| ISSN 1357-4442 | Editor: Simon Denison |
|---|
| LETTERS |
From Mr Brian Boyd, and others
Sir: We read with interest Chris Knight and Camilla Power's article, Ochre and sexual deception (March). But as we point out in a forthcoming volume of Cambridge Archaeological Journal (5:1), there are considerable problems with the authors' use of archaeological data. These problems need to be addressed.
They note that `the use of red ochre .... increased by an order of magnitude about 110,000 years ago'. This simply reflects the abundance of ochre fragments in cave sites. Ochre can form naturally in caves, and is subject to the complicated depositional histories characteristic of such sites. These are at best deflated lag deposits - that is, deposits where light surrounding material such as sand has been blown away, leaving behind the heavier material such as ochre - containing occupational palimpsests separated by vast spans of time.
We are deeply concerned that the authors cite modern and historical evidence to suggest a `cultural continuity' stretching back more than 100,000 years! Such direct use of ethnographic data has long been discredited, not only in archaeology but in the wider social sciences. If we can really project ethno-historic information back to the Upper Pleistocene, then it would appear that the role of the archaeologist in reconstructing behaviour from material remains is obsolete.
The specific use of limited archaeological data is even more worrying. The authors use one of the engraved limestone slabs from Lalinde to illustrate `sexual sisterhood' in Upper Palaeolithic Europe. This is merely another example of the highly selective use of Palaeolithic art which has impeded a critical understanding of the period.
In Peyrony's original publication of the Lalinde plaques (L'Anthropologie 40, 1930, 19-29), it is far from clear whether or not these particular engravings are even human, let alone female: if they are females, they have truncated legs and heads, and no breasts. The entire slabs are riddled with engraved lines, and no other `females' are connected in the way that Knight and Power suggest. As abundant superimpositioning and ambiguous identification are so characteristic of Palaeolithic art, it seems ludicrous to cite single examples as `supportive evidence'.
Yours faithfully,
BRIAN BOYD
PAUL PETTITT
MARK WHITE
Department of Archaeology
University of Cambridge
21 March
From Dr John Bevan
Sir: Your feature `Ochre and sexual deception' makes an assumption that the philandering male seeks a fertile female. The evidence of male behaviour in modern societies and in historical literature does not support this assumption. On the contrary, the philandering male seeks an attractive and sexually receptive female for intercourse rather than for procreation. There is no reason to suppose that Palaeolithic philanderers were any different from their modern counterparts.
Concealment of ovulation and continuous sexual receptivity in the human female, as distinct from the intermittent sexual receptivity occurring at ovulation in other primate species, constitutes a mechanism for pair bonding, thus providing male social and economic support for the mother and child. This support was a crucial factor in the evolution of a large-brained species with complex behaviour, as the authors correctly state. However, the suggestion that ovulation concealment functions to oblige the male to invest time in trying to impregnate the female is again making a false assumption about male motivation.
Yours faithfully,
JOHN BEVAN
Rugeley, Staffs
4 March
From Ms Lea Myers
Sir: What is the evidence that is was women, rather than men, who used the pigment? Or that a woman needed an individual man to invest in her child? Or that men were natural philanderers? Knight and Power's argument rests on assumptions such as these. I interpret the article, with its message of natural female duplicity, as part of the current backlash against feminism.
Yours faithfully,
LEA MYERS
London SE23
9 March
From Mr Bob Kings
Sir: Contrary to Mick Cuddeford's view (Help us, and we'll help you, March), the Midland Archaeological Research Society (MARS) believes that all archaeological finds should be reported, and that it should be left to archaeologists to decide which finds are archaeologically useful. MARS also accepts that the recording system takes time, and we are prepared to wait for as long as it takes.
In 1989 the National Council for Metal Detecting (NCMD) tried to persuade us to change our rules to allow those of our members who were affiliated to the NCMD to opt out of the recording process. After prolonged and vitriolic correspondence, our members left the NCMD and we've ploughed our own furrow ever since.
Yours sincerely,
BOB KINGS
Chairman
Midland Archaeological Research Society
Northampton
6 March
From Mr Mike Rumbold
Sir: We, at the Council for Independent Archaeology (CIA), read your interview with Dr Chris Salisbury (March) with some concern. We share his views on the necessity for high standards in archaeology. As a supporting organisation of the British Archaeological Awards we are aware of the work for which he received the Pitt Rivers Award in 1994, which is a shining example of the standard that dedicated amateurs can achieve.
But what makes him believe the CIA would `turn amateurs sloppy'? If he believes other amateurs are unable to reach his own high ideals, this is untrue. The Pitt Rivers Award attracts a number of entrants of very high standard. Some of these displayed their work at a recent CIA Congress at Sheffield, where they demonstrated quality and originality.
Our Congress is aimed at demonstrating to our members, and others who attend, what is happening in various parts of the country. We also have a scheme to help volunteers find excavation experience, and an Index of Experts prepared to help amateurs with technical matters. These are all practical ways of helping to educate archaeologists at different stages of development. Amateurs can, and should, aim at the very highest standards. They do not have the time constraints which often plague professionals. Unfortunately many lack confidence in their ability, not helped by Chris Salisbury's suggestion that they are only fit to be `handmaidens to the professionals'.
Yours faithfully,
MIKE RUMBOLD
Secretary, CIA
Weedon Bec
5 April
Return to the British Archaeology homepage
© Council for British Archaeology, 1995