Page 223 - Kavur, Boris. Devet esejev o (skoraj) človeški podobi. Založba Univerze na Primorskem, Koper 2014.
P. 223
summary
able – consequently also laden with meaning. Until this period the opinion
prevailed in cultural anthropology that hunters and gatherers were “close to
nature”. Therefore they were perceived and analyzed in natural terms – in-
stead in social relations between individuals they were analyzed in ecological
relations to their environment.
Based on anthropological analyses this period witnessed the second in-
vasion of anthropological analogies in to archaeological constructions and ex-
planations – consequently also in to reconstructions and depictions. Despite
archaeological data a structure prevailed which assumed a deeper, in the ge-
netic composition based difference between anatomically modern and archa-
ic hunters and gatherers in the past. The return to biology meant that the de-
feated of the evolutionary race were described and consequently depicted
more often in determinable terms of biological factors and ecological varia-
bles than in socially created frameworks.
With other words – despite the rehabilitation of hunters and gatherers
the Neanderthals remained in archaeological and anthropological constructs
and consequently also reconstructions in the three decades to come linked in
to ecological relations with their food and not in to social relations with oth-
er members of the community or other communities. Apparent realism of
images was in reality an art of portrait painting - a genre following internal
conventions. Poises and gestures followed patterns and were laden with sym-
bolic meaning.
If observed precisely, even the latest reconstructions of prehistoric life
seem worn out, ethnographically uninformed. It is easy to blame the artist for
repeating a limited complex of older motives, but we have to be aware that the
major part of the guilt is on the side of scientists. Considering the visual re-
constructions only as a part of popular science which is, as being a part of mu-
seum displays, intended for the laic public, they were unaware of the immense
influence of visual images on imaginaries about the past. It is a false and po-
tentially dangerous perspective (Gifford-Gonzales 1998, 77).
Depictions of prehistoric life present a parallel and extremely powerful
narrative about the human past. Westerners too often read the naturalistic
depictions as if they were real since the realistic depictions are so tempting
“real” and accessible. Exact reconstruction of the environment, vegetation,
animals and human bodies even enhance the probability of the scenes. Pro-
duction of these images of people is so realistic that we sooner or later start to
assume that also the depicted social system is real.
A key position in understanding of Neanderthal reconstructions is
played by the inclusion in to theoretical frameworks explaining the develop-
223
able – consequently also laden with meaning. Until this period the opinion
prevailed in cultural anthropology that hunters and gatherers were “close to
nature”. Therefore they were perceived and analyzed in natural terms – in-
stead in social relations between individuals they were analyzed in ecological
relations to their environment.
Based on anthropological analyses this period witnessed the second in-
vasion of anthropological analogies in to archaeological constructions and ex-
planations – consequently also in to reconstructions and depictions. Despite
archaeological data a structure prevailed which assumed a deeper, in the ge-
netic composition based difference between anatomically modern and archa-
ic hunters and gatherers in the past. The return to biology meant that the de-
feated of the evolutionary race were described and consequently depicted
more often in determinable terms of biological factors and ecological varia-
bles than in socially created frameworks.
With other words – despite the rehabilitation of hunters and gatherers
the Neanderthals remained in archaeological and anthropological constructs
and consequently also reconstructions in the three decades to come linked in
to ecological relations with their food and not in to social relations with oth-
er members of the community or other communities. Apparent realism of
images was in reality an art of portrait painting - a genre following internal
conventions. Poises and gestures followed patterns and were laden with sym-
bolic meaning.
If observed precisely, even the latest reconstructions of prehistoric life
seem worn out, ethnographically uninformed. It is easy to blame the artist for
repeating a limited complex of older motives, but we have to be aware that the
major part of the guilt is on the side of scientists. Considering the visual re-
constructions only as a part of popular science which is, as being a part of mu-
seum displays, intended for the laic public, they were unaware of the immense
influence of visual images on imaginaries about the past. It is a false and po-
tentially dangerous perspective (Gifford-Gonzales 1998, 77).
Depictions of prehistoric life present a parallel and extremely powerful
narrative about the human past. Westerners too often read the naturalistic
depictions as if they were real since the realistic depictions are so tempting
“real” and accessible. Exact reconstruction of the environment, vegetation,
animals and human bodies even enhance the probability of the scenes. Pro-
duction of these images of people is so realistic that we sooner or later start to
assume that also the depicted social system is real.
A key position in understanding of Neanderthal reconstructions is
played by the inclusion in to theoretical frameworks explaining the develop-
223
