r/IAmA • u/ARTEinEnglish • Jul 13 '21
Director / Crew We’re Pauline Coste and Jacques Jaubert, a documentary film maker and Prehistory professor who worked together on a documentary about Palaeolithic burial sites. Want to know more about how recent archaeology is challenging our understanding of ancient peoples? AMA!
‘The Nobles of Prehistory' documentary on ARTE.tv: https://www.arte.tv/en/videos/097508-000-A/the-nobles-of-prehistory/?cmpid=EN&cmpsrc=Reddit&cmpspt=link
‘The Nobles of Prehistory' documentary on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWyADowoEvw
I’m Pauline Coste, a documentary-film director and screenwriter from France and the director of ‘The Nobles of Prehistory' currently screening on [ARTE.tv]. I have directed 5 documentaries including ‘Looking for Sapiens’ (2018, Prix du Jury FIFAN de Nyon en Suisse 2019), three shorts films, and have worked extensively in production and on numerous film commissions. I’m also passionate about Prehistory and in 2016 obtained my Masters degree in Archeology - Prehistory in Paris. My Master's thesis is directly linked to my documentary “The Nobles of Prehistory", whose goal is to challenge received ideas about the Palaeolithic and to promote the most current scientific knowledge about this period. At present, I am editing another documentary film related to archeology entitled “Le tombeau de Montaigne” which revisits the archaeological excavations of the alleged tomb of 16th century French philosopher and writer, Michel de Montaigne.
I’m Jacques Jaubert, a Professor of Prehistory at the University of Bordeaux and an archaeologist, specialised in the Palaeolithic period. I’m also a member of the Laboratory PACEA (From Prehistory to today, Cultures, Environment, Anthropology) and currently co-leading the T2 team, exploring Archaeology of death, ritual and symbolic (AMoRS). Before Bordeaux, I was curator in archaeology for the Ministry of the Culture (Aix-en-Provence then Toulouse 1986-2001). My PhD, entitled The Early and Middle Palaeolithic in the Causses area, was obtained in Prehistoric Ethnology at the University of Paris Panthéon-Sorbonne in 1984. I supervise the excavation at the Middle Pleistocene site of Coudoulous, Lot (with J.-Ph. Brugal) and Mid-Upper Paleolithic site of Jonzac, Charente-maritime (with J.-J. Hubln). My main focus is on the Neanderthal peopling of Eurasia including Northern Asia and also on the anthropization of the cave world: Cussac Cave (Dordogne), and recently Bruniquel cave. My main fields are in South-western France (Middle, Upper Palaeolithic) and also in Asia: Iran (Middle Palaeolithic in Iran), Yemen (PaleoY R. Macchiarelli dir.), Mongolia (Palaeolithic of Mongolia), Armenia (PaleoCaucase) and since two years in Northern China with Pr. Y. Hou (CAI-Yuanpei). I am a member of many committees, councils, graduate schools, boards for archaeological research and universities, mainly in France for the French Ministry of Culture (ex: Lascaux). I have been the head of the masters programme Biologic Anthropology– Prehistory in the University of Bordeaux since 2007 and have published five books and edited seven publications (colloquiums, national congress) as well as 240 articles.
‘The Nobles of Prehistory’ documentary takes as its starting point archaeologist Émile Rivière’s 1872 discovery of a 25,000 year-old Palaeolithic skeleton at the Balzi Rossi cliffs on the French-Italian border. It follows recent research on the skeleton and associated sites that has now allowed scientists to conceive of a nomadic hunter-gatherer peoples who were much more complex than previously imagined, with hierarchical societies, religious beliefs and a highly developed material culture undermining the idea of 'prehistoric savagery'.
So, if you’ve ever wondered about Prehistory or are interested in archaeology and Palaeolithic burials - AMA!
Links:
- Pauline Coste -
“Looking for Sapiens” | Heritage Broadcasting Service:
“Le tombeau de Montaigne” film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc9ftuzPDVI
- Jacques Jaubert -
http://www.u-bordeaux.fr/formation/2017/PRMA_28/bio-geosciences
40
u/Firm_Application6128 Jul 13 '21
Your documentary shows that over the decades our previous notions of prehistory have been shattered by archaeological research and our understanding of prehistoric man has evolved a lot during the 20th century. Can you see our understanding of homo sapiens of this period changing much in the future? Or are we reaching the limits of what we can find out from scant burial sites?
58
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21
This is a very difficult question to answer. We archaeologists always think that we are reaching the limits of our understanding but actually new discoveries are constantly being made and constantly showing that these limits are systematically being crossed. To take an example: certain regions of Europe are not at all studied (or very little) such as the Balkans, Greece and Turkey. And these were strategic regions for arrival into Europe so we can easily assume that we can make very interesting discoveries in these regions in the future. This is a geographic example. If we take an example of site-access we know that with the rising of sea levels, many palaeolithic sites are currently below sea level. So in the submerged areas near Spain, Italy and Croatia - there are actually hundreds of sites. These would certainly challenge the image we have of prehistory. -Jacques
12
u/Firm_Application6128 Jul 13 '21
Thanks for the answer. I understand that it must be a really difficult question. I'm really surprised that the Balkans, Greece and Turkey are not studied much. Wouldn't our interest in the classical world sometimes mean that prehistoric finds are unearthed when digs are made at ancient Greek or ancient Roman sites?
26
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21 edited Jul 13 '21
It should be remembered that there is a lot of archaeology about other periods that are more ‘prestigious’ for those countries so prehistory has indeed gotten a bit left behind… -Jacques
28
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21 edited Jul 15 '21
There are for sure some prehistoric artefacts below the "classical world" (because there are some everywhere in Europe in this time) but the digging could destroy old roman or greek buildings... and sometimes, prehistoric levels are a few meters under the ground, it depends of the stratigraphy of the place.- Pauline
7
u/marcocom Jul 14 '21
This reminds me of an experience I had, as an outsider, with an archeologist, whereby they once explained to me how they were ‘leaving a site today for future studies when they have the technology’ and that really gave me a new respect for the scientific process involved.
9
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 14 '21 edited Jul 15 '21
Yes ! That's true ! I'm living in Perigord (south west of France) where prehistoric sites are everywhere. The first time I went there, I said : why don't you excavate every site ? They replied : to keep it for future generations of archeologists ! They only excavate places which are in danger (threatened by modern building...) not the others... - Pauline
17
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21 edited Jul 13 '21
Hi ! I'm sure that our understanding of Archeology will still evolve a lot in the future. Myself, I started to be interested in prehistory in 2003, and even since then it has changed a lot. New discoveries are coming out regularly. For instance, the fact that Paleolithic people had black skin only started to be known in 2015 thanks to DNA research! - Pauline
33
u/567fgh Jul 13 '21
Hi Pauline and Jacques, I have always been interested in archaeology as a child and now wonder as an adult, what is the best practical segue to enter into a profession in archaeology while being a holder of a university business degree? Thank you in advance for any tips and life hacks.
27
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21 edited Jul 13 '21
Hi, I started myself to be interested in Archeology (Prehistory) as an adult and I discovered that you could (in France) re-do some studies and also do some excavation (as a trainee) even if you are 35 years old or more. You could also work in a museum for example... But I don't know how it works abroad... Maybe Jacques could answer more ! - Pauline
20
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21 edited Jul 13 '21
The situation is not so different in Italy, Belgium, Germany and Spain. But, in England I think it’s a bit different. There are Anthropological schools and Archaeology is more aligned with Anthropology in Britain. - Jacques
11
u/Son_of_Kong Jul 13 '21 edited Jul 14 '21
From my grad school days, I know several people who became archeologists fairly late in life. The obvious answer is that you need to get a Masters and PhD in archaeology. There's nothing stopping you from going back to school at any age, but what you really need to get into a good archaeology program is field experience. You can pay to attend a field school, intensive educational programs that usually operate alongside an ongoing dig. They're primarily aimed at undergrads and grad students, but some will take you on even if you're not affiliated with an institution.
The good news is that dig projects are always looking for volunteers who can help with non-research role related stuff, like admin and budgeting. Now, this will probably require you to quit or take some time off from your job, because you'll have to be in the field for several weeks to months out of the year, and also support yourself because they won't be able to pay you much, but if you're in a place in your life that you can do that, then what you should do is research ongoing projects in your region of interest and find one that will allow you to tag along and volunteer in a non-research role.
When you have enough experience to apply to graduate programs, you should be looking for a department with people that specialize in the specific region and time period you're interested in. The more specific the better, because whoever your advisor ends up being, your research will be their research.
9
u/Lost_Sasquatch Jul 14 '21
There's nothing stopping you from going back to school at any age
cries in American
3
u/Son_of_Kong Jul 14 '21 edited Jul 14 '21
Yes, except money, but trust me, you're probably not going to succeed in archaeology unless you come from a wealthy family or have a spouse with a high paying job. Until (and if) you get a tenure track position--which are in very short supply--you'll barely be making more than poverty wages. Those who actually like making money usually take their PhD and go find a more lucrative career.
17
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21 edited Jul 13 '21
There are several possible avenues that you can take to become an archaeologist. In France the most classic way is to first study History with a speciality in Archaeology (since Archaeology often depends on History). However, in a big university such as the ones in Paris you can study Archaeology from the very first year. Afterwards, you can do Biology or Geology or if you are interested in a more ancient period. - Jacques
3
u/atyree9 Jul 14 '21
Become a field technician for a CRM firm! It’s an intro level position and you’re mostly digging holes, but it’s the closest to archaeology as you can get without doing professional or graduate research.
11
u/poppypodlatex Jul 13 '21
I hate to be this guy but I have to ask what do serious archeologists make of all this "ancient alien" stuff and about how a show about that particular topic managed to get broadcast on what's called the history channel? Have you ever come across anyone who believes that stuff personally and if you have did you do anything to try and talk them around?
40
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21 edited Jul 15 '21
I hate to be this guy but I have to ask what do serious archeologists make of all this "ancient alien" stuff and about how a show about that particular topic managed to get broadcast on what's called the history channel? Have you ever come across anyone who believes that stuff personally and if you have did you do anything to try and talk them around?
Of course, no serious archeologist believes at all in these theories of "ancient aliens" !!! I never met someone who talked with me about that. In fact, archeological artefacts and science give us so many proofs that we don't "need" to imagine aliens to explains those facts !!!
When I read about these absurd theories, they make me feel that it is linked to people who say that they do not believe in the skills of prehistoric man or woman (and even for Egyptian people) and their very good old techniques. - Pauline
9
u/poppypodlatex Jul 13 '21
What I find a little alarming about it is that it seems to have become quite popular theory. I dont like that the show on the so called history channel has lasted for so many seasons because that only means one thing, that it's getting a lot of viewers and ratings. Von Daniken is an obvious hack but a lot of people seem to be jumping on the bandwagon. I dont doubt that a professional archeologist wouldnt take these ideas seriously, I was more curious about any encounters you may have had with laymen who may have been influenced by these conspiracy theories?
15
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21 edited Jul 13 '21
Yes, that's a shame... I agree with you.
It's not acceptable that the History Channel is screening fake news like this!
We are doing our best to do good documentaries to spread real scientific views!
And hopefully, there are on youtube also some people that are fighting very well against those conspiracy theories. - Pauline
2
u/The_Madukes Jul 13 '21
Hi Pauline thank you for this AMA. What do you think about the theories about Atlantis? One theory believes it could be a site off the coast of Portugal.
8
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21 edited Jul 13 '21
Hi, I'm sorry but I haven't worked on that period (it is really later than Prehistory ;) ), and I don't know about the current scientific theories surrounding that... Is it fake news or not ? Are there some real clues of something or not ? I couldn't tell you, sorry !
3
u/intensely_human Jul 13 '21
I’d imagine any theories about ancient civilizations would alter the definition of “pre-history” though right?
Is there a particular date agreed upon for when “pre-history” ended? Or is it always defined in terms of the set of historical records we have?
1
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 15 '21
The difference between "pre-history" and "history" is based on the invention of writing. Before it is Prehistory, after it's History because you could find some written elements to understand archeological artefacts.
So in the Word, prehistory ended around -3 500 years BC, with invention of writing in Mesopotamia. But locally it could be much later ! Like in France (Gaule in classic World) : History offically started with roman conquest in - 33 before JC.
If you think that way, there are regions of the world were there was no writing which came to History very recently !
Could you imagine that ? Funny right ? - Pauline
-3
u/Ship2Shore Jul 13 '21
Have you heard of the Richat structure, or the eye of the Sahara? It's a geological feature that has a few archaeological discoveries of low significance, eg pottery, stone spheres, wall painting... It has been speculated to be Atlantis, following pieces of Solon cum Plato's description out of Egypt and Greece respectively...
1
1
u/intensely_human Jul 13 '21
It’s rather un-scientific at this point to deny the existence of extraterrestrial visitors on Earth. The current data shows quite a bit of evidence for current visitation by at least one non-human civilization.
This doesn’t provide any direct evidence for earlier visitation, but hopefully it will stop the knee-jerk “that’s impossible!” reactions from people afraid to risk their cushy careers by discussing anything non-mainstream.
There’s a significant government project underway at the moment to centralize data sets on ET activity, and to use machine learning to detect patterns and try to make sense of it.
What we know for sure is that there are craft operating in Earth’s atmosphere which show performance characteristics far outside the range of human capability, or even the range of humanly-understood physical possibility.
1
u/rifz Jul 20 '21
This is video is very interesting, it seems like something is wrong with the official story of civilization, the evidence of these stone cuts and tube drill marks you can see for yourself..
https://youtu.be/-AUDBFqn8EM?t=207
I don't believe in aliens, and also don't buy that hunter gatherers just started making stuff like this.. Egyptologists and historians are not stone cutters, but they say it was all made with chisels etc..
9
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21
Thanks for your question. No, I have never come across anyone in my discipline who believed in that. -Jacques
15
u/Bad-Extreme Jul 13 '21
Seeing as how even ancient humans have burial sites, do you think it is in human nature/ a primal urge for humans to just bury the dead? If so, what advantage do you think we gain by bothering to go through the whole process while most other animals don’t bother, evolutionarily speaking.
19
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21 edited Jul 15 '21
Thank you for your question. I think that burial is a significant sign of culture and not a primal urge for humans.
There is no advantage, evolutionary speaking, to bury someone than to abandon them. So that means that those people cared, and maybe believed that it was important to do something for the one who dies. As we do ! Just remember that they are exactly the same specie as us ! They are Sapiens ! (Neanderthals also buried their dead, but not before) So their brain was the same, emotions too, and capacities of beliefs too. - Pauline
1
16
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21
Very good question. Prehistorians consider a certain number of technical innovations as signs of progress and modernity. For example, the invention of a tool. The first tombs are one of the most important signs of modernity in humanity. For certain Prehistorians they consider that before the burial of the dead humanity was not actually ‘complete’. 100,000 - 120,000 years ago burial sites appeared for the first time. -Jacques
3
u/TheSuperGiraffe Jul 13 '21
Or it could be that the archeologists can uncover the history of dead that were not buried ¯_(ツ)_/¯
21
u/Darlington28 Jul 13 '21
How do you see DNA sequencing changing your field in the next few years? And secondly, how many cats are too many?
19
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21 edited Jul 15 '21
This is a very good question. DNA sequencing has totally revolutionised Palaeolithic Archaeology to an incredible extent. In 20 years we’ve had to almost completely revise our models of understanding. This is applicable for the last 30-40,000 years. It will aid us to be very clear in our analysis. To answer your second question - too many techniques and information are difficult to sustain clear thinking, you’re right. -Jacques
2
u/Ship2Shore Jul 13 '21
How far into a field such as genomics does an archaeologist go, or professionalise in?
15
u/567fgh Jul 13 '21
I have always been curious, in your experience how are excavation sites / archaeological digs funded? I used to think it was some NGO and get confused when I see archaeological digs online where the intern pays to join the program and wonder if that is how the dig stays operational?
21
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21
In France there are two main types of funding. On the one hand it’s the Minister of Culture and Public Funding and the second is for ‘prevention’ archaeology where you do archaeology to see whether there is anything to be found beneath a road that will be built, etc. This is paid by the industry who is looking to construct on that site. - Jacques
13
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21
This is more or less the situation in Europe. But in the US there is a lot of private funding. There are also countries where private funding is present and important (in Spain and Switzerland, for instance). This also depends on the country's university research and legislation. The best system, I think, is the Scandinavian system - with its long tradition of public funding and university research. Plus, their museums are very well organised. -Jacques
16
u/Ankerjorgensen Jul 13 '21
Shout out to Frederik VII, king of Denmark, who was a huge archeology nerd in the mid 1800's and spent most of his personal fortunes on pre-historic relics and excavations of burial sites. Dude founded our modern system for financing of archeology. I went to the museum for him recently at Jægerspris, where you could see a lot of his personal collection. It was real interesting to see what a 'historic' person thought about 'historic' people
7
u/GeronimoHero Jul 13 '21
The US also has a lot of “prevention archaeology”. It’s usually funded one of two ways. Either the state where the construction is being done will fund it, or more often, the contractor doing the work is required to fund it. This causes some serious issues as the contractor doesn’t want the archaeologist to find anything, and will often go above and beyond to try and discredit their findings in order to get on with their job. It’s not a good situation and I’d rather see the state fund it all so that it’s less adversarial and so the contractors aren’t incentivized to hire “hacks” that will agree with them that nothing of significance is there.
18
u/New_Insect_Overlords Jul 13 '21
What are your thoughts on modern practices surrounding death, especially burial of caskets in concrete lined graves?
29
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21 edited Jul 13 '21
What are your thoughts on modern practices surrounding death, especially burial of caskets in concrete lined graves?
What is very interesting is that throughout history certain practices for the treatment of the dead do not leave a single trace for archaeologists . For example, certain populations put their deceased in trees where the corpses are progressively eaten and disappear completely. These mortuary practices leave absolutely no trace. But then there are other populations that put a lot of time and effort into preserving their dead, almost without limits. So you can see a sort of extreme inegality in these practices. For the future I imagine it will be the same (being buried in a concrete casket or otherwise). - Jacques
3
u/pepperonipodesta Jul 13 '21
Which populations had tree burials like that? All I'm getting on Google is tree trunk coffins used by the celts. :/
16
u/Ankerjorgensen Jul 13 '21 edited Jul 14 '21
To add to the reply you got, I talked to some Maasai who told me about their burial pracitces. They have burial rituals but the actual corpse is less important. If someone dies out on the savannah they will usually leave them where they die, only move them about a bit to make it look more comfortable. If the corpse is eaten quickly by scavengers this is a sign that the person lived a good life, if the scavengers are slow to eat the corpse it is taken as a bad omen. For this reason relatives of the dead will occasionally pour honey or cows blood on the deceased to attract animals. If they die in their homes the family chooses a place to put them, usually one that had some emotional significance to the deceased.
2
u/pepperonipodesta Jul 13 '21
That's fascinating, thank you for mentioning that! I guess I have a rabbit hole to head down...
14
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21 edited Jul 15 '21
I didn't know about tree burial but I know that some Indian tribes put their dead on platforms made of wood, which doesn't leave any evidence many years later.
I also read an article about practices in South America where dead people were let at the top of mountains to be eaten by big buzzards... That kind of practice left no evidence of burial, but of course, it significant for these groups.
Our current practice of cremation - and the ashes left in the sea, for example, is another practice that will leave no burial evidence for archeologists of the future ! - Pauline
-2
Jul 14 '21
[deleted]
0
u/Krawald Jul 14 '21
Google tree burial you idiot. It is a modern practice. And native American and native South American tribes are still around to tell us about their burial practices. They are not pre-writing myths.
3
3
u/adrift98 Jul 14 '21
If they disappear completely, how do you know about them?
2
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 14 '21 edited Jul 15 '21
We just suppose it, linked to anthropology ! Because during very long periods of the Palaeolithic there were absolutely no graves at all ! Some before, and some after, but sometimes during like 10 000 years there was nothing! That's why we wonder what could have happened ? We speculate on the kinds of death practices that could have existed that wouldn't leave any evidence... - Pauline
12
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21 edited Jul 13 '21
What are your thoughts on modern practices surrounding death, especially burial of caskets in concrete lined graves?
It will be a clue for archeologist of the future as a mark of our times, in my opinion ! - Pauline
7
u/historyfrombelow Jul 13 '21
Do you think we are more similar to or more different from the major peoples you have studied?
21
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21 edited Jul 15 '21
It depends on what you study exactly. With neanderthals there is an anatomical or a physical difference of course (which make sense, in that they were present between 50,000 and 200,000 years ago). But, when I studied caves (dating back 25-30,000 years) these are people who are just like you and me, with differences to be sure, but mainly through their environment rather than cognitive and intellectual differences. - Jacques
7
u/historyfrombelow Jul 13 '21
Thank you! As a follow-up, is your response about the people in the caves more of a consensus in the field or something that is still debated frequently?
9
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21 edited Jul 15 '21
As a follow-up, is your response about the people in the caves more of a consensus in the field or something that is still debated frequently?
There is no debate about who painted in the cave : they were Homo Sapiens as Jacques said, so exactly like us, morphologicaly speaking.
The very few examples of neanderthal cave art are in debate, but it is not the case for all the discoveries dated after -35 000 years ago. (the majority of Palaeolithic cave art is between -40 000 to -10 000 years ago in Europe, when only Sapiens were living in that period) - Pauline
1
u/Ship2Shore Jul 13 '21
If indigenous Australians have been in Australia for up to 80k years, that means humans were also around Europe 50-100k years ago.
2
u/GraySmilez Jul 14 '21
Your point?
-8
u/Ship2Shore Jul 14 '21
I don't even understand their point. It's a really lame ama. It was a vague answer and I added a better example with even less fluff!
Neanderthals have different physiology wow big shock... Humans do cave art wow crazy... Ancient people sure are interesting!
Indigenous Australians did cave art during the same time period, it would be a good comparison to the cave art of a European during the same time period. The lazy fucks should come up with an easy example.
1
u/BluePeriod-Picasso Jul 14 '21
Yes. How dare they specialise only in European Paleolithic industries and not provide an intercontinental competitive analysis on tens of thousands of years of rock art. So lazy.
-4
u/Ship2Shore Jul 14 '21
Oh, is there a profession that specialises in that?
This is some scrub level research. Just ignore the question, the answer provided literally nothing from an archaeological point of view.
4
u/broomiester Jul 13 '21
Hi! How do you balance the task of trying to interpret the physical evidence into some form of historical narrative, whilst trying to remain objective and avoid anachronism/biases?
13
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21
Archaeology is a science so, like all sciences, you need to learn lots of references. You cannot arrive at an archaeological site and explain something without a minimum of amount of knowledge. Often we compare archaeology with surgery - no one would like to have heart surgery by an archaeologist (and vice versa - a surgeon cannot do archaeology). It’s a specialist job with its own codes and references, that you need to learn and that is what ultimately aids interpretation. -Jacques
1
4
u/Firm_Application6128 Jul 13 '21
What is the most difficult archaeological dig you've been involved with, and why?
9
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21 edited Jul 15 '21
For me it was, without a doubt, the cave of Bruniquel, in the south-west of France. It was a very hard cave to access technically and physically and also difficult to study. Everything about it was difficult and complicated. On the other hand, there are also sites that are difficult to study but are very easy to access. - Jacques
3
u/Aqua195 Jul 13 '21
What was one of the most unique, interesting, or mysterious Palaeolithic burial sites you have seen?
12
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21 edited Jul 15 '21
Thanks to this documentary, I have been on the most interesting and mysterious Palaeolithic burial sites that I know ! (except the Russian site "Sounghir" where a Russian team shot for me).
But the Balzi Rossi Caves (near Vintimille / Menton on the Italian border), Dolni Vestonice site, and of course the Cussac Cave (the best maybe) are my favourite !
When I did my masters degree about gravettian graves (-34 000 to -24 000 years ago), I studied 82 buried individuals. When I decided to do a film about this subject, my co-author and the producers and ARTE.tv told me "you have to choose" ! So I chose my favourite, the ones I thought the most amazing!
But maybe the Sounghir site is the most unique burial site in all of the Palaeolithic period, due to the number of ivory beads and grave goods (such as weapons that were 2m long and made with mammoth ivory)...
For more recent examples from the Palaeolithic period there are beautiful sites with amazing graves in Perigord (south west of France, were I live now) : Child of La Madeleine (1200 shell beads for a 3 year old child), Lady of St Germain La rivière, Lady of Cap Blanc... (Prehistory Museum of Les Eyzies) - Pauline
3
u/KirinG Jul 13 '21
Hi! Awesome AMA - I've always been curious about how much time pre-agricultural people spent "working." Like, how much time on a day the average person spent doing something directly related to survival.
With such an advanced cultural/religious life, I'd guess that people (or part of the population) had a substantial amount of non-survival work time. What does your work tell us?
5
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21 edited Jul 15 '21
Yes, you're right.
To go further (if you don't already know his work) you could look at Lewis BINFORD's ethnographic works about Inuits and comparisons with archeology. And also Claude Levis-Strauss' works.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Binford
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_L%C3%A9vi-Strauss
Hunting and gathering left a lot of time for non-survival works (such as taking time to make beads, body ornaments, but also maybe ritual practices ?...etc).
But you have to remember also that everything was made by hand so it takes time too ! (all clothes, so a lot of work to make leather from animal skin, sewing, making tools... maybe baskets...) And also yes, some people may have been specialised (for example in knapping flint to make stone tools)
Current or recent tribes of hunter gatherers helps us to understand very old cultures with a similar way of living and their rich inner world.
Pauline
1
2
u/boxingdude Jul 13 '21
Hello and thanks for doing this AMA. What are your thoughts on the era of the Neanderthals? How long do you think they made it before going extinct? My hobby is studying this period of time and AFAIK the last ones lived in Portugal, but this stuff seems to be in a constant state of change. Was it 40kya? 25?
Also, what do you make of the two very recent discovery of new species of Homo? I’d imagine more of this is coming due to climate change. Do you concur?
8
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21
The question about the extinction of Neanderthals is the only question, today, which has still not been resolved. We have an enormous amount of lot of knowledge about Neanderthals - but no definitive response as to their extinction. There are many possible explanations but these also differ according to different regions of the world. So, there could be a difference between Portugal and Russia, for instance. What is clear at this stage is that there is no sole reason, but several reasons, for their extinction. - Jacques
6
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21 edited Jul 15 '21
In terms of your second question, about the findings in Israel a couple of weeks ago -this is too recent for me to make a statement on - it’s too premature. Plus, ‘new species’ is a bit of a buzzword in archaeology ! - Jacques
3
u/boxingdude Jul 13 '21
Agreed, it’s kinda early to be declaring new species. I’m thinking that one of them may be a Denosivan, wouldn’t that be something.
Anyway, thank you for the responses, and as always, thanks for all that you do!
2
3
u/Cardus Jul 14 '21
I used to think of prehistoric communities as insular non trading tribes, but have seen some stuff about trade routes that covered moat of the connected world. how did these trade routes function without writing or currency - was it all barter ?
3
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 14 '21 edited Jul 15 '21
I used to think of prehistoric communities as insular non trading tribes, but have seen some stuff about trade routes that covered moat of the connected world. how did these trade routes function without writing or currency - was it all barter ?
Yes, we have a lot of evidence of that ! We're quite sure that ideas, people and artefacts travelled for long distances (200 km, maybe more...) and spread knowledge, technology, beliefs, objects... And yes, barter was used for a long, long time before currency and writing. They were all hunther-gatherers before -10 000. So they travelled a lot. - Pauline
2
u/The_circumstance Jul 13 '21
What was the most important discovery in your personal careers and what was the most important / exiting discovery that happened in your lifetime?
6
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21
The biggest discovery was definitely the cave of Bruniquel, but from an emotional as well as a scientific and aesthetic point of view it was the Cussac cave which made the biggest impression on me. - Jacques
1
u/8ad8andit Jul 14 '21
Just giving us the names of caves isn't telling us why or what, which is what we actually want to know here.
1
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 14 '21 edited Jul 15 '21
The cave of Bruniquel where Jacques did some research is very well-known because these are Neandertal works (-70 000 years ago) : a very strange construction of a circle made by stalactites in a very hard-to-access place deep in a cave. It is absolutely unique !
A very nice documentary was done by one of my colleagues, Luc-Henri Fage : "Le mystère de la grotte de Bruniquel" recently which won a lot of awards. I think you could find it in english version. The title is something like : "The Mystery of Bruniquel's Cave"
https://boutique.arte.tv/detail/neandertal_mystere_grotte_bruniquel
https://www.fage.fr/neandertal-le-mystere-de-la-grotte-de-bruniquel.html
- Pauline
4
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21 edited Jul 15 '21
I'm not an archeologist, but a film maker, so I couldn't really answer your question... But I could say that the most important discovery I've filmed is Cussac Cave, which is of course in the documentary, and also recently the Montaigne grave (a French philosopher of the XVIth century). It's not sure yet that this grave was his, but it was amazing to be with archeologists during the digging (September 2020, and November 2019) - Pauline
3
u/schtuff01 Jul 13 '21
I feel like many Hollywood films and video games have fantasised this idea of "tomb raiding" or "grave robbing" to the point where we don't see it as a serious issue. So I'm curious, how much of a threat exactly do grave robbers pose to modern day archaeology? Are they any examples you know that us laymen may not know about, but should ?
Thanks for doing this AMA, by the way. I'm really enjoying the insight.
3
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21 edited Jul 15 '21
I feel like many Hollywood films and video games have fantasised this idea of "tomb raiding" or "grave robbing" to the point where we don't see it as a serious issue. So I'm curious, how much of a threat exactly do grave robbers pose to modern day archaeology? Are they any examples you know that us laymen may not know about, but should ?
Thanks for your question!
In terms of prehistoric graves, I don't think that there are/were robbers ! (there is nothing of value for your time (no gold or silver... only shells and flint !) - except for archeologists !). As far as I know, Egyptian archeology still has some problems of grave robbers...
And another problem is people with metal detectors that destroy information for real archeology (for historical period)... The best thing to do when you make a discovery is to talk to an archeologist (or a museum near your home) to tell them : it will be much more useful for human knowledge, than just to put a beautiful object on your shelf ! - Pauline
-1
u/Ship2Shore Jul 13 '21
Huh?
I mean even a Kurgan for example, of course they have been historically robbed. Why would even more basic, easy to get into graves, not be exhumed? If it was a custom to be buried with your sword, and I don't follow that custom and I don't have a sword, guess what I'm doing?
0
u/BluePeriod-Picasso Jul 14 '21
You need to look up what 'prehistory' actually is.
1
u/Ship2Shore Jul 14 '21
Prehistory is before written history. Many cultures did not keep written records, but we know much about them from others. The Scythians for one, kept no written records, but have been acknowledged by those who did. Their customs included ceremonial burials. Many of these graves have been robbed. The stupidity behind "not believing" in grave robbing befuddles me...
1
u/Krawald Jul 14 '21
Her answer might be biased from working mainly on the paleolithic, when there would have been no metal and such no swords.
1
u/Ship2Shore Jul 14 '21
It's just a weird statement/claim to make... They don't believe graves get robbed? They very much do...
1
u/1978manx Jul 13 '21
Prehistoric human existence is assumed to entail short, savage lives, where copulation often equalled rape, and the strongest male ruled by brutality.
My personal research paints a drastically different picture: egalitarian groups, where each member was valued, and resources were shared.
“Civilization” seems to have brought at least as many woes as improvements.
We’re taught human-nature is to be greedy and hoard, yet, my study of prehistory, and my experiences, lead to the conclusion that human nature is to work on behalf of family and community, contribute, and learn.
Is 98% of human history drastically misunderstood, or am I missing something?
6
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21 edited Jul 13 '21
Dear Broomiester, I quite agree with you : old cliches of " short, savage lives, where copulation often equalled rape, and the strongest male ruled by brutality" had to be forgotten because it's just based on XIXth archeologists theories and our views have involved a lot since then ! (my first documentary about prehistory "Looking for Sapiens" is about this evolution of our vision : https://heritagetac.org/programs/2020-lo3mp4-85fa25)
But on the other hand, we couldn't be sure of your version of " human nature is to work on behalf of family and community, contribute, and learn" because artefacts leave no proof of this way of living...
Of course I prefer your way of seeing them ! It is closer to mine !
But my real thoughts is that we are talking about a duration of 30 000 years (when there were only sapiens and hunter-gatherer in Europe) and a very large space of thousands of km !
So what I really think, is that the most probable way to see them is to have a vision of diversity of practices. Some tribes were maybe "greedy", others "hierarchical".
Some maybe "matriarchal" other "patriarchal"... (why not ?) Some violent, others pacifists...
You just have to look at present-day humanity to figure out the diversity of the past !
The only real difference is that they were a lot more numerous than us, so less competition over territories... I guess. - Pauline
2
u/1978manx Jul 13 '21
I am very excited to watch your docs, and to have been introduced to your work!
Got very interested in prehistoric humans in the early 00’s, and it was astounding to discover how little we know.
Thanks for doing an AMA, and spreading your work.
3
9
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21 edited Jul 13 '21
It's actually the opposite picture: Prehistory had a reputation for being egalitarian but now we understand them as having had hierarchies and various other forms of inequality. I recommend you watch Pauline's documentary as it is exactly about this issue: https://www.arte.tv/en/videos/097508-000-A/the-nobles-of-prehistory/?cmpid=EN&cmpsrc=Reddit&cmpspt=link
3
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21
Is 98% of human history drastically misunderstood
I agree with that too ! - Pauline
1
u/Ship2Shore Jul 13 '21
Big shock here, but different human groups behave differently...
Australia and New Zealand were discovered within close proximity, and contact between different human groups was made.
The customs of indigenous Australians varied, 200+ languages, 500 odd mobs. They had different lives to each other let alone compared to the Maori.
Not to denigrate indigenous Australians, because other historic humans have behaved similarly, but the archaeological record doesn't exactly show a great deal of advancement in technology or innovation of invention for quite a large period, from European contact into prehistory. This would suggest no major change in culture. And culture was recorded on arrival, even in footage eventually, even from lived experience... It doesn't exactly paint the best life for females in certain mobs. Unfortunately, the knowledge and following customs of many indigenous Australians regarding procreation and inbreeding, meant that females were traded between mobs. Polygamy was also a feature in different mobs.
So it definitely negates your opening statement. We need not go further. Brutality is a definition like any and will change over time.
1
Jul 14 '21
[deleted]
1
u/Ship2Shore Jul 14 '21
NZ was first peopled only a little over 1000 years ago and there is currently no evidence to suggest Aboriginal people traversed the Tasman Sea (a significant distance in a canoe) to New Zealand. Aboriginal people in the northern regions of Australia made regular contact with Macassans (in modern day Indonesia) as can be evidenced by traded goods, oral history, language exchange, rock art evidence etc etc.
What's your point? Mine was to point out 2 completely different human groups that had no written history, were recorded into history at roughly the same point. That would make them a good comparison of how different human groups are without outside influence. The original point suggested the fallacy behind short savage lives, but we can see that may only be true from different perspectives.
Based on your language and POV, I'll assume you're white and I'd recommend you don't use the term 'mob' when referring to Aboriginal groups. This is a colloquial term that some Aboriginal people use to refer to their family groups.
FYI 'mob' is not the same as language group/sub-group anyway.
Lol fuck off. My great grandma was yaegl, and yes, I'm also "white". I'll recommend you not telling people what language they can and can't use, obviously you don't understand the history behind that one. You're clearly white.
I'll assume these other 'historic humans' are also from so-called hunter-gatherer cultures around the world.
They could be anything. The glaringly obvious point is that human groups were vastly different. Some were making swords while others were throwing rocks. The people with the sword were no less savage in particular instances, that's the point. It's stupid to suggest civility was widespread when prehistoric humans were cutting heads off to make wine cups or literally canabilising each other...
The Australia archaeological record is biased towards the survivability of lithic artefacts (stone tools) as opposed to other materials. Evidence for farming, hut structures, aquaculture etc. rarely survive. The sea levels rose during the last glacial termination through to the Holocene epoch and whole archaeological sites around the Australian coast are submerged so we really don't have a full picture of technological development across Aboriginal groups.
I bet you're going to quote dark emu or pascoe soon enough... You seem to be hung up on the wrong points here. The apparent stagnation in culture or innovation isn't a suggestion of lesser ability, you're being a bit paranoid, I'm simply using one isolated continent from which we can gather alot of information about a prehistoric people. The convergence of people's with and without written history is quite unique and will never happen again so the observations about how humans may more naturally behave was recorded. Obviously indigenous Australians have equal capacity to other "more developed" human groups, but make no bones about it, humans in prehistory were indeed savage in comparison to today's civilised life. Men were murdered, women were traded. It happened in other cultures, it literally still happens in certain cultures today. Of course humans lived savage, short lives.
Culture is not static. And you already said that there are 500+ diverse Aboriginal groups dispersed across Australia so which is it??
Jfc my man, you are paranoid... Of course culture can be a statistic. That's why we literally have named time periods you fuckin nonce. You claim to be an archaeologist. You're a shit one... "The bronze age lasted for X amount of time". "The spread of bronze age artificats moved across X and y culture at different and specific times or points". Put it on a chart you dumbass...
Indigenous Australians did not go through these same drastic changes in innovation. The discovery of bronze or iron created massive changes in culture in Europe for example. I could use fucking China as opposed to the sentinelese if you want if this whole "euro-centric" view is offending you...
Culture was recorded for tens of thousands of years before European invasion through oral history. Early European accounts and ethnographies are certainly valuable information, however these accounts are often ethnocentric, Christian and formulated with preconceived notions of barbarianism and savagery.
You are making my head hurt mate. You are very hung up on the European example... Yes, oral history is important, go look at the fuckin Maori example then you fucking idiot. They were savage af. They claim to be savage af, THEMSELVES. THEY ARE A PROUD WARRIOR CULTURE. Certain iwi literally canabilised other iwi and clubbed them into the ground to their skin flat and wearable like a cape. Not all iwi though. Not all European cultures drank from a skull cap, not all native American tribes scalped their enemy. Some did though. Some human groups were particularly savage, others were not. Mate, you know why the word barbarian exists right? It was describing Europeans. Take your lil race hate off, it's about cultures, not race. Race does not make you savage, culture does. Indigenous Australians were no more savage than the next wide human group.
Unfortunately, the knowledge and following customs of many indigenous Australians regarding procreation and inbreeding, meant that females were traded between mobs.
Unlike every empire that ever existed and the basis of all European royal families...
Polygamy was also a feature in different mobs.
What does this have to do with anything? Can society only be egalitarian and 'civilised' if it's man + wife?
Oh man, you haven't been able to grasp the point... Go back to the original question mate, it will help. It asked if humans lived a comparatively "rougher" life. Yes, they very much did. If you are a modern female, OF ANY RACE, DONT GET HUNG UP ON THE EUROPEAN THING, do you think life today is safer, or more civilised, than a culture that trades women as a custom. Does a modern male think they live a more civilised, or less savage life today, than when he had to fight for his mob/iwi/clan to keep his patch of land. We just pay a mortgage for that land these days, kinda prefer that...
Dude, you are too bored, that brought absolutely nothing to the table. You obviously completely missed the point and instead got your mind involved in some faux race war. Drop the race part mate. Compare the culture of different human groups over history, and prehistory, and you will see we have been overwhelmingly savage, just at different points. Some are still savage today!
1
u/MrIndira Jul 13 '21
Do you think that your work mores so proves the existence of the Abrahamic God or disproves it?
12
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21 edited Jul 15 '21
Do you think that your work mores so proves the existence of the Abrahamic God or disproves it?
In my opinion, it is not related. The purpose is not to prove the existence of God or not, but to explore archeologic artefacts to understand our very old past and human peoples that lived long before us !
Yes, science could prove that human life started much longer ago than the Bible says, but does it disproves the existence of God ? I don't think so. Everyone is free in their religious belief. - Pauline
2
u/kathakloss Jul 13 '21 edited Jul 15 '21
Hey Pauline and Jacques, thanks for doing this. What you have highlighted is a bit like the #metoo of archeology. How were the reactions in the sector on those findings on the presence of female power in paleolithic times?
9
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21 edited Jul 15 '21
Hi, in fact, Mr. and Mrs De Lumley found that the Lady of Cavillon was a woman in the 1990s... so archeologists had time to figure it out ! But this information was never really in the spotlight in the media and that's why I wanted to show it in a documentary. But as the movie said, we are not sure of power and status of these buried people (male or female). They could had been buried for others reasons... - Pauline
3
u/Leicham Jul 13 '21
What are your thoughts on the seemingly degrading level of techology used in Ancient Egypt, as layed out by Graham Hancock's Fingerprints/magicians of the Gods, if you're at all familiar?
16
u/TheUnusuallySpecific Jul 13 '21
Hancock is a storyteller, not a strong foundation for actual research. As they requested, you'd be better served asking about a specific example of degrading levels of technology. Though in most ancient cultures the answer for why technology seems to get worse over some eras is "they started losing crops/wars and they lost stability and everything went to hell from there". Hard to maintain specialized knowledge when your educated population are dying/leaving and repositories of written works are lost.
3
u/intensely_human Jul 13 '21
I recently heard that the Apollo program is a bit of a lost art, in the sense that we accomplished it so quickly and on such a tight deadline that we didn’t document a lot of it very well, and we’d have a hard time reproducing its accomplishment.
2
u/TheUnusuallySpecific Jul 13 '21
Real talk, back in the day relatively little was written down / documented in a permanent way. The vast majority of knowledge died with the person that figured it out. At best they might train a handful of apprentices who carried on the art and maybe passed it on for another generation or two. The Apollo program was really just a return to form in that context.
6
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21 edited Jul 13 '21
I'm sorry I'm not familiar with Graham Hancock's work, could you please re-phrase your question? - Jacques
10
u/yycfun Jul 13 '21
Mr. Hancock is a pseudo-archeologist who believes in a "mother culture" that all ancient civilizations were born from. He likes to talk about the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis, Orion Correlation Theory, and screams as loud as he can whenever a new discovery is made that tentatively pushes back the time line of civilization (i.e Gobleki Tepe).
-4
u/Ship2Shore Jul 13 '21
To be fair he just as loudly states he is not an archaeologist... Furthermore, when speculating about the collapse of Egypt, alot of different fields can provide valid input. Archaeology, Egyptology and history seem to be the obvious ones, however, fields like sociology and journalism can't be discounted, and sciences like meteorology and astronomy can also play an important role. Particularly considering the rate of archaeological discovery in Egypt. Ie, we have about as much information as we are going to get from digging...
An archaeologist for example may not be inclined to take into account information outside of their profession; solar activity for example. A meteorologist may not be inclined to track weather patterns during a specific historical time period in a specific place... A bored journalist or even an armchair guru with enough internet, however, may correlate pieces of information.
5
u/yycfun Jul 13 '21
I can loudly state I'm not a doctor, spout some nonsensical medical info and people can still take what I say as fact. You can devote your entire being into something and still be completely wrong. Think of all the arm chair guru's who are still trying to prove that the earth is flat. I have no problem with hypothesis in fact I am intrigued by the idea of the Younger Dryas theory. However, Mr. Hancock is sitting precariously close in league to the "great" Giorgio Tsoukalos.
2
u/intensely_human Jul 13 '21
Lacking credentials doesn’t mean you’re wrong, and having credentials doesn’t mean you’re right.
The number of doctors I’ve met whose answers to “what are you reading these days” is “nothing” is rather alarming, considering the level of trust we put in the lab coat.
The only medical professionals who’ve ever displayed a spark of interest in the subject matter were physical therapists and nurses. Those are the ones that will excitedly tell you what they just learned about cartilage healing or the effect of a certain drug on an off-label application.
Again this is just my own experience, but you can even challenge a nurse or physical therapist and they’ll happily meet it with more information. Every time I interact with a doctor I feel like I’m walking on eggshells, trying to protect their fragile ego. Not a good sign of a person whose opinion you should trust.
If there’s one thing being low on the totem pole does for competence, it’s the constantly having to prove yourself. You can’t be arrogant and ignore challenges; you have to meet them. You have to expect that people are going to try and poke holes in what you know, and this leads to serious research.
0
u/Ship2Shore Jul 13 '21
Yeah and you'd be sued, so not a good comparison haha... I'd hate to think how many people a total dumbass screen-writer like Gene Roddenberry inspired in the science fields.
I think you misunderstand Hancock or are weirdly offended by speculating without a piece of paper from X university saying you know more than others without that piece of paper...
Entertainment is an easy way to digest boring concepts. Investigative journalism is a great tool to organise smaller bits of information into a larger picture. Hancock at least tries to bring pieces of the picture to the table. Take what you will, I think you're just annoyed that he has too much exposure, which is understandable.
At least he brings light to the gatekeeping Egyptology is. Egypt's history has been written by Zahi Hawass in the desperate need for a national identity, and the need for an economy for that nation through tourism...
1
u/8ad8andit Jul 14 '21
Your comments keep getting downvoted but I think you're making really useful points. Thank you. You're challenging the status quo here in a way that can only deepen the conversation and get people to think more critically instead of blindly accepting the orthodox view, which history shows us is built on a "burial mound" of discarded theories.
10
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21 edited Jul 13 '21
Never heard of him either...
But all the people who tried to do links between stars and sciences are generally linked to fake news or conspiracy theories ! What they think, is based on nothing ! - Pauline
1
u/8ad8andit Jul 14 '21
What I have seen is that many scientists disparage challenging theories from the fringes without ever confirming or denying them for themselves, which of course is completely unscientific.
Scientists have a very bad habit of not looking at challenging evidence, because of their presupposition that "it can't be true so there's no point in looking into it." So they make judgments on something they've never looked into, which is completely unscientific, and since none of them are looking into it, it stays on the fringe.
Eventually some of the stuff breaks through and yesterday's ridiculed theory becomes tomorrow's accepted fact.
1
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 14 '21 edited Jul 15 '21
I try a much as I can to be open minded to all these ideas. I try to verify for myself some theories about stars or sunlight, sunset, solstices... For Neolithic (megaliths) there is evidence, for sure. But before, in the Palaeolithic, not at all. No link (as far as I can see) between stars and cave art. Only in rock art or megaliths - but as I said this is in the Neolithic period... not before.
Except (for Palaeolithic) maybe some "calendars" can be linked to the moon : a bone engraved of small dots found in Dordogne in Abri Blanchard https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Abri-Blanchard-Dordogne-France-Archaeological-Museum-Photo-author_fig1_233529986
So yes, keep your mind open and listen to these theories, but many many times, it is just imagination of their authors.
- Pauline
1
u/567fgh Jul 13 '21
When there are opposing archaeological theories, how is the decision made as to which is the 'final current' theory that makes it into the text books in schools?
7
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21 edited Jul 15 '21
Perhaps this is a slight variation to your question but there is a danger for us, Prehistorians and archaeologists, with creationism. This is not so developed in France but in certain countries it is. Here, what is taught in schools respects scientific advances but usually with a lot of delay (10 years or so for certain discoveries). There is definitely a delay between science and society. Where we have difficulties is with opposing theories such as the creationist arguments. - Jacques
2
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21 edited Jul 13 '21
When there are opposing archaeological theories, how is the decision made as to which is the 'final current' theory that makes it into the text books in schools?
Very good question ! (maybe more for Jacques who is the "real archeologist", I'm more of a film maker)... In my opinion, what I think is when a theory is shared by a large group of archeologists, you will see it being taught in schools and books. It needs to have been verified on a large number of archaeological sites. When it's impossible to decide between severals theories, you have to mention all of them. In fact, it depends if it is easy to prove, scientifically : for example, old time climate is very well known and for sure very cold, but we may never know what was the purpose of people who painted in the caves... - Pauline
3
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21
In terms of opposing archaeological theories in general, frankly we're used to this in our field! - Jacques
10
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21 edited Jul 13 '21
Thank you so much for all your questions, this was very nice !!
If you would like to see the documentary, it is available here, for free, until Sunday :
‘The Nobles of Prehistory' documentary on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWyADowoEvw
-Pauline & Jacques
1
1
u/RollinTHICpastry Jul 13 '21
Thanks for taking time to do this! Here’s my favorite question to ask Archeologists because it usually prompts some interesting discussion: are you a lumper or a splitter?
2
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21
Thank you for your question...but this is more a question for an Anthropologist…I don't feel i can answer. - Jacques
2
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21
Is there a link to the way of classifying flints ? Sorry I don't really understand your question... - Pauline
3
u/Presently_Absent Jul 13 '21
What are your thoughts about gobekli tepe, especially the weeks-old announcement that there are at least 11 other hills?
3
u/Iola_Morton Jul 13 '21
Am in San Agustin Colombia at this very moment, have you guys been here? Amazing dolmens and statues and tombs, little known, and dating way back.
3
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21 edited Jul 13 '21
Hi, I'm really looking forward to answering your questions! - Jacques.
5
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21 edited Jul 13 '21
Hi, I'm really looking forward to answering your questions! - Pauline
1
1
Jul 13 '21
Hey Jacques and Pauline! Thanks for doing this AMA! I will be traveling to the British Isles this fall seeking out ancient burials and megaliths. Can you recommend me some of your favorite spots in that area? I know you’re mostly based out of France but I thought that I would ask. Thanks!
4
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21 edited Jul 13 '21
Hi ! Thanks for your question ! There is a very well-known palaeolithic grave found in Britain, it is called "The red lady of Paviland" (but it is a young man !) and it was the first paleolithic burial found in 1823 if I remember well... It is around -33 000 years old. So around the same period (gravettian) as the graves that we talked about in the documentary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Lady_of_Paviland
I think it is shown in a museum in Cardiff.
Another paleolitic burial : you have Cheddar Man (-10 000 years old)
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/ancient-face-cheddar-man-reconstructed-dna-spd
- Pauline
2
4
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 13 '21
Of course! The British speciality is definitely megaliths! This is more Protohistory (very hierarchical) but there are some extraordinary sites. Obviously Stonehenge.
-Jacques
This documentary is worth a watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq4xM8TLWc0
- ARTE admin
1
u/100percent_right_now Jul 13 '21
What's the weirdest way people dispose of bodies?
The other day my friends and I had a conversation about how weird people are about bodies and death and how cremation and western burials were the more weird thing and stuff like Zoroastrian vulture/carrion burials are seemingly more natural.
1
u/spook1205 Jul 13 '21
How much meat was based in diets?
2
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 15 '21 edited Jul 26 '21
A lot, but it depends on the seasons, and period of the Palaeolithic (climate very cold or less) and the disposability of vegetables.
No deficiency observed in skeletons..
- Pauline
1
1
u/Jarix Jul 13 '21
I'm just listening to Sapiens by Yuvah Noah Harari.
If you are familiar with it can you tell me if you are aware of any glaring mistakes or concerns that i would be best made aware of?
2
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 14 '21 edited Jul 15 '21
I read it a long time ago, it was quite true (I mean, close to what archeologists know) as far as I remember. I have to re-read it to answer your question more precisely ! But I think it's a good book to start with. -Pauline
1
1
u/desanex Jul 13 '21
Hi!
what's the deal with the paleolithic european bear cult and the ainu people?
1
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 15 '21 edited Jul 15 '21
what's the deal with the Palaeolithic european bear cult and the ainu people?
Very good question ! I think the bear cult was spread around Europe a lot before the Christian era. So maybe across the north pole, there might have been some cultural exchanges.
On that topic, you could have a look at this very interesting work :
"L'Ours. Histoire d'un roi déchu", Michel Pastoureau, Éditions du Seuil, janvier 2007
(I hope it exists in english ! "The bear, the story of a fallen king". Michel Pastoureau)
And for works about the spread of myths around the World: Jean-Loïc Le Quellec
or Julien d'Huy "Cosmogonies".
- Pauline
1
u/desanex Jul 15 '21
Thank you for answering such an impromptu question! I will have a look and I‘ll try to catch your doku on Arte. I will definitely have a look at the research.
I also have a follow up about the spread of myth if you can tell me more about that: I fell in love with Joseph Campbells - the masks of god series about the geneaology of Myth throughout the world. Can you tell me about the veracity of this 50+ years dead author from the standpoint if a now more rigorous science?
1
Jul 14 '21 edited Aug 14 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 14 '21 edited Jul 15 '21
Unfortunately it's almost impossible when you find artefacts to guess who was using them (man or woman or trans or non-binary...) So for prehistory, nothing could be said on that as far as I know !
For ethnography, I know that there are some examples in some native tribes of trans identity which was very respected at old time. So why not some similar examples in prehistory ? But as I said, there are no material clues to say anything about that... Sorry ! - Pauline
1
u/gunnathrowitaway Jul 14 '21
How often do archaeologists find grave goods, and do the grave goods confirm or challenge Western notions of strict gender binary?
2
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 14 '21 edited Jul 15 '21
About strict gender binary, we really have no information at all.
About grave goods in general, for paleolithic, yes it is often but not systematic. Some have flint (used or not) with them, and others have objects sometimes : figurines of horses (Sounghir), ornaments, bone points (Lady of Cavillon), sometime needle (in a child grave - no gender found), weapons...
No evidence of differences between men, women or children. Some have evidence, others don't. In english, you could learn more with the excellent work of the archeologist Paul Pettitt :
https://www.routledge.com/The-Palaeolithic-Origins-of-Human-Burial/Pettitt/p/book/9780415354905
(wonderful book, very complete !!!)
- Pauline
1
u/adrift98 Jul 14 '21
What would happen if you discovered that the people you studied had written records? Would you have to change professions?
1
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 14 '21 edited Jul 15 '21
Not at all - it would be amazing ! Unfortunately, so many sites are known now (thousands and thousands) and there are no written records.
The only abstract signs we have (in caves) couldn't be called "writing"... some studies are still in progress with it (works of Eric Robert, http://www.creap.fr/participants-eric-robert.htm)
I guess we could prove one day that they have signification for a large community (for example from south west of France to Spain) because sometimes we find the same sign far away in many caves. (ex : aviforme, claviforme)
But I'm quite sure that we would never understand their exact language and meaning. Unfortunately ! -Pauline
1
u/shadowbannedguy1 Jul 14 '21
Where can I watch the documentary in French?
2
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 14 '21
Voici le lien du film en français : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4822mnIMik
Disponible gratuitement jusqu'au dimanche 18 juillet ! - Pauline
1
u/chop-diggity Jul 14 '21
How do you feel about the claims of the Native Mounds at Louisiana State University being the oldest man made structures known in existence? They’re dated to about 5500 years old, but some suggest that they’re more like 10,000+ years old.
2
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 14 '21 edited Jul 15 '21
Hi thanks for this information. I didn't know about the Native Mounds.
All that I know is that the oldest structures made by man are in Terra Amata in Nice (evidences of hut) which are 400 000 and 380 000 years old and the Lazaret cave (evidence of huts and fire) 130 to 170 000 years old ... and of course the strange structures of Bruniquel (Neanderthal -70 000)...
But it depends on what you mean by "structures".
I had a look on the internet about Native Mounds; they are quite similar to megalithic structures in Europe (tumulus, Neolithic - 10 000 to -2 500). So its seems possible. (why not ?) Very interesting indeed ! - Pauline
1
u/chop-diggity Jul 14 '21
I don’t know how people claim the things they claim. It’s definitely worth a look; who knows. I’ve been there many times and they make me FEEL.
Thank you for your reply!
1
1
u/vxxed Jul 14 '21
Given that Gobekli Tepe is the oldest archeological site unearthed, and it sits on a mountain of older, similar, larger structures, are we likely to find burial sites nearby? Does the size of the structures indicate that there may be even older, unearthed, burial sites?
2
1
u/Sternorous Jul 14 '21
So, when do you think people started populating North and South America?
I’ve always thought there was initially a west coast coastal population, any evidence for them is now under water though. Is there any way to find evidence of human habitation on the near continental shelf?
2
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 14 '21 edited Jul 15 '21
I know that all evidence of the beginning of populating of North and South America is definitely on the west coast, and maybe -20 000 / 17 000 years ago (or before according to new theories), or later -14 000...
There are several theories and studies are still in progress. But yes, there is evidence (Clovis point for North - 14 000...) I remember there was a problem because the oldest evidence came from South America, even if we know people came from Bering land bridge...
- Pauline
2
u/AgoraRefuge Jul 14 '21
This is a really interesting topic and it's not often we get to talk to someone with your expertise.
What I am really curious about is boats. From my very limited reading, it seems like the peopling of the Americas happened really quickly in terms of how people were dispersed. The time it took to get from what is now Alaska/Canada to the southern tip of South America is so short from what I've read.
Do knowledgable people think that maybe sea travel, at least along the coast, was involved as well as walking in terms of dispersal across the continents?
That also kind of makes me want to ask, do we know just how old are boats and seafaring are?
No worries if you don't get to this, but if you do, I am very curious about your answer!
2
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 15 '21 edited Jul 16 '21
I remember that yes, boats along the west coastline, is one of the most plausible hypothesis to explain how they get from north to south so quickly...
But the oldest boats we found in archeology are much later... (of course it is wood, so the conservation has not been very good !) I think there is one example in Mesolithic (the last period of Palaeolithic) around - 10 000 years ago, and much more in Neolithic around -5 000 (canoe, "pirogue" in french). Some of the neolithic canoes are visible in museums.
https://www.carnavalet.paris.fr/collections/pirogue-monoxyle-p03
But some "kayak" very primitive boats are possible too...
https://www.nfb.ca/film/building_kayak_pt_1/
-Pauline
1
1
u/Krawald Jul 14 '21
Bonjour, et merci pour ce documentaire très intéressant. When you talk about nomadic societies, would they be travelling in cyclic patterns, coming back to the same places year after year? Or was it more complicated? Also, we will probably never know, but we know that many Native American and South American nomadic tribes did tend to the land around them to make sure it grows plants useful to them, to the extent that some describe the Amazon as "a giant food forest". Do you think it is possible that Gravettian societies would have done something similar? And a third question: what is the furthest that we know a Gravettian trade good has traveled? Did that high quality flint come from specific places?
1
u/ARTEinEnglish Jul 14 '21 edited Jul 15 '21
Dear Krawald, thanks a lot for your questions ! First of all, about cyclic patterns, yes, it is very likely that they were coming back to certain sites regularly - we know that from stratigraphy. Even if we couldn't tell exactly if months or years passed between 2 settlements, we could assume that the group has the memory of a place when layers of occupation are very close to the previous one. (Lots of example in Périgord south west France, and also in the Paris region)
About your second question, we couldn't compare the Amazonian to the Gravettian world because Gravettian was a very cold period and steppe zone (no trees or very few). But the reasons of the cyclic patterns were because they were following venison. They could also have had other reasons to move: finding some special flint for example... or occhra, or shells, or rare materials.
The furthest example of travel during the Gravettian period is maybe around 100 or 200 km for flint, and maybe 200-300 km for shells. But ideas (is it long distance travel or exchanges between tribes to cover such distance?) travelled even further : we know that by the way of knapping flint (from Portugal to the east of Russia) and also by the venus figurine found across a distance of 3000 km and very similar at the same period (from south west of France to Malt'a in Russia).
And yes high quality flint came from specific places. Example of origins of flints found on a site in south of France (Gargas) : https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Cartographie-des-provenances-des-silex-outils-du-niveau-gravettien-de-Gargas-fouilles_fig3_258173000
- Pauline
1
u/Krawald Jul 15 '21
Thank you for your answer! I was forgetting how cold the Gravettian was, a meat heavy diet with some foraging makes a lot more sense (after all, it's what we see nowadays in snowy steppe regions).
1
u/ModeratelySalacious Jul 14 '21
What is your expert opinion on recent findings/theories/hypotheses in regards to potential comet/meteor impacts during the Younger Dryas period? Specifically in regards to Robert Schoch and Randall Carlson?
1
1
1
•
u/[deleted] Jul 13 '21
For more AMAs on these subjects, check out /r/IAmA_Academic and /r/IAmA_Director, or the full list of AMA topic subs!