The
Palaeolithic Societies of Europe by Clive Gamble.
Cambridge World Archaeology. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press. 1999. pp 505; 124 text figures; 108 tables. ISBN 0
521 65105 0.
C. S. Gamble’s
“The Palaeolithic Societies of Europe” (1999) is interesting
for many reasons, not the least of which is that it stands in contrast
to his earlier work “The Palaeolithic Settlement of Europe”
(1986). Gamble himself consciously examines the contrasts between his
earlier work and this new book, criticising the former for its ecological
focus and group-based approach to the study of hominid groups. Gamble’s
new book implements “social archaeology”- focussing on the
importance of social relations and on the individual as an active social
agent. As such, Gamble’s new book is in step with postmodern trends
in Western intellectual thought and may be symptomatic of a paradigm
shift in Palaeolithic research.
Throughout this book
Gamble underlines the importance of moving from archaeological explanations
that emphasise ecological relations to interpretations grounded in social
relations (though not to the exclusion of ecological relations);
from group-based definitions of human society to consideration of the
individual's role in creating society. Gamble's vision of social archaeology
attempts to unify social and ecological relations, and he shares with
authors like Ingold (2000) a view of human/environment interactions
that stresses “the active engagement and mutual involvement of
the individual in the construction and negotiation of his/her environment.”
(Gamble 1999:6). The work of Leroi-Gourhan (1964) has been influential
towards developing the concept of agency in archaeological research
and Gamble pays particular attention to the “chaîne operatoire”
(operational sequence) and its role in bringing about the unification
of technological and social processes.
Gamble presents a
wealth of information and synthesises it well. The chapters are organised
in a fairly straightforward format. The first three chapters establish
the theoretical structure Gamble uses to interpret the Palaeolithic
record of Europe. In the following chapters (Chapter 4 onwards) Gamble
treats, in chronological order: the first hominids in Europe and arguments
for the short versus long chronology; early Neanderthal societies; late
Neanderthals and the Mousterian; the transition from Middle to Upper
Palaeolithic societies and finally, the Upper Palaeolithic societies
of Europe. Each chapter presents the chronological and environmental
framework first, followed bythe archaeological data and a detailed description
of key sites (locales) on a regional basis, and finally, interpretation
of the data in terms of social archaeology.
In the opening chapters,
the concept of "rhythm" is seen as particularly important
as rhythms provide "the conceptual link between the dynamics of
past action and the inert residues of those actions" (Gamble 1999:65).
Rhythms are closely linked concepts, consisting of: "operational
sequences, movements along well trodden paths and attention paid to
others” (Gamble 1999:65). In Gamble’s opinion, a regional
approach (e.g., the analysis of settlement patterns) is still a valid
undertaking in Palaeolithic archaeology – he is not throwing the
baby out with the bath water - but it takes an altered and expanded
form with rhythms bridging the gap between spatial patterning and social
relations. In practical terms, the emphasis on regional settlement in
Gamble’s earlier work is replaced by an emphasis on space as it
“reflects the contexts of interaction and the construction of
social networks by individuals.” (Gamble 1999:65).
In Chapter 2, "The
individual, society and networks", Gamble's primary goal is to
develop network analysis as a methodology for linking social theory
to the archaeological record. This approach seems to be quite promising,
and has already been explored in one shape or another by researchers
like Steele (1994), for example. As the concept of network analysis,
applied to the study of human society, is key to operationalising Gamble's
social archaeology it bears summarising here (with apologies to the
author). Networks of social relations result from the actions of creative
and mobile individuals as they form ties of variable quality and duration.
To maintain a network, an individual requires emotional, symbolic and
material resources. Networks, therefore, are ruled by limitations on
the individual (e.g., temporal and cognitive) and society is “built
up from limitations on the individual as they negotiate their own networks”
(p.63). Analytically, a network can be quantified in terms of its density
and connectivity (providing a basis for comparing networks). Gamble
claims, with some justification, that this approach presents archaeologists
with a more flexible tool with which to study cultural transmission
and the formation of society than more traditional anthropological approaches.
Gamble’s development
of a new vocabulary in Chapter 3 is defended on the grounds that it
is a declaration of a new agenda being explored (Gamble 1999:96). Arguably,
it also presents an unnecessary linguistic barrier, particularly for
undergraduates, and one wonders if it is perhaps a little too convoluted.
For example, gatherings (“enduring locales”, i.e.,
archaeological sites) are distinct from social occasions (that
is, contexts for performance established by objects [architecture, non-portable
objects]) and places – (contexts for performance established
at named locales invested with meaning). Since the spatial organisation
of social occasions and places both structure behaviour
the necessity for drawing a distinction between them is unclear. The
example provided by Gamble (1999:75) of caves (the "classic Palaeolithic
site type") as places, and of the limestone cliffs at Les Eyzies
as social occasions is frankly confusing.
In "The Palaeolithic
Societies of Europe" Gamble develops arguments for a new approach
to Palaeolithic archaeology – a social archaeology that is not
limited to the investigation of ecological relations, does not work
out of a system of oppositions between one cultural system and another,
and therefore is not limited to the investigation of periods of change
(including human origins). This book demonstrates that Gamble’s
approach lends itself well to an interpretation of the relatively long
periods of apparent stasis that make up most of the Palaeolithic record.
With respects to the evolution of modern human culture, Gamble advances
the hypothesis that what changed during the Palaeolithic "was the
character and extent of the regional scale” (Gamble 1999:91).
That is, humans developed the ability to extend their social networks
beyond intimate and effective levels, and to maintain relations at a
distance (the evolutionarily significant “release from proximity”).
Since the development of extended and global networks can only be investigated
in the archaeological record, Gamble is demonstrating the relevance
of Palaeolithic research as a basis for developing social theory.
“Palaeolithic
Societies” is probably unsuitable for use in undergraduate courses
due to its dense writing style and use of specialised vocabulary, but
it provides a challenging read and an excellent basis for wide-ranging
discussions in graduate seminars.
As with Ingold’s
recent publication (2000), I am left stimulated and excited by the apparently
rich prospects of this new way of thinking about what we do
as archaeologists – and, I confess, still struggling to develop
a clear sense of how it will affect what we do. As has been
pointed out elsewhere (Dobres & Robb 2000), theoretical perspectives
that fail to change the way we do archaeology are ultimately
doomed to failure. However, in the "Palaeolithic Societies of Europe"
Gamble is clearly working in the right direction – attempting
to build a methodological bridge between theory and practise. It is
an enterprise worthy of attention.
Ariane Burke
Department of Anthropology,
University of Manitoba
Winnipeg, Canada.
Review Submitted: February 2003
References Cited:
Gamble, C.S. 1986 "The Palaeolithic
Settlement of Europe" Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dobres, M.-A., Robb, J. (2000). Agency in archaeology: paradigm or platitude?
In “Agency in Archaeology.” (M.-A. Dobres, Robb, J., Ed.),
pp. 3-17. Routledge, London.
Ingold, T. 2000. The Perception of the Environment. London: Routledge.
Leroi Gourhan, A. 1993 "Gesture and Speech" Cambridge, MA:
M.I.T. Press. (English Translation of the 1964 French publication "Le
Geste et la Parole").
Steele, T. 1994 "Communication networks and dispersal patterns
in human evolution: a simple simulation model." World Archaeology
26:126-143.
The views expressed in this review are not
necessarily those of the Society or the Reviews Editor.
|