Paleolithic Societies and Neolithic Revolution - Essay Example

The [The [The The Development of Western Thought The Significance of Art, Magic and Technology in Paleolithic Societies An antiquity of man, infinitely more remote, which had long remained unknown, has been revealed by the discovery on one hand of osseous debris and more or less well-preserved skeletons, and on the other of objects made by man. No one today remains ignorant that the Age of Metals, first of bronze, then of iron, was preceded, at least in Europe, by a Stone Age in which stone, together with the bones of animals, cervidae horn, and probably wood, were the materials for tools and arms. The Stone Age falls into two great divisions; the recent, called the Neolithic, characterized by axes of hard stone polished by rubbing; and the ancient or Paleolithic, in which stone, chiefly flint was worked by percussion. In the European Paleolithic, the chronological succession of epochs chiefly characterized by their industry has been distinguished. The Lower Paleolithic, ending with the Mousterian, left no works of art. Consequently, the Upper Paleolithic or Reindeer age, so called because this animal is the characteristic feature of the fauna corresponding to a cold and dry climate analogous to that of the steppes and tundras. (Lewis, 201-45) The Reindeer age commences with the Aurignacian culture and terminates with the Magdalenian. Between the end of the first and the appearance of the second is inserted a period known as the Solutrian, which seems to have existed only in certain regions and to be of but secondary interest from the artistic point of view. The age of the European Paleolithic civilizations corresponds roughly to the Pleistocene period of the geologists. Although their chronological succession appears to be fixed in an almost definite manner, their absolute dates remain undetermined and have been variously estimated by the authorities. After the most moderate estimates the Aurignacian would be placed at from twenty-five thousand to sixteen thousand years before our era, the Magdalenian at from sixteen thousand to twelve thousand. A certain number of the activities classed among the fine arts probably existed in Paleolithic times. A number of wall paintings have been considered as representing dances. (Halverson, p.3) This interpretation, however, is not conclusive, but the representation of several disguised individuals, by analogy with savages, renders the existence of the dance in the Magdalenian highly probable. The dances once admitted, it is likely that, as among the savages and for psychological reasons, they were accompanied by music, if only that of the voice. As for musical instruments discovered in the excavations, some tubes of bird bone considered by Piette as the elements of the pipes of Pan are more probably needle cases. Perhaps one could see a primitive flute in the bone of a hare perforated with several holes, found in an English Paleolithic cavern. In several stations, a number of the phalanges of the antelopidae or cervidae, notably of the reindeer, have been found pierced near their extremities. These are currently considered as whistles comparable to those made by our children with apricot seeds. Their use as whistles is not impossible, but in some of them, notably the most ancient, dating back to the Mousterian levels, the hole is not produced by manual work but by the teeth of carnivorous animals. As to architecture, it is probable that the Paleolithic peoples inhabited, besides the rock shelters and caves where their hearth levels have been found, wattle huts which appear to be represented by figures called "tectiforms," engraved or painted on the walls of caverns. Another form of art, personal decoration, was highly developed among the Paleolithic peoples, as among the savages, to say nothing of the civilized races. Whatever the differences in nature or technique, the works of Paleolithic art form on the whole a homogeneous ensemble. Different culture levels of the same station have yielded almost identical figures, both in movable and wall art. This is notably the case for the horses heads of Hornos and for the does heads of the Lower Magdalenian of Altamira and Castillo. Thus the most convenient manner of reviewing these productions is to classify them according to the subjects represented. Animals furnished the Paleolithic artists their subject of predilection. Their representations are of unequal value, some being formless scrawls which must be attributed to apprentices if not to children. Others, coarsely done, belonging to the Upper Magdalenian, give the impression of hasty work. These are pieces of commercial art, so to speak, of the kind that formerly decorated the plates sold in the country villages. The figures, too hurriedly executed, are so conventionalized that the original motive is recognized, but with difficulty. However, a great number of them are treated with such mastery that not only a naturalist, but anyone who has seen the animals represented recognizes them at once. At the beginning of this art one encounters isolated animals in the style of those of the Franco-Cantabrian region. This similarity can be explained without reference to the influence of one region on the other by the same tendency to realism which could have come into being independently on both sides of the Pyrenees. In any case the originality of Spanish Paleolithic artists manifests itself vigorously in the complexity of scenes full of life and sometimes exhilarated with movement where man is the central figure. A study of Paleolithic art would be incomplete and of little interest if, after having traced its chronological evolution, disentangled and described its processes and its style, no attempt were made to determine its significance. A human activity such as art is hardly explained if the means alone are considered and the why and wherefore neglected. As a necessity of their existence the Paleolithic peoples had to procure the animals which furnished their food. The figured representation of these animals was a way of favoring their reproduction, of drawing them into, and holding them in, the neighborhood, and of facilitating the chase. Here the expression the magic of art must be taken literally for, at the epoch, the artists were properly sorcerers. There would be much embellishment to assert that magic was the exclusive foundation of art, to refute the part played by the impulse of replication or that of the yearning for bodily adornment, or again of the social necessity to convey and communicate notion. On the other hand, the realities seem to show that the urge behind the art of the Reindeer Age is bound to the growth of magic. The first allegations in support of the part magic plays in Paleolithic works of art rest on the character of the places where numbers of cave drawings have been executed. (Conkey, 413-25) The subsistence of the Paleolithic hunters was inevitably conditioned by the existence and consequently the increase of game. Thus one could admit that, if they believed in sympathetic magic, they would have had recourse to it for the reproduction of animals. Once the consciousness of his ability to create images was awakened, Paleolithic man might have thought of using this gift first to complete, judging them insufficiently resembling, either the images fortuitously produced by himself, or natural accidents presenting some likeness to beings that especially interested him, and finally to create entirely the figures the execution of which was at first more or less clumsy and coarse, but intentional. To some extent how art of a magical destination, was forcedly preceded by a disinterested activity, could have sprung from it. (Guthrie, 110-22) While the civilized adult, accustomed to see and even to execute figured representations, finds it entirely natural that his hand, aided besides with instruments made expressly for the purpose, leaves on a support some lines making an image, our children consider this ability to create resemblances as a faculty reserved to grown-ups and of which they at first imagine themselves devoid. When they gradually arrive at the understanding that they have themselves also produced a resembling drawing (or one so judged by their obliging imagination) it is to them the revelation of an ability at once creative and miraculous which, by these characters, partakes of magic. But, besides, it is an established fact that childish and savage psychology confuses the artificial image with the corresponding actual being. If, as it is infinitely probable, the Paleolithic people had an analogous mentality, the artist who made, for example, an engraving or a sculpture of a horse considered himself as the creator not only of the figure, but of a veritable horse. The creative character of figured art is the common fundamental of first its disinterested charm for the artist, then the belief in its magical virtue. Devotion so understood, opposed to disinterested piety, presents in its turn two varieties differentiated by the efficacy which is attributed to it; whether its influence on the divinity is considered as simply persuasive and susceptible to checks, or as rigorously compelling, the divine will being considered as free of, or subject to, ritual practices. The divinity does not always do what it wishes and it cannot will things contrary to the intentions of the devotee, which characterizes magic. The worshiper, become magician or sorcerer, dominates the divine will upon which he depends. This is Bacons conception regarding physical forces applied to a divine power--practically synonyms--that man subdues them by knowledge of their nature and by appropriate practices the success of which is assured if properly carried out. In short, religion consists in the attitude at once mental and corporeal of man, devotion, which may take the three principal forms of piety, religion properly called, and magic. Whatever may be the interest of this theoretical analysis, the different forms of religious attitude that they distinguish are but abstractions, pure types. In developed and systematic religions, and even in reflective individuals, one can see their coexistence in spite of their fundamental incompatibility. It is in vain to discern whether the religious attitude of the Paleolithic hunters by rare and ambiguous vestiges, merits rather the title of religion or of magic. (Mithen, p.4) If one realizes that our philosophy has not yet reached a solution of the problem of human liberty nor even succeeded in giving it in terms devoid of ambiguity, one may hardly be astonished if prehistoric man had not attained a clear conception of divine will and of the eventual influence exercised on it by the ritual practices issuing from devotion. For this epoch then, the words magic and religion may be considered as synonymous. If now looked into the operations, practices, or rites through which man hopes to exert an influence over the forces on which he depends, one can, according to their nature, divide them into three principal categories. In the first conception, known under the name of sympathetic magic, the magical influence operates through figured representation. In making a painting, an engraving or a sculptured image of a being, one acquires domination over it, and compels it more or less or at least inclines it to that which is desired. At the end of the Paleolithic era, humans became acquainted with a different type of life style. The previous way of life for a human was a method of gathering food by hunting animals and picking plants. This new style of getting food is called agriculture. For both hunting and gathering, people needed tools. A type of tool that a hunter would use is a spearhead. The spearhead would be use to kill animals by attaching it to a stick. This infers that hunters and gatherers would have probably carried a spear with them at all times. They were always on the move in search of new food. When the heard moved, the people moved as well. The tools they carried were not very bulky, because of how often the moved. Tools were made to be mobile. A typical tool that and agriculturist would use is made of some sort of bone with a flint rock lodged inside this bone. These tools were used to cut plants grown by these people as a food source. These people generally stayed in one area, cultivating their plants for food. The domestication of animals also was a source of food to these people. Thus began the farm life. Both agriculturists and hunter-gatherers used tools to survive. The tools carried by the hunters and gatherers were small and mobile. Where as the tools used by the agriculturists were larger and did not have to carry around. The questionable theories of nineteenth-century historians, according to which art improved slowly from a beginning in earliest periods to the perfected works of classical times, blinded the eyes to these remarkable accomplishments at mankinds very start. Since the highest creative work bursts into reality with full force and perfection, like ail newly born creatures, one might say, with equal reason, that art was greatest at its commencement and afterwards slowly declined. The correct conception, however, probably lies between these two theories. After great beginnings, a decline ensues, until suddenly a new creation of extraordinary force starts a new period of production. Certainly the earliest plastic work of human hands can be as little surpassed in artistic value as the animal paintings of Paleolithic cave-dwellers, which have found more favor with the art-loving public. (Clottes, 268) 2- Neolithic Revolution as the Necessary Preconditions for the Establishment of Civilization The Neolithic Revolution was a period in history in which many cultural, social, and economic advances were achieved by the people of the Middle East. The changes that were made in this era would affect the way our ancestors lived and still affects us in the present day. (Whittle, 14-22) The Neolithic Revolution was inevitable and without the drastic changes which took place during this time, our species would be extinct. This time period of important changes was unavoidable because without the changes that were made the people would have become extinct, or not evolved into the individuals of today. An important change during this revolution was the domestication of plants and animals. Without this vital factor of life if homo-sapiens still existed, they would be uncivilized because they would still be nomadic, as they would need to find a food source. Another factor that wouldve changed our lives today if this revolution had not happened is gender roles. Since people would be nomadic, the woman may not be portrayed as less important. The woman would not have to stay at home and care for the children because like their predecessors, the whole clan would need to forage for food and resources. The Neolithic Revolution was inevitable as it was required for the survival of our ancestors. Without the domestication of food and animals our species wouldve been lucky to survive for the next hundred years. The Neolithic Revolution was bound to occur for the survival or humans and for the evolution that was to come. The Neolithic revolution (a.k.a. agricultural revolution) was a change in the way of life of our ancestors. It took place about 8000 years ago among various tribes in Asia and the Middle East. It included a transition from foraging and hunting to the domestication of animals (most probably starting with the dog) and to farming. Tribes settled in fertile areas and formed agricultural communities many of which grew into villages and cities. This relatively stable way of life and the more reliable food supply (and surplus) led to the development of new professions, to labor specialization and ultimately to the stratification of these societies. Improved conditions of life led to somewhat longer life spans. Nevertheless population growth remained low due to high infant mortality rates. The impact of the Neolithic revolution was not as much on immediate population growth (even though it did have a long term impact on population growth) as on the material and spiritual development of the human race. It is widely regarded as the beginning of civilization. When humans became food producers a new world with limitless horizons opened before them. They left behind them the Paleolithic (old stone) and entered the Neolithic (new stone) age. The Neolithic differed from the Paleolithic in several different ways. They made their stone tools by grinding and polishing rather than by chipping and fracturing; and, even more important, they obtained food wholly or primarily from agriculture and/or stock raisin rather than from hunting animals or gathering plants. The tools that were produced by the Neolithic were merely newer and more improved versions of the tools that were already mentioned. They were more durable and introduced other important tools such as the plow. This was a big deal for humans because they did not have to use the hunter-gatherer method because they had their own means of production. The plow made growing your own food possible. This tool, (the plow) basically created a whole new generation for human beings. People now actually understood the concept of growing your own plants. This tool made surviving easier for humans because they had to work less for their food. This new mode of living soon spread all over the globe. Much of the recent literature portrays the Neolithic as an economic system, or at least as having been founded upon a particular kind of subsistence economy. The social and economic processes which characterized the Neolithic period in different parts of the world increasingly seem to have been quite distinct. In the case of southern Britain there is a stronger case that some identifiable transformation occurred at around 4000 BC, but it is surely primarily in the local context that this must be evaluated. Moreover, it is arguable that at this time changes overtook a number of different cultural practices, ranging from mortuary activity to the processing and serving of food. (Cullen, 77-100) The British Neolithic consisted of a set of material resources, including pottery, polished stone tools, monuments and domesticated animals. Different communities could use this technology in order to create and reproduce economic regimes, social systems and interpretations of the world (Cooney, 65-70). Yet while the Neolithic repertoire could be used in very different ways, it was also fundamentally transformative. Although in the present Neolithic material culture as a set of things, their real significance lay in the ways in which they were used, or performed. Utilized in performance these artifacts and resources intervened in social life, transforming everyday activities. Indeed, many of the consequences of adopting Neolithic material culture will have been unintended ones. There were different ways in which the elements of the Neolithic assemblage were modified and elaborated in tune with local conditions and strategies. In the case of food production and acquisition, previous accounts have tended to argue that a homogeneous Neolithic economy (that is, mixed farming) provided the conditions under which cultural innovations could be introduced. So, for instance, agricultural surplus was required before monument-building or craft specialization could be undertaken. Neolithic communities in Britain practiced a variety of different economic regimes, ranging from hunting and gathering to herding and horticulture. However, the understanding that the ‘Neolithic revolution was based upon an epochal change in subsistence practice has promoted the expectation that all Neolithic communities should have practiced a single economy. It follows from this that any piece of evidence relating to Neolithic agriculture has been adopted as representative of the whole. In consequence, isolated and perhaps atypical phenomena have been cobbled together to construct a uniform image of ‘the Neolithic economy’. (Chapman, 107-22) This has generally involved the combination of sedentaryness, a stable domestic community co-resident in a permanently occupied structure, the cultivation of cereals in defined and continuously cropped fields, the keeping of a variety of domestic animals at individual farmsteads, and a proprietary or territorial relationship with land. ‘Neolithic houses’ in mainland Britain are much more scarce than those attributed to later periods, and many of the structures identified as houses may not have been lived in; episodes of clearance, woodland regeneration and soil erosion were less intense than those experienced in later periods, and were not synchronous; samples of carbonized plant remains have generally been dominated by wild species, while faunal assemblages almost always relate to ceremonial activities rather than everyday diet. (Richards, 891-97) Where cultivation has been identified, it appears to have been episodic, rather than representing the establishment of long-lived agrarian landscapes. Those few field systems which have been isolated seem to have been composed of paddocks used for stock management, rather than ploughed fields. Much of the environmental evidence for the Neolithic has come from the ditches and old land surfaces associated with ceremonial monuments. These may not have been characteristic of entire landscapes. Many Neolithic communities practiced a form of ‘tethered mobility’ involving periodic returns to a number of fixed points (Edmonds, 412-16), it is reasonable to assume that large monuments (as places of occasional population aggregation) would have seen the most intense of human impacts on soils and vegetation. A uniform economic transformation was the necessary condition of cultural change; monuments had a more fundamental role in the British Neolithic. In several parts of north-west Europe the construction of monuments may have begun as early as any other manifestation of ‘Neolithicisation’. For example, in Brittany the large menhirs may date to the earliest Neolithic (Giot, 319-24). At a larger scale the building of monuments brought about a transformation of landscapes and the ways in which they were inhabited. The presence of tombs and enclosures influenced the movements of people from place to place. As the Neolithic period progressed, greater effort appears to have been expended in attempting to regulate the character of the physical encounter with monuments, by the means of more elaborate architectural organization. This is significant because, just as human groups constructed monuments, so monuments created people—in the sense that they promoted a particular set of experiences and understandings of the world. This again was characteristic of all Neolithic material culture. Neolithic artifacts and resources transformed social reality and social conduct in fundamental ways, changing the whole matrix of perceptions and expectations through which people learned their place in the world. Effectively, the Neolithic created different kinds of human being. Works Cited Chapman, J. 1982. The Secondary Products Revolution and the limitations of the Neolithic: Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology 19, 107-22 Cooney, G. 2000. Landscapes of Neolithic Ireland: London: Routledge. 65-70 Cullen, T. (1985) Social implications of ceramic style in the Neolithic Peloponnese, in W. Kingery (ed.) Ancient Technology to Modern Science, pp. 77-100, Columbus, OH: American Ceramic Society. Edmonds, M.R. 1995: Stone Tools and Society: Working Stone in Neolithic and Bronze Age Britain. London: Batsford. 412-16 Giot, P.R. 1988 Stones in the landscape of Brittany. In: C. Ruggles (ed.) Records in Stone: Studies in Memory of Alexander Thom, 319-24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richards, M. and Hedges, R.E.M. 1999; A Neolithic revolution; new evidence of diet in the British Neolithic: Antiquity 73, 891-7 Whittle, A.W.R. 1997: Moving on and moving around: Neolithic settlement mobility. In: P. Topping (ed.) Neolithic Landscapes, 14-22. Oxford: Oxbow. Lewis J .D. -Williams and T. A. Dowson, "The Signs of All Times: Entoptic Phenomena and Upper Paleolithic Art," Current Anthropology 29 (1988):201-45. Conkey, M.W 1987. New approaches in the search for meaning: A review of research in Paleolithic art. Journal of Field Archaeology 14, 413-35 Clottes, Jean (1996). Thematic changes in Upper Paleolithic art: a view from the Grotte Chauvet. Antiquity 268. Mithen, Steven (1996). On Early Paleolithic concept-mediated marks, mental modularity, and the origins of art: Current Anthropology 37: 4 Guthrie, R. Dale (2004). The Nature of Paleolithic Art:  Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. 110-22 Halverson, John (1992). Paleolithic art and cognition: Journal of Psychology 126: 3 Read More