South African Archaeological Society

Debating Rock Art Research: A Reply to ButzerAuthor(s): J. D. Lewis-WilliamsSource: The South African Archaeological Bulletin, Vol. 46, No. 153 (Jun., 1991), pp. 48-50Published by: South African Archaeological SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3889018 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 13:52

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

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

.

South African Archaeological Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toThe South African Archaeological Bulletin.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.31.195.34 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 13:52:21 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

48 South African Archaeological Bulletin 46: 48-50. 1991

aback by my apparent heresy. Since I have been labelled as both a logical positivist and a hyperarticularist, by different archaeologists, I now feel uninhibited to add this uninformed outburst to my anecdotal collection. The truth is much simpler. Gerhard believed that early efforts in rock art had been badly compromised by premature or unwarranted 'interpretation' and he wished to leave his legacy as little tainted as possible by his own views, so that others could use it with as much effect as possible. In fact, the quotation Lewis-Williams cited is referenced to Whitney Davis's historical survey of African rock art (Davis n.d., with my apologies for citing unpublished work originally slated for publication in 1987). I presume Lewis-Williams's reaction can be explained by a suspicion that this might be a jab at him ("modes of interpretation are quite ephemeral"), but I profess my innocence.

Where I do take offence is when Lewis-Williams stirs up a fuss that some suggestive designations such as 'clutch of eggs', 'millipedes' or 'elephant in trap' were not placed in quotes in some of the captions or informal tables of Fock & Fock (1989). In view of Gerhard Fock's blind- ness and deafness in his last days, it should be no surprise that a few inconsistencies were overlooked by those concerned with bringing the work to completion.

If we are truly serious about confronting dilemmas, we must talk to each other, rather than shout past one another. Positivistic archaeologists do understand that a rock picture is an 'image' as well as an artefact, but they are legitimately concerned with 'archaeological context' and surely need not apologize for being so. Such 'context', including those much maligned numbers, may indeed assist in tentativeiy defining the ritual use of space or the regional expression of indentity-conscious groups (Butzer et al. 1979); that (and how) this might be done is

suggested by Deacon (1988). But we are not so naive as to be satisfied with context, and it is here that the post- processualist comes centre stage with his or her focus on 'meaning'. It could and should be a complementary relationship, wherein dialogue is nurtured (Butzer 1990). As Binford seems still not to realize, reductionism is neither productive nor intellectually commendable. Let us learn from the noisy New Archaeology 'debates' of c. 1970 that post-modern re-examination, even deconstruction, will again be more productive if we learn to listen.

References Butzer, K. W., Fock, G. J., Scott, L. & Stuckenrath, R.

1979. Dating and context of rock engravings in southern Africa. Science 203:1201-1214.

Butzer, K. W. 1990. A human ecosystem framework for archaeology. In: Moran, E. F. (ed.) The ecosystem approach in anthropology: from concept to practice: 91-130. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Davis, W. 1990. The study of rock art in Africa. In: Robertshaw, P. T. (ed.) A history of African archaeology: 271-295. London: James Currey.

Deacon, J. 1988. The power of a place in understanding southern San rock engravings. World Archaeology 20:129-140.

Fock, G. J. & Fock, D. 1989. Felsbilder in Sildafrika. Teil III. Die Felsbilder im Oranje-Vaal Becken. Cologne and Vienna: B5hlau Verlag.

Lewis-Williams, J. D. 1990. Documentation, analysis and interpretation: dilemmas in rock art research. South African Archaeological Bulletin 45:126-136.

DEBATING ROCK ART RESEARCH: A REPLY TO BUTZER

J. D. LEWIS-WILLIAMS Rock Art Research Unit, Department of Archaeology, University of the Witwatersrand, 2050 Johannesburg

Four points that lie at the root of the differences between Butzer and me require dispassionate discussion:

1. the notion of 'context';

2. the relationship between what Butzer calls "positivistic and humanistic" approaches;

3. rock art research's supposed disciplinary ambivalence; and

4. 'objectvity'.

1. Butzer says that archaeologists are concerned with "archaeological context", but he does not respond to the points I made. 'Context', I repeat, is never given. Researchers select its components from a range of possible observations that may include climate, geology, vegeta- tion, zoology and so forth. Because these components are selected and are not shown to be related to the art (at least not in the Amis volume), I call them a 'backdrop context' (cf. Butzer's [1982:4] use of 'environment'). I distinguish this sort of context from an 'informing context', the com-

ponents of which can be shown to have informed the art in some significant, definable way. As Butzer (1982:4) himself notes elsewhere, the Latin root contextere means 'to weave together'. The catch here (at least for empiricists) is that the informing context cannot be defined before the 'meaning' and social circumstances of the art have been uncovered.

Deacon (1988), whom Butzer cites as having shown how 'context' may "assist in tentatively defining the ritual use of space", would not have been able to write as she did if she did not already know about the ritual nature of the art: she was not using an empiricist's backdrop context; rather she was constructing an informing context after having found out a lot about the art. She did not refer to a whole set of irrelevant 'backdrop' factors. Her work in fact supports my, not Butzer's, position. Butzer also seems to imply, though this is not altogether clear, that numerical inventories are part of the 'context', as he understands the word, but they are in fact a reduction of the art itself, not the context. To refer to those inventories as "much maligned numbers" and to leave it at that ignores an essential issue that has been much debated in the literature. One should ask, "Just what are those numbers?", but unfortunately Butzer does not.

2. The use of quantitative techniques leads us to the theoretical issues of positivism, humanism, "scientific work" and related concepts to which Butzer refers. In the

This content downloaded from 185.31.195.34 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 13:52:21 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

South African Archaeological Bulletin 49

first place, he does not seem to allow a distinction between empiricism and empirical work. I argued that particular pieces of work are empiricist and therefore based on flawed reasoning. Because I emphasize this distinction, I am able to claim that certain (not all) empirical work is valuable without contradicting myself as Butzer believes I do. What I challenge is the use of empirical work in an empiricist framework.

It is surely legitimate for a reviewer to examine what an author has written and to draw conclusions about his or her theoretical position and methodology. If the author considers these conclusions to be an incorrect presentation of his or her method, the matter can be discussed, but Butzer does not take this opportunity to tell us what he does think about what he calls "scientific work"; he merely accepts the phrase as if it denoted an unproblematic concept. He then passes off the passage I quoted from his work (my page 127) by saying that he was in turn citing Davis (1990) but without indicating whether he agrees with the view or not (Davis is, in fact, critical of empiricism).

In any event, I understand Butzer to claim that he is, at least in part, a positivist. That being so, we are clearly in different and opposed theoretical camps. The only way to deal with our differences is to debate the relative merits of our positions. Butzer, by contrast, advocates the integration of "positivistic and humanistic 'components"' in rock art research. However, the presentation of mutually incompatible and, moreover, flawed positions as complementary is a weak way out of a dilemma; in such circumstances debate is more productive than attempts to "harmonize". Conflict (preferably amicable), not har- mony, triggers scientific advance.

My position is clarified in other publications (Lewis- Williams 1983, 1984; Lewis-Williams & Loubser 1986; Lewis-Williams & Dowson 1989), but I emphasize here that the harmonizing, or perhaps we should say 'eclecticism', that Butzer envisages is impossible because the positions are mutually incompatible. Moreover, positivism, despite what Butzer says, is as unacceptable in the hard sciences as it is in the social sciences; philosophers of science have, in my view, conclusively dismissed positivism/empiricism.

3. Butzer sees the need for methodological eclecticism as deriving, at least in part, from rock art research's supposed position "at the intersection of archaeology and art history" and the fact that it "fits comfortably into neither realm". This image of rock art research pre- cariously poised between disciplines is shared by many and has led to the recent intensely ideological declaration of rock art research as an independent discipline with its own theory, method and techniques - a new hegemony in the making. The image of rock art research's hybridity is created by the sort of empiricism that takes things as they appear to be and so naturalizes the boundaries between disciplines. Disciplinary frontiers are, however, established as much for ideological and social reasons as for convenience: they are not 'given'. They are constructs that have developed in particular social circumstances and that may be used to ensure the social position and prestige of their practitioners. By charting convenient disciplinary boundaries some archaeologists have marginalized rock art research and the implications that it holds for their own theory and method; others, like Butzer, use rock art research 's supposed hybridity as an excuse for lack of progress.

4. The effect of the marginalization of rock art research is nowhere better seen than in the supposed 'value-free

objectivity' which Butzer significantly describes as "a goal, as well as a challenge, that has yet to be met". His next sentence starts, "For the time being . . .", suggesting that 'value-free objectivity' is not only highly desirable; it is a goal that can be met if we work at it hard enough, though in the interim we remain constrained by loaded language.

At this point it is necessary to distinguish between 'theory-free' and 'value-free'. All data are constituted by theory. A physicist, for instance, could not identify a molecule without molecular theory: the molecule is more a theoretical construct than an observation. It follows that scientific work cannot be conducted outside of some theo- retical and methodological paradigm. Them notion of theory-free data or objectivity is a simple and straightforward impossibility.

Butzer's 'value-free objectivity' is more complex because it suggests an absence from archaeological accounts of the past of ethical, political and social implications. Today most archaeologists agree that value- free accounts of the past are as impossible as theory-free data, yet Butzer suggests that researchers should get as near as they can to 'value-free objectivity'. Such a notion, it is believed, allows one to judge research by its proximity to objectivity - the closer the better. In response to this, at first glance attractive, proposition we may ask how degrees of objectivity can be measured and plotted on a scale so that they can be used discrim- inatively. The truth of the matter is that the seriousness of a breach of supposed objectivity is judged according to theoretical position, social circumstances and situational morality as much as anything else: 'value-free objectivity' cannot be assessed objectively.

But there is more to it than that. Why do researchers pose 'value-free objectivity' as "a goal . .. yet to be met"? The answer is that the glowing goal mystifies the whole research enterprise; it imparts to research the very aura that many people outside of (and seemingly inside) scientific work take as the imprimatur that bestows authority on and shores up the power of the scientific community. 'Value-free objectivity' is the quality that is supposed in the popular imagination to distinguish scientists from ordinary people: scientists, it is supposed, have been trained to be 'objective'. That is why the public feels, quite erroneously, that they can turn to 'science' for answers to political and social problems. In fact scientists are not in a position to give them any 'value-free' answers.

Contrary to Butzer's argument, rather than aim at an impossible and, at the same time, mystifying goal, researchers should try to do something quite different, something that digs beneath the surface of discourse and illusions of objectivity. They should rather demystify and make explicit all the theoretical, methodological and social assumptions that are obscured by the veil of 'value-free objectivity' and its deceptive language. Research can then be judged by the soundness and value of its theoretical, methodological and social underpinnings. Evaluation is thus facilitated by situating rock art research and indeed all archaeological accounts of the past in their theoretical and, equally importantly, their social contexts.

These remarks on Butzer's goal of 'value-free objectivity' show just how far apart we are and go some way to explain why I tried in my review article to 'unpack' the work of what I dubbed, for convenience, the Cologne School. As long as Butzer adopts the tone he has done in his comments there is little hope of rational debate. Nevertheless, I hope that he will listen to what I am saying and engage in productive, rational discussion.

In the meantime I repeat the conclusion of my review

This content downloaded from 185.31.195.34 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 13:52:21 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

50 South African Archaeological Bulletin

article (Lewis-Williams 1990:135) because it shows that I did not scorn or dismiss the books I was reviewing and that Butzer's comments are wide of the mark:

All the volumes in the Fundamenta series contain material of the greatest value to rock art researchers. Certainly, everyone interested in southern African rock art will want to own a copy of this Amis volume. When the art has finally disappeared, future generations will have something, no matter how incomplete, that will remind them of one of the greatest achievements of southern Africa's past. For the present, the magnificent pictorial sections of these volumes stand as a challenge to racial stereotypes and thereby hold out a promise for the future.

References Butzer, K. W. 1982. Archaeology as human ecology.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Davis, W. 1990. The study of rock art in Africa. In:

Robertshaw, P. (ed.) A history of African archaeology: 271-295. London: James Curry.

Lewis-Williams, J. D. 1980. Review of: Felsbilder in Sfidafrika: Teil I, by G. J. Fock. African Studies 39:225-226.

Lewis-Williams, J. D. 1983. Introductory essay: science and rock art. South African Archaeological Society Goodwin Series 4:3-13.

Lewis-Williams, J. D. 1984. The empiricist impasse in southern African rock art studies. South African Archaeological Bulletin 39:58-66.

Lewis-Williams, J. D. 1985. Review of: Felsbilder in Sfidafrika: Teil II, by G. J. Fock & D. Fock. African Studies 44:207-208.

Lewis-Williams, J. D. 1990. Review article. Documentation, analysis and interpretation: dilemmas in rock art research. South African Archaeological Bulletin 45:126-136.

Lewis-Williams, J. D. & Dowson, T. A. 1989. Theory and data: a brief critique of A. Marshack's method and position on Upper Palaeolithic shamanism. Rock Art Research 6:38-53.

Lewis-Williams, J. D. & Loubser, J. H. N. 1986. Deceptive appearances: a critique of southern African rock art studies. Advances in World Archaeology 5:253-289.

This content downloaded from 185.31.195.34 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 13:52:21 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions