What Was Life Like At Lake Mungo?
What Does Archaeological Evidence Tell Us About Life At Lake Mungo?
Archaeological evidence tells us a lot of things. One of them is mainly how people lived. Lake Mungo residents long ago, left clues, of how they lived life. Most cluesare bones. They tell how they ate. most bones consisted of aquatic creatures from Lake Mungo. This would have shown how their diet was. They also left acient footprints. Nowadays, you can cast the footprints. With this data, you can see how many people lived among Lake Mungo, temporarily or permanantly. With this evidence, archaeologists and historians can understand life and the past better.
What is the difference between the archaelogist and artist repesentation?
The difference is very similar.Though archaeologists tell fictional data. Artists, draw what they see. The difference is the archaeologists shows fictional facts and evidence. Then for the artists, he adds details in the drawing, which are not even mentioned by the archaeologist.So the archaeologists go by the truth and artists go by what they hve known from their perspective.
Source:
Image By:Jiovanni Caselli
7.3 Are there some archaeological findings that have not been used in the painting? If so, suggest why the artist might not have used them.
Yes. These are the partial human skeletons, bones of extinct large animal.These were not used by the artists because these happened after Ice age and likewise, the artist only showed the livelihood and how they behave as humans.
7.4 Are there any aspects shown in the painting for which there is no evidence available — for instance, the way the children are carrying the fish? Explain why such evidence might not exist at the site.
Yes, Lake Mungo was described as a dry land, however, the painting showed a thick group of plants near the shore.Also, the variety of food hunted cannot be explained since most tribesmen before survived by sharing food for a certain harvest, such as fish only or meat only.There is no choice on what food to eat. Also, there is no evidence for fishing nets before. Prehistoric men used spears for fishing.
7.5 Is it believable for the artist to include such ‘missing’ things in the painting? Justify your view
It is not correct to include things in the paintings that has no evidence at all because it does not depict the actual life of the prehistoric people. The paintings should be based on the archaeological evidence and not on generalized assumptions in order to provide a complete historical background of the people at Lake Mungo.
7.6 The people are shown living in a group. There is no archaeological evidence to support this — no finding of remains that show how people lived in a group at that time. Do you think it is reasonable for the artist to show people living in this way? Justify your view.
It si reasonable for the artist to show it this way because, the artist would not know as much about the people of Lake Mungo and the artist does not know the archaeological evidence. Found. As he is only observing of what he believes life was like.
All he knows is that he is not an archaeologist he is only and artist.