Imagining Prehistory: Pictorial Reconstructions of the Way We Were

Author(s): Alan E. Mann

Source: American Anthropologist , Mar., 2003, Vol. 105, No. 1, Special Issue: Biological
Anthropology: Historical Perspectives on Current Issues, Disciplinary Connections, and
Future Directions (Mar., 2003), pp. 139-143
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Anthropological Association

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3567322

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Anthropological Association and Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to American Anthropologist

This content downloaded from

202.41.10.120 on Fri, 12 Feb 2021 17:09:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Visual Anthropology

REVIEW ESSAYS

Imagining Prehistory: Pictorial

the Way We Were
ALAN E. MANN

Princeton University

... ..... . . . W N
Zo b.~
Ip: -:?r-::: M, RMII
~;i:~::~:?~ ~B~I~;NWri l.a..s;.

>~
IXp~:

..... . . .. .~
wk ~ ?~ ~i?:-: I

ZSM

?: r:

:?x:-3n

A;~ :?i .-MIN .

M 4 ?, ~

?L~: ::"5AX,

FIGURE 1. Cro-Mag

Earlier discover
member
so are their
mentsbet
teeth, come
and on
archa
discover
biological histor
and broken
the state
fron
tional setting,
tional t
ra
vironment in
witness w
food, competed
grams a
died. In man
spite evo
of

AMERICAN ANTH

This content downloaded from

202.41.10.120 on Fri, 12 Feb 2021 17:09:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
140 American Anthropologist * Vol. 105, No. 1 * March 2003

made-up moderns scurrying around in an imagined envi-the Iconography of Human Evolution, Stephanie Moser
ronment, doing prehistoric people-like things. Museums(1998) has taken on the job of tracing the historical devel-
have featured dioramas of Neandertals burying their dead, opments of these reconstructions in order to document
Cro-Magnons painting animals on cave walls and foragingthe ways the iconography of our current modes of recon-
australopithecines (Figure 1). struction can be traced back into the past.
What is the basis for the attraction that the general The book brings together and describes a wide array of
public has for our ancestors that has prompted all this at- drawings, paintings, and media, many of which were cre-
tention? It may simply be that we wish to know more ated long before either the discovery of evidence docu-
about our remote ancestry; there may also be a tendencymenting a time before history or even a general accep-
for people to want to be reassured about the progression of tance that there was a period prior to the onset of
human development, that we really have changed from historical periods. Many of the early artistic repre-
brutish creatures who lived a hand-to-mouth existence. sentations depict peoples prior to the beginnings of organ-
Perhaps it is the romance and mystery that can be pro- ized civil life and show them in a variety of situations, in-
jected back into the shadowy times of these ancient cluding
be- pastoral scenes in the forest as well as in front of
ings. Or it may be that modern humans, having become caves. In their physical appearance, they are not generally
isolated in an impersonal and vast global environment, portrayed as nonhuman or apelike but resemble modern
people. These works frequently include animal bones scat-
cut off from cultural and family ties, are seeking out their
tered about; the people are often shown in furs and carry-
ultimate ancestral roots. Whatever the explanation, books,
newspaper and magazine articles, television programs, ing clubs. As Moser emphasizes, the use of material arti-
facts
and films have all featured narratives of our evolutionary such as fur garments, clubs, and broken animal
bones, familiar to us in modern images of the prehistoric
history. There are even cookbooks presenting "origins diets,"
"evolutionary diets," and one with recommendationspast, for emerge early on as icons for the primitive, primal,
food choices that will make you "Neanderthin." and uncivilized. The early chapters of Moser's book also
Although fascination with human fossil discoveries show that major themes in recent reconstructions of ear-
has been around from the announcement of the initial lier hominids-pair bonding, language, and fire-were fre-
quently imaged in these early works and seem to have
recognition of human ancestors in 1856, the public's curi-
been present in the fabric of Western society since at least
osity with our remote past has increased dramatically over
the last few decades. Stimulating this interest has been the
the 8th century B.C.E.
remarkable series of finds made over the past 40 years, be- From these early beginnings, Moser goes on to exam-
ine developments during the 16th-18th centuries. None
ginning with the discovery of the "Zinjanthropus" fossil
in 1959 and continuing with the very recent an- of the images reflect the concept of evolution that we had
nouncements of very early hominids (e.g., Orrorin and Sa- emerged from earlier beings that were apelike in many of
helanthropus) that apparently place hominid origins back their anatomical traits; rather, they viewed peoples who
at least six million years. Another major reason for thislived before history or civil life as modern in appearance.
heightened fascination with human origins has been theThese portrayals, however, continue to make use of skin
proliferation of popular science magazines and televisiongarments, clubs, and the like, reinforcing their symbolic
stations, which often feature programs on human evolu-nature. Many of the images relate to a biblical theme and
tion. Finally, contributing significantly to the popular in- it is interesting to note the presence here, too, of these ear-
terest in human origins research have been the results of lier icons of the primal and primitive.
comparative genetic studies, including the spectacular feat Only in the latter parts of the book does Moser begin
of the successful extraction of fragmentary mitochondrial to examine the developments in the middle of the 19th
DNA from a number of Paleolithic fossils. This work pro- century and the acceptance of a prehistoric time when hu-
vided evidence of a possible very late emergence of mod-mans or humanlike creatures lived contemporary with
ern humans from Africa and the assertion that all livingnow-extinct animals and employed artifacts of stone and
people are very similar biologically. bone. Moser considers the often grotesque reconstructions
Many of the presentations are organized around artis- of human ancestors that now take the place of modern
tic reconstructions of what these creatures might have humans in the reconstructions that are produced at this
looked like in life, an exercise in "fleshing out" our ances- time and notes the continued presence of the now estab-
tors. Often these recreations are placed within an environ- lished icons symbolizing earlier peoples. She also draws at-
tention to the emerging use in reconstructions from this
mental setting. In these cases, the paucity of the human
fossil record is supplemented by the imagination of thetime of the physical traits of non-Europeans as models for
artist. These reconstructions can have a very strong influ- prehistoric peoples. As she notes:
ence on the ways scholars and the lay public conceptual-
ize earlier members of the human line. What is not often As with all approaches to depicting the past, there was an
underlying social agenda to the images. The recognition
appreciated is the long history of such reconstructions and of the prehistoric past was taking place at a time when
the debt that current models of earlier humans owe to ethnographic peoples were attracting academic interest ...
natural historians and artists of the past. In Ancestral Images:Colonial representations of other cultures were not explicitly

This content downloaded from

202.41.10.120 on Fri, 12 Feb 2021 17:09:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Visual Anthropology 141

described as views of the prehistoric past, but nevertheless practical to include many recent illustrations in the book.
a fundamental connection existed .... Thus, the imagery Nevertheless, an important aspect of the use of reconstruc-
reinforced the belief that white European culture was su-
perior and that people with darker skin were not only less
tions of the prehistoric past is in their impact on how we
conceptualize our past. For example, consider two recon-
civilized but that they represented an earlier stage of exist-
ence. [1998:144-145] structions that accompany this review. The Neanderthal
One wishes that Moser had explored these reconstructions Flint Workers by Knight was produced in 1924 for the
in a little more depth, examining some of the popular re- American Museum of Natural History (Figure 2). Moser
constructions of human evolution with Europeans at the discusses this reconstruction in some detail emphasizing
end of a chain whose earlier links joined Africans, Native the limitations placed on Knight in his portrayal of these
Australians, and the great apes in that specific descending Neandertals by Henry Fairfield Osborn, who wished them
order. Academic textbooks into the 1940s continued to to be in "a pose natural to wild men, without chairs, who
utilize the vision, often comparing a Neandertalare accustomed
skull not to damp or stony ground, and therefore
with that of a European but with those of Australians, Afri-squat, or kneel on a rough piece of skin" (Moser 1998:159).
cans, and orangutans. The Neandertals are drawn in what appears to be a bent-
The final chapter of the book focuses on the recon- kneed position, a posture reconstructed from the La
structions of human evolution produced over the past 75 Chapelle-aux-Saints specimen by Marcellin Boule (1911-
years or so. This is the least satisfactory portion of the 13) and not yet corrected by the work of Straus and Cave
book; while Moser examines the work of artists such as (1957). However, perhaps what is most important about
Amadee Forestier, Charles Knight, Maurice Wilson, and this tableau is not in the anatomical details or in the spear,
Zdengk Burian, all of whom worked in the early and mid broken animal bones, fur garments, and cave setting,
parts of the 20th century, she spends very little time deal- icons from the very earliest images of the human past, but
ing with contemporary artists such as Jay Matternes and in the facial expressions and body posture of the people.
John Gurche, and the many other artists, often anony- They are not only clearly brutes but they are also fearful
mous, who have contributed reconstructions to countless brutes, unsmiling and obviously unhappy. They are look-
popular articles, books, and television programs. It is in ing down the slope from the re-creation of the Le Moustier
the consideration of these modern interpreters of the hu- cave where they have been placed, toward the Vezere
man evolutionary past that Moser could have emphasized River valley, perhaps watching imminent extinction com-
many aspects of how these images are realized and the fre- ing toward them. Everything in the picture emphasizes
quently profound influence they can have on the ways the idea "that Neandertals were savage brutes with no con-
scholars and the lay public visualize and thus perceive ex- nection to modem humans" (Moser 1998:159).
tinct members of our evolutionary lineage. To be fair, Contrast this image with a second reconstruction,
Moser does point out in the notes accompanying this painted by Matternes for an article on human evolution
chapter that because of copyright restrictions, it was not that appeared in the November 1985 issue of National

F I ! .~ .~ ~ , ..:....',:.- 0..?..
' ?; ...,

, !: 2;;.,::.. : : ... ..,. .. . . ....

;:"
I: : 1 fv -.i ...
. , :: . .
, . ."
. .... . .. i: : ... :'
, ......' . . '....
.. , ,... ."
.. . :....- : ......,.
:.
., . ,... . :."
,:.... ,, ,.?
,:,,: '=
'' ,=
..., .. :.".-.
., .. ., , ,. ..
... ;.: . ..
. . ,,, :, ....
, .. .-., ? ... i:
.. .... :::? ...-''... . ? .." . . .???..., , ..1 ' .:.7 .. ...: ': . .' ... .' ' . ". " o,

FIGURE 2. The Neanderthal Flint Workers, mural painting by Charles R. Knight, 1924, for the American Museum of Natural Hi
AMNH)

This content downloaded from

202.41.10.120 on Fri, 12 Feb 2021 17:09:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
142 American Anthropologist * Vol. 105, No. 1 * March 2003

Geographic (Figure 3). Moser did not obtain permission to In 1999, a year after the publication date of Ancestra
use this picture but she does discuss it in the book. SheImages, Moser published an article critically examin
stresses the importance of a woman as the central figurescenes of the human evolutionary past portrayed in
and the levels of interaction between men and women. seum dioramas, raising serious questions about their
tinued use. She notes that these sorts of displays ha
But, as with the Knight re-creation, the important aspects
of this picture are in the faces and bodies of the figures.
many limitations:
Unlike the dead-end creatures portrayed by Knight, these
They tend to produce stereotypes that have been virtually
people are obviously very competent and fully capable of
impossible to erase from our consciousness. Second, they
successfully dealing with whatever life brings them. Theytend to present singular visions of the world that are for-
are suitable as human ancestors, as the Neandertals in the
mulaic and provide little room for alternatives. Third, de-
Knight illustration are not. spite the fact that these displays aim to be a scientifically
accurate as possible, they still appear entirely imaginary or
It is difficult to understand why Moser did not discuss
hypothetical. [1999:109-110]
the broader aspects of these re-creations. Over the past ten
years, Moser has written a series of articles for a number of same criticisms apply not only to museum d
These
journals and edited books in which she provides a great
ramas but also equally to all reconstructions of the prehi
deal of insight on the impact of these images ontoric bothpast. It is a pity that Moser did not include these so
popular thought and scholarly views of human evolution
of discussions in the book but leaves the reader, if they
(1992, 1993a, 1993b, 1999). For example, in 1992 she ex-
unfamiliar with her other work, with the idea that sh
amined the ways reconstructions of the La Chapelle-aux-
views these images of our past in a favorable light.
Saints Neandertal skeleton, one produced under the super-
In consideration of all the problems of dioramas, Mos
vision of Boule and the other by Arthur Keith, differed in
questions in the concluding paragraph of her 1999 art
their interpretation. Boule visualized this Neandertal basi- or not they are still viable:
whether
cally as an apelike creature while Keith created it to look
The fact is that while dioramas do have serious problems
virtually modern humanlike. Both of these illustrations
in the way they convey ideas about the world, they re-
had a broad influence as a reflection of the two competing
main a highly popular means of communicating scientific
theories of modern human origins then current: the findings
pre- to the non-specialist. The simple answer is that
Neandertal and the pre-Sapiens ideas. we still need them because people want them. [1999:112]

?~~~ i. :
?: .:.: :-.::. . ..i" !1i L~.

.i

?~~~i :.[.. . i
: : .... ;:::! . ..

???:?' ... ... ;..;i ? F .=:?? l Z.~IC I Ili

... .... . .. .. ..?1' 1

FIGU
perm

This content downloaded from

202.41.10.120 on Fri, 12 Feb 2021 17:09:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Visual Anthropology 143

One wishes that Moser had been equally forthright in lished, emphasizes the distances that these images may
her book, for the re-creation of our ancestors and theirhave from the actual times they seek to picture.
times, whether as dioramas, pictures in a book, or scenes
REFERENCES CITED
with actors in a television program, remain a highly sub-
Moser, Stephanie
jective and speculative undertaking, often providing a sin-
1992 The Visual Language of Archaeology: A Case Study of the N
gle view of what are complex and very difficult to inter- anderthals. Antiquity 66:831-844.
pret subjects. Moreover, aspects that must come entirely 1993a Gender Stereotyping in Pictorial Reconstructions of Hu-
man Origins. In Women in Archaeology: A Feminist Critque. H
from the imaginative mind of the artist, like facial expres- du Cros and L. Smith, eds. Pp. 75-92. Canberra: Department of
sions, or even hair distribution, for example, often remain Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies.
1993b Picturing the Prehistoric. Metascience 4:58-67.
the most memorable part of the scene for many people. 1998 Ancestral Images: The Iconography of Human Origins. Ith-
The fact, as Moser demonstrates, that many of the basic aca: Cornell University Press.
1999 The Dilemma of Didactic Displays. Habitat Dioramas, Life-
elements in these re-creations are icons that were con-
Groups and Reconstructions of the Past. Making Early Histories
ceived of long before the theory of evolution was estab- in Museums. N. Merriman, ed. Pp. 95-116. London: Cassell.

A Note on the Paintings of Prehistoric Ancest

by Charles R. Knight
JUDITH C. BERMAN "capable of producing a work of art which only comes
from long and arduous study, and naturally this line of
Hunter College, City University of New York
study has not been pursed by any other than an artist"
Charles R. Knight (1874-1953) was one of(letter to Henry
the great Fairfield Osborn, January 7, 1921, in
popu-
larizers of the prehistoric past. His vividCzerkas and Glut 1982:28-29).
reconstructions
and paintings of prehistoric animals and humans,
Knight wascreated
trained in the United States by an Ameri-
can, middle
over the course of more than 50 years to the but in the of
tradition
the of the artists and teachers at the
20th century, have influenced generations great tcole des Beaux-Arts in Paris, the "Western world's
of museum-go-
art school
ers and anthropologists. Indeed, many gained par excellence"
their first (Weinberg 1991:15). The tcole
thoroughly
impression of prehistoric times through his widely educated
repro- generations of artists in traditional
methods (seeanimals
duced work. Knight made models of prehistoric Boime 1986 and Weinberg 1991 for discus-
sions of the
and painted scenes and murals of prehistoric rigorous curriculum at the tcole). Gombrich
life-dino-
saurs, mammals, and early humans-most importantly
(1969) has emphasized atthe role of training and apprentice-
the American Museum of Natural History, the Field Mu-
ship in the education of artists, especially their education
seum in Chicago, and the Los Angeles Countyin artistic conventions:
Museum. In "all representations are grounded
in schemata
his later years, he made radio broadcasts, wrote books, which
andthe artist learns to use" (Gombrich
1969:313).
gave illustrated lectures around the country. HisThe artists trained at the Icole were the main-
illustra-
stays
tions for a 1942 issue of National Geographic of the "Parade
called Paris Salons and the artistic establishment. Af-
ter 1863,references
of Life through the Ages" were used as standard foreign students who passed the rigorous en-
trance examination
for artists for many years (Czerkas and Glut 1982). "Knight's were admitted; they returned to their
dinosaurs were considered so definitive that even his mis- own countries to disseminate the Ecole's traditions.

takes were widely copied" (Milner 1990: 256-257). Thus, By the latter half of the 19th century, scientific and
Knight indelibly fixed in our minds a particular image ofpopular representations of human ancestors were flourish-
the deep past and his importance in defining our culture's ing in France. There are several reasons for this. The work
encounter with prehistory can hardly be exaggerated. of French prehistorians, such as Jacques Boucher de Per-
Although Knight worked in a scientific context and thes, were critical in establishing the existence of humans
was guided in large measure by the scientists commission- "before Adam." Equally, history paintings, visualizing the
ing his work, I want to suggest here that his work evenhistorical and even the prehistoric past, were prominently
more strongly reflects the artistic traditions to which he and popularly exhibited at the Paris Salons. The artistic
was heir. I will attempt to demonstrate this through some schemata, the themes, the traditions to which Knight was
examples of his representations of human ancestors. tied grew from these representations, which were carried
Knight saw himself as an artist and showed this forcefully back to the United States by artists who applied them in
when a scientist criticized his preliminary Neanderthalparticular to the Native Americans of North America.
sketches for a mural. Knight said that an artist should beKnight's representations were familiar to U.S. audiences,

This content downloaded from

202.41.10.120 on Fri, 12 Feb 2021 17:09:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms