The epistemology of Pleistocene archaeology, R. G. BEDNARIK - Lecture No. 1 1 Semiotix Course 2008, The epistemology of Pleistocene archaeology Robert G. Bednarik Lecture No. 1. Milestones of Pleistocene archaeology The most characteristic feature of archaeology is not uses precisely the same strategies of silencing these people that it deals with the past; many disciplines do that, includ- it used almost 200 years ago. This is what I seek to demon- ing paleontology, palynology, geology, or astronomy—no strate here. To see this, and to understand this extreme con- human has ever seen a present-time star. Nor is it that ar- servatism it is necessary to examine some case histories. chaeology conjures up images of mystery and adventure; There are hundreds of cases where non-archaeologists most disciplines can do that. Nor that it often deals with offered important ideas, data or fi nds to the discipline, interesting remote places and countries. Archaeology as only to be rejected—and usually so with great displays of we know it is more readily characterized by a collection of indignation—and where it was subsequently found that the rather negative factors. For instance, it is the only ‘scientifi c’ fi nds were authentic, the data valid or the ideas extremely discipline that seeks to control access to methods, data, important in developing archaeology. Often this realization sites and knowledge. No other discipline (except medicine, that the discipline had made a great error in rejecting such for ethical reasons) endeavors to restrict work in its fi eld outsiders only came after the death of the heretical scholar. to card-carrying members of the relevant academic ‘trade The most interesting aspect of all of this is that it did not union’. Another distinctive aspect of archaeology is the prevent the discipline from repeating the same treatment uneasy relationship it has developed with its two principal of iconoclasts, decade after decade, right up to the pres- client groups: the interested public, which it relegates to ent time. These is still happening today, and the pattern of the status of spectators, ‘cult archaeologists’ and ‘folk refl ex-like rejection, and much later grudging acceptance archaeologists’; and the political structures in the struggle is by far the most characteristic aspect of archaeology as a of indigenous people around the world who in many cases reactionary discipline. In this sense, orthodox archaeology object to archaeological practices. The tensions are in both is very reminiscent of some religions, such as the Roman cases not only due to excessive curatorial desires of the Catholic version of Christianity of past centuries. discipline’s practitioners and the political agendas they Archaeology does not appreciate being compared with serve, but also due to archaeologists’ misunderstandings of religion, and yet it has strong dogmas, it ‘crucifi es’ heretics, the role and capabilities of archaeology, and the ethical fact it is a belief system (or so I will argue in this series of lec- that archaeological property does not belong to state-ap- tures), and its history is inter-woven with specifi c religions. pointed ‘experts’. They speak neither for indigenous peoples ‘Biblical archaeology’ remains a valid subject at Western nor for science, in fact their curatorial demands confl ict with universities, and the absence of Koranic or other religiously principles of academic freedom as well as the aspirations motivated forms of archaeology at these same universities of cultural autonomy of autochthon peoples. belies their claims of objective scholarship. Such institutions are dedicated to an intellectually corrupt form of scholar- Heretics in Pleistocene archeology ship, the misuse of scientifi c techniques to demonstrate But by far the most characteristic feature of establish- the validity of religious fantasies and mythologies. This ment archaeology is its treatment of heretics and iconoclasts: state of affairs is refl ected in modern archaeology by such the people who disagree with its established dogmas. It is aspects as the ‘African Eve’ model, which recently enjoyed not so much that heretics may not also be rejected in other great popularity, even though it is severely racist, highly disciplines, but in other fi elds of human endeavor there is a implausible and bereft of any archaeological evidence. But tendency to learn from mistakes made in rejecting heretics. it does offer an escape from the scientifi c proposition that This is not evident in archaeology. That discipline has had humans are not qualitatively different from other animals, to deal with dissent for its entire history, and that history such as other primates, or only so by a very slim margin. The provides ample evidence that archaeology as an academic ‘African Eve’ model is a remolding of evolutionary prin- discipline has learnt nothing from these encounters—or ciples to accommodate Biblical (and other fundamentalist) from the great embarrassments they have led to. Today it teachings, and its eager acceptance in archaeology is itself 2 MILESTONES OF PLEISTOCENE ARCHAEOLOGY a fair indication of the intellectual currents within modern he quite correctly pointed out that most tools then may have Western archaeology. been made from wood, but that in order to work wood the In order to examine possible historical patterns in the use of a harder material, fl int, was essential. treatment of archaeological heretics it is most instructive to Of particular interest here is Boucher de Perthes’ own consider the most celebrated cases in the history of the dis- reaction to the consistent rejection he experienced over cipline. It is important to appreciate that no truly important some decades: “They employed against me a weapon more archaeological discovery was ever made by a professional potent than objections, than criticism, than satire or even archaeologist. The most important fi nds made in Pleisto- persecution—the weapon of disdain. They did not discuss cene and Pliocene archaeology are perhaps the discoveries my facts, they did not even take the trouble to deny them. of man’s antiquity, of fossil man, of Paleolithic cave art, They disregarded them.” This is important, because the of Homo erectus, and of Australopithecus. They were all same weapon is still widely employed in contemporary made by non-archaeologists, and these were rejected by archaeology, and in precisely the same way. archaeologists—in all cases without seriously attempting The fi nal denouncement came in 1858, at a French ar- to examine the evidence fairly. chaeology congress, which issued a unanimous declaration according to which all of de Perthes’ stone tools from Ab- The discovery of humanity’s great antiquity beville were “a worthless collection of randomly picked up One of the fi rst to recognize the immense antiquity of pebbles”. The archaeologists, who had long objected to the humanity was Jacques Boucher de Crèvecœur de Perthes disciplinary trespass of this troublesome amateur, had real- (1788–1868). He was a French customs offi cial who for de- ized that Boucher de Perthes was not going to give up easily, cades in his spare time collected Paleolithic stone tools, such and that he was even gaining a little support, especially as handaxes, in the gravels from two more amateur archaeologists, another doctor and of the River Somme (Fig. a geologist: Marcel-Jérôme Rigollot and Edmond Hébert. 1). In examining fi nds made So at long last they decided to act decisively against these by a local medical doctor, cranks. This turned out to be a great and rather untimely Casimir Picard, in the 1820s embarrassment, because in the following year, two British he recognized these as the geologists, who had quietly worked away testing Boucher handiwork of human beings, de Perthes’ propositions (which is precisely what good and fi nding them together scientists do), published their fi ndings, confi rming that he with the bones of extinct ani- had been right all along and the ‘worthless pebbles’ were mals he realized that humans the tools of ‘Diluvial man’. Hugh Falconer and Joseph must have lived in France Prestwich had themselves become aware that he might be during the Pleistocene (the right after taking part in the 1858 supervised excavation of Diluvium, as it was then Windmill Hill Cave, Brixon, by another autodidact, William Figure 1. Boucher de called). A year after having Pengelly (1812–1894). Pengelly, a self-taught geologist, Perthes, founder of been seconded to Abbeville had earlier excavated in Kents Cavern where he had found Pleistocene archaeology. in 1825 he began to collect extinct animal remains together with fl int tools, and repeated stone implements and he Boucher de Perthes’ claims. soon became a regular visitor to the region’s quarries, canal Over the following years, in the wake of Darwin’s diggings and gravel pits. About 1832 he commenced seri- Origin of the species (1859) and Lyell’s The antiquity of ous excavations, amassing a large collection of fl int tools man (1863), public opinion swung around sharply, and it is and other material, and by 1838 he presented his theory important to note that archaeological opinion followed suit. and evidence to the Société d’Émulation. Undaunted by As we will see later, this is the usual pattern: archaeology the skepticism that greeted him, he did the same in the fol- follows public opinion, it is the most populist discipline, lowing year before the Paris Institute, where his ideas and always ingratiating itself with the public. Boucher de Perthes fi nds were thoroughly rejected. He then published his work lived to see his perseverance of half a lifetime vindicated in fi ve volumes entitled On the Creation, again fi nding it because he persevered and he addressed the public. Those rejected by the ‘experts’. heretics of archaeology who failed in this were not so for- Unfortunately this man also had some other eccentric tunate to witness their exoneration.