Paleolithic Art Studies

8/13/2019 Paleolithic Art Studies

1/25

Paleolithic Art Studies at the Beginning of the Twenty-First Century: A Loss of Innocence

Author(s): Oscar Moro-Abada and Manuel R. Gonzlez-MoralesSource: Journal of Anthropological Research, Vol. 64, No. 4 (Winter, 2008), pp. 529-552Published by: University of New MexicoStable 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 formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of New Mexicois collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal of

Anthropological Research.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 147.91.75.149 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 04:51:44 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=unmhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/20371288?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/20371288?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=unm


2/25

PALEOLITHIC ART STUDIES AT THEBEGINNING OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURYA Loss of InnocenceOscar Moro-Abadia

Memorial UniversityofNewfoundland,Department ofAnthropology ndArchaeology,St. John's, L AIC 5S7, Canada. Email: omoro(mun.caand

Manuel R. Gonzailez-MoralesInstituto nternacional e Investigaciones rehistoricas, niversidad de Cantabria,Avenida de losCastros, 39005 Santander, pain. Email: moralesm(unican.es

KEYWORDs: ating techniques; urocentrism, uman evolution;Mobiliary art;Paleolithicart;Parietal art;Personal ornaments; ock artIn thepast two decades, several scholars have suggested that Paleolithic artstudieshave been undergoing revolution. hisdisciplinary ransformationisgenerally related to thediscovery of new sites, such as Chauvet or BlombosCave; the development of new methodologies, such as AMS radiocarbon andthermoluminescence dating; and the rise of new theories concerning humancognitivevolution. hesefirsts re notonly revolutionizinghe hronologyand technical study of the oldest forms of art, they re also modifying thewaysPaleolithic art is conceptualized. In this article we analyze some of these recentvariations inhow we view, think about, and define such art. Borrowing DavidClarke's terminology,we interpret the current change in our understanding ofPaleolithic art as a loss of innocence stemmingfroman increasing criticism ofthemain axioms thatdefined thestudy of Paleolithic art until the 1980s. In thiscontext, the loss of disciplinary innocence can be defined as the rocess bywhichmost specialists become conscious of thecomplexity of thisart.

DURING THE PAST TWENTY YEARS WE HAVE WITNESSED SOMETHING AKIN TO A REVOLUTIONinPaleolithic art studies. First, importantdiscoveries have been made all aroundtheworld: Chauvet (Chauvet et al. 1995; Clottes 2003; Geneste et al. 2005) andCosquer (Clottes 1998; Clottes and Courtin 1994; Clottes et al. 2005) inFrance,Hohle Fels inGermany (Conard 2003), Foz COa inPortugal (Bahn 1995; Clottes1998; Jorge 1995), and Blombos Cave inSouth Africa (Henshilwood et al. 2002;Tribolo et al. 2006) are among themost spectacular examples of Paleolithicart discovered in thepast two decades. Second, thedevelopment of new datingtechniques, such as AMS radiocarbon, thermoluminescence (TL), and electronspin resonance (see Wagner 1998), has provided specialists with a provisionalglobal chronology of the earliest artworks. Even thoughwe must be extremelycautious about accepting all published dates, it seems beyond question thatsignificantprogress concerning the age determination of Paleolithic arthas been

JournalofAnthropologicalResearch, vol. 64, 2008Copyright byTheUniversityofNew Mexico529

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/25

530 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCHmade during the past decade. Moreover, with the currentprogress in theuse ofthese echniquesne expectsmuch better esolutionsn thenextdecade (BarYosef 2002:363).Third, ecent evelopmentsngenetics ndpaleoanthropology(such as mitochondrial DNA analysis) have highlighted the origins ofmodemhuman ehavior. iven that ersonal rnamentsnd other artistic bjects retoday onsideredome f the ost importantraitsefiningehavioral odernity,current debates on human cognitive evolution have had a considerable impact onthe study of Paleolithic art. In particular, even though it is unclear how, when,and among which hominid groups art emerged, most specialists agree that thefirst forms of personal ornaments and decorated items (such as ostrich eggshellbeads, marine shells, and ochre pieces bearing engraved motifs) arose inAfricaca. 70,000 BP (Henshilwood et al. 2002) or earlier. Thus, the traditionalbelief inaEuropean origin of art isunder debate.These developments ave provoked sentimentf revolution Nowell2006:242;Whitley 2001:8) or crisis (e.g.,Bednarik1996;Beltran 1992)within the discipline. It is now widely accepted that the application of moderntechniques of dating to recent discoveries, such as Chauvet or Blombos Cave,has called into uestion everal raditionallyeld notions ithin aleolithic rtstudies (Henshilwood et al. 2002:1279; Valladas et al. 2001:986). In otherwords,the urrentdisciplinaryneasiness Sauvet 004:268) isusually elated otheimpact of new discoveries and new technical advances in the field, especiallydirect ating.Without denying theeffectof thesedevelopments, we consider that thecurrentdisciplinary crisis is also related toparadigmatic variations thataremodifying ourunderstanding of Paleolithic art.These conceptual changes are certainly related tothe aforementioned improvements in the technical studyof Paleolithic art,but theyare not thenecessary consequence of them.For instance, thecurrentcriticismof thetraditional urocentric bias is connected to thediscovery of new evidence inAfricaand other continents,but it is also linked to the criticism of Eurocentric modes ofthinkingthat rose in the late 1980s and in the 1990s, best illustratedby the impactof postcolonial studies. The same could be said of thepresent discrediting of theunilinear evolution of Paleolithic art.The abandonment of such a belief can beexplained both by thediscovery of thehigh antiquity of sophisticated examplesof prehistoric art (such as Chauvet orHohle Fels) and by thepostmodern critiqueof thenotion of progress. As these examples illustrate, the current revolution inPaleolithic art studies cannot be reduced to technical developments in the field;these changes are also connected toconceptual shifts.The remainder of this articleexamines variations in theway Paleolithic art is conceptualized.

We seek to interpret hese changes not as a crisis but as something akin to aloss of innocence (Moro-Abadia 2006:133). This expressionwas first opularizedin archaeology by David Clarke. In 1973, Clarke claimed thatarchaeology haddeveloped from a state of consciousness to self-consciousness and finally tocritical self-consciousness in a continuous process. The state of consciousness wasachieved when thediscipline was named and defined by specifying itsrawmaterialand by pragmatic practice. The materialization of a disciplinary self-consciousnesswas related to a technical revolution in the field,marked by methodological and



4/25

PALEOLITHIC ART STUDIES 531implicitheoreticalhanges. inally, he mergencefacriticalelf-consciousnessin he 960swas defined yphilosophical,etaphysical,ndtheoreticaleflectionsonthe ature, ethodology,nd limitsfarchaeologicalnowledge. hisprocesswas related o the evelopmentfnewmethodologiessuch s newtechniquesorrecordingite ocation; ewdating ethods, specially he adiocarbon,otassiumargon, and uranium series; and new small-scale techniques for the processing andanalysis f sites nddeposits), ewparadigmsmorphological,nthropological,ecological, ndgeographical),ewphilosophiesthe revious rameworkouldnot accommodate he ccumulationfnovel,discordantnformationithin tsstructure), and, most important, new scepticismwhich chafed at the traditionalsecurity and comfort of the status quo. According to Clarke, critical selfconsciousnesssprimarilyreflectionn the imitsfarchaeologicalnowledge:It is apparent that archaeologists need to know about knowing and the limits ofwhat theycan and cannot know from thedata and toknow thisby critical appraisal,not imply y assertion Clarke 973:7).

Paleolithic art studies have recently passed through a process similar to thatdescribed by Clarke. We propose that the supposed crisis in the field should beinterpretedas a loss of disciplinary innocence connected with the emergenceof a critical self-consciousness of the limitsof our knowledge. Using Clarke'sterminology,we have passed from a reassuring look how much we know to alook how littlewe know and how inappropriate are ourmodels and explanations(Clarke 1973:7). In this paper we seek to analyze some of the processes that,inpast 20 years, have led archaeologists to become increasingly aware of thecomplexityfPaleolithicrt.

In the first ection of this paper we briefly depict the paradigm dominant inthe field until the 1980s.We summarize thisparadigm with fourpropositions: (1)theuse of the term art to define all images produced byHomo sapiens duringthe Paleolithic; (2) the preeminence of parietal art (or rock art ) over otherformsof Paleolithic art, such as mobiliary art or personal ornaments ; (3) thewidespread belief in the unilinear progression of art throughout thePaleolithic;(4) Eurocentrism, or how specialists derived global theories about Paleolithic artfromhe uropean ecord.In the second section, we analyze how recent events in the field haveprovoked a loss of innocence defined by criticism of these four axioms. First,several scholars have pointed out problems related to the use of theconcept of arttodefine a very heterogeneous range of prehistoricmaterial representations.Thiscriticism has led tomany interestingdiscussions about the adequacy of some ofthe technical termsused by specialists, such as portable art, petroglyph, orrock art. Second, specialists have increasingly argued that scholars need tomove fromtraditional interpretationsfocused on cave art (or rock art) to a more

global understanding integrating their studywith those of traditionally underrepresented 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 thedevelopment of social symbolism within the firsthuman societies. Third, theconfirmation of the great antiquity of spectacular examples of paleoart has



5/25

532 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCHchallenged the traditional belief in theunilinear evolution of art. In lightof thesenewdiscoveries, ost specialistsccept hatmodem umans ereastonishinglyquick in developing their artistic skills (Sinclair 2003:774). Thus, there is nological reason to believe thatartwork evolved from simple to complex duringthePaleolithic. ourth, ecent evelopments ave discardedtheassumptionthatPaleolithic art occurred only inEurope. A number of importantdiscoverieshave challenged the long-accepted belief in theEuropean origin of art. The highantiquity 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 inthe emergence of the first symbolic and artistic forms.Also, discoveries inEurasia, Africa, and Australia demonstrate thatPaleolithic art is a worldwidephenomenon.his newperspectivehallenges pecialists oevaluatethenonEuropean evidence on its own terms.THE TRADITIONAL PARADIGM OF PALEOLITHIC ART STUDIESTheWesternunderstandingfPaleolithic rtwhichprevailed hroughoutostof the twentieth century can be summarized into fourmain ideas. These fourpostulates have operated axiomatically-that is, as established or self-evidenttruthsncompassingllpossible xperience.The first is related to the use of the term art to define all imagesproduced by Homo sapiens during the Paleolithic. These images (animal andhuman carvings and statuettes, engraved and painted blocks, paintings onthe walls of caves, non-figurative motifs) have been considered to be theartistic expression of their authors and therefore have been studied throughthe lens of concepts usually borrowed from art history: creation, style,skill, period, artistic conventions, and so on. This does notmean thatallinterpretations of Paleolithic images have been conceptualized inartistic terms.Cognitive, sychological,nthropological,tructural,unctional,ymbolic,riconological approaches have also been suggested. However, the term arthas generally been the first label used by specialists to classify these images.For instance,when Sauvet andWlodarczyk suggested a formal grammar ofsome Paleolithic representations, they referred to them under themoniker ofparietal art (Sauvet andWlodarczyk 1995). In short,Paleolithic images havebeen interpretedas representations, icons, signs or symbols, butfirst they havebeen catalogued as art.The second idea is related to thegeneral categorization of Paleolithic artby twentieth-centurywriters into twomain categories: parietal art (or rock art)and mobiliary art (or portable art). This way of classifying has had a twofoldeffect on the discipline. In the firstplace, this distinction appears to be basedon objective features : parietal art encompasses engravings, bas-reliefs, andpaintings on thewalls of caves or on open-air rocks; mobiliary art referstoworkswhich are of a certainmaximum size and are judged to be portable. In thesecond place, most treatises on Paleolithic art have primarily focused on caveart images. Researchers often underestimate the importance of a wide range ofitems catalogued asmobiliary art,which may be considered merely as trinkets,



6/25

PALEOLITHIC ART STUDIES 533sketches, craftworks,r ornaments. apitan ndBouyssonie'sUn atelierd'artprehistorique1924) isa particularlyelling xample f this rivialization.These pioneerFrench archaeologists uggested hatthe artists orkingonmobiliary ieceswere apprenticesf parietalrtists, sketching efore ainting

on cave walls (Capitan and Bouyssonie 1924).The thirddea that as structuredhe raditionalnderstandingfPaleolithicart is theunilinear progression theory i.e., thebelief ina progression from simpletomorecomplex epresentationshroughouthe aleolithic). he predominanceof this conviction has been related to the influence of Breuil and Leroi-Gourhan.Abbe Breuil established this theoretical conception inhis firstworks.He suggestedthat aleolithic rt evolved throughour hases ina progressive ontinuityfrom rimitive omore perfectly inished ormsAlcaldedelRio et al. 1911).At the end of his career, Breuil suggested that Paleolithic art had progressedthroughwoartistic eriods: theAurignaco-Perigordiannd the SolutreoMagdalenian cycles Breuil 952). Inboth eries, reuil setup the volution fprehistoricrtisticctivity rom lementaryeginnings o the erfectionf thefinal eriods. decade later, ndreLeroi-Gourhanriticized reuil's cyclicalchronology and suggested thatPaleolithic arthad, instead, followed a coherentevolutionaryurve (Leroi-Gourhan 964:90). Leroi-Gourhan1964:87-90)proposed hat aleolithic rthad evolved through ive tyles orrespondingodifferentpochs: thePre-figurativeeriod Chatelperronian),tyles and II(or primitive period, equivalent to theAurignacian, theGravettian, and thebeginning of the Solutrean), Style III (or archaic period, analogous to theend of the Solutrean and the earlyMagdalenian), Old Style IV (correspondingto the laterMagdalenian), and Recent Style IV (equivalent to the end of the

Magdalenian). He established the notion that Paleolithic art had evolved ina single ascending curve (Leroi-Gourhan 1965:43) that spans the entireUpper Paleolithic. This a priori conception was accepted by themajority ofarchaeologists until the last decades of the twentiethcentury.Finally, during much of the twentieth centurymost archaeologists wereconvinced that Paleolithic art was exclusively a European phenomenon. AsLeroi-Gourhan summarized in 1965, specialists were persuaded that therewaslittle evidence outside Europe, and even the limited evidence was plagued withuncertain dating (Leroi-Gourhan 1965:204). As a result,works treating aleolithicarthave overemphasized the importanceof theFranco-Cantabrian region over therestof theworld. This emphasis has had importantconsequences for themodelscreated to explain the origins and evolution of art. In the firstplace, themostspectacular examples of cave art (e.g., Lascaux and Altamira) have generallybeen considered the origin of art (Bazin 1958:7), the prehistory ofWesternart (Leroi-Gourhan 1965), and the first tep, thebeginning in the rise towardart (Bataille 1955:130). In otherwords, European caves have been considered torepresent the dawn of art. In the second place, theprivileging of theEuropeanrecord has provoked theuse of European standards to evaluate thePaleolithic artof therestof theworld. In lightof themagnificence of certainEuropean cave art,other artistic forms such as engraved bones, figurines,and personal adornmentshave often been undervalued.



7/25

534 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCHTHE EMERGENCE OF A CRITICAL DISCIPLINARYSELF-CONSCIOUSNESS

In recent years, new discoveries, new techniques, and new reflections haveprovoked n increasingriticismf theseong-establisheddeas bout aleolithicart. As we have argued above, this change can be interpreted as a loss ofdisciplinarynnocence,temmingromgreateronsciousnessfthe omplexityof Paleolithic art. In this second section, we analyse fourof themain critiqueswhichhave called ntouestion raditionalnterpretations.1. Terminologicaliscussions:Challengingraditionaloncepts

Over thepast two decades, we have participated in a number of interestingdiscussionsoncerninghe erminologysed in aleolithicrt tudies.ategoriessuch as Paleolithic art (Nowell 2006; Soffer and Conkey 1997), mobiliaryart (Moro-Abadia and Gonzailez-Morales 2004), rock art (Chippindale andTagon 1998, 2006; Greer and Greer 2007; Swartz 2007) personal ornaments(Vanhaeren 005), petroglyph nd pictographs Chippindale nd Tagon2006), and style (Alcolea and Balbin 2007; Guy 2003; Moro-Abadia andGonzailez-Morales 2007; Otte and Remacel 2000) have been discussed inverydifferentways. In this context, the concept of art has been the subject of muchdebate. A number of authors have criticized the use of this term to categorizeimagesproducedby so-calledprimitive ocieties e.g.,Conkey 1987:413,1997:174; Layton 1991a: 1-6, 1991b:23; Odak 1991, 1992; Shiner 1994; Sofferand Conkey 1997:2-3; Tomaskova 1997:268-69; Torgovnick 1989; White1992:538, 1997:93, 2003:20). Others consider theuse of thisword todescribe theearly products of artistic sensibility as legitimate (e.g., Blocker 1994; Heyd 2005;Lorblanchet 1992;Morales 2005; Whitley 2001). This debate must be put into thecontext of certain theoretical discussions which have occurred inother academicdisciplines, such as arthistory and iconology.

Since thebeginning of themodern era,Western philosophers and historianshave considered art to be a universal expression of humankind. This conceptionis related to the influence ofKant's theoryof aesthetics.' Taking Kant's theoryas reference, a number of nineteenth-centurywriters and philosophers (e.g., Poe,Wilde, Baudelaire, oleridge, laubert) stablishedhe niversalityf aesthetictaste rsensibility,onsideredsignificantuman aculty.lthough hese uthorsinterpretedhis estheticensibilityndifferentays, they ll includedtwithinhumans' cognitive andmoral faculties. In other words, they all considered art tobe a product of a universal human faculty.This belief in theuniversality of artwasreinforcedwith the arrival of primitive art fromAmerica, Africa, and OceaniatoWestern countries, andwith the discovery of prehistoric art at the end of thenineteenth century. In lightof these examples, itseemed clear that art existed inall human societies.

This conception was uncontested during thefirst alf of the twentiethcentury.Nevertheless, during the 1950s and 1960s some authors started to question thedepiction of art as a universal human faculty.The first as theGerman philosopherOskar Paul Kristeller, who published his influential studyon the modern system



8/25

PALEOLITHIC ART STUDIES 535of theArts in 1951-1952. According toKristeller, art is not a universal facultybut a modern system thatacquired its current form only in the preceding twocenturies. Itwas at the dawn ofmodernity when the term art was first sed torefer o thefivemajor arts fpainting,culpture,rchitecture,usic, andpoetry(Kristeller 951-1952:497). efore the ighteenthentury,heword had beenused to refer to a number of heterogeneous human activities, includingwar, horsebreaking, riting, r governing.ollowing risteller, ladislaw Tatarkiewiczexamined the differences between themodern idea of art and that of antiquity.Tatarkiewicz proposed that the idea of art current in the classical Greek periodwas also much more general than ours, as it embraced 'all works producedaccording to rules,' thus including not only theworks of artists but also thoseof artisans nd scholars Tatarkiewicz963:231). Influencedy Kristeller'sandTatarkiewicz's orks, everal uthors avemorerecentlyuggested hat heconcept of art is a historically contingent category which emerged in the courseofmodernitye.g.,Becq 1994;Belting 1990;Bourdieu1992;Mortensen 997;Woodmansee1994).2It s in his ontext hatnthropologistsnd rchaeologistsavediscussed heuse of theconcept of art inPaleolithic studies. First, certain anthropologists havequestioned both the concepts of art and of primitive in theexpression Primitiveart. Second, and stimulated by these debates, certain specialists have arguedagainst theuse of the term art todescribe Paleolithic images.

Since the 1970s, a number of anthropologists have discussed the traditionaltrivialization of primitive art as a decorative art. They have attacked thesupposed primitiveness of the art from small-scale societies, arguing thatcertain works made by members of societies other than our own are worthyof our aesthetic regard and deserve to be called 'art ' (Dissanayake 1982:145).

Consequently, art from those groups should be considered Artwith a capitalA (Haberland 1986:131). According to these authors, no human society hasbeen discovered thatdoes not display some examples of what we, in themodemWest, are accustomed to call 'art ' (Dissanayake 1980:398). Therefore, whiletheirprocesses of naming may differ fromWesterners, all human societies haveart thatcan be as sophisticated and complex asWestern representations(Anderson 1979, 1990; Dissanayake 1980, 1982, 1987, 1992, 2000; Haberland1986;Price 1989;Torgovnick990).

Other anthropologists and historians of art have considered the labelprimitive art tobe a form fWestern cultural appropriation. These authors haveclaimed that thecategory of art does not exist within many so-called primitivecultures: Few of these small-scale societies have grouped artifactsor activities onthe basis of non-utility and given them special status as objects fordisinterestedappreciation (Shiner 1994:225). For instance,Kasfir has summarized thedifferent

Western andAfrican understandings ofwhat is called art :It isnot so clear that theseWestern collectors' distinctions arevery resonantin themind of [the]African artist.... Whereas Western artists often seetheirwork primarily as a vehicle for self-realisation, that attitude is asunfamiliar to [the]African artistas it is inAfrican culturegenerally, unless



9/25

536 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCHwe refer to the elite artists trained inWestern-type artschools. Typically thecarving 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 differentfromfarming, repairing radios, or driving ataxi Kasfir 992:45).

Stimulatedy the xamples rovided y anthropologists,ome specialistshave attacked the utilization of the concept of art inPaleolithic contexts. Theyconsider that the use of this termentails fourmain problems:

Anachronism. Even if art is a convenient category for the study of someprehistoricaterialrepresentations,t isdoubtful hat tscreators ould haverecognizedny such dea. onsequently,art s anachronisticnthe aleolithicand 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 andimagery into a single category that is, furthermore,one of 'our' categories(1987:413).Aestheticism.s SofferndConkeyhave suggested,hemodern efinitionof art is related to an aesthetic discourse which establishes that art isvaluedfor the skill needed tomake theobject, itsbeauty, and itsnon-utility. Aestheticsis a modern Western concept which does not have universal validity (Soffer andConkey1997:2).Ethnocentrism.ccordingtoWhite (2003:20-23), the deaof primitiveart is related to an ethnocentric prejudice which considers Paleolithic art theprecursorfWestern art. his ethnocentrismsbest expressed n theWesterndefinition of artworks frommodern, small-scale societies. First, it is only theWesterner's perspective thatelevates an object from these societies to the statusof art. Second, writers unknowingly embrace ethnocentrism inplacing this artat thebeginning of universal histories of artwhich are, in fact,Western.

Other authors consider theuse of the term art legitimatewhen describingnon-Westernrtifactse.g., locker 1994;Heyd 2005;Whitley 001).Recently,Morales (2005:61) argued that some authors' critical standpoints are based onuninformed notions about artand aesthetics. He suggests that the aforementionedauthors ignore that arthas been and continues to be an importantand diverseactivity,meaning differentthings todifferentpeople at different times (Morales2005:68). Lorblanchet argues that thesimple act of applying thetermtoPaleolithicpaintings, engravings, and carvings does not mean that theWestern meaning isnecessarilymposed.e proposes hat inrecognizinghe istorical eanings ndtheusages of rock art,we realize thatour own perspectives on prehistoricworksdiffer from those of our ancient predecessors (Lorblanchet 1992:116-17).Even if there is no consensus on abandoning theword art, the increasein the number of works treating this epistemological unease is a sign of theemergence of a self-reflexiveness in the field.Throughout thegreater part of thetwentieth century, archaeologists used their concepts as if theywere universal



10/25

PALEOLITHIC ART STUDIES 537categories,gnoringhe act hat hey rehistoricalnd contingenterms.n thissense, and even if it is obvious thatother recent alternatives to define Paleolithicart suchas prehistoricmagery, material epresentations,r Pleistoceneimages ) reequallymodern ategories hich nvolve particularnterpretation,these ecent ritical pproaches ontributeo mproved ethods ithin he tudyof the aleolithic magery.2. Looking for a Global Understanding of Paleolithic Art: Challenging theParietal Art - Portable Art DistinctionUntilthe ast ears fthe wentiethentury,nthropologistsnd rchaeologists

based their nalyses 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 ofmuralart and of portable miniature pieces found in actual habitation sites; the secondbeing a category described inFrench as artmobilier (1979:7-8). A quick glanceatdictionariesndgeneral ntroductoryorks corroborateshewidespread seof these concepts (e.g., Brezillon 1969:35; Bray and Trump 1970:51; Delporte1981:14, 1990:32; Laming-Emperaire 962:21; Leroi-Gourhan 1988:70;Lorblanchet 995:13, 21; Ucko and Rosenfeld1967:8;Vialou 2004:244-45;Whitehouse 1983:331-32). Of course, specialists have proposed otherways toclassifyaleolithic rt they avedistinguishedetween pen-air rt; exteriorart, 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 theyhavefirstifferentiatedetween hese wo ategories.

The continuous use of this distinction has had a twofold effect onarchaeological understandings of Paleolithic art. In the first lace, this division isperceived by most specialists as a self-evidentway of conceptualizing Paleolithicart.The terms mobiliary and parietal referto theobjective featureswithin theworks of art themselves: the former refers to the transportable artworks found inPaleolithic contexts (and no one could doubt that these objects are moveable),while the latter is used to define engravings, bas-reliefs, paintings, and symbolsmade on rock surfaces (whether on thewalls of caves or on open-air rocks). Thesecond effect is related to the fact that, until recently, the grand explanatoryschemes concerning Paleolithic art have focused on cave art. In otherwords,the importance of other types of portable representational artifacts such asengraved and incised bone, antler and stone as well as figurinesmade from avariety ofmaterials is underestimated (Nowell 2006:245). The predominance ofcave art over other prehistoric artworks is likely a product of both thehistoryof research and the richness of the Franco-Spanish cave art. In any case, thiscave-art-centeredness has predetermined theway inwhich we have interpreted

Paleolithic isualcultures.Theobjectivityf the arietal/mobiliaryichotomynd the redominancefcave arthave been recently called intoquestion. Recent works have shown thatthe aforementioned division is not a natural way toapproach Paleolithic art,but ahistorical manner of conceptualizing it.Also, authors are increasingly calling fora more global understanding of Paleolithic art.



11/25

538 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCHIn our analysis of the history of the concepts of parietal and mobiliaryPaleolithic rt Moro-AbadiandGonzailez-Morales004;Moro-Abadia2006)

we suggest that theWestern definition of Paleolithic art has been based on theprojectionfmodern ategories ntoprehistoricmages. uring the ighteenthcentury, the traditional concept of art was split into the fine arts or BeauxArts (which ncluded oetry, ainting, usic, sculpture,nd architecture)ndcrafts r popular rts e.g.,pottery,ewelry, mbroidery).hile theformerwas associated ith aesthetics, cerebralrt, ensibility,eniality,nspiration,and non-utility, the latterwas used todefine artworks requiring skill and rules ofmanufacture, bodily art, or art foruse or entertainment.Shiner has summarizedthe rincipal ategories istinguishingart nd crafts Table1).

TABLE 1From Artisan/ArtisttoArtist versusArtisan (fromShiner 2001:115)After the plitBefore the plit Artist Artisan

Talent orwit Genius RuleInspiration Inspiration/sensibility CalculationFacility (mind and body) Spontaneity mind and body) Skill (body)Reproductive imagination Creative imagination Reproductive imaginationEmulation Originality Imitationofmodels)Imitation Creation Copying (nature)Service Freedom (play) Trade (pay)

During the period between 1860 and 1925, the distinction between finearts and crafts was the basis for the parietal/mobiliary dichotomy. Between1860 and 1900 the firstdiscoveries of prehistoric portable art were definedthrough a set of values and ideas generally used to depict craft or populararts : theywere depicted as ornamental art (Evans 1878:448; Mortillet 1897:241;

Wilson 1898:351-52); nonreflexive art that fulfilledamainly decorative function(Dupont 1872:155); bodilyart -necklaces, amulets, nd tattoos Lubbock1870:58); decorativert (Wilson1898:350); an astonishingskill (Evans1867:22); an innocentrt Mortillet992:293); and a simple astime Mortillet1992:287). When a more complex image of Paleolithic people was developed andthe antiquity of cave artwas accepted, parietal art was defined through a set ofcategories generally associated with fine art : style, creativity, originality,creation. The paintings on thewalls of thecaves were thenconsidered analogousto the great frescoes of classic art (Leroi-Gourhan 1957:109) or to the Sistine

Chapel (Breuil 1952). These examples illustrate that the parietal/mobiliarydichotomy does not refer to an objective conceptualization of Paleolithic art butto a distinction based on theprojection of ourmodern ideas onto thePaleolithic.

Given that there is no objective reason to justify this split withinPaleolithic art (Vialou 1998:269), mobiliary art is no longer assigned secondplace. Specialists have proposed thatportable itemswere generally overlookedbecause of a twofoldprejudice concerning their technical manufacture and their



12/25

PALEOLITHIC ART STUDIES 539symbolicmeaning.Most traditionalnterpretationsssumed that hemakingof an engraved bone or an ivory statuette required fewer technical skills thanthose demanded to paint a bison on thewall of a cave. These interpretations alsosupposedthat ortable bjectswere used solely to embellish he ppearanceof their owners. Such an attitude is totally unfounded and prevents a morethoroughgoingnderstandingf prehistoricocieties White 992:541).First,mobiliary artworks have a technical and conceptual base as complicated as anyparietal image.White, for instance, has verified the existence of a very widerange f sculpting roceduresincluding acking, ecking, ouging, craping,incising, brading, nd polishing) sed tomake the femalefigures ound nGravettiancontexts t Brassempouy, ostienki,Avdeevo, and Gagarino(White 2006). Second, since the 1990s there has been an increasing tendencyto consider that personal ornaments, perhaps more than any other aspectsof the archaeological record, are a point of access for archaeologists into thesocial world of the past (White 1992:539). This growing interest in ornamentsand other pieces is related to the emergence of an archaeology of the bodythat, nfluencedy theworks of Foucault, ourdieu, nd others, sprimarilyconcerned with recovering the social and symbolic meanings of thebody in thepast (e.g., Fisher and Loren 2003; Hamilakis et al. 2002; Joyce 2005; Montserrat1998;Rautman 000;Yates 1993).

As a result of these developments, archaeologists are paying greater attentiontoportable rtworks,ow consideredmong hemost importantedia throughwhich prehistoricumans tored nd transmittednformation,xpressed heiraffiliations, and indicated their identity.The rise in the frequency of articlesexplicitly oncernedwith personalornaments emonstrates he currentrevaluation of some formsofmobiliary art (e.g., D'Errico et al. 2003; Taborin2003; Vanhaeren 2005; Vanhaeren and d'Errico 2006; Vanhaeren et al. 2004;Zilhdo2007).These items avepassed from erely eing onsidered ormsfself-decoration to being defined as unambiguous hallmark[s] of behaviouralmodernity (Vanhaeren 2005:526), as symbolic objects created forvisual displayon the body (D'Errico 2003:196), and as conveyors of the social identityofpersons Zilhao 007:35).In short, authors are increasingly calling for a more global understandingof Paleolithic art. They are trying to constructmeaningful representations ofPaleolithic images no matter themedium, and as a consequence, currentresearchis lessdriven r conditionedy cave-art-centeredness.3. Critiques of the elief in theUnilinear Evolution ofPaleolithic Art

Until the 1980s, most interpretations ivided Homo sapiens into two variants(McBrearty andBrooks 2000:458): archaic (includingNeanderthals, also knownas Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) and modern (Homo sapiens sapiens). Itwas generally accepted thatanatomically modern Homo sapiens appeared on theEuropean scene at the beginning of theUpper Paleolithic (ca. 40,000-35,000BP), and once there theygradually developed their artistic skills. These modernhumans began shaping simple bone tools and incising grooves in animal teeth.Later, during theAurignacian and theGravettian, theymade small statuettesand



13/25

540 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCHpainted simple parietal signs like handprints or straight lines. Finally, and afteragradual technical evolution, theyhad the technical abilities necessary tocreate thegreat examples of cave art.This picture, however, has been submitted to intense criticism during thepast two decades. First,most specialists agree that, in lightof new developmentsin genetics and dating techniques, Neanderthals and modem humans are twodifferentspecies (McBrearty and Brooks 2000:458; Stringer 2002:563). Based onstudies ofNeanderthal mtDNA, the lineages separated no earlier thanca. 600,000years ago (Krings et al. 2000; Ovchinnikov et al. 2000). Much later,both speciescoexisted inEurope, where anatomically modem humans apparently arrived ataround0,000-45,000 PMellars 006:933).There, eanderthalsnd modemswere in contact until the formerwere replaced by the latter (some specialistssuggest ybridizationradmixture:.g.,Trinkaus 005;Zilhdo2007). Second,thedistinction of archaic (Neanderthals) and modem humans at the specieslevel has ledmany scholars to reevaluate the long-established idea thatHomosapiens were the first o create art.Personal ornaments (such as perforated caninesand small perforated beads) associated with Neanderthal contexts (especiallythose from French Chatelperronian sites: Saint-Ce'saire, Quingay, and Grotte duRenne) have been used to suggest thatthe first artistic items recorded inEurope

were made byNeanderthals (D'Errico et al. 1998; Zilhao 2007). Other authorshave proposed thatNeanderthals did not develop theirown cultural traditionbut,ina context of exchange and competitionwith the incomingmodem groups, theydeveloped the ability to copy the habits of the new (Mellars 2005:21). It isdifficult to establish whether or not art emerged among Neanderthals becausethe answer depends on one's definition of art. Furthermore, the possibilityof postdepositional intrusion and contamination cannot be excluded in some oftheChdtelperronian sites. For instance, Taborin (2002) and White (2002) havesuggested that the ornaments found in levelsVIII-X of theGrotte du Renne arethe resultof a postdepositional intrusion fromAurignacian level VII.While the answer concerning which was the firsthominid group to createart remains unclear, specialists agree that traditional theorieswhich assumed aunilinear progress ofPaleolithic artfromsimplest tomore complex representationsmust be rejected (e.g., Clottes 1996; Guy 2003:283; Moro-Abadia and Gonzalez

Morales 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 the1960s (e.g., Marshack 1990; Ucko 1987; Ucko and Rosenfeld 1967), itwasnot until the 1990s that itwas abandoned. Two reasons explain thiswidespreadrejection. First, the recent attention tomobiliary art from theAurignacian sitesofVogelherd, eissenklosterle,ohlensteintadel, ndHohleFels inGermanyhas convinced many scholars of the existence of a highly accomplished threedimensional artistic tradition from thevery beginnings of theUpper Paleolithic.Some of these statuettes have been well-known for at least fiftyyears, but thetraditional focus on cave artprevented many scholars fromrecognizing their alue.For example, in the482 pages thatcomprise Leroi-Gourhan's La prehistoire delart occidental, firstpublished in 1965, the author devoted only three lines tothe portable art fromVogelherd. This situation has recently shifted, however,



14/25

PALEOLITHIC ART STUDIES 541since thediscovery of new figurines atGeissenkldsterle and Hohle Fels and thedevelopment of a more global understanding of Paleolithic art has made evidentthat impressive forms of artarose during theAurignacian.

The main explanation for thedecline of the unilinear evolution theory is thediscovery of Chauvet Cave in 1994. In the initialpublications, some specialistsproposed n antiquityarying etween 7,000 nd21,000BP rearlier Chauvetet al. 1995:113-14; Leroi-Gourhan 995:574).Nevertheless, hedirect atesobtained 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 etal. 1995) suggested anAurignacian antiquity for the black paintings. The resultswere apparently confirmed by the dating of a torch-wipe superimposed on acalcite film (26,120 i 400 BP [GifA 95127]) and by the dating of detached piecesof charcoal (26,980 + 410 BP [GifA 95129]). Faced with this evidence of highantiquity,omespecialists eacted ithscepticisme.g.,Combier1995;Dellucand Delluc 1999; Gonzalez Sainz 1999; Lorblanchet and Bahn 1999; Pettitt andBahn 2003;Ziichner 999).

The validity of these dates has been the subject of intense debate. Wecan distinguish two kinds of reasoning used by thosewho have criticized thechronology proposed by the teams ofHelene Valladas and JeanClottes (Valladaset al. 2005). Some scholars consider that the sophisticated techniques used inthe cave (figures in perspective, stump drawing, animals represented inwelldepicted postures, preparation of thewall by scraping) are too advanced for theAurignacian.ccording o heseuthors,he onsistencyfpublished adiocarbondates could be explained by a contamination of the dated charcoal (Pettitt andBahn 2003; see the authors' responses: Valladas and Clottes 2003, Valladas et al.2004). Other authors have pointed out that theChauvet art could have been mademuch earlier than the first MS dates suggested (Bard et al. 2004:179; Mellars2006:934). Using new curves of calibration, theyhave proposed that the blackpaintings could date from around 36,000 BP.

Accepting that Radiocarbon dating is notwithout its problem, particularlywithin thecrucial time rangeof around 30,000-40,000 yrBP (Mellars 2004:462),we consider that the Aurignacian antiquity of Chauvet (ca. 32,000 BP) can beproven in lightof fourmain arguments. First, themost recent published results(Cuzange et al. 2007) of an AMS radiocarbon intercomparisonprogram inwhichseveral European laboratorieswere involved (theCentre for sotope Research; theOxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, theCentre de Datation par leCarbone 14,and theLaboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnment) confirm thepreviously published dates (Valladas et al. 2005). In otherwords, assuming thatall radiocarbon results have been published (and not only theones that fitwith anAurignacian age), the numerous radiocarbon dates from the cave are consistent.Second, thearchaeological analyses of the cave point to theAurignacian antiquityof thepaintings. Jean-Michel Geneste's study indicates thatthe cave was probablynot occupied during thefinalPaleolithic phases (Geneste 2005). Moreover, amongthetwentyflint rtifacts identifiedon thefloorof thecave, archaeologists foundanivory spearhead similar toother artifacts found inAurignacian contexts, such asthose at thesite ofMladec inMoravia (Geneste 2005:141). Third, recent analyses



15/25

542 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCHindicate thatChauvet was not frequented by humans or large animals after ca.25,000BP. oreover,radiocarbonating f human nd cave bearbonesconfirmsthat theywere deposited at Chauvet during the same period as thecreation of thepaintings (Bocherens et al. 2006). Fourth, thereare important analogies betweenChauvet, the portable Aurignacian art from southwestGermany, and theparietalart of certain other French caves (see Clottes 1996; Moro-Abadia and Gonzalez

Morales 2007). It does not follow that theChauvet paintings are necessarily fromthis eriod, ut these nalogous ites uggest ts ntiquity.n short, nlessoneassumes that later occupants consistently used ancient charcoal forpainting, theAurignacian hronologyf the aintingshould e accepted.

Ifwe accept theAurignacian antiquity of Chauvet and of theGerman portableart, it is clear that art did not gradually evolve fromvery simple to complexthroughouthe aleolithic. n initiallyvery low artistic evelopmenturingthe archaic eriod Leroi-Gourhan965:44),which culminatedn maturityphase during he olutrean nd the agdalenian Leroi-Gourhan965:47-52),cannot be defended. The Chauvet paintings stand in clear opposition toLeroiGourhan's depiction of the firstartistic periods: We may imagine thatduringAurignacian I and II therewere artists capable of drawing a bison correctly on awall, but since theonly dated objects bear outlines thatare almost formless, it isimpossible to prove that a single cave-wall work is reliably Aurignacian (LeroiGourhan 965:193). nshort,he atingfChauvet nderscoreshe mpossibilityofmaintaining the unilinear evolution theoryof Paleolithic artwhich had, untilrecently,eenunanimouslyccepted.4. Critiques of the urocentric Vision ofPaleolithic Art

Paleolithic art extends over the greater part of Europe. Outside theContinent, finds are either lacking entirely, scarce, or not reliably dated.Except for one place in southern Siberia (Mal'ta), Asia has so far yieldedneither cave walls nor decorated objects that can be reliably assigned toa period preceding the tenmillennia which represent the Paleolithic ofWestern Europe. Africa contains thousands of cave figures,painted aswellas engraved, but proof of their age has not been supplied. Those datedwith certainty do not seem togo very far back of historical times (LeroiGourhan 965:204).

In the bove quote from1965, Leroi-Gourhan summarized a deep-rooted notion ofmany Western archaeologists at that time: theconviction thatPaleolithic artwasa European phenomenon restricted to southernFrance and northernSpain. Thisperspective was based on theEurocentric model of artorigins, dominant since theend of thenineteenth century,which established that something as advanced asarthad to stem from urope. For instance, in1867, Gabriel deMortillet (1867:24)asserted thatPaleolithic art is exclusively a French art.This Eurocentrism isno longer accepted. First, new intellectualmovementshave condemned the Eurocentric mode of thinking as being entrenched in

Western culture. Postcolonial studies,which seeks toprovide a critical reflection



16/25

PALEOLITHIC ART STUDIES 543onWestern olonialism, ypifieshis hinking.tcritiqueshe ultural,olitical,economic, and social effects brought about by the colonial process from thesixteenthentury o the resent ay (Ashcrofft al. 1989:2;Young 2001:4).Within this critical approach, Eurocentrism has been defined as aWestern styleof domination, a way to justifyWestern hegemony over colonized people. Thiscritique has had considerable impacton a wide range of disciplines, such as history,anthropology,hilosophy,nd rchaeology.econd, nthe ase ofPaleolithicrtstudies,ewdiscoveries nddevelopmentsave shown hat aleolithic rt snotan exclusively European phenomenon. In this context, the two main ideas thatsustained he urocentricias inPaleolithic rt tudies rediscussed ere:Thebelief in a European origin of art and the conviction thatPaleolithic art occursonly n urope.As shownby differentuthors, ome of the innovationsraditionallyassociated with theEuropean Upper Paleolithic can be traced back to theAfricancontinent.Even thosewho have supported the human revolution model (whichproposes a dramatic change inhuman behavior with the transition from theMiddleto theUpper Paleolithic inEurope) accept thatearliest forms of symbolic andartistic behavior arose first inAfrica around 50,000-70,000 BP (Klein 2000;

Mellars 2004, 2005). The event thathas most contributed to changing our ideasabout thegeographical origin of art is thediscovery of two engraved pieces ofochre in theMiddle Stone Age levels of theBlombos Cave (Henshilwood et al.2002; Tribolo 006).At this South African site,more than 8,000 pieces of ochre were recoveredfrom theMSA layers during excavations in 1999 and 2000. Moreover, twounequivocally engraved pieces were found associated with the Still Bay industry,an MSA technology characterized by shaped bone awls and bifacial spearpoints. On one of them,both the flat surface and one edge were modified usingdifferenttechniques (such as scraping and gridding) and a cross-hatched designwas engraved. On the other piece is an engraving which consists of a row ofcross-hatching, circumscribed on the top and bottom with parallel lines. TLmethods have suggested a chronology for theMSA layerswhere the Still Baybifacial points and the two engraved pieces were discovered. These dates havehad important consequences for theories concerning the origins of behavioralmodernity. It seems that Homo sapiens were behaviorally modern [at least]about 77,000 years ago (Henshilwood et al. 2002:1279). Furthermore, sinceearly examples of artand symbolic culturemay have existed inAfrica by around77,000 years ago, theEuropean origin of artmust be discarded.

Moreover, an importantnumber of sites outside Europe reveal that aleolithicart isaworldwide phenomenon. Even thoughsome of these siteswere discoveredmore than fortyyears ago, only in the last two decades of the twentiethcenturyhave Western specialists become aware of their importance. As a result, anincreasing number of general works that consider theEuropean evidence in aglobal perspective have appeared (e.g., Bahn andVertut 1988; Lorblanchet 1995;McBrearty andBrooks 2000; White 2003; Zilhdo 2007). Here we limitourselvestociting some significant examples and suggesting some published references forfurthereview.



17/25

544 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCHIn Eurasia, the sitesof Vogelherd, ohlenstein-Stadel,eissenkl6sterle,Hohle Fels,Dolni Vestonice, avlov,Kostienki, vdeevo, andGagarinoshow

the existence of a sophisticated art since theAurignacian and Gravettian periods(between 38,000 and 20,000 BP). In Siberia, several feminine statuettes from theMal'ta site have been dated to ca. 23,000 years ago. In the ral Mountains (Russia),archaeologists have obtained a date fromtheparietal paintings from apova caveranging up to about 14,000 years ago (Scelinskij and Sirikov 1999).

Africa has provided a wide range of evidence of early art. For instance,according toRandall White's estimate, there aremore than 30,000 rock art sitesin 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 arenow known to exist throughoutAfrica (for a review, seeMcBrearty and Brooks2000; White 2003). At Border Cave (South Africa), for instance, a perforatedseashell was found associated with an infantskeleton (BC3) discovered inMSAlayers. Although the possibility of an intrusive context has not been totallydiscarded Sillen andMorris 1996),Grtin andBeaumont (2001:480) havesuggested that ifBC3 is in situ,his ESR age is about 76,000 BP.Furthermore, apiece of shell with a setof notches has been reported from the transitionalMSA/LSA context. One of themost famous sites with well-dated prehistoric art is theApollo XI Cave inNamibia (Wendt 1974). Three painted slabs representing alarge predatory cat were found in an archaeological level corresponding to the

Middle Stone Age and dated by conventional radiocarbon tobetween 28,500 and26,400 years ago. According toWendt, thiscomposition was not part of rock artdecoration, but amobiliary piece.Australia offers a long recordof prehistoric art thathad been underestimateduntil recently.The lack of attentionwas related to thebelief thatAustralia hadbeen first ccupied by humans only at the end of Pleistocene, around 15,000 yearsago. Nevertheless, extensive research indicates thatAustralia was firstreachedby anatomically modern humans sometime between 70,000 and 45,000 years ago(Tagon 2006:1). An increasing number of works have been foundwhich depictthe complexity ofAustralia Pleistocene art (in thiscase, the term Paleolithic isprobably ot ppropriate).everal studies rovide omprehensiveverviews fthese developments (Chippindale and Tagon 1998; Layton 1992; Tagon 2001).These and other examples show that aleolithic art (i.e., artdated tobetween40,000 and 10,000 BP) is not solely a European phenomenon but ismanifestedworldwide. herefore,hetraditionalrchaeological odel which emphasizesthe importance of Europe in theorigins of artmust be discarded in favor of moreglobal pproaches.

SOME CONCLUDING THOUGHTSAccording to David Clarke, the threshold of critical disciplinary selfconsciousness was crossed by archaeologists during the 1960s and 1970s. Thisloss of innocence was connected to the development of new methodologies,observations, paradigms, and philosophies. Consequently, a new environmentwas developed and traditional concepts and theorieswere seriously challenged.



18/25

PALEOLITHIC ART STUDIES 545During thepast twentyyears, Paleolithic art studies have developed a critical

self-consciousness ina similarway to thatdescribed by Clarke. This process hasbeen related to thedevelopment of new methodologies, new data, new paradigms,and a new era of critique inwhich traditional concepts and theories have becomecentral topics of debate. As a resultof these developments, most of the traditionalexplanations,nterpretations,nd theoriesoncerninghe tudy fPaleolithic rthave been put intoquestion and, incertain cases, have been replaced.

We interpretthisprocess not as a revolution or a crisis, but as a lossofdisciplinarynnocence elated o the mergence f a self-reflexivenessnthe study of Paleolithic art.David Clarke's expression is used in this contextbecause itbestsummarizeshe omplexityf the isciplinaryransformation.While most specialists agree that Paleolithic art studies are undergoing animportantenovation,hey sually educe t o the ogical hange roughtboutby new discoveries and by the application of new methodologies. Withoutdenying the importance of these advances (some of them have been examinedin this paper), we suggest that the current transformation is also related toessential modifications inways of conceptualizing Paleolithic art. In fact,boththeoreticalhanges and technical nd factual evelopmentsreprofoundlyinterlinked.n the ne hand,newdiscoveries ndnewmethodologies aveprompted important changes in our understanding of Paleolithic art. On theother, onceptual hangeshave influencedheevaluation f archaeologicaldata. For instance, the current revaluation of personal ornaments ismorerelated to the emergence of a new social understanding of thebody than to thediscoveryf newarchaeologicalvidence.

If we have focused on conceptual changes in this paper, it has been tocounteract a widespread tendency that linksmajor changes in the field totechnical and factual advances. Instead,we suggest thata global interpretation

must involve critical self-reflection to understand the cultural basis of thescientific studyof Paleolithic art. Such a position does not deny the importanceof the aforementioned technical advances; itonlymeans thatwe gain a betterappreciation of what we do as archaeologists when we unfold the beliefs thathavestructured,ndcontinueo tructure,urwork.

NOTESThe authors wish to thankmany colleagues for access to data and information,collaboration, nd friendly iscussion,all ofwhich have directly ontributed othis aper.Theywould like to thank specially Jean lottes,RichardBradley, CesarGonzalez Sainz,Denis Vialou, Robert Bednarik, three nonymousJARreviewers, nd the ditor for heirhelpful remarks n earlierdrafts f this aper.1. In his Critique of Judgment 1790), Kant's account of aesthetic is partof amore general discussion about thefaculty f judgment, ubsumingtheparticularundertheuniversal. In the first wo sectionsof his critique, ant focuses on twodifferent indsof judgment: teleological (judgments hich assign ends tonatural things) nd aesthetic(judgments bout thebeautiful nd thesublime).According toKant, aesthetic udgmentsmake a claim to universality r universalvalidity. This statement eans that hen wemake a judgment boutan object's beauty,everyone else ought to agree.



19/25

546 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH2. One of themost noteworthy orks on the subject isLarry Shiner's The InventionofArt: A Cultural History (2001). Shiner suggests that e believe that rt is a universal

and transcendent anifestation f humankind ecausewe have taken ur ideaof art forthewhole of art.He suggests,however, that he ontemporary onceptof art synonymouswith fine rt ) isamodem invention ased on the ppositionbetween art fineart ) andcraft decorativeart ),which resulted from uropean social transformationshroughoutthe eighteenth entury. his notionof art as theoriginal expressionof an individualgenius,his reasoninggoes, developed between 1680 and 1830,with the riginofmarketeconomies and theriseof themiddle class. Other specialistshave similarly iscussed suchconcepts as beauty,aesthetics, nd image (e.g.,Belting 1990; Elkins 1995).REFERENCES CITED

Alcalde delRio, H., H. Breuil, andL. Sierra. 191 1.Les cavernes de la regioncantabrique.Monaco: A. Chene.Alcolea, J., andR. Balbin. 2007. C'4 et style:La chronologiede l'artparietal 'a1'heureactuelle.L'Anthropologie 111:435-66.Anderson, R. L. 1979.Art in rimitive ocieties.Englewood Cliffs: PrenticeHall..1990. Calliope's sisters:A comparativestudy fphilosophies of art.EnglewoodCliffs:PrenticeHall.Ashcroff,B., G. Griffiths, ndH. Tiffin. 1989. The empirewrites back: Theory andpractice in ost-colonial literatures. ondon: Routledge.Bahn, P. G. 1995. Cave artwithout the aves.Antiquity 9:231-37.Bahn, P. G., and J. ertut 1988. Imagesof the ceAge.New York: Facts on File.Bar-Yosef, 0. 2002. The Upper Paleolithic revolution. nnual Review ofAnthropology31:363-93.Bard, E., F. Rostek, andG. Menot-Combes. 2004. A betterradiocarbon clock. Nature303:178-79.Bataille, G. 1955. Lascaux ou la naissance de 'art. eneve: Skira.Bazin, G. 1958.Histoire de l'art de laprehistoirea nosjours. Paris:Massin.Becq, A. 1994. Genese de V'esthetiquefrancaisemoderne. De la raison classique al'imagination reatrice 1680-1814. Paris: Albin Michel.Bednarik,R. 1996. Crisis inPalaeolithic art studies. nthropologie34:123-30.Belting,H. 1990. Bild undKult: eine Geschichte des Bildes vordem ZeitalterderKunst.Munchen: C. H. Beck.Beltran,A. 1992. Crisis in traditional deas about European rock art:The question ofdiffusion and convergence, inRock art in theOld World: Papers presented inSymposium of the URACongress,Darwin (Australia).Edited byM. Lorblanchet,pp. 401-13. New Delhi: IndiraGandhiNational Centre forthe rts.Blocker,H. G. 1994. The aesthetics fprimitivert.Lanham:University ressofAmerica.Bocherens,H., D. G. Drucker,D. Billiou, J.M. Geneste, and J.van der Plicht.2006. Bearsand humans inChauvet Cave (Vallon-Pont-d'Arc,Ardeche, France): Insightsfromstable isotopes nd radiocarbon ating fbone collagen.Journal fHuman Evolution20:370-76.Bourdieu, P. 1992. Les regles de 'art:Genese et structure u champ litteraire. aris:Seuil.BrayW., andD. Trump. 1970. A dictionary f archaeology.London: Penguin.Breuil,H. 1952.Quatre centsicles d'artparital. Les cavernesorneesde 1 dgedu renne.Montignac: Centred'Etudes etdeDocumentationPrehistoriques.Brezillon,M. 1969.Dictionnaire de laprehistoire.Paris: Larousse.



20/25

PALEOLITHIC ART STUDIES 547Capitan, L., and L. Bouyssonie. 1924. Un atelier d'art prehistorique. Limeul. Songisement ' gravures surpierres de l'age du Renne. Paris: Publications de l'Institut

International'Anthropologie.Chauvet, J.-M., . Brunel-Deschamps,and C. Hillaire. 1995. La grotteChauvet a' VallonPont-d'Arc. Paris: Seuil.Chippindale, C., and P. S. Tagon. 1998. The archaeology of rock-art.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress..2006.What's in a word,what's in hyphen?A modest proposal that e abandonthewords petroglyph nd pictograph, and hyphenate rock-painting, rockengraving, rock-art mong thewords we use. Rock Art Research 23:254-57.Clarke,D. L. 1973.Archaeology: The loss of innocence. ntiquity 7:6-18.Clottes, J. 1996. Thematic changes inUpper Palaeolithic art:A view from theGrotteChauvet.Antiquity 0:276-88.. 1998. The 'ThreeCs': Fresh avenues towards uropean Palaeolithic art, inThe archaeology of rock-art. dited byC. Chippindale andP. S. Tagon, pp. 112-29.Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress..2003. ChauvetCave: The artofearliest times. alt Lake City:UniversityofUtahPress.Clottes, J., and J.Courtin. 1994. La grotteCosquer: Peintures etgravures de la grotteengloutie.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. Lespeinturesde laGrotteChauvet-Pontd'Arc, 'a allon-Pont d'Arc (Arde'che, rance):Datations directeset indirectes ar lamethode du radiocarbone.Compte Rendus delaAcadgmie de Sciences 320 (IIa): 1130-40. Paris.Clottes, J.,J. ourtin,andL. Vanrell. 2005. Cosquer redecouvert. aris: Seuil.Combier, J. 1995. Les grottes ornees de l'Arde'che.L'art prehistorique.Dossiersd'Archeologie209:66-85.Conard,N. 2003. Palaeolithic ivory culptures rom outhwesternermanyand the riginsof figurativert. ature 426:830-32.Conkey,M. W. 1987.New approaches inthe earch formeaning?A reviewof research nPalaeolithicart. JournalofField Archaeology 14:413-30.. 1997. Mobilizing ideologies: Palaeolithic 'art,' gender trouble, nd thinkingabout alternatives, nWomen inhuman evolution. dited byL. D. Hager, pp. 172207. 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 derPlicht,C. B. Ramsey,H. Valladas,J.Clottes, J.-M.Geneste. 2007. Radiocarbon intercomparison rogramfor hauvetCave. Radiocarbon 49:339-47.Delluc, B., andG. Delluc. 1999. El artepaleolitico arcaico enAquitania.De losorigenesa Lascaux. Edades. Revista deHistoria 6:145-65.Delporte,H. 1981. L 'objet 'artprehistorique.Paris: Editions de laReunion desMuseesNationaux.1990. L 'imagedes animauxdans l'artprehistorique. ahors: Picard Editeur.

D'Errico, F. 2003. The invisible frontier. multiple speciesmodel fortheoriginofbehavioralmodernity. volutionaryAnthropology 2:188-202.D'Errico, F., J. ilhao,M. Julien,. Baffler, ndJ. elegrin.1998.Neanderthal acculturationinwesternEurope?A criticalreview of theevidence and itsinterpretation.urrentAnthropology 9:sl-s44.D'Errico, F., C. Henshilwood, G. Lawson, M. Vanhaeren,A.-M. Tillier,M. Soressi,



21/25

548 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCHF. Bresson, B. Maurille, A. Nowell, J.Lakarra, L. Backwell, andM. Julien. 003.Archaeological evidence for the mergenceof language, symbolism, ndmusic: Analternative ultidisciplinary erspective.JournalofWorldPrehistory17:1-70.Dissanayake, E. 1980.Art as a humanbehavior:Toward anethologicalview ofart.JournalofAesthetics ndArt Criticism38:397-406.. 1982.Aesthetic experienceand human evolution.JournalofAesthetics andArtCriticism41:145-155.1987. What isartfor? Seattle:University ofWashington Press.1992.Homo aestheticus:Where art comesfrom ndwhy.New York: Free Press.2000.Art and intimacy: ow the rts began. Seattle: UniversityofWashingtonPress.Dupont,M. E. 1872.L 'Homme endant lesages de lapierre dans les environsdeDinantsur-Meuse.Bruxelles: C.Muquardt.

Elkins, J. 1995. Art history nd images that re not art.The Art Bulletin77:553-71.Evans, J. 1867.Man and his earliest knownworks. Two lectures elivered at the peningof the lackmoreMuseum. London: H. F. andE. Bull.. 1878. Les ages de la pierre. Instruments,rmes et ornementsde la GrandeBretagne. Paris: Germer Bailliere. (Originallypublished inEnglish in 1872)Fisher, G., and D. D. Loren. 2003. Introduction: mbodying identity n archaeology.CambridgeArchaeological Journal 13:225-30.Geneste, J.-M. 2005. L'archdologie des vestigesmateriels dans lagrotte hauvet-Pontd'Arc. Bulletin de la Societ6PrehistoriqueFranqaise 102:135-44.Geneste, J.-M.,J.-P.Fagnart,and J.-J. elannoy. 2005. La grottede Chauvet a VallonPont-d'Arc:Un bilan des recherchesmultidisciplinaires (Actes de la seance de laSociete Prehistorique ranqaise, 11 et 12 octobre2003, Lyon). Bulletin de laSoci&tdPrehistoriqueFranqaise 102:whole no.Gonzalez Sainz, C. 1999. Sobre la organizaci6n cronol6gica de las manifestacionesgrAficasdel paleolitico superior.Perplejidades y algunos apuntes desde la regioncantaibrica.dades. Revista de Historia 6:123-44.Greer,M., and J.Greer. 2007. Rock arthistory nd use of the term. ock Art Research24:127-31.Grun,R., and P. B. Beaumont. 2001. Border Cave revisited: revisedESR chronology.JournalofHuman Evolution 40:467-82.Guy, E. 2003. Esthetique et prehistoire:Pour une anthropologiedu style.L'Homme165:283-90.Haberland,W. 1986. Aesthetics inNative American art, in The arts of theNorthAmerican Indian.Edited byE. L.Wade, pp. 107-31. New York: HudsonHill Press.Hamilakis, Y., M. Pluciennick, and S. Tarlow, eds. 2002. Thinking through hebody:Archaeologies of corporeality. ew York: Kluwer.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, andA. G. Wintle. 2002. Emergence ofmodem human behavior:Middle StoneAge engravings from outhAfrica. Science295:1278-80.Heyd, T. 2005. Aesthetics and rock art:An introduction, nAesthetics and rockart.Edited byT.Heyd and J. legg, pp. 1-17. Hampshire:Ashgate.Jorge,V. O., ed. 1995. Dossier Cda. Porto: Sociedade Portuguesa de Antropologia eEtnologia.Joyce, . A. 2005.Archaeology of thebody.Annual Review ofAnthropology 4:139-58.Kant, I. 1978. The critiqueofjudgement.Oxford:Clarendon Press. (Originallypublishedin1790)



22/25

PALEOLITHIC ART STUDIES 549Kasfir, S. 1992.African art nd authenticity: text ith a shadow.AfricanArts 25 :40-53,96-97.Klein, R. G. 2000. Archeology and the evolution of human behavoir. EvolutionaryAnthropology :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 ofNeanderthalgeneticdiversity. ature Genetics 26:144-46.Kristeller, 0. P. 1951-1952. The modem systemof the arts:A study in thehistory faesthetics.Journalof the istory of Ideas 12:496-527, 13:17-46.Laming-Emperaire, . 1962. La signification e l'art rupestrealeolithique. Paris: Picard.Layton,R. 199 la. The anthropology fart.Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress..199 lb. Figure,motif and symbol in thehunter-gathererockartof Europe andAustralia, inRock art and prehistory.Papers presented inSymposiumG of the

AURA Congress, Darwin, Australia, 1988. Edited by P. G. Bahn and A. Rosenfeld,pp. 23-38. Oxford: Oxbow.. 1992.Australian rock art: A new synthesis. ambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress.Leroi-Gourhan,A. 1957.Prehistoricman. New York: PhilosophicalLibrary..1964. Les religionsde laprehistoire.Palkolithique.Paris: PressesUniversitairesde France.. 1965. Treasures of prehistoric art (English version of Prehistoire de I'artoccidental, trans. orbertGuterman).New York: HarryN. Abrams.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 triomphe u naturalisme dans l'art paleolithique, inThelimitations f archaeological knowledge.Edited by J.Clottes and T. Shay,pp. 11540. Liege: Etudes etRecherchesArcheologique a l'Universitede Liege.1995. Les grottes ornees de la prehistoire.Nouveaux regards.Paris: EditionErrance.Lorblanchet,M., and P. Bahn. 1999.Diez aftos espuesde la Erapost-estilistica : ID6ndeestamosahora?Edades. Revista de Historia 6:115-21.Lubbock, J. 1870. The originof civilization nd the rimitive ondition fman. London:Longman.Marshack, A. 1990. Earlyhominidsymboland evolutionof thehumancapacity, inTheemergence fmodern humans:An archaeological perspective.Edited byP.Mellars,pp. 457-98. Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress.McBrearty, S., andA. Brooks. 2000. The revolution hat asn't: A new interpretationfthe riginofmodem humanbehavior.JournalofHuman Evolution 39:453-63.Mellars, P. 2004. Neanderthals and themodem human colonization of Europe.Nature432:461-65..2005. The impossiblecoincidence:A single-speciesmodel fortheoriginsofmodem humanbehavior inEurope.EvolutionaryAnthropology14:12-27.2006. A new radiocarbonrevolution nd thedispersal ofmodem humans inEurasia.Nature 439:931-35.Montserrat,D., ed. 1998. Changing bodies, changingmeanings: Studies on thehumanbody in ntiquity. ondon: LeicesterUniversityPress.Moro-Abadia, 0. 2006. Art, crafts, nd Palaeolithic art.Journalof Social Archaeology6:119-41.Moro-Abadia, O., andM. R.Gonzalez-Morales. 2004. Towards agenealogyof the oncept



23/25


24/25

PALEOLITHIC ART STUDIES 551Swartz,B. K. 2007. On rock art history nd terminology.ock ArtResearch 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 han ours?Before Farming 2:1-9.Taborin,Y. 2002. Les objets de parureet lescuriosa, inL'Aurignacien de la grotteduRenne: les fouilles d'Andre Leroi-Gourhan a'Arcy-sur-Cure (Yonne). SupplementGallia Prehistoire XXIV. Edited byB. Schmider,pp. 251-56. Paris:CNRS..2003. La parure en coquillage au Palkolithique. SupplementGallia PrehistoireXXXIX. Paris: CNRS.Tatarkiewicz,W. 1963. Classification of arts inantiquity. ournalof the istoryof Ideas2:231-40.Tomaskova', S. 1997. Places of art:Art and archaeology, inBeyond art: Pleistocene

image and symbol.Edited byM. W. Conkey, 0. Soffer, . Stratmann, ndN. G.Jablonski, p. 265-87. San Francisco:Allen Press.Torgovnick,M. 1989.Making primitive igh Art. Poetics Today 10:299-328.. 1990. Gone primitive:Savage intellects, odern lives.Chicago: University ofChicago Press.Tribolo, C., N. Mercier,M. Selo, H. Valladas, J.-L.Joron,J.-L.Reyss, C. Henshilwood,J.Sealy, andR. Yates. 2006. TL datingofburnt ithicsfrom lombos Cave (SouthAfrica): Further videncefor he ntiquityfmodem humanbehaviour.Archaeometry48: 341-57.Trinkaus,E. 2005. Earlymodem humans.AnnualReview ofAnthropology 4:207-30.Ucko, P. J. 1987. Debuts illusoires dans la tradition rtistique.Bulletin de la SocietePrehistoriqueAriege,Pyrenees42:15-81Ucko P. J.,andA. Rosenfeld. 1967. Palaeolithic cave art. London: World UniversityLibrary.Valladas, H, and J.Clottes. 2003. Style,Chauvet and radiocarbon. ntiquity 7:142-45.Valladas, H., N. Tisnerat-Laborde,H. Cachier,M. Arnold, F. Bernaldo de Quiros, V.Cabrera-Valdes, J. lottes, J. ourtin,J.J.Fortea-Perez,C. Gonzalez Sainz, andA.Moure-Romanillo. 2001. Radiocarbon AMS dates forPalaeolithic cave paintings.Radiocarbon 43:977-86.Valladas, H., J. lottes, and J.-M.Geneste. 2004. Chauvet la grotte rnee lamieux dateedumonde. Dossier pour la Science 42:82-87.Valladas, H., N. Tisnerat-Laborde, . Cachier,E. Kaltnecker,M. Arnold,C. Oberli, and J.Evin. 2005. Bilan des datationscarbone 14 effectuees urdes charbonsde bois de lagrotte hauvet. Bulletinde laSociete PrehistoriqueFrancaise 102:109-13.Vanhaeren,M. 2005. Speakingwith beads: The evolutionary ignificance f personalornaments, inFrom tools to symbols:From early hominids tomodern humans.Edited by F. d'Errico and L. Backwell, pp. 525-53. Johannesburg: itwatersrandUniversityPress.Vanhaeren,M., andF. d'Errico. 2006. Aurignacian ethno-linguistic eography fEuroperevealedby personal ornaments.JournalofArchaeological Science 33:1105-28.Vanhaeren,M., F. d'Errico, I.Billy, andF. Grousset. 2004. Tracing thesourceofUpper

Palaeolithic shell beads by strontium sotope dating. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 31:1481-88.Vialou, D. 1998.Problematiquede l'interpretatione l'artpaleolithique.Rivistadi ScienzePreistoricheXLIX: 267-81.,ed. 2004. La prehistoire.Historie et dictionnaire.Paris: Robert Laffont.Wagner, G. A. 1998. Age determination f young rocks and artifacts:Physical and



25/25

552 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCHchemical clocks inQuaternarygeology and archaeology.Berlin: Springer.Wendt, W. E. 1974. Art mobilier aus derApollo XI Grotte in Stidwest-Afrika. ctaPraehistorica etArchaeologica 5:1-42.

White, R. 1992. Beyond art: Toward an understandingof the origins of materialrepresentationnEurope.Annual Review ofAnthropology 1:537-64.. 1997. Substantial acts: From materials tomeaning inUpper Palaeolithicrepresentation, nBeyond art: Pleistocene imageand symbol.Edited byM. W.Conkey, 0. Soffer, . Stratmann, nd N. G. Jablonski, p. 93-121. San Francisco:Allen Press..2002. Observation technologiquessur les objects de parure, in 'Aurignaciende la grotte du Renne: Les fouilles d'Andre Leroi-Gourhan a Arcy-sur-Cure(Yonne). Edited by B. Schmider, pp. 257-66. Supplement Gallia PrehistoireXXXIV. Paris: CNRS..2003. Prehistoric art. The symbolic ourney of humankind.New York: HarryH. Abrams..2006. The women ofBrassempouy:A century f research and interpretation.JournalofArchaeologicalMethod and Theory13:250-303.Whitehouse,R. D. 1983. TheMacmillan dictionary f archaeology.London: Macmillan.Whitley, D. S. 2001. Rock art and rock art research in a worldwide perspective:Anintroduction, nHandbook of rock rt research.Edited by D. S.Whitley, pp. 7-51.Walnut Creek,CA: AltamiraPress.Wilson, T. 1898. Report from the U.S. National Museum for 1896. Washington:GovernmentPrinting ffice.Woodmansee,M. 1994. Theauthor, rtand themarket:Rereading the istory faesthetics.New York: ColumbiaUniversityPress.

Yates, T. 1993. Frameworks for an archaeology of the body, in Interpretive archaeology.Edited byC. Tilley, pp. 31-72. Oxford:Berg.Young, R. J.C. 2001. Postcolonialism.AnHistorical Introduction. xford: Blackwell.Zilhao, J.2007. The emergenceof ornaments nd art:An archaeological perspectiveonthe riginof behavioralmodernity. JournalofArchaeological Research 15:1-54.Ztichner,C. 1999. La Cueva de Chauvet, datada arqueol6gicamente. dades. Revista deHistoria 6:167-85.

Documents

Paleolithic Art Studies