The Archaeology of the Neolithic - Research Paper Example

The Archaeology of the Neolithic The last part of the Stone Age is considered as the Neolithic period. It starts with the beginning of farming and domestication of animals and ends in the time when metal tools began to be used (Thomas, 1999, pp.8). It has to be kept in mind, while studying the Neolithic period that the ending point of Neolithic varies, in relation with different geographical areas, based on whether copper, iron or bronze tools were used to manufacture the metal tools. So the concept is rather cultural than temporal. As far as studies conducted in the area of Neolithic archeology are concerned, “pits,…causewayed enclosures….(and)… pottery” have been the major archeological evidences from that era (Thomas, 1999, pp.2). In more general terms, it has been the accumulated earthworks that survive” and which become “the medium and the outcome of relations between people in the past” that were used by archeologists to reconstruct the real story of that period (Edmonds &Edmonds, 1999, pp.4). Thus the archeology of the Neolithic starts its work from exploring the medium of earth and its numerous expressions in space. Even the remnants of a terrace formation on a hillock can tell the story of a whole society. But it is only with a deep understanding of “how people inhabit a landscape” that an even near to precise account of that distant past could be revisited (Robinson, Corisettar and Koshy, 2008, pp.374). But an anthropologist always has to remember that “past was not a neat succession of periods, opening and closing like the chapters of a book” (Edmonds &Edmonds, 1999, pp.4). But it can be seen that the Neolithic period show a regular progression in the “scale of monuments” (Edmonds & Edmonds, 1999, pp.105). The “enclosures were some of the first large monuments to appear” (Edmonds &Edmonds, 1999, pp.105). It is agreed that such monuments “captured ancestral rites, exchange and the broader social landscape (of that age) in a single moment” Edmonds & Edmonds, 1999, pp.105). There are differing opinions regarding whether the enclosures represented domestic settlements and dwellings (Thomas, 1999, pp.9). Here what Thomas (1999, pp.9) has suggested is that the conventional impression of a dwelling place familiar to us now has to be kept aside and then these enclosures can be considered as “houses” sans the “idealized domestic context.” But it is a fact that many Neolithic structures remain ambiguous when it comes to the question of what is their precise ideological and historical meaning (Thomas, 1999, pp.9). These include, “post-hole constructions beneath barrows to timber circles inside henge monuments, sunken hollows, isolated hearths, and wind breaks” (Thomas, 1999, pp.9). By citing the example of the Neolithic mounds on Hambledon hill in Dorset, Edmonds &Edmonds (1999, pp.4) have said that people belonging to the succeeding periods has not disturbed those mounds when they “cut ditches or set platforms” which is an indication of the important rituals, gatherings or events that were conducted on that mound in the Neolithic period. Here, a logical correlation is made by the researcher by comparing two facts. One fact is that the mounds stood undisturbed through centuries. The second is the carbon dating evidence that reveals the age of those mounds. When these two are placed faced to face with each other, the researcher could draw a convincing conclusion. It is with this kind of facts and logic that the Neolithic archeology keeps its progress on the right path. Archeology of food acquisition is another area which throws light into the life of Neolithic era (Thomas, 1999, pp.11). This is on of the realms in which Neolithic period stands apart from the preceding Mesolithic period. And invention of agriculture has been attributed to the Neolithic period by almost all researchers (Thomas, 1999, pp.13). The Neolithic scatters found to be spread on a “wider range of soils” have been taken as indications of more intensive agricultural activity (Thomas, 1999, pp.18). They are also suggestive of “stable settlement pattern” of life (Thomas, 1999, pp.18). The “massive geometric embanked enclosures” similarly have been understood as evidence of maintaining garden crops (Thomas, 1999, pp.23). For example, the Poverty Point in Louisiana is a structure of “six concentric rings of earth works covering 150 acres” (Thomas, 1999, pp.23). Robinson, Corisettar and Koshy (2008) have described the importance of yet another kind of archeological evidence from the Neolithic period, namely, the rock cave drawings. These drawings are argued to be of great relevance because they are “not only a projection, but may also be an active agent in processes of change” (Robinson, Corisettar and Koshy, 2008, pp.358). There is a strong possibility that the rock art that exist within the geographical premise of a primitive society might have been revisited several times by its members and reanalyzed as well. Thus they have a potential to become a record of an ideological moment in history as well as a vehicle of change for the next moment. Rock art is important as an archeological evidence of the Neolithic period also because, they have specifically made it visible, the transition from the nomadic hunting life to the some what settled Neolithic life (Robinson, Corisettar and Koshy, 2008, pp.361-362). Another interesting finding of this study is that the “iconography of bulls in the singular indicates the invention of a new cultural metanarrative” which uses the bulls as symbol of power or rather the symbol of a “new life” (Robinson, Corisettar and Koshy, 2008, pp.369). The domestication of animals could be thus read as a text of the Neolithic ideology. This was a moment in history when humans felt more to in control of nature and their own destiny. The assemblage of cattle fossils in Neolithic habitat sites and near rock art sites has also shown light into the animal domestication aspect of this era (Thomas, 1999, pp.27). Rock drawings also have had the function of introducing human society to “mythical narratives” (Robinson, Corisettar and Koshy, 2008, pp.372). So when the drawings which are specifically suggestive of their origin to the Neolithic period, by way of their depiction of social life, reflect some other mythical qualities as well, the anthropologist can easily make connections. And the depiction of metallic weapons in rock art along with other images indicative of Neolithic ideology, has been taken as yet another proof to the argument that metallic weapons were discovered in that period (Robinson, Corisettar and Koshy, 2008, pp.372). The Neolithic age has thus left behind its on mementos and pathfinders. To view them and interpret them from a theoretical as well as historical angle, is the Herculean task that remains unfinished. It is hoped that the theoretical, methodical and technical progress in human knowledge can eventually bridge the gaps. Annotated Bibliography Edmonds, M.R. and Edmonds, M, (1999) Ancestral geographies of the Neolithic: landscape, monuments and memory, London: Routledge. This book is about the methods and ways to create the history of the Neolithic period through a nearly non-existent, yet real, archeological evidences of that age. While explaining this process, the author has elaborately discussed the nature of archeological evidences from the Neolithic age. Keeping in view that the history of Neolithic period is not a proper continuum, Edmonds and Edmonds (1999) has tried to keep their narrative open ended and to reveal less explored aspects of archeology of that period. The book has a rich array of examples which are relevant to this study. The process of reconstructing history from the scratch is well-explained in this book. This will be particularly useful to this study for getting an overall picture of the Neolithic archeology and the theoretical implications of its dynamics. Thomas, J. (1999) Understanding the Neolithic, London: Routledge. This book explains the difference between treating the history of Neolithic period as a continuous progression towards the present and approaching it without a modernity bias. This is a fresh approach to the Neolithic archeology and will help this research not to be trapped into stereotypes that exist in the narratives about that period. The study of material culture is emphasized by the author as the most effective tool while reconstructing prehistory. The author reminds the reader that past should not be forced into “modernist categories and classifications.” This study is important for this research work because archeological evidences from different geographic locations are examined and then correlations made based on well-argued postulates. Robinson, D.W., Korisettar, R. and Koshy, J. (2008) Metanarratives and the (re)invention of the Neolithic: A case study in rock art from Birappa rock shelter and Hire-gudda hill, south-central India, Journal of Social Archeology, 8:355, pp. Retrieved from http://jsa.sagepub.com/content/8/3/355.full.pdf+html [accessed 09 November 2010]. This work of research has explored the rock art of Neolithic period as cultural narratives which act as an active medium for creating new metanarratives. This article goes on to explain further how rock arts reflect the ideology and social life of the period that it represents. The rock art in the Indian caves of Neolithic period are cited as examples and the importance of this article is that it pinpoints the transition from Mesolithic to Neolithic age by way of showing the change from hunting pictures to the pictures of domesticated animals in rock art. It is explained how rock art becomes the most useful archeological evidence of Neolithic period and they are taken into account as the “enduring visible presence of the past.” This article is particularly relevant for this study because it links the culture and socio-economic life of Neolithic period with this kind of solid archeological evidence, which is more concrete and pregnant with meaning than pits, causewayed enclosures, or pottery. Read More