undertaken in Arabia is that it in prehistory, as Garrod recognised in 1946 is inter-disciplinary in nature, with research (see below). Garrod was cautious of groups such as Human Origins and Palaeo- typologies from an out-of-date classification Environments (HOPE) at Oxford Brookes system, in particular the Palaeolithic cultures University being involved. Dorothy Garrod developed by French prehistorians and was not only a pioneer of research in the finalized by Breuil in 1912 (Clark 1999: Levant, but developed the concept of inter- 404), when developing a new chronology for disciplinary teamwork. Eighty years on, the Levant. Eighty years on, the same pioneering inter-disciplinary research is warning is given by Rose (Rose & Bailey being undertaken in the almost unknown 2008) as pioneering work is undertaken in area of Arabia. Arabia. A purely objective approach will never be truly possible as the baggage of Inter-disciplinary Research preconceptions, judgements, culture, and specific research agendas will always Interdisciplinary studies involve different accompany us. However, as Palaeolithic disciplines uniting together to address a archaeologists, we must at least try. common question, whereas in a multi- disciplinary approach each discipline It is interesting to note here that, in 1927–28, involved will yield its own specific results Henry Field surveyed the prehistoric sites in with integration left to a third party observer. the North Arabian Desert (Field 1960), and Garrod was not interested in multi- Garrod analysed the lithic material from disciplinarity, but developed the concept of these surveys (Garrod 1960). With inter-disciplinary work in teams, with the observations from further discoveries in emphasis on the common goal (Davies pers. and Saudi Arabia, Field envisaged a comm.). This can be seen throughout all her widespread Palaeolithic population excavations, especially at Mount Carmel throughout the Arabian peninsula (Field where she combined the expertise of 1971), and in her 1946 paper Garrod prehistoric archaeology (herself), dedicated a section to the Palaeolithic of the (), and

172

K.M. Price: Dorothy Garrod palaeoanthropology (Arthur Keith). the end of the excavations, and Garrod obtained a D.Sc. from Oxford for this In her 1946 paper, Garrod acknowledged the publication (Davies 1999a: 6). Bate was, in importance of the disciplines of geography, fact, involved in most of Garrod‘s projects geology, palaeontology and ethnology. She including Gibraltar, Shukba, Mt. Carmel and recognised the potential of their at the Athlit quarries (Garrod 1942). contributions to prehistory especially with the reconstruction of the environment, which During Garrod‘s excavations at Ras el-Kelb, she saw as a vital aspect to understanding Lebanon, 1959, she discovered the and interpreting stone tools and early man Levalloiso-Mousterian artefacts on a marine (Garrod 1946). shingle beach on the cave floor (Copeland, 1999: 156). This provided a link between the ―…Man as a human being, and not Man as a independently-constructed ice age , is the true subject of the chronology of the Quaternary, and for the prehistorian…‖ first time in the Near East, relationships (Garrod 1946: 11) between specific marine evidence and specific industries had been established Throughout her career Garrod was engaged (ibid). in ‗inter-disciplinary‘ archaeology that today is considered vital to all archaeological Such inter-disciplinary research forms the research undertaken. Even on her first basis of much archaeological research today, excavation in Gibraltar she incorporated the with such research groups as the Centre for analyses of flora and fauna into her the Archaeology of Human Origins (CAHO) discussion, rather than appending them after at Southampton University, and excavations her conclusions, which Roberts (1995: 204) at Jwalapuram, Southern India which draws states was to become a ―…hallmark of on expertise from disciplines ranging from Dorothy Garrod‘s painstaking, thorough geomorphology, volcanology and climate excavation reports…‖. Today may be the age modelling (Haslam & Petraglia 2009). of inter- and multi-disciplinary research, but Garrod was not only thinking along these Dorothy Garrod’s Fieldwork Methods lines seventy years ago, but actively pursing and Approaches what she advocated (see Garrod‘s extensive list of publications in Davies & Charles Garrod herself did not excavate in her large- 1999). scale projects (notably Mt. Carmel), but was always on site supervising with a controlled This can be so evidently seen with the manner (Callander & Smith 2007: 78; publication of the Palestine caves. The Callander 2009). She was more actively excavation report (Garrod & Bate 1937) was involved in her smaller-scale excavations. jointly authored with Dorothea Bate, the Even later in life, when her health was pioneering palaeontologist, zoologist and fading, she would sit upon a chair with full ornithologist, who is considered the founder view of the excavation. There can be no of the discipline of zooarchaeology (Shindler doubt that Garrod kept meticulous records 2005: 229). The report combining the results from her excavations, and the discovery of of the archaeology, fauna, climate and the ‗lost archive‘ of Garrod‘s papers and environment of the Mount Carmel field notebooks in the Musée des Antiquités excavations served as a pioneering Nationales (Smith et al. 1997) will in time monograph of the time, highlighting the shed more light on the way Garrod wealth of understanding to be gained through conducted her fieldwork. inter-disciplinary research. The monograph was published remarkably soon following Garrod‘s field methods, in regards to her

173

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) excavations in France, are considered flourishing on many different projects today ―…models of superb specialized (Price & Stevenson in prep.) and perhaps methodology…‖ (Ellis 1999: 133). Three part of its roots can be traced back to the specific fieldwork methods are particularly 1920s. A photograph of her Arab workforce noteworthy here. In his biography of Garrod, at the excavations of El-Wad, 1929, depicts Davies (1999: 9) draws our attention to the twelve women as opposed to only 4 men fact that Garrod employed the use of dry (ibid.), and Garrod even planned to obtain a sieves on her excavations and had done so place at Cambridge University for one of since her days in Gibraltar, continuing to use them (Smith 2000). Women were preferred them throughout her excavations in Palestine as workers, and continued to be employed and Bulgaria. Davies (ibid.) notes that the throughout all Garrod‘s field seasons at use of dry-sieving would have placed Mount Carmel, with some men employed for Garrod‘s excavations among the most up-to- the more heavy-duty tasks (Callander & date of the time. The ‗dry sieve‘ is a Smith 2007). Davies (1999: 6) states that the fundamental component of the prehistoric women worked well, and considers the archaeologist‘s equipment and is used on contribution their wages would have made to excavations throughout the world, from their families. Callander and Smith (2007: Europe to Asia. Given that Garrod was 77) consider that Garrod could guarantee active in the field during the early stages of their safety and honour with easier work than the development of fieldwork methods, they were accustomed to. Women can be Garrod‘s recognition of the information that more methodical in their way of thinking and would be lost without the use of correct Dorothy Garrod would have been aware of excavation equipment is testament to her the status that may have been attached to expertise as a field archaeologist. those women and their families while employed during the course of her During the ‗rescue excavation‘ at Ras el- excavations. Even today, local villagers are Kelb Cave, Lebanon, the disturbance of employed by research excavations and work on the road tunnel, combined with the women preferred for certain tasks such as compactness of the brecciate deposits, dry-sieving due to their eye for detail, e.g. in resulted in Garrod systematically removing India (Haslam & Petraglia 2009). the hard deposits in blocks which were later ‗excavated‘ and their contents analysed in Through her extensive excavations across (Davies 1999a: 11). This meant that Europe and south-west Asia, Garrod‘s vision the deposits could receive more attention of prehistory on a worldwide scale continued than if they were excavated under the time to consolidate. The archaeological literature constraints and unsuitable conditions in the was enhanced by her many excavation field. Such an innovative solution to a reports which opened further the door of problem, while not compromising the prehistoric archaeology. It wasn‘t only in the archaeology, again must shine as an example field that this was achieved but also in the to her mastery of field archaeology. classroom. However, Smith (2000) informs us that lecturing was not Garrod‘s strength; At Mount Carmel, Garrod employed people she preferred teaching in small, informal from the local villages to assist with the groups. Garrod felt more comfortable in excavations, preferring to employ the girls these situations (ibid.), which were perhaps and women (Callander & Smith 2007: 79; more familiar to her, mirroring somewhat the Figure 2). Perhaps Garrod can be seen as a dynamics of a small intimate field team to pioneer of ‗Community Archaeology‘, which she was much more accustomed. involving and training local people in their own prehistory and heritage (Davies pers. comm.). Such ‗Community Archaeology‘ is

174

K.M. Price: Dorothy Garrod

Figure 2: Mount Carmel Excavations, Palestine 1934. View from Back of Cave. [Pit Rivers Museum, University of Oxford; PRM 1998.294.354]

The Prehistoric Door is Opened Archaeology. Not only did she introduce a module on world prehistory, as discussed Dorothy Garrod helped to open up the earlier, she spearheaded a re-organisation of subject of prehistory, prehistory in its the Cambridge Tripos. Garrod designed, won worldwide context, and expanded the acceptance for, and implemented a system accessibility of the discipline. which greatly increased the options for the candidates of Archaeology (Clark 1989: 59), This can be seen as a direct result of her thus creating Part II (Archaeology) of the election to the Disney Chair in 1939 which Cambridge Archaeological and she held until her retirement in 1952. Her Anthropological Tripos (Daniel 1969: 1). appointment placed her within a position of This system was implemented in 1948 great influence which she used to change the (Davies 1999a: 9), and remains to this day. way that prehistory was considered and taught within the Department of This meant that Cambridge was the first

175

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

British university to offer undergraduate 1950s, and was the first university-trained courses in prehistoric archaeology (Clark prehistorian to make his subject, 1989: 99). Garrod was therefore responsible and has been described as the ‗Father of for introducing the study of prehistory in its Australian Archaeology‘ (Australian own right in the British University teaching Archaeological Association 2004). Professor system. Garrod was a teaching fellow and Hallam J. Movius Jr. was part of Garrod‘s Director of Studies at Newnham College team at Mount Carmel, and obtained a from the beginning of the 1930s (Davies Cambridge PhD (Clark 1989: 46), later 1999a), though when it is considered that introducing the concept of the Movius Line until she was elected to the chair, Garrod had in 1948, and excavating at many sites, never held any academic lecturing position notably . Other students of (Daniel 1969: 1), the connotations of what Dorothy Garrod and those she influenced she achieved are immeasurable. Clark (1989: include Ann Sieveking (Smith 2000), 143) considered that Cambridge University‘s Jacquetta Hopkins (Clark 1989: 43), most important service to prehistory is that Lorraine Copeland (Copeland 1999), John of ensuring prehistory as an acceptable Waechter (Clark 1989: 143) and Louis subject for teaching and by training the Leakey (Smith 2000). necessary staff to take prehistory into other institutions. This has its roots in the dedication, forward thinking and passion that DOROTHY GARROD AND HER FAITH Dorothy Garrod and her team held for the subject, and in the long line of prehistorians Since 1859, a ‗science versus religion‘ that Garrod herself personally inspired and debate has persisted. Beliefs in science and encouraged. in religion are questioned by beliefs in the other. Darwin himself agonised over the Dorothy Garrod‘s influence on her students publication of Origin of Species due to the and the ‗next generation‘ of prehistorians, very reason that it would contradict the and what these individuals subsequently teaching of the church (Darwin Exhibition at went on to achieve, can be considered an Auckland Museum 2007). Only in 1950, in integral part of Garrod‘s legacy, and her his encyclical Humani Generis, did Pope indirect influence on the advancement of Pius XII (Pius 1950) state that evolution as a prehistoric archaeology. As a tutor, she theory was not incompatible with the encouraged students to fulfil their potential Catholic faith. and explore archaeology further. Dorothy Garrod inspired many of her students and Dorothy Garrod was a committed Catholic young colleagues to make major throughout her adult life, converting from contributions to archaeology. Anglicanism in 1913 (Callander 2009). She experienced doubts within her faith due to Among her colleagues were Grahame Clark her prehistoric studies, though returned to (her successor in the Disney Chair, from the Church with the help of Teilhard de 1952), who excavated at Star Carr and wrote Chardin‘s philosophy of evolution (Caton- extensively on the Mesolithic; Charles Thompson 1969: 343). Garrod had met McBurney (later Professor of Quaternary Teilhard de Chardin in the early 1920s, when Prehistory at Cambridge University), whose they worked at adjoining tables in the 1967 book on was considered, in its basement of the Institut de Paléontologie day, the most important single contribution Humaine in Paris (de Saint-Mathurin 1970). made to the prehistory of northern Africa Himself a priest and a prehistorian, de (Clark 1989: 64). He dedicated it to Dorothy Chardin‘s (1965) philosophy followed an Garrod (ibid). Emeritus Professor John evolutionist understanding with a belief in Mulvaney was a student of Garrod‘s in the human evolution emphasising the

176

K.M. Price: Dorothy Garrod development of the human consciousness Plunkett says of Nina Layard that: towards an overall ‗omega‘ point (still to come) of the divinisation of humanity. Along ―It is an essential part of her legacy that she with Dorothy Garrod, other prominent lived and experienced within herself the prehistoric archaeologists of her time also transition from a pre-Darwinian religious shared her belief in a Christian God; Nina consciousness to a type of 20th Century Layard, Gertrude Caton-Thompson, and of spirituality which is still valid — and that course the ordained Abbé Breuil. Breuil has she made this transition through the study of been called ―…The Pope of Palaeolithic prehistory‖ Archaeology…‖ (Straus 1994); if this is the (Plunkett 1999: 256) case then Garrod, as his student, must be a Cardinal. As Davies (1999a: 3) interestingly Perhaps then it is an essential part of points out, Garrod nicknamed the Dorothy Garrod‘s legacy that she was part of Neanderthal child remains she discovered at the new post-Darwin scientific age; a Devil‘s Tower, Gibraltar, ―Abel‖ (Davies supporter and enthusiast of new scientific 1999a: 3), one of the sons of Adam and Eve developments (e.g. radiocarbon dating), in Genesis (Genesis 4:2). advancing and expanding prehistoric studies while at the same time remaining committed The concept of human evolution is much to her own personal belief in a Christian debated and scrutinised between Christians God, in which she found ―…conviction and who hold differing views of the bible, and strength…‖ (Caton-Thompson 1969: 343). the theory of how we became into being. This can be seen in the 1st Marett Lecture she Christians who hold a literal belief in the gave on 17th May 1948 entitled ‗Early Man bible advocate without question the theory of and the Threshold of Religion‘ in which she ‗creationism‘ as it is stated word for word in considers cave art as evidence of the Genesis chapters 1–2. Those who consider religious life of Palaeolithic Man through the the bible a collection of books of different current scientific evidence, theories and types of writing, including historical, debates. prophetic, poetry and stories, still believe it is God‘s word, but consider Genesis chapters During her advancement of prehistoric 1–2 as a ‗myth‘, not in the modern sense but studies, Garrod grappled with two of the in the sense of man attempting to understand most debated questions of human evolution, how he came to be. These Christians accept which are still in contention today. Through human evolution as fact, but the process as her prehistoric research, especially in guided by God; the mystery for them is how Palestine, Garrod addressed two of the most He guided the process. There is no doubt that crucial ‗transitional‘ periods of prehistory — such a debate was also prevalent in Garrod‘s those of the Middle to the Upper time, and perhaps this dichotomy of opinions Palaeolithic, and the Mesolithic to the contributed to the doubts she experienced Neolithic. within her faith. It is perhaps interesting to note that the majority of her research was Dorothy Garrod as a ‘Revolutionary’ undertaken in Palestine, what is now modern day , and the Mount Carmel caves are Overall responsibility of the Levantine cave merely twenty-eight miles from Jerusalem. excavations fell to Garrod, who trusted the Being so close to the Holy City of Jerusalem, young T.D. McCown to excavate es-Skhul where Jesus ministered and was crucified, during her absence owing to illness (Caton- while undertaking fieldwork and uncovering Thompson 1969: 347). The Mousterian Neanderthal burials must have made quite an burials subsequently discovered there caused impression on Dorothy Garrod (Figure 2). much controversy, with McCown advocating the remains to be that of atomically modern

177

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) humans, while Keith believed them to be ―…indispensable basis for the understanding hybrids of Neanderthals and Homo sapiens of the first farming cultures which (Caton-Thompson 1969: 347). Their followed…‖. The nature of the Natufian and conclusions drew immense criticism from its relationship to the subsequent Neolithic Brothwell and Higgs (1961). Garrod herself are issues still trying to be resolved today, placed the burials as Lower Levalloiso- and many of Garrod‘s concerns are still Mousterian (Caton-Thompson 1969: 351). contested today (Boyd 1999: 218). The Levant has proved to be a key area regarding the development from the Middle Garrod strongly believed in the testing of to the Upper Palaeolithic, partly due to its hypotheses (Copeland 1999: 162). It is the geographical setting and due to the wealth of nature of our subject to test old hypotheses in the sometimes conflicting evidence that it the light of new evidence, work with new yields. It is now one of the most researched theories and new sites, re-define and re- areas in the world. Garrod‘s work in discover forgotten sites, propose new Palestine contributed in highlighting the questions and avenues for research and be significance of this particular era of ‗in-tune‘ with new archaeological prehistory, but also, as McCown‘s developments. Without all this then conclusions attest, the contentious nature of prehistory will become stagnant. this transition. In her 1938 and 1953 papers Garrod discussed environmental conditions, Dorothy Garrod was not afraid to change her colonisation, population diffusion and original ideas without compromising her movement to explain the spread and fundamental theories (Davies 1999b: 268). distribution of lithic industries, industrial/ Davies (ibid.) informs us that Garrod cultural interpretations, and dating: the main realised that re-examining and changing ones aspects of the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic ideas in light of new evidence was the only transition debate (Davies 1999: 271 & 269). way to conduct prehistoric research. Davies (1999b) analyses the way in which Garrod In 1928 Garrod conducted her first fieldwork constantly altered her current thinking in the in Palestine at the Shukbah Cave, Wadi en- light of new evidence. We can see Garrod‘s Natuf. Here she discovered an unknown re-assessing of ideas throughout her Epipalaeolithic culture that she named publications. As Boyd (1999: 218) Natufian (Garrod 1957: 212). Further illustrates, Garrod had previously suggested evidence for the Natufian culture was that Anatolia was a likely source for the unearthed at Garrod‘s excavations the origins of the Natufian, but in her 1957 paper following year at el-Wad (Callander & Smith she retracted the suggestion and concluded 2007), and at el-Kebara, the cave having that she could not discern its traceable roots been discovered by Garrod in 1931 (Boyd in the past (Garrod 1957: 225). 1999: 214).

Boyd (1999: 215) details that Garrod DOROTHY GARROD AND THE ROLE proposed as early as 1931 that the Mesolithic OF WOMEN layer at el-Wad provided evidence of agriculture due to the high number of sickle- Perhaps a less obvious, but important, blades and hafts discovered. In 1957 Garrod contribution of Dorothy Garrod‘s to the agreed with Neuville that ―…the Lower development of early prehistory and its Natufian people were probably the first lasting legacy, is that of her influence as a agriculturists…‖ (Garrod 1957: 216). pioneer woman archaeologist.

Renfrew (1999: ix) unequivocally states that Dorothy Garrod was the first woman to hold Garrod‘s work on the Natufian forms the the prestigious Disney Chair, and

178

K.M. Price: Dorothy Garrod inadvertently contributed to allowing women 9). full status within Cambridge University. Garrod was a pioneer of women in field Garrod collaborated with de Saint-Mathurin archaeology, and was considered one of the in excavations at the Angles-sur-l‘Anglin ‗Three Graces‘ in France alongside Suzanne Magdalenian rock-shelter between 1947 and de Saint-Mathurin and Germaine Henri- 1963 (Ellis 1999: 133). She wrote Martin. extensively about the sculptures, paintings and engravings uncovered (Davies 1999a: In the Encyclopaedia of Great 10), significantly contributing to the Archaeologists (Murray 1999), Garrod is one development of studies in French prehistoric of only 2 women whose biographies appear rock art. Garrod also assisted Henri-Martin alongside those of fifty-six men. Today, she in her excavations at Fontéchevade in the is studied within the archaeological late 1940s (Davies 1999a: 10), where even disciplines of Gender Archaeology and the today new evidence continues to be Archaeology of Women, is considered a unearthed (Chase et al. 2009). ‗beacon‘ within the circle of women archaeologists, and her lasting legacy gives Dorothy Garrod was uncomfortable as a us a realisation of what women in ‗figurehead‘ (Smith 2000), and no doubt her archaeology have the potential to achieve. modesty and humility did not allow her to fully appreciate the effects of the extent of On the 6th May 1939, Dorothy Garrod her achievements, the influence she yielded became the first woman and first prehistorian and the inspiration she gave. Garrod‘s to be elected to the Disney Chair at prestigious position within the disciplines of Cambridge University (Smith 2000: 265). Gender and Women Archaeology, and as one Garrod was however, a reluctant pioneer, of the ‗pioneers of prehistory‘, stands as a and struggled with the hierarchical nature lasting legacy of her immense contribution and formalities that the Disney Chair bought and high regard within archaeology. with it (Smith 2000: 136). Nevertheless, her time as Disney Professor was intensely In a letter written shortly after her election to successful. At this time, there were very few the Disney Chair in 1939, Garrod stated: women in teaching posts in Cambridge (Smith 2000: 278) and women did not have ―The election was a tremendous surprise to full university status. As the Cambridge me, as I had never seriously considered it Review in May 1939 stated: possible. Naturally, I am tremendously pleased, and I hope it may quickly lead to ―…The election of a woman to the full membership of the University for women Professorship of Archaeology is an immense up here.‖ step forward towards complete equality (Suzanne de St Mathurin & Germaine Henri- between men and women in the Martin archives) University…‖ (Smith 2000: 267) Dorothy Garrod and the Archaeology of Women Cambridge University gave full membership to women in 1947 (University of Cambridge Although Champion (1998: 193) asserts that 1999), and it is more than likely Garrod‘s Garrod did not express feminist interests appointment and success as Disney Professor within her works, this is perhaps contributed to this decision, as well as to the unsurprising given her background. appointments of other women to Nevertheless, she was a prominent, professorships as occurred in the years successful, well-known prehistorian of her following her appointment Davies (1999a: time, gender aside, and the discipline of

179

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

‗feminist and gender archaeology‘ was yet to Archaeologists. be born. Garrod saw herself as continuing the family‘s academic traditions, especially It is to Dorothy Garrod as an inspiration, a after the deaths of her three brothers in WW1 women archaeologist and a significant (Caton-Thompson 1969). The only reference contributor to the development of early from Garrod herself regarding the male- prehistoric studies that my generation of dominated world of prehistoric archaeology female archaeologists and generations to in which she lived is: ―…It is noteworthy come will look to as an example of how that among those who have built up the study much can be achieved. of Early Man nearly all the outstanding names belong to men…‖ (Garrod 1946: 7). Dorothy Garrod is most certainly an CONCLUSION outstanding name that can be added to this flock, and the words inscribed on an ornate Dorothy Garrod excavated some of the best- scroll presented to her on her retirement by known Palaeolithic sites still considered the Faculty paid homage to this (Smith 2000: today, including Mount Carmel and the 136). Devil‘s Tower. The results of her excavations became renowned worldwide Thus it was a surprise to Garrod that she now and encouraged prehistorians to address found herself as the first woman in the issues on a global scale, adhering to Garrod‘s Disney Chair However, she was well aware vision of a worldwide prehistory. Garrod of the connotations of her appointment (see established the foundation for the her letter above) as the first woman in the chronology of Levantine prehistory and Disney Chair, and as Roberts (1995: 227) addressed the complex relationships of the points out, ―…the very presence of a woman differing Upper Palaeolithic cultures of professor at the head of a thriving Europe. She addressed some of the major department could only act as a spur and an issues in archaeology still in contention encouragement…‖, especially if one was a today and changed forever the way woman (Smith 2000: 134). prehistory was considered and taught, opening up the subject to its awaiting eager Today, Dorothy Garrod is considered a audience. pioneering woman archaeologist (Diaz- Andreu & Sorensen 1998; Hamilton et al. Garrod‘s career spanned forty-five years and 2007). This is also recognised by the diverse was an invaluable and irreplaceable number of ‗Women In Archaeology‘ contribution to the early development of websites she appears on, including Pagans lithic research and prehistoric archaeology, for Archaeology (Pagans for Archaeology particularly of Europe and the Near East. Her 2009) which has links to her online immense contribution to prehistory was biographies, and the Anthropology influential not just to her contemporaries and department of Southern Carolina (Smith immediate successors, but has a lasting 2008) which honours her as one of the legacy even today, which will continue no greatest women in Anthropology. Garrod doubt to inspire future generations. Garrod‘s even appears on a website of ‗Ladies‘ Firsts‘ achievements were numerous and extremely in recognition of her election to the Disney important milestones in piecing together the Chair (Dockers 2000), and with the fundamentals of early prehistory from the development of organisations such as British archaeological record. Women Archaeologists (Teather et al. 2008), perhaps one can argue that Dorothy Garrod is amongst one of the most significant figures in the history of British Women

180

K.M. Price: Dorothy Garrod

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ine/previous_issues/articles/2009_01_09/caredit.a0 900007 (July 2009). I am extremely thankful to Matt Pope for providing Caton-Thompson, G. 1969. Dorothy Annie Elizabeth me with the opportunity to write this paper, for his Garrod 1892–1968 (obituary). Proceedings of the encouragement and comments throughout, and British Academy 65: 339–361. assistance in selecting a title. I am also indebted to Champion, S. 1998. Women in British Archaeology; William Davies for his invaluable suggestions and Visible and Invisible. In M. Diaz-Andreu & M.L. recommendations on the initial draft of this paper at Stig Sorensen (eds.) Excavating Women; A history very short notice, and subsequent drafts, and am of women in European archaeology: 175–197. grateful as ever for his continuing advice and support. Routledge, London. de Chardin, T. 1965. Man‘s Place in Nature. Harper, New York. Chase, P.G., Debénath, A., Dibble, H.L. & REFERENCES McPherron, S.P. 2009. The Cave of Fontéchevade: Recent Excavations and their Palaeo- Andrefsky, W. 2005. Lithics: Macroscopic anthropological Implications. Cambridge Approaches to Analysis (Cambridge Manuals in University Press, Cambridge. Archaeology). Cambridge University Press, Clark, J.D.G. 1999. Dorothy Garrod. In T. Murray Cambridge. (ed.) Encyclopaedia of Archaeology: the Great Anderson, K. 2001. Emuseum at Minnesota State Archaeologists Volume 1: 401–12. ABC-CLIO, University, Mankata. http://www.mnsu.edu/ Santa Barbara. emuseum/information/biography/fghij/garrod_doro Clark, J.D.G. 1989. Prehistory at Cambridge and thy.html (July 2009). Beyond. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Australian Archaeological Association. 2004. Clarkson, C. & Lamb, L. 2005. Lithics ‗Down Australian Archaeological Association Inc. Under‘: Australian Approaches to Lithic http://www.australianarchaeologicalassociation.co Reduction, Use and Classification. British m.au/john_mulvaney (July 2009). Archaeological Reports International Monograph Bar-Yosef, O. & Kuhn, S. The big deal about blades: Series S1408. Archaeopress, Oxford. Laminar technology and human evolution. Clarkson, C., Petraglia, M.D., Korisettar, R., Haslam, American Anthropologist 101(2): 322–338. M., Boivin, N., Crowther, A., Ditchfield, P., Fuller, Belfer-Cohen, A. & Bar-Yosef, O. 1999. The D., Miracle, P., Harris, C., Connell, K., James, H. Levantine Aurignacian: 60 years of research. In W. & Koshy, J. 2009. The oldest and longest enduring Davies & R. Charles (eds.) Dorothy Garrod and microlithic sequence in India: 35,000 years of the Progress of the Palaeolithic Studies in the modern human occupation and change at the Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East and Jwalapuram Locality 9 rockshelter. Antiquity 83: Europe: 118–134. Oxbow Books, Oxford. 326–348. Bordes, F.H. 1961. Mousterian cultures in France. Copeland, L. 1999. The Impact of Dorothy Garrod‘s Science 134: 803–810. Excavations in the Lebanon on the Palaeolithic of Boyd, B. 1999. ―Twisting the kaleidoscope‖ Dorothy the Near East. In W. Davies & R. Charles (eds.) Garrod and the Natufian Culture. In W. Davies & Dorothy Garrod and the Progress of the R. Charles (eds.) Dorothy Garrod and the Progress Palaeolithic Studies in the Prehistoric Archaeology of the Palaeolithic Studies in the Prehistoric of the Near East and Europe: 152–166. Oxbow Archaeology of the Near East and Europe: 209– Books, Oxford. 223. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Daniel, G. 1969. Editorial. Antiquity 43: 1–2. Brothwell, D.R. & Higgs, E.S. 1961. North Africa and Dart, R.A. 1925. Australopithecus africanus: the man- Mount Carmel: Recent Developments. Man 61: ape of South Africa. Nature 115(19): 5–9. 138–139. Davies, W. 1999a. Dorothy Annie Elizabeth Garrod Callander, J. 2004. Oxford Dictionary of National (5th May 1892–18th December, 1968): A Short Biography; Dorothy Garrod. http://www. Biography. In W. Davies & R. Charles (eds.) oxforddnb.com/view/article/37443 (July 2009). Dorothy Garrod and the Progress of the Callander, J. & Smith, P.J. 2007. Pioneers in Palaeolithic Studies in the Prehistoric Archaeology Palestine: The Women Excavators of El-Wad of the Near East and Europe: 1–14. Oxbow Books, Cave, 1929. In S. Hamilton, R.D. Whitehouse & Oxford. K.I. Wright (eds.) Archaeology and Women; Davies W. 1999b. Nova et Vetera: Reworking the Ancient and Modern Issues: 76–82. Publications of Early Upper Palaeolithic in Europe. In W. Davies the Institute of Archaeology UCL, Walnut Creek & R. Charles (eds.) Dorothy Garrod and the California. Progress of the Palaeolithic Studies in the Coelho, S. 2009. Science Careers from the Journal Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East and Science; Archaeology for Fun and Profit. Europe: 263–276. Oxbow Books, Oxford. http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magaz Davies, W. & Charles, R. (eds.) 1999. Dorothy

181

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

Garrod and the Progress of the Palaeolithic Jacobi, R.M. & Pettitt, P. 1991. The Creswellian, Studies in the Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near Creswell and Cheddar. In R.N.E. Barton, A.J. East and Europe. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Roberts & D.A. Roe (eds.) The Late Glacial in Diaz-Andreu, M. & Stig Sorensen, M.L. (eds.) 1998. north-west Europe: Human adaption and Excavating Women; A History of Women in environmental change at the end of the European Archaeology. Routledge, London. Pleistocene: 128–140. Council for British Dockers, M. 2009. Ladies First. http://web.ukonline. Archaeology Research Report 77, London. co.uk/m.gratton/Names/Dorothy.htm (July 2000). Jacobi, R. 1999 Some Observations on the British Ellis, L. (ed.) 1999. Archaeological Method and Earlier Upper Palaeolithic. In W. Davies & R. Theory: An Encyclopaedia. Routledge, London. Charles (eds.) Dorothy Garrod and the Progress of Field, H. 1960. North Arabian Desert Archaeological the Palaeolithic Studies in the Prehistoric Survey. Peabody Museum, Cambridge. Archaeology of the Near East and Europe: 35–40. Field, H. 1971. Preface. In H.A. McClure The Oxbow Books, Oxford. Arabian Peninsula and Prehistoric Populations: Lanpo, J., Huang, W. & Erickson, P.A. 1990. The iv–v. Coconut Grove, Florida. Story of Peking Man; From Archaeology to Foley, R. & Lahr, M.M. 1997. Mode 3 Technologies Mystery. Oxford University Press, USA. and the Evolution of Modern Humans. Cambridge de Mortillet, G. 1872 Classification des Ages de la Archaeological Journal 71: 3–36. Pierre. Comptes rendus: Congrés International Gamble, C. & Kruszynski, R. 2009. John Evans, d‘Anthropologie et d‘Archéologie Préhistorique 6 Joseph Prestwich and the stone that shattered the (Bruxelles): 432–444. time barrier. Antiquity 83 (2009) 461–475. Murray, T. 1999. Encyclopaedia of Archaeology: the Garrod, D.A.E. 1926. The Upper Palaeolithic Age in Great Archaeologists. ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara. Britain. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Pagans for Archaeology. 2009. Pagans for Garrod, D.A.E. 1937. The Near east as a gateway of Archaeology: Women in Archaeology. http:// prehistoric migration. Bulletin of the American archaeopagans.blogspot.com/2009/03/women-in- School of Prehistoric Research 13: 17–21. archaeology.html (July 2009). Garrod, D.A.E. 1938. The Upper Palaeolithic in the Petraglia, M.D. & Allchin, B. (eds.) 2007. The Light of Recent Discovery. Proceedings of the Evolution and History of Human Populations in Prehistoric Society 4: 1–27. South Asia. Springer, Dordrecht. Garrod, D.A.E. 1942. Excavations at the Cave of Petraglia, M.D., Korisettar, R., Boivin, N., Clarkson, Shukbah, Palestine 1928. Proceedings of the C., Ditchfield, P., Jones, S., Koshy, J., Lahr, M.M., Prehistoric Society 8:1–21. Oppenheimer, C., Pyle, D., Roberts, R., Garrod, D.A.E. 1946. Environment, Tools and Man; Schwenninger, J.-L., Arnold, L. & White, K. 2007. An Inaugural Lecture. Cambridge University Middle Assemblages from the Indian Press, Cambridge. Subcontinent Before and After the Toba Super- Garrod, D.A.E. 1953. The Relations between South eruption. Science 317(5834): 114–116. West Asia and Europe in the later Palaeolithic Age. Petraglia, M., Korisettar, R., Katsuri Bai, M., Boivin, Journal of World History 1: 13–38. N., Janardhana, B., Clarkson, C., Cunningham, K., Garrod, D.A.E. 1957. The Natufian Culture: The Life Ditchfield, P., Fuller, D., Hampson, J., Haslam, M., and Economy of a Mesolithic People in the Near Jones, S., Koshy, J., Miracle, P., Oppenheimer, C. East (Albert Reckitt Archaeological Lecture Read & White, K. 2008. Human occupation, adaptation 20th November 1957). Proceedings of the British and behavioral change in the Pleistocene and Academy 43: 211–227. Holocene of South India: recent investigations in Garrod, D.A.E. 1960. The Flint Implements. In H. the Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh. Journal of Field North Arabian Desert Archaeological Survey Eurasian Prehistory 6(1): 119–166. 1925–1960. Peabody Museum, Cambridge. Petraglia, M.D. & Rose, J.I. 2009. The Evolution of Garrod, D.A.E. & Bate, D.M.A. 1937. The Stone Age Human Populations in Arabia: Palaeo- of Mount Carmel Vol. 1. Clarendon Press, Oxford. environments, Prehistory and Genetics. Springer, Garrod, D.A.E. & Clark, J.G.D. 1965. Primitive Man New York. in , Western Asia and Europe. In D.A.E. Pius XIII, Pope. 1950. Humani Generis; some false Garrod & J.G.D. Clark (eds.) The Cambridge opinions threatening to undermine the foundation Ancient History Vol. 1: 3–61. Cambridge of the Catholic doctrine. Encyclical Vatican City University Press, Cambridge. 21. Haslam, M. & Petraglia, M.D. 2009. The Toba Super- Plunkett, S. 1999. Nina Frances Layard, Prehistorian eruption. http://users.oz.ac.uk/~arch0265/index. (185–1935). In W. Davies & R. Charles (eds.) htm (July 2009). Dorothy Garrod and the Progress of the Hamilton, S., Whitehouse, R.D. & Wright, K.I. (eds.) Palaeolithic Studies in the Prehistoric Archaeology 2007. Archaeology and Women; Ancient and of the Near East and Europe: 242–262. Oxbow Modern Issues. Publications of the Institute of Books, Oxford. Archaeology UCL, Walnut Creek California. Prior, F.W. 1977. Preliminary Analysis of Functional

182

K.M. Price: Dorothy Garrod

Variability on the Mousterian of Levallois Facies: de Saint-Mathurin, S. 1970. Dorothy Annie Elizabeth A Re-examination. Ohio Journal of Science 77(3): Garrod, 1892–1968 (Newnham 1913–1916). 119–124. Newnham College Roll Letter, January 1970: 50– Renfrew, C. 1999. Foreword. In W. Davies & R. 54. Charles (eds.) Dorothy Garrod and the Progress of Shindler, K. 2005. Discovering Dorothea: The life of the Palaeolithic Studies in the Prehistoric the pioneering fossil-hunter Dorothea Bate. Harper Archaeology of the Near East and Europe: ix–x. Perennial, London. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Smith, M. 2008. University of South Carolina; Roberts, A. 1999. The Path Not Taken: Dorothy Women in Anthropology. http://www.cas.sc.edu/ Garrod, Devon and the British Palaeolithic. In W. anth/Womeninanthropology/Womeninanthropolog Davies & R. Charles (eds.) Dorothy Garrod and y/Womeninanthropology.html (July 2009). the Progress of the Palaeolithic Studies in the Smith, P.J., Callander, J., Bahn, P.G. & Pinçon, G. Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East and 1997. Dorothy Garrod in Words and Pictures. Europe: 19–34. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Antiquity 71: 265–270. Roberts, J.G. 1995. British women archaeologists: Smith, P.J. 2000. Dorothy Garrod, First Women From the eighteenth century to the beginning of the Professor at Cambridge. Antiquity 74: 131–136. Second World War. Unpublished Thesis, Cardiff Straus, L.G. 1994. L‘Abbé Breuil: Pope of University. Palaeolithic Prehistory. Homenaje al Dr Joaquin Ronen, A. 1982. Mount Carmel Caves — The first González Echegaray: 189–198. Madrid Muses y Excavations. In A. Ronen (eds.) The Transition Centro de Investigación de Altamira. from Lower to Middle Palaeolithic and the Origin Swainston, S. 1999. Unlocking the Inhospitable. In of Modern Man; International Symposium to W. Davies & R. Charles (eds.) Dorothy Garrod commemorate the 50th anniversary of excavations and the Progress of the Palaeolithic Studies in the in the Mount Carmel Caves by D.A.E. Garrod. Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East and BAR International Series 151. BAR, Oxford. Europe: 41–56. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Ronen, A., Tsatskin, A. & Laukhin, S.A. 1999. The Teather, A., Pope, R. & Wright, J. 2008. British Genesis and Age of Mousterian Paleosols in the Women Archaeologists. http://britishwomen Carmel Coastal Plain, Israel. In W. Davies & R. archaeologists.org.uk (August 2009). Charles (eds.) Dorothy Garrod and the Progress of Trigger, B.G. 2006. A History of Archaeological the Palaeolithic Studies in the Prehistoric Thought Second Edition. Cambridge University Archaeology of the Near East and Europe: 136– Press, Cambridge. 151. Oxbow Books, Oxford. University of Cambridge. 1999. Fact Sheet: Women Rose, J.I. 2004 The question of Upper Pleistocene at Cambridge: A Chronology. http://www.admin. connections between East Africa and South Arabia. cam.ac.uk/news/press/factsheets/women2.html Current Anthropology 45(4): 551–555. (July 2009). Rose, J.I. 2007. The Arabian Corridor Migration Model: Archaeological evidence for Hominin Dispersals into Oman during the Middle and Upper Pleistocene. Proceedings of the Seminar for ARCHIVES Arabian Studies 37: 219–237. Rose, J.I. & Bailey, G.N. 2008. Defining the Suzanne de St Mathurin & Germaine Henri-Martin Palaeolithic of Arabia? Notes on the Roundtable archives. Musée des Antiquités Nationales, St. Discussion. Proceedings of the Seminar for Germain-en-Laye, France. Arabian Studies 38: 65–70.

183