Nous ne demandons pas à être éternels, mais à ne pas voir les actes et les choses tout à coup perdre leur sens. Le vide qui nous entoure se montre alors...

My proposed graduate research, tentatively titled Daylight, darkness, and art: The dynamic interplay between cave, landscape, and knowledge in Upper Palaeolithic imagery, aims to explore how prehistoric knowledge is conveyed through representational art¹, and seeks to reconcile cave art and open air landscape art with the wider anthropological context of ice age Europe. Upper Palaeolithic art has, certainly, been a source of speculation and debate for more than one hundred years, while the surprising and unexpected—and vexing—discoveries late in the previous century of parietal images at Cosquer cave near Marseilles and especially at Chauvet cave in France’s Ardèche département have signaled that much previous scholarly research into the nature of prehistoric art must be critically reevaluated. Furthermore, it is increasingly recognized that cave art and portable art objects are only one aspect of the greater Upper Palaeolithic puzzle. Bahn and Vertut (1997) comment that the few hundred known art caves of Franco-Cantabrian Europe are likely “unrepresentative and uncharacteristic of the period” thanks almost exclusively to the highly serendipitous circumstances of their preservation (133; see also Bahn 1995: 230). Prehistoric hunter-gatherers no doubt spent the majority of their lives exploring and interacting with the wider landscape outside of caves, which formed only one aspect of their universe. Though the research and investigation of art caves will continue, rightly, to be a major focus of archaeologists and prehistorians in the coming decades, answers to important questions about Upper Palaeolithic art and culture may ultimately be found at art sites on the open landscape such as those in the Côa Valley in Portugal, for example, or Fornols-Haut in western France—or indeed in other yet to be identified stations in southwestern Europe.

It seems very clear that the reasons prehistoric craftspeople decorated cave walls and other surfaces were not consistent for the entire 30,000 years or so that the Upper Palaeolithic period endured in Europe, that one size emphatically does not fit all. Lewis-Williams and Clottes (1998) very reasonably point out that “we can find out something—no one argues for everything—about Upper Paleolithic beliefs and art,” especially if “the theoretical and methodological problems [are] addressed directly and explicitly” (14, my emphasis). By concentrating on a few carefully selected sites, my proposed research, therefore, seeks to understand prehistoric art from both caves and the landscape as functions, at least in some instances, of prehistoric knowledge. This is ambitious work, but I believe not unrealistic.

Certainly, my undergraduate career at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) has prepared me for advanced graduate study, both as an anthropologist in general and particularly as an archaeologist. I have an holistic grasp of anthropology, including physical anthropology and human palaeontology, cultural anthropology and ethnography, and especially archaeology: its history, the development of archaeological thought, as well as the most current methods and interpretive theories used to explore past human cultures via their material remains. But my time at UIC was not limited to the classroom. I gained practical laboratory and field experience by assisting doctoral candidate Debra K. Green, under the direction of Professor Laura Junker, for more than a year in analyzing archaeological materials recovered from the Tajay-Bais region of Negros Island in the Philippines as it related to her dissertation research. I joined her in the field in June and July 2007 as she completed the final stages of her fieldwork in this fairly rural area of the Philippines.

I also completed a minor in French while at UIC—which was challenging to say the least, as it is sometimes extraordinarily difficult to think, work, and write in a language that is not one’s own. Nevertheless, I believe that developing proficiency in a foreign language helped me in innumerable ways as an undergraduate, and will no doubt be an invaluable asset in the course of my graduate education and beyond. I often utilized Francophone anthropological literature in the course of my undergraduate studies, which opened up many resources and avenues of exploration that otherwise may not have been available. Proficiency in French is particularly relevant in prehistoric art studies, of course, as much research in this field has published only in French.

Passion and excitement alone, naturally, do not automatically guarantee success or results, especially on projects as challenging as a doctoral dissertation say, or any graduate assignment that demands and requires a very high level of academic commitment. In addition to a burning curiosity about the lives and times of our distant forbearers, what I will bring as an anthropology graduate student is my proven track record for academic excellence. I was a member of the Honors College for the entirety of my time at UIC, where I graduated cum laude, with college honors, and a departmental distinction in anthropology. I was also included on the Dean’s List several times, and I will continue to maintain this standard as a graduate student.

Additionally, I believe that it is important to make anthropological knowledge as widely accessible as possible. Price and Feinman (2001) note the critical importance of public archaeology, commenting that “the thoughtful involvement of lay individuals and meaningful education of the public regarding the principles and results of archaeological research can only enhance our discipline” (485). As a graduate student and beyond, one of my goals would be an active “ambassador” for archaeology, and to highlight the relevance of the field even in the hectic, workaday world of the twenty-first century. I personally feel very strongly that reaching out to children is especially important. By helping them foster an early interest in archaeology and anthropology, we are helping to lay a strong foundation for the future of the discipline. Not every kid will grow up to be an archaeologist, of course, but if even one child becomes an adult who cares about the work that archaeologists and anthropologists undertake, then the effort would have been absolutely worth it. I believe that any institution has much to offer in this regard, and I would like to be a part of it.

I have continued reading about and independently studying Upper Palaeolithic art and culture as much as possible since graduating from UIC in December 2007, though the daily struggle of making sure the rent is paid or keeping food on the table has prevented me from doing more that directly contributes to my understanding of archaeology in a very practical sense, such as participating in a field school. Nevertheless, I have tried to integrate archaeological practices into my personal interests, such as photography. I have been an amateur photographer for several years, and I am interested in the archaeological applications of photography—digital infrared photography, for example, or digital ultraviolet photography to name another—especially as it relates to the recording, preservation, and interpretation of rock art (e.g. Fredlund and Sundstrom 2007). Along this same vein, how we present archaeological subjects through photography for public consumption is important as well, and some of my recent (early) explorations in this area can be seen online at www.flickr.com/dlestarjette in the “Petroglyph National Monument” and “Philippines” galleries. Another photographic project of interest to prehistoric art studies that I am hoping to undertake (extra money permitting) before beginning graduate school is the seasonal photography of Przewalski’s wild horse here in the United States, which could provide insight into some of the Upper Palaeolithic images in Europe.

At the top of this statement of purpose is a short quote from Antoine de Saint-Exupéry’s 1931 novel Vol de nuit, which in English, describes a wish, a hope that is as relevant today as it was in 1931—and perhaps is even relevant to the Upper Palaeolithic craftspeople who went into caves so long ago and drew wonderful pictures that we find so fascinating: “We don’t ask to be immortal, but rather that actions and objects not suddenly lose their significance to the great empty void surrounding us.” Right now, I don’t know what ice age art truly signifies, or whether that much sought after “Aha!” moment when everything suddenly becomes clear will come in my lifetime. I do know, however, that I want to make a meaningful contribution to the discussion, and I would like to begin as a graduate student. I am confident I will be successful. Please seriously consider me for acceptance into the anthropology graduate program.

¹Like many others, and despite its widespread use, I am often reluctant to use the word “art” when describing Upper Palaeolithic or any ancient parietal imagery or portable representational devices. Conkey (1987) notes that “by calling these images ‘art,’ we presume the aesthetic; we also presume a link between us and the makers/users of the imagery (413, footnote 1) that in most instances likely does not exist. In fact, “art” in the modern sense of the word is a relatively recent development (see Collingwood 1938 for a detailed discussion, where Prof. Collingwood also decries the use of the world in terms of Palaeolithic representations). “Art” nevertheless remains a convenient placeholder word, though it would be agreeable to develop a more accurate lexicon to describe these media. (Return to previous position.)

• References
• Bahn, P.G. 1995. “Cave art without the caves.” Antiquity 69: 231 – 38.
• Bahn, P. G. and J. Vertut. 1997. Journey Through the Ice Age. Berkeley: U of California P.
• Collingwood, R. G. 1938. The Principles of Art. New York: Galaxy, 1958.
• Conkey, M. W. 1987. “New Approaches in the Search for Meaning? A Review of Research in ‘Paleolithic Art.’” Journal of Field Archaeology 14: 413 – 30.
• Fredlund, G. and L. Sundstrom. 2007. “Digital infra-red photography for recording painted rock art.” Antiquity 81: 733 – 42.
• Lewis-Williams, D.J. and J. Clottes. 1998. “The Mind in the Cave—the Cave in the Mind: Altered Consciousness in the Upper Paleolithic.” Anthropology of Consciousness 9: 13 – 21.
• Price, T.D. and G.M. Feinman. 2001. “The Archaeology of the Future.” Archaeology at the Millennium: A Sourcebook. G.M. Feinman and T.D. Price, eds. New York: Springer. 275 – 93.