Paleolithic Art Studies

Paleolithic Art Studies at the Beginning of the Twenty-First Century: A Loss of Innocence Author(s): Oscar Moro-Abada and Manuel
R. Gonzlez-Morales Source: Journal of Anthropological Research, Vol. 64, No. 4 (Winter, 2008), pp. 529-552 Published by: University of New Mexico Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20371288 . Accessed: 14/10/2013 04:51
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 of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
University of New Mexico is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Anthropological Research.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 147.91.75.149 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 04:51:44 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ART STUDIES AT THE PALEOLITHIC BEGINNING OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY A Loss of Innocence
Oscar Moro-Abadia Memorial UniversityofNewfoundland,DepartmentofAnthropologyandArchaeology, NL AIC 5S7, Canada. Email: omoro(mun.ca St. John's, and Manuel R. Gonzailez-Morales Instituto Internacional Universidad de Cantabria, de InvestigacionesPrehistoricas, Avenida de losCastros, 39005 Santander,Spain. Email: moralesm(unican.es KEYWORDs: Human evolution; Dating techniques; Eurocentrism, Mobiliary art;Paleolithic Rock art art;Parietal art;Personal ornaments; In thepast two decades, several scholars have suggested that Paleolithic art
a revolution. This disciplinary studieshave been undergoing transformation

Cave; is generally related to the discovery of new sites, such as Chauvet or Blombos the development of new methodologies, such as AMS radiocarbon and
evolution. Thesefirstsare not only revolutionizing cognitive thechronology

and technical study of the oldest forms of art, theyare also modifying theways Paleolithic art is conceptualized. In this article we analyze some of these recent variations in how we view, thinkabout, and define such art. Borrowing David Clarke's terminology,we interpret the current change in our understanding of Paleolithic art as a "loss of innocence" stemmingfrom an increasing criticism of themain axioms that defined the study of Paleolithic art until the 1980s. In this context, the loss of disciplinary innocence can be defined as the process bywhich most specialists become conscious of the complexity of thisart.
DURING THE PAST TWENTY YEARS WE HAVE WITNESSED SOMETHING AKIN TO A REVOLUTION
thermoluminescence dating; and the rise of new theories concerning human
inPaleolithic art studies. First, importantdiscoveries have been made all around theworld: Chauvet (Chauvet et al. 1995; Clottes 2003; Geneste et al. 2005) and Cosquer (Clottes 1998; Clottes and Courtin 1994; Clottes et al. 2005) in France, Hohle Fels inGermany (Conard 2003), Foz COa inPortugal (Bahn 1995; Clottes 1998; Jorge 1995), and Blombos Cave in South Africa (Henshilwood et al. 2002; Tribolo et al. 2006) are among the most spectacular examples of Paleolithic art discovered in the past two decades. Second, the development of new dating techniques, such as AMS radiocarbon, thermoluminescence (TL), and electron spin resonance (see Wagner 1998), has provided specialists with a provisional global chronology of the earliest "artworks." Even thoughwe must be extremely cautious about accepting all published dates, it seems beyond question that significant progress concerning the age determination of Paleolithic art has been JournalofAnthropologicalResearch, vol. 64, 2008 ? by The UniversityofNew Mexico Copyright
529
530
JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL
RESEARCH
made during the past decade. Moreover,
"with the current progress in the use of
thesetechniques one expects much better resolutions in thenextdecade" (Bar ingenetics Yosef 2002:363).Third,recent developments andpaleoanthropology
(such as mitochondrial DNA analysis) have highlighted the origins of modem
human behavior. Given that personal ornaments and other objectsare "artistic" today considered some of the most important traits defining behavioral modernity,
current debates on human cognitive evolution have had a considerable impact on the study of Paleolithic art. In particular, even though it is unclear how, when, and among which hominid groups art emerged, most specialists agree that the first forms of personal ornaments and decorated items (such as ostrich eggshell beads, marine shells, and ochre pieces bearing engraved motifs) arose inAfrica ca. 70,000 BP (Henshilwood et al. 2002) or earlier. Thus, the traditional belief in a European origin of art is under debate.
of "revolution" These developments have provokeda sentiment (Nowell 2006:242;Whitley 2001:8) or "crisis" (e.g., Bednarik 1996; Beltran 1992) within art heldnotions Paleolithic has called into questionseveraltraditionally
studies (Henshilwood et al. 2002:1279; Valladas
within the discipline. It is now widely accepted that the application of modern techniques of dating to recent discoveries, such as Chauvet or Blombos Cave, et al. 2001:986). In otherwords,
to the thecurrent uneasiness"(Sauvet2004:268) isusuallyrelated "disciplinary

impact of new discoveries and new technical advances in the field, especially
direct dating.
Without denying theeffectof these developments, we consider that the current disciplinary crisis is also related to paradigmatic variations thataremodifying our understanding of Paleolithic art. These conceptual changes are certainly related to the aforementioned improvements in the technical studyof Paleolithic art,but they are not thenecessary consequence of them.For instance, the currentcriticism of the traditionalEurocentric bias is connected to thediscovery of new evidence in Africa and other continents, but it is also linked to the criticism of Eurocentric modes of thinking thatarose in the late 1980s and in the 1990s, best illustratedby the impact of postcolonial studies. The same could be said of the present discrediting of the unilinear evolution of Paleolithic art. The abandonment of such a belief can be explained both by the discovery of the high antiquity of sophisticated examples of prehistoric art (such as Chauvet or Hohle Fels) and by thepostmodern critique of the notion of progress. As these examples illustrate, the current revolution in Paleolithic art studies cannot be reduced to technical developments in the field; these changes are also connected to conceptual shifts.The remainder of this article examines variations in theway Paleolithic art is conceptualized. We seek to interpretthese changes not as a "crisis" but as something akin to a "loss of innocence" (Moro-Abadia 2006:133). This expression was first popularized in archaeology by David Clarke. In 1973, Clarke claimed that archaeology had developed from a state of consciousness to self-consciousness and finally to critical self-consciousness in a continuous process. The state of consciousness was achieved when thediscipline was named and defined by specifying its rawmaterial and by pragmatic practice. The materialization of a disciplinary self-consciousness was related to a technical revolution in the field,marked by methodological and
PALEOLITHIC ART STUDIES
531
implicit theoretical changes. Finally, the emergence ofa critical self-consciousness inthe 1960s was defined byphilosophical, metaphysical, andtheoretical reflections on the and limits of archaeological nature, methodology, knowledge. Thisprocess was related tothe development ofnew methodologies (suchas new techniques for recording sitelocation; newdating methods, especially the radiocarbon, potassium new paradigms of sitesand deposits), analysis (morphological, anthropological, new philosophies and geographical), ecological, (thepreviousframework could not accommodate theaccumulation information withinits of novel,discordant
structure), and, most important,a new scepticism which chafed at the traditional argon, and uranium series; and new small-scale techniques for theprocessing and
consciousness a reflection on thelimits isprimarily of archaeological knowledge:

"It is apparent that archaeologists need to know about knowing and the limits of what theycan and cannot know from thedata and toknow thisby critical appraisal,
security and comfort of the status quo. According
to Clarke,
critical self
notsimply byassertion" (Clarke 1973:7).
Paleolithic art studies have recently passed through a process similar to that described by Clarke. We propose that the supposed crisis in the field should be interpreted as a "loss of disciplinary innocence" connected with the emergence of a critical self-consciousness of the limits of our knowledge. Using Clarke's terminology,we have passed from a reassuring "look how much we know" to a "look how little we know and how inappropriate are ourmodels and explanations" (Clarke 1973:7). In this paper we seek to analyze some of the processes that, in past 20 years, have led archaeologists to become increasingly aware of the
art. ofPaleolithic complexity

In the firstsection of this paper we briefly depict the paradigm dominant in the field until the 1980s. We summarize thisparadigm with fourpropositions: (1) the use of the term "art" to define all images produced by Homo sapiens during the Paleolithic; (2) the preeminence of parietal art (or "rock art") over other forms of Paleolithic art, such as mobiliary art or "personal ornaments"; (3) the widespread belief in the unilinear progression of art throughout the Paleolithic; (4) Eurocentrism, or how specialists derived global theories about Paleolithic art
from the Europeanrecord.
In the second section, we analyze how recent events in the field have provoked a "loss of innocence" defined by criticism of these four axioms. First, several scholars have pointed out problems related to theuse of the concept of art to define a very heterogeneous range of prehistoric material representations. This criticism has led tomany interestingdiscussions about the adequacy of some of the technical terms used by specialists, such as "portable art," "petroglyph," or "rock art." Second, specialists have increasingly argued that scholars need to move from traditional interpretations focused on cave art (or rock art) to a more global understanding integrating their study with those of traditionally under represented "artistic" objects such as "portable art" or "personal adornments." As a result,many specialists are now persuaded that some portable artifacts, such as engraved bones, shells, and beads, are essential to understanding the development of social symbolism within the firsthuman societies. Third, the confirmation of the great antiquity of spectacular examples of paleoart has
532
RESEARCH
newdiscoveries, most specialists acceptthat "modem humans were astonishingly

quick in developing
challenged the traditional belief in the unilinear evolution of art. In lightof these their artistic skills" (Sinclair 2003:774). Thus, there is no logical reason to believe that artwork evolved from simple to complex during
thePaleolithic.Fourth,recent developments have discardedtheassumption

thatPaleolithic art occurred only inEurope. A number of important discoveries have challenged the long-accepted belief in theEuropean origin of art. The high antiquity of the engraved pieces of ochre fromBlombos Cave in South Africa (dating to ca. 77,000 BP) has provided evidence of the importance of Africa in the emergence of the first"symbolic" and "artistic" forms.Also, discoveries in Eurasia, Africa, and Australia demonstrate that Paleolithic art is a worldwide
phenomenon. This new perspective to evaluatethenon challengesspecialists THE "TRADITIONAL" PARADIGM OF PALEOLITHIC ART STUDIES
European evidence on its own terms.
TheWesternunderstanding of Paleolithic art which prevailedthroughout most

of the twentieth century can be summarized into fourmain ideas. These four postulates have operated axiomatically-that is, as established or self-evident
truths all possibleexperience. encompassing
The first is related to the use of the term "art" to define all images produced by Homo sapiens during the Paleolithic. These images (animal and human carvings and statuettes, engraved and painted blocks, paintings on the walls of caves, "non-figurative" motifs) have been considered to be the "artistic expression" of their authors and therefore have been studied through the lens of concepts usually borrowed from art history: "creation," "style," "skill," "period," "artistic conventions," and so on. This does not mean that all interpretations of Paleolithic
Cognitive, or psychological, anthropological, structural, functional, symbolic,

iconological approaches have also been suggested. However, the term "art" has generally been the first label used by specialists to classify these images. For instance, when Sauvet and Wlodarczyk suggested a "formal grammar" of some Paleolithic representations, they referred to them under themoniker of "parietal art" (Sauvet andWlodarczyk 1995). In short,Paleolithic images have been interpreted as representations, icons, signs or symbols, butfirst they have been catalogued as art. The second idea is related to the general categorization of "Paleolithic art" by twentieth-century writers into two main categories: parietal art (or rock art) and mobiliary art (or portable art). This way of classifying has had a twofold effect on the discipline. In the firstplace, this distinction appears to be based on "objective features": parietal art encompasses engravings, bas-reliefs, and paintings on thewalls of caves or on open-air rocks;mobiliary art refers toworks which are of a certain maximum size and are judged to be "portable." In the second place, most treatises on Paleolithic art have primarily focused on cave art images. Researchers often underestimate the importance of a wide range of items catalogued as mobiliary art,which may be considered merely as "trinkets,"
images have been conceptualized
in artistic terms.
533
"sketches," "craftworks," or "ornaments." CapitanandBouyssonie'sUn atelier d'artprehistorique telling example of thistrivialization. (1924) is a particularly These pioneerFrench archaeologists suggestedthatthe artists workingon mobiliary pieces were apprentices of"parietal artists," "sketching" before painting
on cave walls (Capitan and Bouyssonie 1924).
The third ideathat has structured thetraditional understanding ofPaleolithic

art is theunilinear progression theory (i.e., thebelief in a progression from simple
to more complexrepresentations the The predominance throughout Paleolithic).

of this conviction has been related to the influence of Breuil and Leroi-Gourhan. Abbe Breuil established this theoretical conception inhis firstworks.He suggested
that Paleolithicart evolved through four phases in a progressive continuity from primitive to more perfectly finished forms (AlcaldedelRio et al. 1911).
suggested that Paleolithic art had progressed
At the end of his career, Breuil
two artistic through and the Solutreo periods: theAurignaco-Perigordian Magdalenian cycles(Breuil1952). Inbothseries, Breuil setup theevolution of prehistoric artistic activity from elementary beginnings to the perfection of the final periods. A decade later, AndreLeroi-Gourhan criticized Breuil's cyclical
chronology and suggested thatPaleolithic art had, instead, followed a "coherent
curve" (Leroi-Gourhan evolutionary 1964:90). Leroi-Gourhan (1964:87-90) proposedthat Paleolithicarthad evolved through fivestyles corresponding to different epochs: thePre-figurative period (Chatelperronian), Styles I and II
to theAurignacian, the Gravettian, and the the beginning of Solutrean), Style III (or "archaic period," analogous to the end of the Solutrean and the earlyMagdalenian), Old Style IV (corresponding (or "primitive period," equivalent to the laterMagdalenian), and Recent Style IV (equivalent to the end of the He established the notion that Paleolithic art had evolved in Magdalenian). a "single ascending curve" (Leroi-Gourhan 1965:43) that spans the entire Upper Paleolithic. This a priori conception was accepted by themajority of archaeologists until the last decades of the twentieth century. Finally, during much of the twentieth century most archaeologists were convinced that Paleolithic art was exclusively a European phenomenon. As Leroi-Gourhan summarized in 1965, specialists were persuaded that therewas little evidence outside Europe, and even the limited evidence was plagued with works treatingPaleolithic uncertain dating (Leroi-Gourhan 1965:204). As a result, arthave overemphasized the importance of theFranco-Cantabrian region over the rest of theworld. This emphasis has had important consequences for themodels created to explain the origins and evolution of art. In the firstplace, themost spectacular examples of cave art (e.g., Lascaux and Altamira) have generally been considered the "origin of art" (Bazin 1958:7), the "prehistory ofWestern art" (Leroi-Gourhan 1965), and "the firststep, the beginning" in the rise toward art (Bataille 1955:130). In otherwords, European caves have been considered to represent "the dawn of art." In the second place, the privileging of theEuropean record has provoked the use of European standards to evaluate thePaleolithic art of the restof theworld. In lightof the magnificence of certain European cave art, other artistic forms such as engraved bones, figurines, and personal adornments have often been undervalued.
534
RESEARCH
THE EMERGENCE OF A CRITICAL DISCIPLINARY SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS

In recent years, new discoveries, new techniques, and new reflections have
provoked an increasing criticism of theselong-established ideasabout Paleolithic a greater from of the disciplinary consciousness innocence, stemming complexity traditional whichhave called into question interpretations.
of Paleolithic art. In this second section, we analyse four of themain critiques art. As we have argued above, this change can be interpreted as a loss of
1.Terminological Traditional Discussions:Challenging Concepts theterminology artstudies. discussions used in Paleolithic concerning Categories
such as "Paleolithic art" (Nowell 2006; Soffer and Conkey 1997), "mobiliary art" (Moro-Abadia and Gonzailez-Morales 2004), "rock art" (Chippindale and Tagon 1998, 2006; Greer and Greer 2007; Swartz 2007) "personal ornaments" 2006), and "style" (Alcolea and Balbin 2007; Guy 2003; Moro-Abadia Over the past two decades, we have participated in a number of interesting
and "pictographs" and Tagon (Vanhaeren 2005), "petroglyph" (Chippindale

and
Gonzailez-Morales 2007; Otte and Remacel 2000) have been discussed in very differentways. In this context, the concept of art has been the subject of much debate. A number of authors have criticized the use of this term to categorize 1997:174; Layton 1991a: 1-6, 1991b:23; Odak
societies (e.g., Conkey 1987:413, imagesproducedby so-calledprimitive
1991, 1992; Shiner 1994; Soffer and Conkey 1997:2-3; Tomaskova 1997:268-69; Torgovnick 1989; White word to describe the 1992:538, 1997:93, 2003:20). Others consider theuse of this early products of artistic sensibility as legitimate (e.g., Blocker 1994; Heyd 2005; Lorblanchet 1992; Morales 2005; Whitley 2001). This debate must be put into the context of certain theoretical discussions which have occurred in other academic disciplines, such as art history and iconology. Since the beginning of themodern era,Western philosophers and historians have considered art to be a universal expression of humankind. This conception is related to the influence of Kant's theory of aesthetics.' Taking Kant's theory as reference, a number of nineteenth-centurywriters and philosophers (e.g., Poe,
the of aesthetic established Wilde, Baudelaire, Coleridge, Flaubert) universality taste or sensibility, a significant considered human faculty. Although these authors this indifferent interpreted aesthetic ways, they all included it sensibility within
humans' cognitive and moral faculties. In otherwords, they all considered art to be a product of a universal human faculty.This belief in theuniversality of artwas reinforcedwith the arrival of "primitive art" from America, Africa, and Oceania to Western countries, and with the "discovery" of prehistoric art at the end of the nineteenth century. In lightof these examples, it seemed clear that art existed in all human societies. half of the twentiethcentury. This conception was uncontested during the first Nevertheless, during the 1950s and 1960s some authors started to question the was the German philosopher depiction of art as a universal human faculty.The first Oskar Paul Kristeller, who published his influential study on the "modern system
PALEOLITHIC ART STUDIES of theArts" in 1951-1952. According
535
toKristeller, art is not a universal faculty
but a "modern system" that acquired its current form only in the preceding two centuries. Itwas at the dawn of modernity when the term "art" was firstused to
refer to thefive major arts ofpainting, sculpture, architecture, music,andpoetry (Kristeller 1951-1952:497). Before theeighteenth century, the word had been
used to refer to a number of heterogeneous human activities, includingwar, horse
breaking, writing, or governing. Following Kristeller, Wladislaw Tatarkiewicz

examined the differences between themodern idea of art and that of antiquity. Tatarkiewicz proposed that "the idea of art current in the classical Greek period was also much more general than ours, as it embraced 'all works produced according to rules,' thus including not only theworks of artists but also those
of artisans and scholars"(Tatarkiewicz 1963:231). Influenced byKristeller's more recently andTatarkiewicz's works,several authors have suggested that the
concept of art is a historically contingent category which emerged in the course
ofmodernity (e.g.,Becq 1994;Belting1990;Bourdieu1992; Mortensen1997; Woodmansee 1994).2 It is inthis context that andarchaeologists anthropologists havediscussed the
use of the concept of art inPaleolithic studies. First, certain anthropologists have questioned both the concepts of art and of primitive in the expression "Primitive art." Second, and stimulated by these debates, certain specialists have argued against the use of the term"art" to describe Paleolithic images. Since the 1970s, a number of anthropologists have discussed the traditional trivialization of "primitive art" as a "decorative art." They have attacked the supposed primitiveness of the art from small-scale societies, arguing that "certain works made by members of societies other than our own are worthy of our aesthetic regard and deserve to be called 'art"' (Dissanayake 1982:145). Consequently, art from those groups should be considered "Art with a capital A" (Haberland 1986:131). According to these authors, "no human society has been discovered thatdoes not display some examples of what we, in themodem West, are accustomed to call 'art"' (Dissanayake 1980:398). Therefore, while theirprocesses of naming may differ from Westerners, all human societies have "art" that can be as "sophisticated" and "complex" as Western representations (Anderson 1979, 1990; Dissanayake
1986;Price1989;Torgovnick 1990).
1980, 1982, 1987, 1992, 2000; Haberland
Other anthropologists and historians of art have considered the label "primitive art" to be a formofWestern cultural appropriation. These authors have claimed that the category of "art" does not exist within many so-called primitive cultures: "Few of these small-scale societies have grouped artifactsor activities on the basis of non-utility and given them special status as objects for disinterested appreciation" (Shiner 1994:225). For instance,Kasfir has summarized thedifferent Western and African understandings of what is called "art": It is not so clear that these Western collectors' distinctions are very resonant in themind of [the]African artist.... Whereas Western artists often see theirwork primarily as a vehicle for self-realisation, that attitude is as African culture generally, unless unfamiliar to [the]African artist as it is in
536
RESEARCH
we refer to theelite artists trained in Western-type art schools. Typically the carving profession, or any other that results in the construction of artefacts (brass-casting, weaving, pottery-making, etc.) is seen as a form of work, not qualitatively very different from farming, repairing radios, or driving a
taxi(Kasfir 1992:45). Stimulated some specialists by theexamples provided by anthropologists,

have attacked the utilization of the concept of art in Paleolithic contexts. They main problems: consider that the use of this termentails four Anachronism. Even if "art" is a convenient category for the study of some
it is doubtful prehistoric thatitscreators would have materialrepresentations, inthe recognized anysuch idea. Consequently, "art"is anachronistic Paleolithic
and largely predetermines how images are interpreted (Nowell 2006:244). Reductionism. Conkey, for instance, remarks that "the use of the term 'Paleolithic art' has contributed to condensing all the diversity of media and imagery into a single category that is, furthermore, one of 'our' categories"
(1987:413). As Soffer andConkeyhave suggested, the Aestheticism. moderndefinition

of "art" is related to an aesthetic discourse which establishes that "art" is valued for the skill needed tomake the object, itsbeauty, and itsnon-utility. "Aesthetics" is a modern Western concept which does not have universal validity (Soffer and
Conkey1997:2). White (2003:20-23), the idea of "primitive Ethnocentrism. According to This ethnocentrism is best expressedin the precursor ofWestern art. Western
definition of "artworks" frommodern, small-scale societies. First, it is only the Westerner's perspective that elevates an object from these societies to the status of "art." Second, writers unknowingly embrace ethnocentrism in placing this art at the beginning of "universal" histories of artwhich are, in fact, Western. Other authors consider the use of the term "art" legitimatewhen describing art" is related to an ethnocentric prejudice which considers "Paleolithic art" the
artifacts (e.g., Blocker 1994;Heyd 2005; Whitley2001).Recently, non-Western

Morales (2005:61) argued that some authors' critical standpoints are based on uninformed notions about art and aesthetics. He suggests that the aforementioned authors ignore "that art has been and continues to be an important and diverse activity,meaning different things to differentpeople at different times" (Morales 2005:68). Lorblanchet argues that the simple act of applying the term toPaleolithic paintings, engravings, and carvings does not mean
He proposesthat "inrecognizing the meanings and necessarily imposed. historical

the usages of rock art,we realize thatour own perspectives on prehistoric works differ from those of our ancient predecessors" (Lorblanchet 1992:116-17). Even if there is no consensus on abandoning theword "art," the increase in the number of works treating this epistemological unease is a sign of the emergence of a self-reflexiveness in the field. Throughout the greater part of the twentieth century, archaeologists used their concepts as if theywere universal
that the Western meaning
is
537
categories, ignoring thefactthat they arehistorical andcontingent terms. In this

sense, and even if it is obvious thatother recent alternatives to define "Paleolithic
or "Pleistocene "material art"(suchas "prehistoric imagery," representations," images") areequally which involve a particular interpretation, moderncategories these recent critical approaches contribute to improved methods withinthestudy of the Paleolithic imagery.
2. Looking for a Global "Parietal Art"Understanding of Paleolithic Art: Challenging "Portable Art" Distinction the
Untilthe last years ofthetwentieth century, andarchaeologists anthropologists

based theiranalyses of Paleolithic art on a central dichotomy between parietal art (or "rock art") and mobiliary art (or "portable art"). As Sieveking summarizes, "Paleolithic art . . . is usually classified . . . in two categories, those of mural art and of portable miniature pieces found in actual habitation sites; the second being a category described inFrench as artmobilier" (1979:7-8). A quick glance
at dictionaries and generalintroductory works corroborates the use widespread

of these concepts (e.g., Brezillon 1969:35; Bray and Trump 1970:51; Delporte
1962:21; Leroi-Gourhan 1988:70; 1981:14, 1990:32; Laming-Emperaire Lorblanchet 1995:13, 21; Ucko andRosenfeld1967:8;Vialou 2004:244-45;
Whitehouse
art(they Paleolithic have distinguished between classify open-air art;"exterior"

art, in the entrance of the caves; "inside art," in the bottom of the caves; community art; figurative art; ornamental art, and so on), but usually they have
1983:331-32).
Of course, specialists have proposed other ways
to
twocategories. between these first differentiated

The
continuous use of this distinction has had a twofold effect on archaeological understandings of Paleolithic art. In the firstplace, this division is perceived bymost specialists as a self-evidentway of conceptualizing Paleolithic art.The terms "mobiliary" and "parietal" refer to theobjective featureswithin the works of art themselves: the former refers to the transportable artworks found in Paleolithic contexts (and no one could doubt that these objects are moveable), while the latter is used to define engravings, bas-reliefs, paintings, and symbols made on rock surfaces (whether on thewalls of caves or on open-air rocks). The second effect is related to the fact that,until recently, the "grand" explanatory schemes concerning Paleolithic art have focused on cave art. In other words, "the importance of other types of portable representational artifacts such as engraved and incised bone, antler and stone as well as figurinesmade from a variety ofmaterials is underestimated" (Nowell 2006:245). The predominance of cave art over other prehistoric "artworks" is likely a product of both the history of research and the richness of the Franco-Spanish cave art. In any case, this "cave-art-centeredness" has predetermined theway inwhich we have interpreted
visualcultures. Paleolithic and the of The objectivity of the dichotomy predominance parietal/mobiliary
cave art have been recently called into question. Recent works have shown that the aforementioned division is not a natural way to approach Paleolithic art,but a historical manner of conceptualizing it. Also, authors are increasingly calling for a more global understanding of Paleolithic art.
538
RESEARCH
In our analysis of the history of the concepts of parietal and mobiliary
andGonzailez-Morales Paleolithic art (Moro-Abadia 2004;Moro-Abadia2006)

we suggest that the Western definition of Paleolithic art has been based on the century, the traditional concept of art was split into the "fine arts" or Beaux
projection ofmoderncategories ontoprehistoric images. During theeighteenth
and Arts (whichincluded poetry, painting, music, sculpture, and architecture) "crafts" or "popular arts"(e.g.,pottery, jewelry, embroidery). While theformer was associated with"aesthetics," "cerebral art," geniality, inspiration, sensibility,
was used to define artworks requiring skill and rules of and non-utility, the latter manufacture, "bodily art," or art foruse or entertainment. Shiner has summarized
the "art"and"crafts" principal categories distinguishing (Table 1).

TABLE 1 Artist versus Artisan (fromShiner 2001:115) From Artisan/Artist to After theSplit Before theSplit Talent orwit Inspiration Facility (mind and body) Reproductive imagination Emulation Imitation Service Genius Inspiration/sensibility Spontaneity(mind and body) Creative imagination Originality Creation Freedom (play) Artist Rule Calculation Skill (body) Reproductive imagination Imitation(ofmodels) Copying (nature) Trade (pay) Artisan
During the period between 1860 and 1925, the distinction between "fine arts" and "crafts" was the basis for the parietal/mobiliary dichotomy. Between 1860 and 1900 the first discoveries of prehistoric portable art were defined through a set of values and ideas generally used to depict "craft" or "popular arts": they were depicted as ornamental art (Evans 1878:448; Mortillet 1897:241; Wilson 1898:351-52); nonreflexive art that fulfilled a mainly decorative function
(Dupont 1872:155); "bodilyart"-necklaces,amulets,and tattoos(Lubbock art" (Wilson 1898:350); an astonishing 1870:58); "decorative "skill" (Evans 1867:22); an innocent art(Mortillet 1992:293); and a simple pastime(Mortillet
1992:287). When a more complex image of Paleolithic people was developed and the antiquity of cave artwas accepted, parietal art was defined through a set of
categories generally associated with "fine art": "style," "creativity," "originality," walls of the caves were thenconsidered analogous "creation." The paintings on the to "the great frescoes of classic art" (Leroi-Gourhan 1957:109) or to the "Sistine Chapel" (Breuil 1952). These examples illustrate that the parietal/mobiliary dichotomy does not refer to an objective conceptualization of Paleolithic art but to a distinction based on theprojection of our modern ideas onto thePaleolithic. Given that there is no "objective" reason to justify this split within Paleolithic art (Vialou 1998:269), mobiliary art is no longer assigned second place. Specialists have proposed thatportable itemswere generally overlooked because of a twofold prejudice concerning their technical manufacture and their
539
symbolic meaning. Most traditional interpretations assumed thatthe making

of an engraved bone or an ivory statuette required fewer technical skills than those demanded to paint a bison on thewall of a cave. These interpretations also
supposedthat portable objectswere used solely to embellishtheappearance

of their owners. Such an attitude "is totally unfounded and prevents a more
thoroughgoing understanding of prehistoric societies"(White1992:541).First,

mobiliary artworks have a technical and conceptual base as complicated as any
range of sculpting procedures (including hacking, pecking, gouging, scraping, incising, abrading, and polishing) used tomake thefemalefigures foundin Gravettiancontextsat Brassempouy, Kostienki,Avdeevo, and Gagarino
(White 2006). Second, since the 1990s there has been an increasing tendency to consider that "personal ornaments, perhaps more than any other aspects of the archaeological record, are a point of access for archaeologists into the social world of the past" (White 1992:539). This growing interest in ornaments and other pieces is related to the emergence of an "archaeology of the body"
parietal image. White,
for instance, has verified the existence of a very wide
that, influenced by the works of Foucault, Bourdieu,and others,is primarily

concerned with recovering the social and symbolic meanings of the body in the past (e.g., Fisher and Loren 2003; Hamilakis et al. 2002; Joyce 2005; Montserrat
1998;Rautman 2000;Yates 1993).
As a result of these developments, archaeologists are paying greater attention
toportable artworks, now considered amongthe most important media through and transmitted which prehistoric humansstored information, expressedtheir with "personalornaments" demonstrates the current explicitlyconcerned
revaluation of some forms of mobiliary art (e.g., D'Errico 2003; Vanhaeren 2005; Vanhaeren and d'Errico 2006; Vanhaeren et al. 2003; Taborin et al. 2004; affiliations, and indicated their identity. The rise in the frequency of articles
have passed from of Zilhdo2007). These items merelybeingconsidered forms

self-decoration to being defined as "unambiguous hallmark[s] of behavioural modernity" (Vanhaeren 2005:526), as "symbolic objects created forvisual display on the body" (D'Errico 2003:196), and as "conveyors of the social identityof
persons"(Zilhao2007:35).
In short, authors are increasingly calling for a more global understanding of Paleolithic art. They are trying to construct meaningful representations of Paleolithic images no matter the medium, and as a consequence, current research
is lessdriven or conditioned by "cave-art-centeredness."
3. Critiques of the Belief in theUnilinear Evolution of Paleolithic Art Until the 1980s, most interpretationsdivided Homo sapiens into two variants (McBrearty and Brooks 2000:458): "archaic" (includingNeanderthals, also known as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) and "modern" (Homo sapiens sapiens). It was generally accepted thatanatomically modern Homo sapiens appeared on the European scene at the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic (ca. 40,000-35,000 BP), and once there they gradually developed their artistic skills. These modern humans began shaping simple bone tools and incising grooves in animal teeth. made small statuettes and Later, during theAurignacian and theGravettian, they
540
RESEARCH
painted simple parietal signs like handprints or straight lines. Finally, and after a gradual technical evolution, theyhad the technical abilities necessary to create the great examples of cave art. This picture, however, has been submitted to intense criticism during the past two decades. First,most specialists agree that, in lightof new developments in genetics and dating techniques, Neanderthals and modem humans are two different species (McBrearty and Brooks 2000:458; Stringer 2002:563). Based on studies of Neanderthal mtDNA, the lineages separated no earlier than ca. 600,000 years ago (Krings et al. 2000; Ovchinnikov et al. 2000). Much later,both species coexisted in Europe, where anatomically modem humans apparently arrived at were in contact until the formerwere replaced by the latter (some specialists
BP(Mellars around Neanderthals and"modems" 50,000-45,000 2006:933).There, or admixture: suggest hybridization e.g.,Trinkaus 2005; Zilhdo 2007). Second,
the distinction of "archaic" (Neanderthals) and "modem" humans at the species level has led many scholars to reevaluate the long-established idea thatHomo
sapiens were the firstto create art.Personal ornaments (such as perforated canines and small perforated beads) associated with Neanderthal contexts (especially those from French Chatelperronian sites: Saint-Ce'saire, Quingay, and Grotte du Renne) have been used to suggest that the first"artistic" items recorded inEurope were made by Neanderthals (D'Errico et al. 1998; Zilhao 2007). Other authors Neanderthals did not develop theirown cultural traditionbut, have proposed that in a context of exchange and competition with the incomingmodem groups, they developed "the ability to copy the habits of the new" (Mellars 2005:21). It is difficult to establish whether or not art emerged among Neanderthals because the answer depends on one's definition of "art." Furthermore, the possibility of postdepositional intrusion and contamination cannot be excluded in some of the Chdtelperronian sites. For instance, Taborin (2002) and White (2002) have suggested that the ornaments found in levels VIII-X of theGrotte du Renne are the result of a postdepositional intrusion from Aurignacian level VII. While the answer concerning which was the firsthominid group to create art remains unclear, specialists agree that traditional theories which assumed a more complex representations unilinear progress ofPaleolithic art from simplest to Morales must be rejected (e.g., Clottes 1996; Guy 2003:283; Moro-Abadia and Gonzalez 2007:121; Otte and Remacel 2000:365; Valladas et al. 2001:985-86). Although the concept of a linear evolution of art had been criticized since the 1960s (e.g., Marshack 1990; Ucko 1987; Ucko and Rosenfeld 1967), itwas not until the 1990s that itwas abandoned. Two reasons explain thiswidespread rejection. First, the recent attention tomobiliary art from theAurignacian sites
ofVogelherd, Hohlenstein Geissenklosterle, Stadel,andHohle Fels in Germany

has convinced many scholars of the existence of a highly accomplished three dimensional artistic tradition from the very beginnings of theUpper Paleolithic. Some of these statuettes have been well-known for at least fiftyyears, but the traditional focus on cave artprevented many scholars from recognizing theirvalue. For example, in the 482 pages that comprise Leroi-Gourhan's La prehistoire de lart occidental, firstpublished in 1965, the author devoted only three lines to the portable art fromVogelherd. This situation has recently shifted, however,
541
since the discovery of new figurines at Geissenkldsterle and Hohle Fels and the development of a more global understanding of Paleolithic art has made evident that impressive formsof art arose during theAurignacian. The main explanation for the decline of the unilinear evolution theory is the discovery of Chauvet Cave in 1994. In the initial publications, some specialists
proposed an antiquity varying between 17,000and21,000BPor earlier (Chauvet et al. 1995:113-14; Leroi-Gourhan 1995:574).Nevertheless, thedirectdates
obtained from two rhinoceroses (32,410 ? 720 BP [GifA 95132] and 30,940 ? 610 BP [GifA 95126]) and a bison (30,340 ? 570 BP [GifA 95128]; Clottes et al. 1995) suggested an Aurignacian antiquity for the black paintings. The results were apparently confirmed by the dating of a torch-wipe superimposed on a calcite film (26,120 i 400 BP [GifA 95127]) and by the dating of detached pieces of charcoal (26,980 + 410 BP [GifA 95129]). Faced with this evidence of high
some specialists reacted with scepticism antiquity, (e.g.,Combier1995;Delluc

1999; Gonzalez Sainz 1999; Lorblanchet and Bahn 1999; Pettitt and
and Delluc
Bahn 2003;Ziichner 1999).

The validity of these dates has been the subject of intense debate. We can distinguish two kinds of reasoning used by those who have criticized the chronology proposed by the teams of Helene Valladas and JeanClottes (Valladas scholars consider that the sophisticated techniques used in the cave (figures in perspective, stump drawing, animals represented in well depicted postures, preparation of thewall by scraping) are too "advanced" for the et al. 2005). Some
tothese the ofpublished Aurignacian. According authors, consistency radiocarbon

dates could be explained by a contamination of the dated charcoal (Pettitt and Bahn 2003; see the authors' responses: Valladas and Clottes 2003, Valladas et al. 2004). Other authors have pointed out that theChauvet art could have been made much earlier than the first AMS dates suggested (Bard et al. 2004:179; Mellars 2006:934). Using new curves of calibration, they have proposed that the black paintings could date from around 36,000 BP. Accepting that "Radiocarbon dating is not without its problem, particularly within the crucial time range of around 30,000-40,000 yr BP" (Mellars 2004:462), we consider that theAurignacian antiquity of Chauvet (ca. 32,000 BP) can be proven in light of fourmain arguments. First, themost recent published results (Cuzange et al. 2007) of an AMS radiocarbon intercomparison program inwhich several European laboratorieswere involved (theCentre for Isotope Research; the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, theCentre de Datation par le Carbone 14, and the Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnment) confirm the previously published dates (Valladas et al. 2005). In otherwords, assuming that all radiocarbon results have been published (and not only the ones that fit with an the numerous cave radiocarbon dates from the are consistent. Aurignacian age), Second, the archaeological analyses of the cave point to the Aurignacian antiquity of thepaintings. Jean-Michel Geneste's study indicates that the cave was probably not occupied during the finalPaleolithic phases (Geneste 2005). Moreover, among the twenty flintartifacts identifiedon the floorof the cave, archaeologists found an ivory spearhead similar to other artifacts found inAurignacian contexts, such as Moravia (Geneste 2005:141). Third, recent analyses those at the site ofMladec in
542
RESEARCH
indicate thatChauvet was not frequented by humans or large animals after ca.
25,000BP. Moreover,radiocarbon dating ofhuman andcavebearbonesconfirms

that theywere deposited at Chauvet during the same period as the creation of the paintings (Bocherens et al. 2006). Fourth, there are important analogies between Chauvet, the portable Aurignacian Morales art from southwest Germany, and the parietal and Gonzalez art of certain other French caves (see Clottes 1996; Moro-Abadia
2007). It does not follow that theChauvet paintings are necessarily from
In short, this period, but these analogoussitessuggestitsantiquity. unlessone Aurignacian chronology of the paintings should be accepted.
assumes that later occupants consistently used ancient charcoal forpainting, the Ifwe accept the Aurignacian antiquity of Chauvet and of theGerman portable art, it is clear that art did not gradually evolve from very simple to complex
An initially throughout the "veryslow" artistic development during Paleolithic. the"archaic period"(Leroi-Gourhan 1965:44), which culminated ina "maturity phase" during the Solutrean and the Magdalenian (Leroi-Gourhan 1965:47-52),
cannot be defended. The Chauvet paintings stand in clear opposition to Leroi Gourhan's Aurignacian depiction of the firstartistic periods: "We may imagine that during I and II there were artists capable of drawing a bison correctly on a (Leroi
wall, but since the only dated objects bear outlines that are almost formless, it is impossible to prove thata single cave-wall work is reliablyAurignacian"
the ofChauvetunderscores theimpossibility Gourhan1965:193).In short, dating

of maintaining the unilinear evolution theory of Paleolithic artwhich had, until
recently, beenunanimously accepted.
4. Critiques of theEurocentric Vision of Paleolithic Art Paleolithic art extends over the greater part of Europe. Outside the
Continent, finds are either lacking entirely, scarce, or not reliably dated. Except for one place in southern Siberia (Mal'ta), Asia has so faryielded neither cave walls nor decorated objects that can be reliably assigned to a period preceding the tenmillennia which represent the Paleolithic of Western Europe. Africa contains thousands of cave figures,painted as well as engraved, but proof of their age has not been supplied. Those dated with certainty do not seem to go very far back of historical times (Leroi
Gourhan1965:204).
In theabove quote from1965, Leroi-Gourhan summarized a deep-rooted notion of many Western archaeologists at that time: the conviction thatPaleolithic artwas a European phenomenon restricted to southern France and northern Spain. This perspective was based on theEurocentric model of art origins, dominant since the end of the nineteenth century,which established that something as advanced as arthad to stem fromEurope. For instance, in 1867, Gabriel deMortillet (1867:24) asserted thatPaleolithic art "is exclusively a French art." This Eurocentrism is no longer accepted. First, new intellectualmovements have condemned the Eurocentric mode of thinking as being entrenched in Western culture. Postcolonial studies, which seeks to provide a critical reflection
543
on Westerncolonialism, thisthinking. Itcritiques typifies thecultural, political,

economic, and social effects brought about by the colonial process from the
sixteenth century to thepresent day (Ashcroff et al. 1989:2;Young 2001:4).
Within this critical approach, Eurocentrism has been defined as aWestern style of domination, a way to justify Western hegemony over colonized people. This critique has had considerable impact on awide range of disciplines, such as history,
anthropology, andarchaeology. philosophy, Second,inthe case ofPaleolithic art newdiscoveries studies, anddevelopments have shown that Paleolithic artisnot
an exclusively European phenomenon. In this context, the two main ideas that
sustained the artstudies Eurocentric bias inPaleolithic arediscussed here:The
belief in a European origin of art and the conviction thatPaleolithic art occurs
onlyin Europe. As shownby different authors,some of the innovations traditionally
associated with theEuropean Upper Paleolithic can be traced back to theAfrican continent. Even thosewho have supported the "human revolution" model (which proposes a dramatic change inhuman behavior with the transition from the Middle to theUpper Paleolithic inEurope) accept that earliest forms of "symbolic" and Mellars "artistic" behavior arose first inAfrica around 50,000-70,000 BP (Klein 2000; 2004, 2005). The event thathas most contributed to changing our ideas
ochre in the Middle
2002;Tribolo2006).
from theMSA
about the geographical origin of art is the discovery of two engraved pieces of Stone Age levels of theBlombos Cave (Henshilwood et al. At this South African site,more than 8,000 pieces of ochre were recovered layers during excavations in 1999 and 2000. Moreover, two
unequivocally engraved pieces were found associated with the Still Bay industry, an MSA technology characterized by shaped bone awls and bifacial spear points. On one of them, both the flat surface and one edge were modified using different techniques (such as scraping and gridding) and a cross-hatched design was engraved. On the other piece is an engraving which consists of a row of cross-hatching, circumscribed on the top and bottom with parallel lines. TL MSA methods have suggested a chronology for the layers where the Still Bay bifacial points and the two engraved pieces were discovered. These dates have had important consequences for theories concerning the origins of behavioral modernity. It seems that "Homo sapiens were behaviorally modern [at least] about 77,000 years ago" (Henshilwood et al. 2002:1279). Furthermore, since Africa by around early examples of art and symbolic culturemay have existed in 77,000 years ago, theEuropean origin of artmust be discarded. Moreover, an importantnumber of sites outside Europe reveal thatPaleolithic art is a worldwide phenomenon. Even though some of these siteswere discovered more than fortyyears ago, only in the last two decades of the twentieth century have Western specialists become aware of their importance. As a result, an increasing number of general works that consider the European evidence in a global perspective have appeared (e.g., Bahn and Vertut 1988; Lorblanchet 1995; McBrearty and Brooks 2000; White 2003; Zilhdo 2007). Here we limitourselves to citing some significant examples and suggesting some published references for
further review.
544
RESEARCH
In Eurasia, the sitesof Vogelherd, Hohlenstein-Stadel, Geissenkl6sterle, Pavlov, Kostienki, Avdeevo, andGagarinoshow Hohle Fels,Dolni Vestonice,
the existence of a sophisticated art since theAurignacian and Gravettian periods (between 38,000 and 20,000 BP). In Siberia, several feminine statuettes from the Mal'ta site have been dated to ca. 23,000 years ago. In the Ural Mountains (Russia), Kapova archaeologists have obtained a date from theparietal paintings from ranging up to about 14,000 years ago (Scelinskij and Sirikov 1999). Africa has provided a wide according toRandall White's cave
range of evidence of early art. For instance,
estimate, there are more than 30,000 rock art sites in South Africa alone, and many of them could reach back beyond 10,000 years (White 2003:152). Concerning beads and ornaments, a number of examples are now known to exist throughout Africa (for a review, see McBrearty and Brooks 2000; White 2003). At Border Cave (South Africa), for instance, a perforated seashell was found associated with an infant skeleton (BC3) discovered in MSA layers. Although the possibility of an intrusive context has not been totally is in situ, his ESR age is about 76,000 BP. Furthermore, a
discarded(Sillen andMorris 1996), Grtin and Beaumont (2001:480) have

suggested that ifBC3 piece of shell with a set of notches has been reported from the transitional MSA/ LSA context. One of themost famous sites with well-dated prehistoric art is the Apollo XI Cave inNamibia (Wendt 1974). Three painted slabs representing a large predatory cat were found in an archaeological level corresponding to the Middle Stone Age and dated by conventional radiocarbon to between 28,500 and 26,400 years ago. According to Wendt, this composition was not part of rock art decoration, but a mobiliary piece. Australia offers a long record of prehistoric art thathad been underestimated until recently. The lack of attentionwas related to the belief thatAustralia had been first occupied by humans only at the end of Pleistocene, around 15,000 years ago. Nevertheless, extensive research indicates thatAustralia was firstreached by anatomically modern humans sometime between 70,000 and 45,000 years ago (Tagon 2006:1). An increasing number of works have been foundwhich depict the complexity of Australia Pleistocene art (in this case, the term "Paleolithic" is these developments (Chippindale and Tagon 1998; Layton 1992; Tagon 2001). These and other examples show thatPaleolithic art (i.e., art dated to between 40,000 and 10,000 BP) is not solely a European phenomenon but ismanifested the importance of Europe in the origins of artmust be discarded in favor ofmore
notappropriate). probably Severalstudies provide comprehensive overviews of
worldwide. thetraditional model which emphasizes Therefore, archaeological globalapproaches. SOME CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
to David Clarke, the threshold of critical disciplinary self According consciousness was crossed by archaeologists during the 1960s and 1970s. This loss of innocence was connected to the development of new methodologies, observations, paradigms, and philosophies. Consequently, a new environment was developed and traditional concepts and theorieswere seriously challenged.
PALEOLITHIC ART STUDIES self-consciousness
545
During thepast twentyyears, Paleolithic art studies have developed a critical in a similarway to thatdescribed by Clarke. This process has been related to thedevelopment of new methodologies, new data, new paradigms, and a new era of critique inwhich traditional concepts and theories have become central topics of debate. As a resultof these developments, most of the traditional
explanations, interpretations, and theories concerning thestudy ofPaleolithic art

have been put into question and, in certain cases, have been replaced. We interpret this process not as a "revolution" or a "crisis," but as a "loss the study of Paleolithic While most art. David Clarke's
of disciplinary innocence" relatedto theemergence of a self-reflexiveness in

expression is used in this context art studies are undergoing an Without
thecomplexity of thedisciplinary because itbest summarizes transformation. important renovation, they usuallyreduceittothelogicalchange brought about
by new discoveries and by the application of new methodologies. denying the importance of these advances (some of them have been examined in this paper), we suggest that the current transformation is also related to essential modifications inways of conceptualizing Paleolithic art. In fact, both specialists agree that Paleolithic
are profoundly and factual theoretical changesand technical developments interlinked. On theone hand,new discoveriesand newmethodologies have
in our understanding of Paleolithic art. On the
prompted important changes
theevaluation of archaeological other, conceptualchangeshave influenced

data. For instance, the current revaluation of "personal ornaments" is more related to the emergence of a new social understanding of the body than to the
of new archaeological evidence. discovery

If we have focused on conceptual changes counteract a widespread in this paper, it has been to tendency that links major changes in the field to technical and factual advances. Instead, we suggest that a global interpretation must involve critical self-reflection to understand the cultural basis of the scientific study of Paleolithic art. Such a position does not deny the importance of the aforementioned technical advances; it only means thatwe gain a better appreciation of what we do as archaeologists when we unfold the beliefs that
work. tostructure, our have structured, andcontinue NOTES
The authors wish to thankmany colleagues for access to data and information, to thispaper. collaboration,and friendly discussion, all ofwhich have directlycontributed Theywould like to thank especially Jean Clottes,Richard Bradley,Cesar Gonzalez Sainz, Denis Vialou, Robert Bednarik, threeanonymousJAR reviewers,and theEditor fortheir helpful remarks on earlierdrafts of thispaper. 1. In his Critique of Judgment(1790), Kant's account of "aesthetic" is part of a more general discussion about the faculty of judgment,subsuming theparticularunder theuniversal. In the first two sectionsof his critique, Kant focuseson twodifferent kinds of judgment: teleological (judgments which assign ends to natural things)and aesthetic Kant, aestheticjudgments (judgmentsabout thebeautifuland the sublime).According to or "universalvalidity."This statement means that when we make a claim to"universality" make a judgmentabout an object's beauty,everyoneelse ought to agree.
546
RESEARCH
2. One of the most noteworthy works on the subject isLarry Shiner's The Invention we believe thatart is a universal ofArt: A Cultural History (2001). Shiner suggests that manifestationof humankindbecause we have takenour idea of "art" for and transcendent the whole of art. He suggests,however, thatthecontemporary conceptof art(synonymous based on theoppositionbetween art ("fine art") and with "fineart") is amodem invention throughout European social transformations craft("decorative art"),which resultedfrom This notion of "art" as the original expression of an individual the eighteenthcentury. genius, his reasoninggoes, developed between 1680 and 1830,with theoriginofmarket economies and theriseof the middle class. Other specialistshave similarly discussed such concepts as beauty,aesthetics,and image (e.g.,Belting 1990; Elkins 1995).
REFERENCES CITED
Alcalde del Rio, H., H. Breuil, and L. Sierra. 191 1.Les cavernes de la regioncantabrique. Monaco: A. Chene. Alcolea, J.,and R. Balbin. 2007. C'4 et style:La chronologie de l'art parietal 'a1'heure actuelle.L'Anthropologie 111:435-66. Anderson, R. L. 1979.Art in primitivesocieties. Englewood Cliffs: PrenticeHall. . 1990. Calliope's sisters:A comparative studyofphilosophies of art. Englewood Cliffs: PrenticeHall. Ashcroff,B., G. Griffiths,and H. Tiffin. 1989. The empirewrites back: Theory and practice in post-colonial literatures. London: Routledge. without thecaves.Antiquity69:231-37. Bahn, P. G. 1995. Cave art Vertut 1988. Images of theIce Age. New York: Facts on File. Bahn, P. G., and J. Annual Review ofAnthropology Bar-Yosef, 0. 2002. The Upper Paleolithic revolution. 31:363-93. Bard, E., F. Rostek, and G. Menot-Combes. 2004. A better radiocarbon clock. Nature 303:178-79. Geneve: Skira. Bataille, G. 1955. Lascaux ou la naissance de 'art. Bazin, G. 1958.Histoire de l'art de laprehistoire a nosjours. Paris:Massin. Becq, A. 1994. Genese de V'esthetiquefrancaise moderne. De la raison classique a l'imaginationcreatrice 1680-1814. Paris: Albin Michel. Bednarik, R. 1996. Crisis inPalaeolithic art studies. Anthropologie 34:123-30. Belting,H. 1990. Bild undKult: eine Geschichte des Bildes vor demZeitalter derKunst. Munchen: C. H. Beck. Beltran, A. 1992. "Crisis in traditionalideas about European rock art:The question of diffusion and convergence," inRock art in theOld World: Papers presented in A of the A URA Congress,Darwin (Australia).Edited byM. Lorblanchet, Symposium Gandhi National Centre forthe Arts. pp. 401-13. New Delhi: Indira art.Lanham:UniversityPress ofAmerica. Blocker,H. G. 1994. The aestheticsofprimitive M. Geneste, and J.van derPlicht. 2006. Bears Bocherens,H., D. G. Drucker,D. Billiou, J. and humans inChauvet Cave (Vallon-Pont-d'Arc,Ardeche, France): Insightsfrom stable isotopesand radiocarbondatingof bone collagen. JournalofHuman Evolution 20:370-76. Paris: Bourdieu, P. 1992. Les regles de 'art:Genese et structuredu champ litteraire. Seuil. BrayW., andD. Trump. 1970. A dictionaryof archaeology. London: Penguin. Breuil, H. 1952. Quatre cent sicles d'art parital. Les cavernes ornees de 1 'dgedu renne. Montignac: Centre d'Etudes et de Documentation Prehistoriques. Brezillon,M. 1969.Dictionnaire de laprehistoire.Paris: Larousse.
547
Capitan, L., and L. Bouyssonie. 1924. Un atelier d'art prehistorique. Limeul. Son gisementa' gravures surpierres de l'age du Renne. Paris: Publications de l'Institut International d'Anthropologie. E. Brunel-Deschamps, and C. Hillaire. 1995. La grotteChauvet a' Vallon Chauvet, J.-M., Pont-d'Arc. Paris: Seuil. Chippindale, C., and P. S. Tagon. 1998. The archaeology of rock-art.Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress. .2006.What's ina word,what's ina hyphen? A modest proposal that we abandon thewords "petroglyph"and "pictograph," and hyphenate "rock-painting,""rock engraving,""rock-art" among the words we use. Rock ArtResearch 23:254-57. Clarke, D. L. 1973. Archaeology: The loss of innocence. Antiquity47:6-18. Clottes, J. 1996. Thematic changes inUpper Palaeolithic art:A view from theGrotte Chauvet.Antiquity70:276-88. . 1998. "The 'ThreeCs': Fresh avenues towardsEuropean Palaeolithic art," in The archaeology of rock-art. Edited by C. Chippindale and P. S. Tagon, pp. 112-29. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress. .2003. Chauvet Cave: The artof earliest times. Salt Lake City:UniversityofUtah Press. Clottes, J.,and J.Courtin. 1994. La grotteCosquer: Peintures et gravures de la grotte engloutie.Paris: Seuil. Clottes, J., J.-M.Chauvet, E. Brunel-Deschamps, C. Hillaire, J.-P.Daugas, M. Arnold, C. Cachier, J.Evin, P. Fortin,C. Oberlin, N. Tisnerat, and H. Valladas. 1995. Les Vallon-Pont d'Arc (Arde'che, peinturesde laGrotteChauvet-Pont d'Arc, 'a France): Datations directes et indirectes par lamethode du radiocarbone.Compte Rendus de laAcadgmie de Sciences 320 (IIa): 1130-40. Paris. Paris: Seuil. Clottes, J.,J. Courtin, and L. Vanrell. 2005. Cosquer redecouvert. Combier, J. 1995. Les grottes ornees de l'Arde'che. L'art prehistorique.Dossiers d'Archeologie 209:66-85. southwestern Conard,N. 2003. Palaeolithic ivorysculpturesfrom Germany and theorigins Nature 426:830-32. art. of figurative Conkey,M. W. 1987.New approaches in thesearch for meaning? A reviewof research in "Palaeolithic art."JournalofField Archaeology 14:413-30. . 1997. "Mobilizing ideologies: Palaeolithic 'art,' gender trouble,and thinking about alternatives,"inWomen inhuman evolution.Edited by L. D. Hager, pp. 172 207. London: Routledge. Cuzange, M.-T., E. Delqud-Kolic, T. Goslar, P. M. Grootes, T. Higham, E. Kaltnecker, M.-J. Nadeau, C. Oberlin,M. Paterne, J. Van der Plicht,C. B. Ramsey, H. Valladas, J.Clottes, J.-M.Geneste. 2007. Radiocarbon intercomparison Chauvet program for Cave. Radiocarbon 49:339-47. Delluc, B., and G. Delluc. 1999. El artepaleolitico arcaico enAquitania. De los origenes a Lascaux. Edades. Revista deHistoria 6:145-65. Delporte, H. 1981. L 'objetd'art prehistorique.Paris: Editions de laReunion desMusees Nationaux. 1990. L 'imagedes animaux dans l'artprehistorique. Cahors: Picard Editeur. A multiple species model for the origin of D'Errico, F. 2003. The invisible frontier. behavioralmodernity. EvolutionaryAnthropology12:188-202. D. Baffler,and J. D'Errico, F., J. Zilhao,M. Julien, Pelegrin. 1998.Neanderthal acculturation inwestern Europe? A critical review of theevidence and its interpretation. Current Anthropology39:sl-s44. D'Errico, F., C. Henshilwood, G. Lawson, M. Vanhaeren, A.-M. Tillier,M. Soressi,
548
RESEARCH
F. Bresson, B. Maurille, A. Nowell, J.Lakarra, L. Backwell, andM. Julien.2003. Archaeological evidence fortheemergenceof language, symbolism,andmusic: An alternative multidisciplinary perspective.JournalofWorld Prehistory17:1-70. Art as a humanbehavior:Toward an ethologicalview of art.Journal Dissanayake, E. 1980. ofAestheticsandArt Criticism 38:397-406. . 1982. Aesthetic experience and human evolution.JournalofAesthetics and Art Criticism41:145-155. 1987.What isartfor? Seattle:University of Washington Press. 1992.Homo aestheticus:Where art comesfromand why.New York: Free Press. How thearts began. Seattle:UniversityofWashington 2000. Art and intimacy: Press. Dupont,M. E. 1872. L 'Homme pendant les ages de lapierre dans les environsdeDinant sur-Meuse.Bruxelles: C. Muquardt. Elkins, J. 1995. Art historyand images thatare not art.The Art Bulletin 77:553-71. works. Two lecturesdelivered at theopening Evans, J. 1867.Man and his earliest known of the BlackmoreMuseum. London: H. F. and E. Bull. . 1878. Les ages de la pierre. Instruments, armes et ornementsde la Grande Bretagne. Paris: GermerBailliere. (Originallypublished inEnglish in 1872) Fisher, G., and D. D. Loren. 2003. Introduction: Embodying identityin archaeology. CambridgeArchaeological Journal 13:225-30. Geneste, J.-M. 2005. L'archdologie des vestigesmateriels dans la grotte Chauvet-Pont d'Arc. Bulletin de la Societ6 PrehistoriqueFranqaise 102:135-44. Geneste, J.-M., J.-P.Fagnart, and J.-J. Delannoy. 2005. La grottede Chauvet a Vallon Pont-d'Arc: Un bilan des recherches multidisciplinaires (Actes de la seance de la Societe PrehistoriqueFranqaise, 11 et 12 octobre 2003, Lyon). Bulletin de la Soci&td PrehistoriqueFranqaise 102: whole no. Gonzalez Sainz, C. 1999. Sobre la organizaci6n cronol6gica de las manifestaciones grAficasdel paleolitico superior.Perplejidades y algunos apuntes desde la region Edades. Revista de Historia 6:123-44. cantaibrica. Rock Art Research Greer,M., and J.Greer. 2007. Rock arthistoryand use of the term. 24:127-31. A revisedESR chronology. Grun, R., and P. B. Beaumont. 2001. Border Cave revisited: JournalofHuman Evolution 40:467-82. Guy, E. 2003. Esthetique et prehistoire:Pour une anthropologie du style.L'Homme 165:283-90. Haberland, W. 1986. "Aesthetics inNative American art," in The arts of theNorth American Indian. Edited by E. L. Wade, pp. 107-31. New York: Hudson Hill Press. Hamilakis, Y., M. Pluciennick, and S. Tarlow, eds. 2002. Thinking throughthe body: New York: Kluwer. Archaeologies of corporeality. Henshilwood, C. S., F. d'Errico, R. Yates, Z. Jacobs,C. Tribolo, G. A. T. Duller, N. Mercier, J.C. Sealy, H. Valladas, I.Watts, and A. G. Wintle. 2002. Emergence of modem human behavior:Middle Stone Age engravings fromSouthAfrica. Science 295:1278-80. inAesthetics and rock art. Heyd, T. 2005. "Aesthetics and rock art:An introduction," Edited by T. Heyd and J. Clegg, pp. 1-17. Hampshire: Ashgate. V. O., ed. 1995. Dossier Cda. Porto: Sociedade Portuguesa de Antropologia e Jorge, Etnologia. R. A. 2005. Archaeology of thebody.Annual Review ofAnthropology 34:139-58. Joyce, Kant, I. 1978. The critiqueofjudgement.Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Originallypublished in 1790)
549
Kasfir, S. 1992.African artand authenticity: A text with a shadow.AfricanArts 25 :40-53, 96-97. Klein, R. G. 2000. Archeology and the evolution of human behavoir. Evolutionary Anthropology9:17-36. Krings, M., C. Capelli, F. Tschentscher,H. Geisert, S. Meyer, A. Von Haeseler, K. Grosschmidt, G. Possnert, M. Paunovic, and S. Paabo. 2000. A view ofNeanderthal geneticdiversity. Nature Genetics 26:144-46. Kristeller,0. P. 1951-1952. The modem systemof the arts:A study in thehistoryof aesthetics.Journalof the History of Ideas 12:496-527, 13:17-46. A. 1962. La signification Laming-Emperaire, de l'art rupestre paleolithique. Paris: Picard. Layton,R. 199 la. The anthropology of art.Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress. . 199 lb. "Figure, motif and symbol in thehunter-gatherer rock artof Europe and Australia," inRock art and prehistory.Papers presented in SymposiumG of the AURA Congress, Darwin, Australia, 1988. Edited by P. G. Bahn andA. Rosenfeld, pp. 23-38. Oxford: Oxbow. . 1992. Australian rock art: A new synthesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. A. 1957. Prehistoricman. New York: Philosophical Library. Leroi-Gourhan, . 1964. Les religionsde laprehistoire.Palkolithique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. . 1965. Treasures of prehistoric art (English version of Prehistoire de I'art NorbertGuterman).New York: HarryN. Abrams. occidental, trans. 1988.Dictionnaire de laprehistoire.Paris: PressesUniversitairesde France. 1995. Prehistoire de C'art occidental (Nouvelle edition reviseepar G. et B. Delluc). Paris:Mazenod. Lorblanchet,M. 1992. "Le triomphedu naturalisme dans l'art paleolithique," in The limitations of archaeological knowledge.Edited by J.Clottes and T. Shay, pp. 115 40. Liege: Etudes etRecherchesArcheologique a l'Universitede Liege. 1995. Les grottes ornees de la prehistoire.Nouveaux regards. Paris: Edition Errance. Lorblanchet, M., and P. Bahn. 1999.Diez aftos despues de la "Era post-estilistica": ID6nde estamos ahora?Edades. Revista deHistoria 6:115-21. Lubbock, J. 1870. The originof civilizationand the primitiveconditionofman. London: Longman. Marshack, A. 1990. "Early hominid symboland evolutionof thehuman capacity," inThe emergenceofmodern humans:An archaeological perspective.Edited by P.Mellars, pp. 457-98. Ithaca:Cornell UniversityPress. wasn't: A new interpretation of McBrearty, S., andA. Brooks. 2000. The revolutionthat theoriginofmodem human behavior. JournalofHuman Evolution 39:453-63. modem human colonization of Europe. Nature Mellars, P. 2004. Neanderthals and the 432:461-65. . 2005. The impossible coincidence: A single-speciesmodel for the origins of modem human behavior inEurope. Evolutionary Anthropology14:12-27. 2006. A new radiocarbon revolutionand the dispersal of modem humans in Eurasia. Nature 439:931-35. Montserrat,D., ed. 1998. Changing bodies, changingmeanings: Studies on thehuman London: LeicesterUniversityPress. body inantiquity. Moro-Abadia, 0. 2006. Art, crafts,and Palaeolithic art.Journal of Social Archaeology 6:119-41. M. R. Gonzalez-Morales. 2004. Towards a genealogy of theconcept Moro-Abadia, O., and
550
RESEARCH
of "Paleolithicmobiliary art."JournalofAnthropologicalResearch 60:321-39. . 2007. Thinking about "style" in the "post-stylistic"era: Reconstructing the contextofChauvet. Oxford JournalofArchaeology 26:109-25. stylistic 2005. "Consideration on theart and aestheticsof rock art," in Aesthetics Morales, R., Jr. and rockart.Edited by T. Heyd and J.Clegg, pp. 61-74. Hampshire: Ashgate. Mortensen, P. 1997.Art insocial order: Themaking ofmodern conceptionof art.Albany: UniversityofNew York Press. Paris: Reinwald. Mortillet,G. 1867. Promenadesprehistoriquesa l'expositionuniverselle. . 1897. Formation de la nation franqaise. Textes - linguistique- palethnologie - anthropologie.Paris: Felix Alcan. de laprehistoire:Une anthologie.Edited 1992. "Le prehistorique,"inL 'invention byN. Richard, pp. 288-98. Paris: Presses Pocket. (Originallypublished in 1883) Nowell, A. 2006. From a Palaeolithic art toPleistocene visual cultures (Introductionto two special issues on "Advances in theStudy of Pleistocene Imageryand Symbol Use"). JournalofArchaeological Method and Theory 13:239-49. Odak, 0. 1991. A new name fora new discipline.Rock Art Research 8:3-12. . 1992. "Kenya rock art studies and the need for a discipline," inRock art in the Old World, Papers presented inSymposiumA of the AURA Congress, Darwin M. Lorblanchet,pp. 33-47. New Delhi: Indira (Australia),editedby Gandhi National Arts. Centre forthe Otte,M., and L. Remacel. 2000. Rdhabilitationdes stylespaldolithiques.L 'Anthropologie 104:365-71. G. Romanova, V. Kharitonov, K. Liddn, Ovchinnikov, I, G. Anders, A. Gotherstrom, andW. Goodwin. 2000. Molecular analysis ofNeanderthal DNA fromthenorthern Caucasus. Nature 404:490-93. P., and P. Bahn. 2003. Currentproblems indatingPalaeolithic cave art:Candamo Pettitt, and Chauvet. Antiquity75:134-41. Price, S. 1989. Primitiveart incivilizedplaces. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press. Rautman, A. E., ed. 2000. Reading the body: Representations and remains in the archaeological record.Philadelphia:Universityof PennsylvaniaPress. Sauvet, G. 2004. "Langage prdhistorique, langages de prdhistoriens," inAutour de l'homme.Contexte et actualite d'Andre Leroi-Gourhan. Edited byN. Schlanger and F. Audouze, pp. 249-70. Antibes: EditionsAPDCA. de l'artparietal Sauvet,G., andA. Wlodarczyk. 1995. Elements d'une grammaireformelle 99:193-21 1. paleolithique.L 'Anthropologie Ural. Sigmaringen:JanThorbecke Scelinskij,V. andV. Sirikov. 1999.Hdhlenmalerei im Verlag. Shiner,L. 1994. "Primitivefakes,""touristart,"and the ideologyof authenticity. Journal ofAestheticsandArt Criticism52:225-34 . 2001. The invention of art: A cultural history. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sieveking,A. 1979. The cave artist.London: Thames andHudson. Border Cave: Implications for Sillen, A., and A. Morris. 1996. Diagenesis of bone from theage of the Border Cave hominids.JournalofHuman Evolution 31:499-506. Nature 426:774-75. Sinclair,A. 2003. Art of theancients. O., andM. W. Conkey. 1997. "Studyingancientvisual cultures," inBeyond art: Soffer, Pleistocene image and symbol.Edited byM. W. Conkey, 0. Soffer, D. Stratmann, andN. G. Jablonski, pp. 1-16. San Francisco: Allen Press. Stringer, C. 2002. Modem human origins: Progress and prospects. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences 357:563-79.
551
Swartz,B. K. 2007. On "rock art"history and terminology. RockArtResearch 24:124-26. Tagon, P. S. C. 2001. "Australia," inHandbook of rock art research. Edited by D. S. Whitley, pp. 530-75. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press. 2006. Behaviourallymodem at 300,000 BP: Was my ancestorbrighter than yours? Before Farming 2:1-9. Taborin,Y. 2002. "Les objets de parure et les curiosa," inL'Aurignacien de la grottedu Renne: les fouilles d'Andre Leroi-Gourhan a' Arcy-sur-Cure (Yonne). Supplement XXXIV. Edited by B. Schmider,pp. 251-56. Paris: CNRS. Gallia Prehistoire .2003. La parure en coquillage au Palkolithique. SupplementGallia Prehistoire XXXIX. Paris: CNRS. W. 1963. Classification of arts in antiquity. Tatarkiewicz, History of Ideas Journalof the 2:231-40. Tomaskova', S. 1997. "Places of art:Art and archaeology," inBeyond art: Pleistocene image and symbol.Edited byM. W. Conkey, 0. Soffer, D. Stratmann,and N. G. Jablonski, pp. 265-87. San Francisco: Allen Press. M. 1989.Making primitive Torgovnick, High Art. Poetics Today 10:299-328. . 1990. Gone primitive:Savage intellects, modern lives.Chicago: University of Chicago Press. J.-L.Reyss, C. Henshilwood, Tribolo, C., N. Mercier, M. Selo, H. Valladas, J.-L. Joron, J.Sealy, and R. Yates. 2006. TL datingof burnt lithicsfrom Blombos Cave (South ofmodem humanbehaviour. Africa): Further evidence fortheantiquity Archaeometry 48: 341-57. Trinkaus,E. 2005. Earlymodem humans.Annual Review ofAnthropology 34:207-30. Ucko, P. J. 1987. Debuts illusoires dans la tradition artistique.Bulletin de la Societe PrehistoriqueAriege, Pyrenees 42:15-81 Ucko P. J.,and A. Rosenfeld. 1967. Palaeolithic cave art. London: World University Library. Valladas, H, and J.Clottes. 2003. Style,Chauvet and radiocarbon. Antiquity77:142-45. Valladas, H., N. Tisnerat-Laborde,H. Cachier, M. Arnold, F. Bernaldo de Quiros, V. Cabrera-Valdes, J. Clottes, J. Courtin, J.J.Fortea-Perez,C. Gonzalez Sainz, andA. Moure-Romanillo. 2001. Radiocarbon AMS dates forPalaeolithic cave paintings. Radiocarbon 43:977-86. Valladas, H., J. Clottes, and J.-M.Geneste. 2004. Chauvet la grotteornee lamieux datee dumonde. Dossier pour la Science 42:82-87. H. Cachier, E. Kaltnecker, M. Arnold, C. Oberli, and J. Valladas, H., N. Tisnerat-Laborde, Evin. 2005. Bilan des datationscarbone 14 effectueessurdes charbonsde bois de la grotte Chauvet. Bulletin de la Societe PrehistoriqueFrancaise 102:109-13. Vanhaeren,M. 2005. "Speaking with beads: The evolutionarysignificanceof personal ornaments," in From tools to symbols: From early hominids tomodern humans. Witwatersrand Edited by F. d'Errico and L. Backwell, pp. 525-53. Johannesburg: UniversityPress. Vanhaeren,M., and F. d'Errico. 2006. Aurignacian ethno-linguistic geographyof Europe JournalofArchaeological Science 33:1105-28. revealedby personal ornaments. Vanhaeren,M., F. d'Errico, I. Billy, and F. Grousset. 2004. Tracing the source ofUpper Palaeolithic shell beads by strontiumisotope dating. Journal of Archaeological Science 31:1481-88. de l'artpaleolithique.Rivista di Scienze Vialou, D. 1998.Problematiquede l'interpretation PreistoricheXLIX: 267-81. ,ed. 2004. La prehistoire. Historie et dictionnaire.Paris: Robert Laffont. Wagner, G. A. 1998. Age determinationof young rocks and artifacts:Physical and
552
RESEARCH
chemical clocks in Quaternary geology and archaeology. Berlin: Springer. Acta Wendt, W. E. 1974. Art mobilier aus der Apollo XI Grotte in Stidwest-Afrika. Praehistorica etArchaeologica 5:1-42. White, R. 1992. Beyond art: Toward an understanding of the origins of material representation 21:537-64. inEurope. Annual Review ofAnthropology . 1997. "Substantial acts: From materials to meaning in Upper Palaeolithic representation,"inBeyond art: Pleistocene image and symbol.Edited byM. W. and N. G. Jablonski, pp. 93-121. San Francisco: Conkey, 0. Soffer, D. Stratmann, Allen Press. .2002. "Observation technologiques sur les objects de parure," inL 'Aurignacien de la grotte du Renne: Les fouilles d'Andre Leroi-Gourhan a Arcy-sur-Cure (Yonne). Edited by B. Schmider, pp. 257-66. Supplement Gallia Prehistoire XXXIV. Paris: CNRS. . 2003. Prehistoric art. The symbolic journey of humankind. New York: Harry H. Abrams. . 2006. The women of Brassempouy: A centuryof research and interpretation. JournalofArchaeologicalMethod and Theory 13:250-303. Whitehouse, R. D. 1983. TheMacmillan dictionaryof archaeology. London: Macmillan. Whitley, D. S. 2001. "Rock art and rock art research in a worldwide perspective:An in introduction," Handbook of rockart research.Edited byD. S.Whitley, pp. 7-51. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press. Wilson, T. 1898. Report from the U.S. National Museum for 1896. Washington: Office. GovernmentPrinting market:Rereading the history ofaesthetics. Woodmansee, M. 1994. The author,art and the New York: Columbia UniversityPress.
Yates, T. 1993. "Frameworks for an archaeology of the body," in Interpretive archaeology.
Edited by C. Tilley, pp. 31-72. Oxford: Berg. Oxford: Blackwell. Young, R. J.C. 2001. Postcolonialism. An Historical Introduction. Zilhao, J.2007. The emergenceof ornamentsand art:An archaeological perspective on theoriginof "behavioralmodernity."JournalofArchaeological Research 15:1-54. Ztichner,C. 1999. La Cueva de Chauvet, datada arqueol6gicamente.Edades. Revista de Historia 6:167-85.

Paleolithic Art Studies

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paleolithic Art Studies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paleolithic Art Studies at the Beginning of the Twenty-First Century: A Loss of Innocence Author(s): Oscar Moro-Abada and Manuel

a revolution. This disciplinary studieshave been undergoing transformation

evolution. Thesefirstsare not only revolutionizing cognitive thechronology

thermoluminescence dating; and the rise of new theories concerning human

made during the past decade. Moreover,

"with the current progress in the use of

to the thecurrent uneasiness"(Sauvet2004:268) isusuallyrelated "disciplinary

PALEOLITHIC ART STUDIES

consciousness a reflection on thelimits isprimarily of archaeological knowledge:

security and comfort of the status quo. According

notsimply byassertion" (Clarke 1973:7).

art. ofPaleolithic complexity

from the Europeanrecord.

newdiscoveries, most specialists acceptthat "modem humans were astonishingly

thePaleolithic.Fourth,recent developments have discardedtheassumption

European evidence on its own terms.

TheWesternunderstanding of Paleolithic art which prevailedthroughout most

truths all possibleexperience. encompassing

Cognitive, or psychological, anthropological, structural, functional, symbolic,

images have been conceptualized

PALEOLITHIC ART STUDIES

The third ideathat has structured thetraditional understanding ofPaleolithic

to more complexrepresentations the The predominance throughout Paleolithic).

At the end of his career, Breuil

THE EMERGENCE OF A CRITICAL DISCIPLINARY SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS

and "pictographs" and Tagon (Vanhaeren 2005), "petroglyph" (Chippindale

societies (e.g., Conkey 1987:413, imagesproducedby so-calledprimitive

PALEOLITHIC ART STUDIES of theArts" in 1951-1952. According

toKristeller, art is not a universal faculty

breaking, writing, or governing. Following Kristeller, Wladislaw Tatarkiewicz

1980, 1982, 1987, 1992, 2000; Haberland

taxi(Kasfir 1992:45). Stimulated some specialists by theexamples provided by anthropologists,

(1987:413). As Soffer andConkeyhave suggested, the Aestheticism. moderndefinition

artifacts (e.g., Blocker 1994;Heyd 2005; Whitley2001).Recently, non-Western

He proposesthat "inrecognizing the meanings and necessarily imposed. historical

that the Western meaning

PALEOLITHIC ART STUDIES

categories, ignoring thefactthat they arehistorical andcontingent terms. In this

Untilthe last years ofthetwentieth century, andarchaeologists anthropologists

at dictionaries and generalintroductory works corroborates the use widespread

art(they Paleolithic have distinguished between classify open-air art;"exterior"

Of course, specialists have proposed other ways

twocategories. between these first differentiated

In our analysis of the history of the concepts of parietal and mobiliary

andGonzailez-Morales Paleolithic art (Moro-Abadia 2004;Moro-Abadia2006)

projection ofmoderncategories ontoprehistoric images. During theeighteenth

the "art"and"crafts" principal categories distinguishing (Table 1).

PALEOLITHIC ART STUDIES

symbolic meaning. Most traditional interpretations assumed thatthe making

supposedthat portable objectswere used solely to embellishtheappearance

thoroughgoing understanding of prehistoric societies"(White1992:541).First,

parietal image. White,

for instance, has verified the existence of a very wide

that, influenced by the works of Foucault, Bourdieu,and others,is primarily

1998;Rautman 2000;Yates 1993).

As a result of these developments, archaeologists are paying greater attention

have passed from of Zilhdo2007). These items merelybeingconsidered forms

is lessdriven or conditioned by "cave-art-centeredness."

ofVogelherd, Hohlenstein Geissenklosterle, Stadel,andHohle Fels in Germany

PALEOLITHIC ART STUDIES

some specialists reacted with scepticism antiquity, (e.g.,Combier1995;Delluc

Bahn 2003;Ziichner 1999).

tothese the ofpublished Aurignacian. According authors, consistency radiocarbon

25,000BP. Moreover,radiocarbon dating ofhuman andcavebearbonesconfirms