See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/303256833

Art, Paleolithic

Chapter · February 2014

CITATION READS

1 4,047

3 authors, including:

A.J. Tripp Genevieve von Petzinger

Chaffey College University of Victoria
7 PUBLICATIONS   13 CITATIONS    4 PUBLICATIONS   27 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Art, Paleolithics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by A.J. Tripp on 16 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Art, Paleolithic
well-established relative sequence, given that this
sequence is the guide to the sampling process to
date specific relevant motifs within such
sequence. This procedure reduces the number
of samples to date (avoiding unnecessary
destruction), increases the strategy efficiency
(covering the whole sequence and/or functional
variables), and saves time and economic and pro-
fessional resources.
Thus, the importance given the development
of regional rock art sequences, taking into
account all the mentioned variables, makes it
possible to answer more complex research
questions, thus putting the evidence provided by
the archaeology of art in a privileged place within
the regional studies of past societies.
Cross-References
▶ Andes: Prehistoric Art
▶ Archaeology of Art: Theoretical Frameworks
▶ Binford, Lewis R. (Theory)
▶ Laming-Emperaire, Annette
▶ Leroi-Gourhan, André
▶ South American Rock Art
▶ Style: Its Role in the Archaeology of Art
▶ Willey, Gordon Randolph
References
BINFORD, L.R. 1965. Archaeological systematics and
the study of culture process. American Antiquity
31: 203-10.
- 2001. Constructing frames of reference: an analytical
method for archaeological theory building using eth-
nographic and environmental data sets. Berkeley
(CA): University of California Press.
CHIPPINDALE, C. & G. NASH. 2004. Pictures in place:
approaches to the figured landscapes of rock art, in
C. Chippindale & G. Nash (ed.) The figured land-
scapes of rock art. Looking at picture in place: 1-36.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
GNECCO, C. & C. LANGEBAEK. (ed.) 2006. Contra la tiranı́a
tipológica en arqueologı́a: una visión desde
suramérica. Bogotá: Universidad de los Andes,
Facultad de Ciencias Sociales – CESO.
GRADIN, C. 1978. Algunos aspectos del análisis de las
manifestaciones rupestres. Revista del Museo
Provincial Tomo 1. Arqueologı́a. Neuquén: 120-33.
529 A
LAMING EMPERAIRE, A. 1962. La signification de l’art
rupestre paléolithique. Paris: Picard.
LEROI-GOURHAN, A. 1965. Prehistoire de l´art occidental.
Paris: Mazénou. A
LYMAN, R. & M.O´BRIEN. 2004. A history of normative
theory in Americanist archaeology. Journal of Archae-
ological Method and Theory 11(4): 369-96.
WILLEY, G. & P. PHILLIPS. 1958. Method and theory in
American archaeology. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Art, Paleolithic
Amanda Cooke, Allison Tripp and
Genevieve von Petzinger
Department of Anthropology, University of
Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Introduction
Around 100,000 BP (before present), a new class
of artifacts began to appear at archaeological sites
in Africa and the Middle East. These items
included pierced marine shells probably worn as
personal adornment (e.g., Qafzeh, Israel; Oued
Djebbana, Algeria) as well as pieces of bone and
ochre that display deliberate nonfigurative
markings (e.g., Klasies, South Africa; Pinnacle
Point, South Africa; Blombos, South Africa).
Additionally, the presence of red ochre and related
materials to prepare this pigment (e.g., Blombos,
South Africa) is present in Africa and the Middle
East. These artifacts are often cited as the earliest
evidence for the “creative explosion” associated
with the Homo sapiens species, but until 40,000
BP, these potential examples of symbolic behavior
remain infrequent and confined to portable
objects. Around 40,000–60,000 BP, the frequency
of symbolic artifacts increases. This is correlated
with the spread of modern humans across the Old
World. Around this time, rock art and sculptural
art emerged. Paleolithic art is generally divided
into three main categories:
1. Parietal art: Also known as rock art, this
category includes all paintings, engravings,
drawings, and stencils (Davidson 1997: 125)
found on immovable surfaces such as the
A 530
walls, floors, and ceilings of rockshelters and
caves. There is also some evidence in Europe
of parietal art having been created in open-air
settings (e.g., the engravings at Fornols-Haut
in France and the Coa River Valley in Portu-
gal). Due to taphonomic processes such as
wind and rain, these outdoor decorated loca-
tions have generally not survived.
The majority of the paintings were done
with either red or black paint, most commonly
produced using red ochre and charcoal, respec-
tively. However, there are also some sites
where the mineral manganese oxide was used
to create the black color. Other less common
colors include yellow and brown (also derived
from ochre) and in rare instances white paint-
ings made using kaolin clay have been identi-
fied. Preparation was required to produce the
paints, including the grinding of the pigments
and the use of formulas created by mixing the
color component with binders (e.g., water,
urine, animal fat) and extenders (e.g., feldspar,
biotite, talc, clay). Engravings were done using
either a tool to mark the stone, or in cases where
the surface included softer materials such as
clay, a finger was sometimes used to create
the image. The creation of drawings involves
the use of dry material in the form of ochre
crayons or charcoal sticks as opposed to the use
of liquid paint formulas. Stencils refer primar-
ily to the creation of negative hands, which
were produced by a method known as spit
painting, where the paint or raw pigments
were blown over a hand placed against the
surface in order to leave an outline.
2. Portable art: This subcategory includes all
portable artifacts found at Paleolithic sites
that incorporate a symbolic or artistic element.
This includes everything from weapons or
tools that have been embellished or decorated
(e.g., atlatls) to plaques or pebbles that have
been painted or engraved as well as the large
number of figurines that have been found at
sites across Europasia. The materials used to
make these portable objects include but are not
limited to stone, bone, antler, ivory, and clay.
Art, Paleolithic
3. Personal adornment: Most of these pieces are
found in elaborated burials and appear to have
been worn as jewelry. These artifacts are
differentiated from the portable art by being
items specifically produced to adorn the human
body in some manner. The most common
materials used to make these ornaments are
pierced teeth, marine shells, ivory, and bone.
Large numbers of ivory beads have also been
recovered, many of which bear evidence of
having been sewn onto clothing and headwear
(e.g., the three elaborate burials from an Upper
Paleolithic site in Sungir, Russia).
Paleolithic art can be divided into two
categories: figurative imagery, which is defined
as identifiable art and most often refers to animal
and human depictions, and nonfigurative
imagery, which includes all abstract or geometric
images not easily identifiable as being real-world
objects or entities. One type of imagery that
appears to be absent at nearly all rock art sites
older than 10,000 BP is landscape (e.g., trees,
mountains, or rivers) as well as images of every-
day life including structures such as housing.
Even though the art found in different global
regions is varied, there are several overarching
themes that are identifiable at sites worldwide:
1. Animal imagery: While the specific subject
matter might be determined by the environment
in which the art is being produced (e.g., mam-
moths in Europe, kangaroos in Australia, eland
in South Africa), the inclusion of animal imag-
ery at rock art sites and on portable objects is
almost universal. At Paleolithic rock art sites
across Europe, animal imagery is usually the
dominant theme (e.g., horse, bison, mammoth,
ibex, deer), and many of the portable art pieces
also include animals in their decoration.
2. Human imagery: Images of humans whether
they are accurate representations or more styl-
ized descriptions are also found at rock art sites
globally. In some cases, these representations
have been categorized as being therianthropic,
appearing to portray a human-animal hybrid
(e.g., the sorcerer at Les Trois-Freres, France).
They are also found occasionally on portable
Art, Paleolithic 531 A
Art, Paleolithic,
Fig. 1 Megaloceros, ibex,
and human with protruding
spears – Cougnac, France A
(Photo by J. Clottes)

objects. In Europe in particular, there is an

entire collection of human figurines from the
Paleolithic period (see discussion about these
figurines in the “How Old is the Art?” section
below). The inclusion of human images at rock
art sites varies widely between regions, with
them being fairly unusual at European sites but
more common at contemporaneous sites in
Australia.
3. Abstract imagery: Also known as geometric
signs, these images include everything from
simple dots and lines to more complex geo-
metric shapes such as tectiforms or scalari-
forms (see Fig. 1). Geometric signs are found
at rock art sites around the world, and in
regions such as Europe, these abstract images
outnumber the figurative representations at
most Paleolithic sites (Bahn & Vertut 1997:
166). These markings are also found on many
portable art objects, including items of
personal adornment. While this category is
often defined as including all images that are
not recognizable as items from the mundane
world, it has been argued that some of
these markings could in fact represent
weapons, tools, or other physical manifesta- Art, Paleolithic, Fig. 2 “The sorcerer” – therianthropic
tions of human behavior (Figs. 2–4). figure – Gabillou, France (Photo by J. Clottes)
A 532 Art, Paleolithic

Art, Paleolithic,
Fig. 3 Panel of geometric
signs – Niaux, France
(Photo by J. Clottes)

4. Hand imagery: This is ubiquitous in rock art

and includes negative hand stencils, positive
handprints, and stylized hands. Negative hand
stencils are created when a hand is placed
against a flat surface such as a cave wall
and pigment is blown around it. When the
hand is removed, a negative outline of the
hand remains. Positive handprints are created
when pigment is applied directly to the palm
and the fingers of the hand, and the hand is
then placed against a flat surface. Stylized
hands are freehand drawings which often
include abstract images. Hand imagery is
subdivided into its own category as it
cannot be presupposed that the intention of
the Paleolithic artist was to reduce the repre-
sentation of a human to a handprint or that
a handprint could represent an entire human.

Definition

In its broadest sense, the term Paleolithic art

encompasses all deliberately modified surfaces
Art, Paleolithic, Fig. 4 Panel of hand stencils – Gargas, and artifacts created prior to 10,000 BP that were
France (Photo by J. Clottes) thought to have been produced with symbolic
Art, Paleolithic
intent. Traditionally Paleolithic art has been iden-
tified with symbolic artifacts and images found at
archaeological sites from the Upper Paleolithic
period in Europe, dating roughly between 10,000
and 40,000 BP. However, this expression is also
sometimes used as a blanket term to refer to all
parietal art, portable art, and personal adornment
found globally and dated before the end of the
Pleistocene period (before 10,000 BP). This art is
generally associated with modern humans, though
there are several artifacts from Europe that have
been identified as being produced by Neanderthals
(e.g., a necklace from the French site of Arcy-sur-
Cure). There has even been recent speculation that
some of the oldest art may have been created by
Neanderthals, though this remains to be proven.
Historical Background
The discovery and acceptance of Paleolithic art
was a gradual process that took place over the
course of the nineteenth century. Beginning in the
1820s, portable art objects started being exca-
vated at sites across Europe. Some of the earliest
discoveries were in France, where they were
believed to be of Celtic origin. It was not until
the 1860s that the notion of these artifacts being
from the Ice Age was proposed. This was par-
tially due to a greater acceptance of geological
chronologies of the earth, as well as discoveries
of these objects in archaeological layers
with ancient tools and extinct animal species
(Bahn & Vertut 1997: 14).
While the recognition and incorporation of
portable artifacts and items of personal adorn-
ment into the archaeological literature was fairly
straightforward, the same cannot be said for the
parietal art. The idea that art of this caliber could
have been made by such “primitive savages” was
hard for many of the Paleolithic archaeologists of
the nineteenth century to accept, and it was not
until the very end of the 1800s that parietal art
was officially incorporated into the category of
Paleolithic art (Bahn & Vertut 1997: 20). For
example, in 1878 some wall engravings covered
533 A
in calcite were noted at the site of Chabot in
France along with the discovery of Paleolithic
tools. While these were thought to be prehistoric A
in origin, the concept of this behavior being
a regular occurrence took much longer to be
accepted and was for the meantime ignored. At
that time, Paleolithic archaeologists refused to
believe that the bison paintings on the ceiling of
Altamira in Spain, first discovered in 1879, could
have been made by ancient humans due to their
level of sophistication. However, as more and
more parietal art was discovered, including sites
where the images on portable art objects matched
those on the walls, scholars finally came to accept
the age of the art. By the early 1900s, many
studies had been initiated to investigate this
phenomenon further.
Key Issues/Current Debates
How Old Is the Art?
As previously mentioned, deciding which objects
should be incorporated into the category of Paleo-
lithic art was problematic in the past and is still
a source of contention today. In fact, the term
“Paleolithic” refers to tool industries found only
in Europe, not those of Africa, Asia, or Australia.
For this reason, many archaeologists prefer to use
the term Pleistocene art. Instead of referring to
archaeological materials from a particular region,
the Pleistocene is a worldwide geological epoch
that coincides with the last Ice Age and is thus
a more inclusive term. The Pleistocene begins
around 1.75 million years ago and ends around
10,000 years before the present. The emergence
of art varies across the globe, but becomes abun-
dant in the Old World around 35,000 years ago.
Africa: The earliest images from Africa come
from the cape of South Africa in the form of
abstract markings on different mediums. Engraved
bones are present at Blombos Cave and Klasies
River Caves. Engraved ochre is also present at
Blombos Cave. The previously mentioned objects
all date to around 70,000 years old. Around 60,000
years ago, inscribed ostrich shells are present at
A 534
sites such as Diepkloof Rockshelter. These objects
were created during a period known as the Middle
Stone Age (MSA). The MSA is preceded by the
Early Stone Age and is followed by the Late Stone
Age. Objects from the Middle Stone Age have
been notoriously difficult to date as radiocarbon
dating only extends to 40,000 years, and potas-
sium/argon dating cannot be used on materials
younger than 500,000 years old (McBrearty &
Brooks 2000). Therefore, depending on the con-
text, detailed stratigraphic knowledge must be
combined with other dating methods such as
argon/argon, infrared-stimulated luminescence,
thermoluminescence, or optically stimulated lumi-
nescence. Figurative images are present on ochre
slabs at Apollo 11, in Namibia and Nswatugi,
Zimbabwe, and date to the late MSA, around
27,000–25,000 years ago. Figurative imagery
may have an earlier origin, as ochre “pencils”
were discovered at Klasies River dating to over
100,000 years and at Howiesons Poort to 65–80ka.
Hematite “pencils” have been dated to 100,000+
years at Border Cave, South Africa. Additionally,
unlike Europe, Africa lacks large limestone caves
that have favorable conditions for preserving rock
art (McBrearty & Brooks 2000).
Australia: Pleistocene art in Australia is difficult
to date as much of the imagery was created in
open-air settings and charcoal was not used. At
present, archaeologists are only able to date char-
coal and cannot directly date ochre. It is also chal-
lenging to numerically date engravings on a rock in
contrast to objects that have been buried. Images in
Australian art are diverse and include geometric
signs, animals, humans, finger fluting, handprints,
and chimeras. The oldest “art” in Australia comes
in the form of cupules, circular depressions that are
created on a rock surface. Cupules at Pilbara
Northern Queensland, Turtle Rock, and Sandy
Creek are thought to be at least 30,000 years old
(Bednarik 2010). In terms of geometric forms,
circular shapes on a bolder in Spear Hill/Abydos
are dated to 20,000–27,000 thousand years ago
with older symbols found in the surrounding vicin-
ity (Bednarik 2010). Finger fluting at the Gallus
site dates to at least 20,000 years. While much of
the parietal art is difficult to date, relative
Art, Paleolithic
chronologies have placed the artwork in a late
Pleistocene/early Holocene time frame.
Asia: Although Pleistocene art is present in
Asia, it has received little attention by archaeol-
ogists outside of Asia. As in Australia, cupules
are arguably the oldest “art” found in Asia. In
India, at Auditorium Cave a cupule with a line
running along part of the edge was dated to the
Acheulian (Bednarik 1994). As in other regions,
statuettes and two-dimensional images were also
created. An ostrich eggshell with engravings was
found at Patna, India, and dated to 25,000 years
before present. At Longgu Cave in China, an
antler with geometric engravings was filled with
red pigment and dated to approximately 13,000
years old. Recently multiple petroglyphs have
been discovered in the South of India in the
Kurnool and include naturalistic images of
humans and animals. These images are dated to
at least 10,000 BP. However, the objects that
have received the most attention are the anthro-
pomorphic and animal figurines from Mal’ta and
Buret’, Siberia. These ivory figurines date to
around 23,000 years old.
Europe: The Paleolithic period of Europe can
be divided into three major subdivisions: lower,
middle, and upper. Each major subdivision
can then be further divided. Both parietal and
portable art emerge in Europe during the Upper
Paleolithic. Specifically, the oldest rock art and
figurines date to the Aurignacian industry, which
begins in Europe approximately 40,000 years
ago. Imagery continues to be created during
the Gravettian industry (approximately
28,000–22,000 years ago). Common subjects
include negative hands, geometric signs, and ani-
mals. Depictions of humans in European rock art
are relatively rare, and animals such as horses,
bison, and mammoths dominate cave walls.
Although personal adornments are widespread
by the Aurignacian, some archaeologists have
argued that the ornaments from Grotte du Renne
were created by Neanderthals in the
Chatelperronian (for a critical view on this topic,
see Higham et al. 2010). In regard to portable art,
with the exception of the “Venus” of Hohle Fels
and the “Venus” of Galgenberg, all of the
Art, Paleolithic
Aurignacian figurines are of animals. Starting with
the Gravettian, an abundance of predominately
female anthropomorphic figurines become wide-
spread across Europe. Male figurines and those
that lack secondary sexual characteristics can be
found in collections at the following sites: Mal’ta,
Kostenki I, and Dolnı́ Věstonice. The anthropo-
morphic statuettes vary in size, material used,
body position, stylistic features, and contextual
details. The female figurines are commonly
referred to as “mother goddesses” or “earth
mothers,” although evidence of a shared belief
system has not been corroborated. Animal figu-
rines were still created during the Gravettian and
are found in abundance at Dolnı́ Věstonice, Pav-
lov, Predmostı́, Petrkovice, and Kostenki I, often
in conjunction with female figurines (Bahn &
Vertut 1997). Both animal and anthropomorphic
statuettes continue to be created in the Magdale-
nian but become less realistic and instead are more
stylized.
Who Made the Art?
The early interpretations of Paleolithic art
reflected an androcentric bias in archaeology. It
was commonplace to assume that the art had been
made by men and small boys. One of the most
prevalent of these interpretations focused on
a male shaman producing rock art while in
a trance. According to Bednarik (2008: 173), the
shamanistic or totemistic interpretation of the
rock art has remained popular theoretically
because such interpretations add a greater
“perceived value” or “worth” to the artwork.
However, neither of these theoretical interpreta-
tions are scientifically testable, and the perpetua-
tion of these androcentric interpretations further
promotes an unsubstantiated bias in archaeology
today (Sharpe & Van Gelder 2009: 324). A more
current interpretation acknowledges that Paleo-
lithic art was created by both males and females
of varying ages. Preliminary studies employing
the 2D:4D ratio (second to fourth digit) to deter-
mine sex from hand stencils have done so with a
reasonable degree of probability. In addition, the
presence of small handprints and footprints in
caves such as Chauvet and Cosquer in France
535 A
make it apparent that children were present and
active within the caves as well. Regardless of age
or sex, all of these interpretations have assumed A
that Paleolithic art was the product of anatomi-
cally modern humans alone. However, new
uranium-series disequilibrium dates taken from
calcite deposits overlying or underlying art
found at a series of Spanish caves, most notably
El Castillo, have turned this assumption on its
head. With dates of up to 40,000 years, these
finds suggest that Neanderthals could have also
engaged in cave painting, but with modern
humans already being in Europe by this time, it
is hard to know who may have been the first
parietal artists (Pike et al. 2012).
However, multiple personal adornments,
colorants, and decorated bone tools were discovered
in Châtelperronian levels at Grotte du Renne, Arcy-
sur-Cure, France. This suggests that even if Nean-
derthals were not making cave art or mobile art, they
were engaging in different artistic behaviors.
Why Did They Do the Art?
Since the discovery of the first portable and pari-
etal art in Europe in the late 1800s, researchers
have tried to understand why Paleolithic artists
engaged in this behavior. “Art for art’s sake” was
a prominent theory of the nineteenth century
referring to the belief that Paleolithic art had
been created for decorative and aesthetic
purposes only, but this theory has now largely
been abandoned. Early functionalist theory relied
heavily on ethnographies of “primitive” societies
and correlating the need for food back to the
images on the cave walls. The functionalist
approach includes:
1. Hunting magic: This hypothesis was derived
from ethnographies of modern hunter/gatherers
who hunted with stone tools and produced rock
art in order to enhance the success of their hunt.
Animal imagery which includes “missiles,”
blood, and/or wounds has been used to support
this theory. Other nonfigurative images have
been interpreted as tracks and droppings to
corroborate the theory that animal imagery
was produced as a means of transmitting hunt-
ing knowledge.
A 536
2. Sympathetic magic: Like a “voodoo” doll, this
theory relies on the concept that animals
depicted in rock art influence animals in reality.
3. Fertility magic: This hypothesis was based on
the discovery of pregnant and/or copulating
imagery including the “precopulatory bison”
of Tuc d’Audoubert, France, and the numer-
ous “Venus” figurines.
4. Trophyism: This asserts that hunting was done
as much out of necessity as it was to impress
females. Animal imagery was produced by
a male to impress a female with his hunting
abilities and to ultimately increase his
reproductive success.
5. Shamanism: This relies on the concept of
a male shaman producing rock art while in
a trance. Purported examples of shamanism
in rock art include the “leaping cow” from
Lascaux, France, the “sorcerer” from Les
Trois-Freres, France, and the mammoth ivory
half-man, half-lion figurine from Hohlenstein-
Stadel, Germany.
Along with the above theories of meaning,
there are also several major theoretical
approaches that have been employed in the
study of Paleolithic art; these include:
1. The structuralist movement was inspired by
the linguistic works of Ferdinand de Saussure
and first brought to popularity by the French
anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss. This
approach rejected the “straight-line” develop-
ment of art from simple to complex and from
abstract to naturalistic. The creation of images
were not unique artistic events, images were
intentionally selected for by species type or
abstract design, and they were created in spe-
cific locations within a particular site, in delib-
erate association to other images. Two of the
main proponents of this approach within the
field of Paleolithic art were Andre Leroi-
Gourhan and Annette Laming-Emperaire.
2. Settlement archaeology developed out of
the processualist movement and involved
the study of the spatial distribution of
human activities and particular occupations
within a single room, house, overall site, or
region where landscapes were passive
backdrops. The focus was on demography,
Art, Paleolithic
technology, how people used the land, and
how the land constrained the people.
3. The post-processualist movement involves
examining the social aspects, such as the mate-
rial connection to the land and the human inter-
action with the land. Within this theoretical
framework, there are three main ways that
researchers have chosen to approach the art:
1. Archaeology of place: Landscape was
active and complex and recognized that
cultural heritage was shaped through
tradition and memory. People, places, and
features are considered integral, and
landscape is seen as shaping and being
shaped by human experience.
2. Social geography: This relies on the idea
that Paleolithic peoples moved in and
through the landscape and that a regional
scale of analysis was required. While
“meaning” may be culturally specific,
the phenomenological approach or the
conscious human experience of everyday
life allows scholars to approach landscape
and built locations, such as painted caves,
as they were perceived, represented, and
experienced by Paleolithic peoples.
3. Pleistocene visual culture (Soffer &
Conkey 1997) This relies on the argument
that Paleolithic imagery is about materi-
ality, meaning making and recognizing
that Paleolithic peoples were active,
social agents in constructing their world
(Conkey 2009). The images they pro-
duced, in terms of materials, colors,
shapes, placement, and association, are
all part of creating meaning and are there-
fore integral to the larger picture.
Prehistoric Pornography?
As has been previously mentioned, the idea that
adolescent boys created Paleolithic imagery may
have influenced Guthrie’s (2006) idea that the
female statuettes and bas-reliefs were a form of
prehistoric pornography. He argued that the
mostly “naked” statuettes shared similar body
proportions having small waists and broad hips;
this is referred to as having a low waist-to-hip
ratio. This body type is considered beautiful
Art, Paleolithic
cross-culturally and is also linked with fertility
and overall health in females (Zaadstra et al.
1993; Singh & Singh 2006). However, upon
analysis of the actual statuettes, Tripp and
Schmidt (in press) found that the figurines
actually share a high-average waist-to-hip ratio.
This body type is not seen as attractive in
modern populations and is linked to infertility
and several mental and physical health condi-
tions. Overall, the amount of diversity among
the figurines in terms of style, contextual details,
and materials makes it difficult to find a single
explanation that can explain the earliest anthro-
pomorphic art.
International Perspectives
At present, there is no one international means
of rock art tourism and conservation, but rather,
such decisions are made at each country’s dis-
cretion. As a result, there is differential preser-
vation of rock art around the world. In 1970,
UNESCO created a set of guidelines for cultural
tourism management and the preservation of
World Heritage Sites with the intent to balance
conservation efforts with providing cultural
tourists with a meaningful experience through
public education. South Africa’s rock art sites
receive around 240 million “cultural tourists”
a year, and in consequence, the rock art is caught
between the competing interests of impact
assessors, who are concerned with the conserva-
tion, ethics, and ownership of the art, and those
involved in the commodification, pricing, and
promotion of the rock art as tourist attractions
(Deacon 2006). The Dampier Archipelago of
Australia contains the largest concentration of
rock art in the world with an estimated million
petroglyphs associated with other archaeological
materials, such as shell middens and quarries.
However, the archipelago has been threatened by
years of development and industrialization, and it
has led to the slow degradation of the rock art and
the destruction of the cultural heritage over time
(Mulvaney 2011). In 2007, the rock art paintings
of the Sierra de San Francisco canyons of Baja
California Sur, Mexico, were threatened despite
537 A
the fact that they were on the UNESCO World
Heritage List. Development of the land, in partic-
ular the plan to build roads through the canyons to A
create ease of access, threatened the art that had
long been protected by its remoteness, the need for
mules, and local guidance (Clottes 2008). In
France, Lascaux Cave has long been endangered
through the proliferation of a fungus initially
brought on by the influx of tourists after the cave
was first discovered. To save the art at Lascaux
and Altamira in Spain, replicas of the caves were
built which are open to the public. At other caves,
controlled visitations, digital recordings, photo-
graphic archiving, and the production of virtual
cave tours have all contributed to the preservation
of the art. In all instances of rock art conservation,
however, it is critical that we bear in mind that the
greatest threat to the art is human in origin and that
it is predominantly due to ignorance and a lack of
interest (Clottes 2008).
Future Directions
Future directions in the study of Paleolithic art
include incorporating theoretical background
with innovative scientific techniques. Tosello
and Fritz (2007), for example, experimented
with a 3D scanner to record the imagery
found on cave walls. This technology allows
researchers the ability to record images in
more precise detail. Investigators, for example,
are able to scan images and screen out modern
graffiti, darken lines that are deteriorating, and
prevent the flattening of 3D images. They were
also able to use this technology to analyze indi-
vidual brushstrokes of two rhinoceros on the
panel of horses in Chauvet Cave. Their results
allowed them to make inferences about the
intention, skill levels, and cognitive processes
of the artist.
Since the antiquity of rock art was first
proposed in Europe during the late 1800s, this
continent, and in particular its western region,
has held a preeminent place in the discipline.
Europe has often been the benchmark against
which other rock art is compared both in terms
of stylistic analysis and temporal sequencing due
A 538
to the existing chronology of direct and indirect
dates that have been collected from rock art sites.
As interest and funding are directed towards the
parietal art found in other parts of the world, it
will be interesting to see how this affects the
current assumption that the oldest art in the
world is from W. Europe. Additionally, as dating
methods improve, this will be able to ask more
precise questions. As the many examples cited in
this entry show, there are in fact sites from the
Paleolithic period around the globe, and as new
dating techniques are applied at these locations,
we may find that the time line for the origins
and dispersal of this behavior will need to be
completely rewritten.
Cross-References
▶ Altamira and Paleolithic Cave Art of
Northern Spain
▶ Australian Paleoart
▶ Bone Tools, Paleolithic
▶ Côa Valley Rock Art Sites
▶ Cognitive Evolution and Origins of
Language and Speech
▶ Conkey, Margaret Wright
▶ Crimean Upper Paleolithic
▶ Cueva de las Manos, Rı́o Pinturas Cave Art
▶ Davidson, Iain
▶ East Asia: Paleolithic
▶ Europe: Early Upper Paleolithic
▶ Europe: Paleolithic Art
▶ European Upper Paleolithic Rock Art:
Sacredness, Sanctity, and Symbolism
▶ Glacial Advances in Asia, Europe, and North
America
▶ Homo sapiens
▶ Iberian Mediterranean Basin: Rock Art
▶ Kostenki: Geography and Culture
▶ La Riera Cave: Geography and Culture
▶ Leroi-Gourhan, André
▶ Mobiliary Art, Paleolithic
▶ Paleoart Studies: Scientific Methods
▶ Rock Art Recording Methods: From
Traditional to Digital
▶ Siega Verde Rock Art Sites
▶ Valcamonica Rock Art
Art, Paleolithic
References
BAHN, P.G. & J. VERTUT. 1997. Journey through
the Ice Age. Berkley (CA): University of California
Press.
BEDNARIK, R.G. 1994. The Pleistocene art of Asia. Journal
of World Prehistory 8(4): 351-75.
- 2008. Children as Pleistocene artists. Rock Art Research
25(2): 173-82.
- 2010. Australian rock art of the Pleistocene. Rock Art
Research 27(1): 95-120.
CLOTTES, J. 2008. Rock art: an endangered heritage
worldwide. Journal of Anthropological Research
64(1): 1-18.
CONKEY, M.W. 2009. To find ourselves: art and social
geography of prehistoric hunter gatherers, in
C. Schnire (ed.) Past and present in hunter gatherer
societies: 253-76. New York: Academic Press.
DAVIDSON, I. 1997. The power of pictures, in M. Conkey,
O. Soffer, D. Stratmann & N. G. Jablonski (ed.)
Beyond art: Pleistocene image and symbol: 125-59.
Berkley (CA): University of California Press.
DEACON, J. 2006. Rock art conservation and tourism.
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
13(4): 376-96.
GUTHRIE, R.D. 2006. The nature of Paleolithic art.
Chicago (IL): University Of Chicago Press.
HIGHAM, T., R. JACOBI, M. JULIEN, F. DAVID, L. BASELL, R.
WOOD, W. DAVIES & C.B. RAMSEY. 2010. Chronology
of the Grotte du Renne (France) and implications for
the context of ornaments and human remains within
the Châtelperronian. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
107(47): 20234-9.
MCBREARTY, S. & A.S. BROOKS. 2000. The revolution
that wasn’t. Journal of Human Evolution 39: 453–563.
PIKE, A.W.G., D.L. HOFFMANN, M. GARCIA-DIEZ, P. B.
PETTITT, J. ALCOLEA, R. DE BALBIN, C. GONZALEZ-
SAINZ, C. DE LAS HERAS, J. A. LASHERAS, R. MONTES &
J. ZILHAO. 2012. U-series dating of Paleolithic art in 11
caves in Spain. Science 336: 1409-13.
MULVANEY, K. 2011. Dampier Archipelago: decades of
development and destruction. Rock Art Research
28(1): 17-25.
SHARPE, K. & L. VAN GELDER. 2009. Women and girls as
Upper Palaeolithic cave ‘artists’: deciphering the sexes
of finger fluters in Rouffignac Cave. Oxford Journal of
Archaeology 28(4): 323-33.
SINGH, D. & D. SINGH. 2006. Role of body fat and body
shape on judgment of female health and attractiveness:
an evolutionary perspective. Psychological Topics
15(2): 331- 50.
SOFFER, O. & M. CONKEY. 1997. Studying ancient visual
cultures, in M. Conkey, O. Soffer, D. Stratmann &
N. G. Jablonski. (ed.) Beyond art: Pleistocene image
and symbol (Memoirs of the California Academy of
Sciences 23): 1–16. San Francisco: California
Academy of Sciences.
Ash: Geoarchaeology
TOSELLO, C. & G. FRITZ. 2007. The hidden meaning of
forms: methods of recording Paleolithic parietal art.
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
14(1): 48-80.
TRIPP, A.J. & N.E. SCHMIDT. (in press). Analyzing fertility
and attraction in the Paleolithic: the venus figurines.
Journal of Archaeology, Ethnology and Art of Eurasia.
ZAADSTRA. B., J. C. SEIDELL, P. A. NOORD, E. R. VAN DER
VELDE, J. D. HABBEMA, B. VRIESWIJK & J. KARBAAT.
1993. Fat and female fecundity: prospective study of
the effect of body fat distribution on conception rates.
British Medical Journal 306(6876): 484-7.
Ash: Geoarchaeology
Matthew Canti
English Heritage, Fort Cumberland, Eastney, UK
Introduction
Ash plays a significant role in archaeology both
as a building block of stratigraphic accumulation
and also as an alkaline source in taphonomic
pathways. It is found all over the world and can
be of considerable value in understanding cul-
tural activity. Ash is a major component of
many cave stratigraphies (e.g., Brochier 1983;
Berna et al. 2012; Shahack Gross & Ayalon
2012), where leaching is minimal and occupation
or animal stabling has occurred regularly
throughout history. Ash also occurs at open-air
sites under arid climatic regimes (Cremaschi &
Trombino 1999), in pit fills where the shape and
bulk of the deposit discourages dissolution, and
in layers where the surrounding sediments are
sufficiently alkaline (e.g., Canti 2007).
Definition
The word “ash” covers the remains of any burnt
material and appears commonly in nineteenth-
and early twentieth-century chemical analysis
meaning “the component that cannot be
oxidised.” In practical parlance, however, it
refers to the material left over from solid fuel
View publication stats
539 A
fires. Archaeological ash can occasionally be the
result of coal burning, particularly with the
growth of industrial archaeology; however, in A
most cases, ash found in excavations results
from the burning either of plant material or
dung derived from herbivores. This entry will
deal only with ash from plants and dung.
Historical Background
Although ash was reported from excavations
throughout the twentieth century, it has only
been studied analytically during the last 50
years or so. As with other aspects of archaeolog-
ical science, early analytical studies did not
approach the subject systematically, so an under-
standing was only built up slowly from individual
pieces of work, such as the elemental analyses of
ash mounds in central southern India (Zeuner
1959).
Folk (1973) was the first to indicate the true
botanical origin of the calcium carbonate which
forms a large part of many ash bodies, but this
material and its relationship to the more siliceous
ashes derived from grasses and herbivore dung
(see below) was not fully understood until the
work of Brochier (1983; 1996) and Brochier
et al. (1992).
Subsequently, the major focus for published
work on ash has been the diagenetic pathways in
the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern caves.
In these environments, ash, guano, and bone pro-
vide uniquely reactive contextual chemistry
involving transformation pathways of numerous
different phosphatic minerals, which enable valu-
able interpretations to be made both of the orig-
inal inputs and the preservation of the
environmental remains (Karkanas et al. 2000;
Stiner et al. 2001).
Key Issues and Current Debates
What Is Ash?
Various parts of plants have been burnt through-
out history by all cultures to produce heat.