paleolithic art: a cultural historyarchlocality.org/paleolithicart_files/paleolithic art-a cultural...

J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269-306 DOI 1 0. 1 007/s 1 08 1 4-0 1 2-9063-8

Paleolithic Art: A Cultural History

Oscar Moro Abadía * Manuel R. González Morales

Published online: 24 January 2013 © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract In this article we review the history of the terms and ideas that have been used to conceptualize Paleolithic art since the end of the 19th century. Between 1900 and 1970, prehistoric representations were typically divided into two main groups: parietal art (including rock and cave art) and portable (or mobiliáry) art. This classification gave rise to asymmetrical attitudes about Paleolithic images. In particular, many portable and nonfigurative representations were overlooked while a small number of cave paintings were praised for their realism. Although the portable/parietal division has remained a popular divide among archaeologists, in the last 30 years increasing numbers of specialists have crossed the boundaries established by these categories. They have developed new frameworks within which more kinds of images are meaningfully approached and incorporated into the analysis of Paleolithic art and symbolism. The emergence of new approaches to Pleistocene imagery is the result of a number of interrelated processes, including the globalization of Paleolithic art studies, the impact of new discoveries, and the development of new approaches to art, images, and symbolism.

Keywords Paleolithic art • Cave art • Portable art • Art history • Pleistocene imagery • Globalization

O. Moro Abadía (CE3) Department of Archaeology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland A1C 5S7, Canada e-mail: [email protected]

M. R. González Morales

Instituto Internacional de Investigaciones Prehistóricas, Edificio Interfacultativo, Avda. de los Castros s/n, Universidad de Cantabria, 3901 1 Santander, Spain e-mail: [email protected]

â Springer

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.11 on Mon, 09 Jan 2017 18:49:02 UTCAll use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

270 J Archaeol Res (20 13) 21 :269-306

Introduction

The animals represented in Paleolithic art are divided into: (a) impossible to identify, (b) beasts, (c) spirited, (d) humans with lions heads, (e) docile, (0 carved in deer horns, (g) terrifying felines, (h) jumpers, (i) restless, and (j) robust bison. Paleolithic art, the art of the last Ice Age, is usually divided into four groups: (a) portable or MOBILIÁRY ART [...] (b) deep engravings or bas-reliefs on large blocks of stone in rockshelters [...] (c) art on rock in the open air [...] (d) cave-art or PARIETAL ART (Bahn 2001, p. 344).

These two ways of arranging Paleolithic representations certainly foster different reactions among readers. The opening list, inspired by a famous short story by Borges (1996, pp. 85-86), will likely be considered a bizarre way of grouping prehistoric images. Paleolithic representations here are classified in a random fashion and grouped into a strange set of categories. The classification is unreasonable and illogical in reference to current standards. The absurdity of the Borges-inspired system contrasts with the feeling of familiarity associated with the second typology, proposed by Bahn (2001) in the Penguin Archaeological Guide. Most readers will find Bahn's approach a more useful way of ordering Paleolithic artwork. After all, archaeologists, anthropologists, and art historians have used categories such as mobiliáry art, engravings, rock art, and cave art for more than a century. This example illustrates how scholars operate within traditions that define appropriate and inappropriate ways of thinking and, of course, acceptable and unacceptable classifications.

In this article we examine the history of the terms and ideas used to conceptualize Paleolithic images. We begin with a detailed study of the language employed by archaeologists to describe Paleolithic representations. Textual analysis reveals that since the beginning of the 20th century, Paleolithic images have been primarily divided into two main groups: parietal art (including rock and cave art) and portable (or mobiliáry) art. The prevalence of this classification relates to a number of factors. First, the parietal/portable dichotomy is a technological classification based on an objective division of Paleolithic artwork; one form of art is movable and the other is not. Second, these categories are firmly rooted within the modern system of art, i.e., the system of ideas, practices, and institutions that have determined Western understandings of art throughout the last two centuries. This system has influenced the interpretation of Paleolithic images in many ways. In particular, we argue that the parietal/portable division is reminiscent of the modern distinction between arts and crafts.

A survey of the terminology sets the stage for further exploration of the complex and multiple ways in which Paleolithic representations have been conceptualized during the last century. We examine the period during which the parietal/portable division became the prevalent way of classifying Paleolithic representations (c. 1900-1970). At that time, French specialists Henri Breuil and André Leroi-Gourhan dominated the field of Paleolithic art studies and publications focused on the Franco-Cantabrian region. Furthermore, the interpretation of Pleistocene images

Ô Springer


J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269-306 271

was subject to the authority of art history. For instance, Paleolithic art specialists borrowed some of their working concepts (such as style, perspective, and realism) from art historians. Similarly, the "naturalistic" ideal, prevalent in art theory since the Renaissance, guided the interpretation of prehistoric images. In this setting, the most realistic cave paintings and statuettes were generally praised for their accuracy and truthfulness and nonfigurative artwork was largely ignored. The main effect of the repeated use of the parietal/portable distinction at that time was that most specialists focused on cave paintings and underestimated the importance of thousands of portable artifacts and personal ornaments. While terms such as cave art, rock art, and mobiliáry art have passed into the

common parlance of Pleistocene art specialists, modern research has ceased to be driven or conditioned by a broad acceptance of the portable/parietal dichotomy. As we discuss below, in the last 30 years (c. 1980-2010) innovative approaches that integrate new kinds of images into analyses of Paleolithic imagery have emerged. This process is the result of new discoveries (such as Grotte Cosquer, Fig. 1), new methodologies, and certain changes in a number of disciplines concerned with prehistoric images, including archaeology, anthropology, art history, and visual studies. In the last three decades an increasing number of Paleolithic representations have been reported in Africa, America, Asia, and Australia. These discoveries have made clear that European cave paintings are among hundreds of depictions that constitute Paleolithic visual cultures, including cupules, geometric marks, dots, and finger markings. In addition, since the 1970s archaeologists have shifted their focus from the study of Paleolithic art (mainly cave paintings) to the analysis of all kind of Pleistocene images. This shift parallels similar developments in the conceptualization of art and images in anthropology, art history, and visual studies. The broadening of the concept of Paleolithic art has thus entailed a rapid diversification of approaches to Pleistocene imagery and symbolism. In this setting, different kinds of specialists have approached Pleistocene visual cultures from diverse viewpoints and perspectives, including hunter-gatherer material culture, the origins of modern human behavior, and the relationships between art and technology. In short, the parietal/portable distinction has ceased to play an encompassing role in modern Pleistocene art research. We conclude by raising the question of whether the above- mentioned developments reflect a paradigm shift in the conceptualization of Pleistocene images.

The conceptualization of Paleolithic art

To determine the origins and meanings of the main categories used by Western scholars to classify Paleolithic images, we examine a select corpus of English and French publications that have appeared since the 1960s. Our analysis consists of three levels. First, we analyze archaeology and prehistory textbooks. Rarely written by specialists on Pleistocene art, these books are marketed as comprehensive reviews for archaeology students. Second, we focus on dictionaries and encyclopedias in which archaeologists provide comprehensive coverage of the main concepts used in archaeological research. These reference works are generally

â Springer


272 J Archaeol Res (201 3) 2 1 :269-306

Fig. 1 Grotte Cosquer (photograph by and reproduced with Jean Clones' permission)

written for teachers, students, professional archaeologists, and archaeology enthu- siasts. Third, we examine books and papers written by Paleolithic art specialists that are addressed to a more specialized audience. Here we focus on works in which the conceptualization of Paleolithic art is explicitly addressed. The picture that emerges from this textual corpus is homogeneous. Analysis of

these publications demonstrates that Paleolithic representations are first and foremost divided into parietal and portable categories. The former includes engravings, bas-relief sculptures, paintings, drawings, stencils, and prints found on the walls of caves (cave art) and on open-air stone surfaces (rock art). The latter refers to a heterogeneous range of portable items, including statuettes and ivory carvings, engraved bones and stones, personal ornaments, and slightly modified natural objects. Archaeology textbooks typically divide Paleolithic artwork into cave art and portable art (Crabtree and Campana 2006, p. 149; Renfrew and Bahn 2000, pp. 392-394), rock art and mobiliáry art (McDonald 2006, p. 59), mural art and portable art (Price and Feinman 2010, p. 131), cave paintings and carvings and engravings (Feder and Park 2007, pp. 369-376), or art mobilier , art pariétal , and art rupestre (Otte 1999, p. 216). Dictionaries and encyclopedias that appeared before 1990 often distinguished between cave/parietal art and mobiliáry art (Bray and Trump 1970, p. 51; Brézillon 1969, p. 35; Leroi-Gourhan 1988, p. 70; Whitehouse 1983, pp. 92, 331, 332). The dictionaries published since the mid-1990s, however, differentiate between cave art, rock art, and portable art (Bednarik 2003, pp. 6, 12, 16; Darvill 2002, pp. 266, 636; Fagan 1996, pp. 593-595; Vialou 2004, pp. 242-246). Other dictionaries include deep engravings and bas-reliefs in this classification (Bahn 1992a, p. 378, 2001, pp. 297, 344, 348; Kipfer 2000, pp. 418, 483). The parietal/portable distinction also is the primary way in which specialists order Paleolithic representations. Most French scholars endorse a distinction between Vart pariétal et rupestre (sometimes called Vart des parois) and Vart mobilier (Brézillon 1984, p. 30; Delporte 1979, p. 12, 1990, p. 32;

ô Springer


J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269-306 273

Laming-Emperaire 1962, pp. 21-22; Leroi-Gourhan 1970, p. 206; Lorblanchet 1995, pp. 13-25, 2004, p. 13). In English-speaking countries, the notions of rock art, cave art, and portable art are clearly dominant (Bahn 1997, p. 41; Bahn and Vertut 1988, pp. 17, 18, 34; Bednarik 2001, pp. 194, 199-201; Bradley 1997, pp. 4-5; Dickson 1990, p. 96; Sieveking 1979, p. 7; White 1986, p. 7). The presence of these categories in the titles of a number of seminal works corroborates the widespread use of the parietal/portable system (e.g., Chippindale and Taçon 1998; Clottes 2008; Delluc and Delluc 1991; Lewis-Williams 1983; Sauvet and Wlodarczyk 1995; Vialou 1986; Whitley 2001). In short, rock, parietal, cave, and portable are pervasive distinctions in Paleolithic

art studies. The main question is why prehistoric representations have been recurrently arranged in such a manner. To begin, the parietal/portable dichotomy refers to an objective classification based on certain features that are part of Paleolithic works of art, such as their media and portability. This classification is about the difference between human-made representations that are fixed in a cave (or in the landscape) and those that are movable. In this sense, parietal and portable images provide archaeologists with different kinds of information. As many researchers have pointed out, portable objects have the potential to move great distances and to express the social statuses of groups and individuals (Farbstein 2011; Joyce 2005; Vanhaeren 2005; Vanhaeren and D'Errico 2006; White 2003). For this reason, they are considered good indicators of social and individual identities (White 1999; Zilhão 2007), economic networks (Alvarez Fernández 2002; Kuhn and Stiner 2007), and technological choices (Vanhaeren and D'Errico 2006; White 1993, 1995, 2010). On the other hand, parietal images fixed on the walls of caves (or on the surface of land) might serve as markers of the landscape (Bradley 1991, 1997, 2009; Chippindale and Nash 2004), ritual spaces (Dowson 1994; Ouzman 1998, 2001), and symbolic systems for transmitting social values and information (Barton et al. 1994; Conkey 1984). Although the portable/parietal dichotomy is a technological classification that

does not explicitly judge the quality of art, these categories have been prejudiced and biased in their use. Paralleling other disciplines, Paleolithic art specialists have historically imposed additional meanings, values, and connotations onto their technical terms. The very meaning of these concepts has significantly changed in the last century. For instance, while personal ornaments were typically ignored during the first half of the 20th century, these items are now considered valuable for accessing the social universe of Paleolithic groups. We argue that art history and art theory became the main sources of influence in the conceptualization of Pleistocene art during the first half of the 20th century. Thus, some of the preconceptions and views associated with the terms used to describe Paleolithic images are embedded in contemporary understandings of art. For this reason, we briefly summarize the main traits defining the modern system of art (Kristeller 1951, p. 496; Shiner 2001, p. 14). As several authors have pointed out, from classical Greece to the end of the 17th

century, what we call "the arts" were classified together with crafts and analyzed in terms of the "construction paradigm" (Abrams 1985a, p. 10, 1985b, p. 19; Kristeller 1951, p. 498; Shiner 2001, p. 19). According to this perspective, a work of art was primarily an imitation based on rules, something made according to a techne or ars (Abrams 1985b, p. 17; Kristeller 1951, p. 498; Shiner 2001, p. 19; Tatarkiewicz

â Springer


274 J Archaeol Res (20 1 3) 2 1 :269-306

1963, p. 231, 1970, p. 49). This model assumed the maker's stance toward a work of art (Abrams 1985a, p. 10). It took for granted that the making of art was the essential artistic experience. Over the course of the 18th century, however, this traditional concept of art split into new categories of "the fine arts" - poetry, painting, sculpture, architecture, and music - and "crafts or popular arts," including jewelry, pottery, and embroidery (Abrams 1985a, p. 13; Kristeller 1951, p. 498; Shiner 2001, p. 5; Summers 2003, p. 31). This division entailed important changes in the definitions of art and artist. First, the construction model was replaced by the contemplation model, according to which the genuine artistic experience was "one in which a perceiver confronts a completed work of art, [defining] the way he perceives that work as 'contemplation,' that is 'disinterested' or 'detached' " (Abrams 1985b, pp. 19-20). Second, artists and artisans became opposed. Whereas the artist was considered a genius who was able to create an object of refined pleasure by means of his/her imagination, the artisan was said to be a skilled craftsperson who applied mechanical rules to the making of standardized products (Shiner 2001, p. 115; Summers 2003, p. 31). This shift from the traditional idea of ars to the modern system of arts began

during the Renaissance and culminated in the 18th century in response to new social circumstances. The 18th century saw the emergence of a new mode of life in several European countries: connoisseurship (Abrams 1985a, p. 14; Whitehead 2005, pp. 3-37). The term "connoisseur" was coined to refer to gentlemen who were especially competent in critiquing art pieces, particularly those in the fine arts (Read 1942; Simpson 1951; Summers 2003, p. 550). Interest for objects of fine taste similarly grew steadily among the European upper-middle classes. This bourgeon- ing demand encouraged the appearance of a variety of institutions that "for the first time gathered together [...] an entirely distinctive class of things called 'the fine arts' " (Abrams 1985a, p. 26). Some examples illustrate this institutional revolution. The emergence of a large middle class that read literature fueled the establishment of circulating libraries and the development of periodical publications (Abrams 1985a, p. 18; Shiner 2001, p. 88). Similarly, over the course of the 18th century numerous institutions began to offer public concerts (Shiner 2001, p. 92). This period also witnessed the opening of nearly all the most important Western public art museums. The British Museum opened in 1753, the Louvre palace was converted into Le Muséum Central des Arts in 1793, the Spanish Royal Museum of Painting and Sculpture (Museo del Prado) opened to the public in 1819, the National Gallery of London was created in 1824, and the Alte Pinakothek was inaugurated in München in 1836. In short, in the span of 100 years (1750-1850) the foundations of the modern system of art were firmly established in Europe. The side effect of this new way of understanding art was the "denigration of craft [...] by both industrial capitalism and the Academy" (Bermingham 1992, p. 162). With the rise of aesthetics, crafts were stigmatized as mere technical activities. Craftworks were characterized as the products of a mechanical and repetitive reproduction of models (Smith 2006, p. 91) and, in this sense, were opposed to the fine arts (seen as the result of spontaneous creativity). Crafts also were assumed to depend on rules and imitation; the artisan was considered a skilled craftsperson relying on practical knowledge rather than on innovation and inspiration.

Springer


J Archaeol Res (201 3) 2 1 :269-306 275

The institutional changes associated with the appearance of "fine art" took place along with a fundamental shift in Western representationalism. Since the 15th century, art and especially paintings were highly influenced by naturalism, a doctrine establishing that the artist's main aim was "the imitation of visual experience and, as far as painting was concerned, the representation on a two- dimensional surface of a three-dimensional world" (Penrose 1973, pp. 247-248). The Renaissance witnessed the emergence of a new mode of representation in which the elements of art were "presumed to coincide with the elements of optical experience" (Summers 1987, p. 3). The system of naturalism (Summers 1987, p. 6) became prevalent together with the invention of a number of technical innovations, including modeling (the systematic gradation of surfaces from light to dark to create virtual forms), foreshortening (distorting or reducing parts of figures in order to obtain three-dimensional effects), and optical perspective. The naturalistic ideal remained prevalent in art theory from the Renaissance until the end of the 19th century. For this reason, the history of art during this long period was described as "the forging of master keys for opening the mysterious locks of our senses to which only nature herself originally held the key" (Gombrich 1960, p. 289). It was only at the beginning of the 20th century that a number of artists reacted against the importance given to the imitation of nature in Western art. As we seek to demonstrate in the next section, the influence of the modern system

of art on Paleolithic art studies was particularly important in the formative years of the discipline. In the first place, the parietal/portable dichotomy that became popular among archaeologists at the beginning of the 20th century was reminiscent of the fine arts/crafts distinction. This parallel does not mean that Pleistocene art specialists established a direct link between parietal art and the fine arts and between portable art and crafts, but important analogies between these categories were established. For instance, Paleolithic art scholars inherited the modern fascination for the fine arts and, in particular, paintings. Similarly, if art theorists and historians

denigrated crafts, archaeologists paid little attention to certain portable pieces (such as personal ornaments). In the second place, the naturalistic ideal prevalent in art theory until the 20th century also determined archaeologists' evaluations of Paleolithic artwork. This explains why the paintings of Altamira and Niaux (Fig. 2) were initially celebrated for their realism, whereas thousand of nonfigurative representations were ignored in most Paleolithic art accounts.

Paleolithic art divided: The parietal/portable dichotomy

Here we describe the great division in conceptualizations of Paleolithic art that occurred over the course of the first half of the 20th century, when Pleistocene images were categorized into parietal and portable. We identify the roots of this division in the recognition of Paleolithic art at the end of the 19th century and examine the processes through which the parietal/portable dichotomy became the main way of classifying Paleolithic representations in the first years of the 20th century. We also explore the impact of this division on interpretations of Paleolithic art from 1900 to 1970. In particular, we suggest that the main consequence of the

^ Springer


276 J Archaeol Res (20 1 3) 2 1 :269-306

Fig. 2 Niaux (photograph by and reproduced with Jean Clottes' permission)

systematic use of these categories during this 70-year period was that archaeologists tended to overemphasize the importance of cave paintings to the detriment of portable objects. The recognition of Paleolithic art has been the subject of a great deal of

scholarship (e.g., Bahn 1992b, 1997; Bahn and Vertut 1988; Freeman 1994; Moro Abadía 2006; Moro Abadía and González Morales 2004), so we limit ourselves here to a brief summary of how this authentication determined Western conceptualizations of prehistoric images. The existence of Paleolithic art was first established in the 1860s through the discovery of engraved and carved bones associated with prehistoric tools in southwestern France (Lartet and Christy 1864). In subsequent decades, a considerable number of similar objects, including statuettes and carvings, were found in caves and rock shelters in France and Spain (e.g., Piette 1873, 1894, 1902, 1904). In L'art pendant l'âge du Renne , the first catalog of Paleolithic portable artwork, Piette (1907) reproduced 100 plates containing hundreds of statuettes, engraved bones, and decorated objects. While portable art was authenticated in a relatively short period of time, the archaeological establishment initially neglected the discovery of the caves of Altamira (Sanz de Sautuola 1880) and Chabot (Chiron 1889). It was only after the discovery of La Mouthe, les Combarelles, and Font-de-Gaume at the turn of the 20th century that the authenticity of parietal art was established (Capitan 1902a; Cartailhac 1902). Two central lessons can be drawn from this process of recognition of Paleolithic

art. First, the delay in the authentication of cave paintings reveals the different statuses that paintings and carvings had in the minds of late 19th-century archaeologists. As Conkey (1997, p. 175) notes, "the portable art, the crafts of

40 Springer


J Archaeol Res (20 13) 21 :269-306 277

carving were more readily accepted, whereas the sometimes polychrome and 'naturalistic' paintings in cave 'galleries' were unlikely products of distant beings who had barely been admitted into the human family." In other words, cave paintings were considered too advanced to have been created by primitive people. For this reason, the prehistoric antiquity of Altamira was not accepted until the beginning of the 20th century. Second, the naturalistic ideal that had oriented art history since the Renaissance conditioned the interpretation of Paleolithic portable objects at the end of the 19th century. At that time, most archaeologists conceptualized portable art according to a double standard. On the one hand, they tended to celebrate elegant or finely crafted pieces, such as those from Brassempouy (e.g., Piette 1894, 1907). On the other hand, thousands of less realistic items were characterized as mere decorative pieces. This double standard remained prevalent during most of the 20th century. Furthermore, with the notable exception of Piette, the most important 19th-century prehistorians tended to conceptualize Paleolithic portable art as minor art. Paleolithic representational objects were often regarded as luxury pastimes (Cartailhac 1889, p. 78; Mortillet 1897, p. 241; Reinach 1889- 1894, p. 170), ornamental or decorative pieces (Evans 1878, p. 448; Wilson 1898, pp. 351-352), and naïve and infantile artwork (Dreyfus 1888, p. 224; Mortillet 1883, p. 416). Not surprisingly, Paleolithic artists were depicted as lacking reflection and foresight (Cartailhac 1889, p. 68; Mortillet 1883, p. 420), as artists incapable of creating complex compositions (Mortillet 1883, p. 416, 1897, p. 242), and as artisans particularly attached to ornaments (Dupont 1872, p. 155). The beginning of the 20th century witnessed a period of intense research that led

to the discovery of numerous sites with prehistoric art, including Le Mas d'Azil in 1901, Bernifal and La Ferraise in 1902, El Castillo, Covalanas, Hornos de la Peña, and Teyjat in 1903, El Pendo in 1905, Niaux in 1906, Le Cap-Blanc in 1910, La Pasiega in 1911, Le Tue d'Audoubert and Les Trois-Frères in 1912, and Santimamiñe in 1916. Classic taxonomies of Pleistocene art were established

during the first 15 years of the 20th century. Following a long-standing tradition, prehistoric art was often divided into engravings, sculptures, and paintings (e.g., Capitan 1902b, p. 1; Luquet 1926, p. 12; Reinach 1913, p. 7; Wilson 1898, p. 372). Each category was further subdivided into several groups. For instance, engraved representations were classified into engraved bones (Capitan et al. 1906, p. 429), engraved stones (Capitan et al. 1906, p. 435), and cave engravings (Capitan and Breuil 1902, p. 527; Capitan et al. 1902, p. 202, 1903, p. 364). Another popular classification among Paleolithic art specialists distinguished figurative and nonfigurative art. The former referred to artwork in which recognizable figures were portrayed; the latter included artistic forms that did not retain a clear reference to the

real world (Breuil 1906, p. 1; Luquet 1926, p. 12). In this context, early 20th-century archaeologists retained the commitment to resemblance and verisimilitude prevalent in art theory at that time. Paleolithic works of art were judged according to standards of representational accuracy, assuming that this skill had necessarily progressed from rude beginnings to three-dimensional representations. In this setting, the paintings of Altamira, Niaux, and Lascaux were considered genuine masterpieces (e.g., Breuil 1905, p. 120, 1941, p. 375; Cartailhac 1906, p. 535), and they were

Ö Springer


278 J Archaeol Res (20 13) 21 :269-306

compared to Renaissance frescoes (Breuil 1941, p. 375) and the Sistine chapel (Déchelette 1908, p. 150). The parietal/portable dichotomy was the third classification put forward by early

20th-century archaeologists (Breuil 1907, 1909, pp. 33-34; Capitan et al. 1913, p. 1; Cartailhac and Breuil 1906, pp. 123-143). Paradoxically, this was the last taxonomy to be coined and the most successful in the long term. The emergence of this division did not imply, however, that the above-mentioned typologies were completely substituted by the terms "parietal" and "portable." In fact, these taxonomies constituted complementary systems of classifying prehistoric representations. For example, Capitan (1931, p. 96) pointed out that "there are three kinds of primitive graphic arts: sculptures, engravings and paintings and they are found either in portable objects (bones, deer wood, ivory, stone) or fixed ( immobiliers ) objects." Similarly, Goury (1927, pp. 264-268) distinguished three main kinds of artistic manifestations: sculptures, engravings in mobiliáry objects, and parietal engravings and paintings. In other words, Paleolithic figures were often described according to several criteria. That being said, the terms parietal and portable became increasingly popular over the course of the first half of the 20th century. Examination of the most popular French manuals of archaeology and prehistory at that time illustrates this point. In his Manuel d'archéologie préhistorique celtique et gallo-romaine , Déchelette (1908, p. 239) distinguished between parietal engravings and paintings and between ornaments, sculptures, and engravings. De Morgan (1909, p. 132) proposed a similar classificatory scheme in Les premières civilizations. Some years later, Peyrony (1914, pp. 52, 86) classified Upper Paleolithic artwork into portable art and parietal art. Boule (1923, p. 259), in Les hommes fossils , and Capitan (1931, p. 96), in La préhistoire , used the same distinction. By the 1950s and 1960s these concepts had become very popular among Paleolithic art specialists (e.g., Breuil 1952a; Breuil and Lantier 1959; Laming- Emperaire 1962; Leroi-Gourhan 1970, p. 206; Raphaël 1945; Ucko and Rosenfeld 1967).

Although some specialists called for the unity of mobiliáry and cave representations (Cartailhac and Breuil 1906, pp. 137-143), the parietal/portable dichotomy established a major division in the understanding of Paleolithic images. In the case of portable art, this notion made reference to a heterogeneous corpus of transportable visual images, including statuettes, figurines, contours découpés , engraved implements, plaquettes , rondelles , perforated antler batons, and personal ornaments. Despite this diversity, during the first half of the 20th-century portable objects were judged in terms of their naturalism (or their lack of it). Breuil's work illustrates this point. In 1905, Breuil wrote a short thesis on prehistoric ornamentation to become professor (privatdozent ) at the University of Fribourg. In this paper, Breuil (1905) distinguished between two kinds of portable art. First, he praised the realism of some "animal representations engraved or sculpted in bone and ivory" (Breuil 1905, p. 105). He considered these carvings as genuine masterpieces that attested an extraordinary capacity for observation (Breuil 1905, p. 120). Second, Breuil examined a number of nonfigurative engravings in portable objects. He suggested that these ornamental designs were the result of a process of degradation (un procédé de dégénérescence) of naturalistic representations. He

Springer


J Archaeol Res (2013) 21 :269-306 279

argued that figurative representations might, through lack of skill, be reduced "to the miserable role of ornamental motifs" (Breuil 1905, p. 120). Breuil's scholarship is not the only instance of the definition of certain portable pieces in terms of ornamental and decorative arts. During the first half of the 20th century, portable works of art were often described as decorative elements (Breuil 1905), objets d'ornements (Capitan 1902b, p. 10; Capitan and Bouyssonie 1924, p. 30; Peyrony 1914, p. 55), and items primarily devoted to embellishment (Luquet 1930). Psychologist and art historian Georges-Henri Luquet, for instance, divided Paleolithic art into two categories: decorative art, including carvings and statuettes, that "reposed on the idea or the sentiment that artificial modifications of pre- existing objects render them more beautiful, more agreeable to the eye" (Luquet 1926, p. 39); and figurative art, involving the creation of a form on a surface that was not there beforehand (Luquet 1930, p. 2). Whereas Luquet considered prehistoric paintings the result of a genuine creative act, he regarded portable pieces as mere transformations of previous forms. This depiction of portable artwork contrasts with the definition of parietal art

prevalent during the first three-quarters of the 20th century. At that time, most archaeologists assumed that painting and drawing required higher technical and cognitive skills than those involved in making portable pieces. Ironically, this idea can be traced back to Piette's work. While Piette (1873, p. 38) held Paleolithic figurines in high esteem, he suggested that "humans had to make a considerable effort of genius in order to create the art of drawing: to represent three-dimensional objects on a flat surface by means of lines is not something that occurred to the human spirit from its origins; the art of sculpture led to bas-relief starting in the Solutrean; and the art of bas-relief developed into that of engraving and drawing in the following period." Mortillet and Breuil supported Piette's argument. In the second edition of Musée Préhistorique (Mortillet and Mortillet 1902, planche XXVIII), Mortillet argued that "the art of sculpting preceded that of engraving. This is something absolutely natural since engraving, i.e., representing three-dimensional forms on a flat surface, is a conventional art." Breuil (1909, p. 34) also adhered to Piette's idea that sculpting had preceded engraving ( sculpture d'abord, gravure ensuite). This idea remained popular among 20th-century archaeologists. According to de Morgan (1909, p. 133), "figurative art on the wall of the caves is even more interesting than the engraving or sculpting of small objects for it involves the making of full-scale representations. These images are much more difficult to create [than portable objects]." Capitan (1913, p. 705) also suggested that "the arts of drawing are in fact extremely complex [...] they involve a number of steps: perception of the object (including the perception of its form, its dimensions and its exact proportions); understanding of the object as a whole; and encoding of this information in the memory system." Supporters of the structuralist approach also implicitly assumed the technical superiority of parietal art. In fact, scholars such as Leroi-Gourhan (1982) and Laming-Emperaire (1962) devoted important treatises to Paleolithic artistic techniques. Significantly, they limited their analyses to parietal art.

The preeminent role of rock images in Paleolithic art research is best illustrated by the fact that before 1970, most theories purporting to explain prehistoric art were

^ Springer


280 J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269-306

founded on cave paintings. Specialists rarely took into account portable representations in considering the meanings of Paleolithic visual cultures. For example, leading archaeologists and art historians, including Reinach (1912), Bégouën (1929, p. 8), and Breuil (1949, p. 79), proposed hunting-magic explanations during the first half of the 20th century; these theories suggested that Paleolithic images were part of sympathetic rituals designed to guarantee success in the hunt. Significantly, the images selected to support these hypotheses were invariably cave paintings, including arrows superimposed on animals (such as in Les Trois-Frères and Niaux), triangular signs interpreted as throwing sticks, and images combining animal and human features (such as the "sorcerers" in Le Gabillou and Les Trois-Frères). Portable objects were typically excluded from hunting-magic explanations. Only certain statuettes, such as the "Venus" from Laugerie-Basse and Willendorf, were considered instances of a cult of fertility seeking to guarantee the group's reproduction. Even the monographs that allotted more importance to portable art, such as those of Zervos (1959) and Graziosi (1960), focused on parietal art to explain the meaning of prehistoric images. By the 1960s, art-as-magic interpretations were replaced by structuralism, a

theoretical framework that regarded Paleolithic images as symbols that reproduced an underlying mythogram (e.g., Laming-Emperaire 1962; Leroi-Gourhan 1965- 1995; Raphaël 1945). These authors suggested that Pleistocene representations were part of structured systems that reproduced a male-female binary structural principle. In several papers, Leroi-Gourhan (1970, p. 206, 1976, pp. 5-6) admitted that his work was based on cave paintings rather than on mobiliáry objects. He provided two main reasons. First, "unlike mobiliáry artwork[s] which have lost their connections with their material context, parietal works guarantee a complete understanding of their spatial disposition" (Leroi-Gourhan 1970, p. 206; see also Leroi-Gourhan 1976, pp. 5-6). In other words, Leroi-Gourhan stated that the contexts of parietal art are primary and those of portable art are secondary. While this is true, the irony is that mobiliáry pieces can be easily dated in those secondary contexts and parietal paintings can be dated only with difficulty. Second, he argued that the study of rock art had been dominated by a "need to explain" the meaning of prehistoric representations (un besoin d'expliquer, Leroi-Gourhan 1970, p. 206); for Leroi- Gourhan, in viewing these paintings scholars experience an "aesthetic feeling" that requires an explanation. Significantly, Leroi-Gourhan associated this aesthetic feeling only with rock art and not with portable pieces. In short, structuralism was based mainly on the analysis of cave paintings, including the definition of different areas within the cave, the position of animals on the decorated walls, and the association of certain representations. Portable objects were generally evoked to confirm the main hypotheses about the chronology, the distribution, and the meaning of parietal representations. In sum, we distinguish a number of traits that define Paleolithic art research from

1900 to 1970. First, most specialists were French, including Capitan, Reinach, Breuil, Luquet, Leroi-Gourhan, and Laming-Emperaire. Scholars from other countries played a minor role in prehistoric art studies. Second, nearly all publications on Pleistocene art heavily emphasized the Franco-Cantabrian traditions of South-Western Europe or restricted their coverage to this small geographic region

â Springer


J Archaeol Res (2013) 21 :269-306 281

(Bednarik 1996, p. 123). Paleolithic art was believed to be a European (mainly French and Spanish) phenomenon. Third, prehistoric art specialists were highly influenced by art history. Breuil (1907) and Leroi-Gourhan (1965-1995) suggested that prehistoric art had evolved from primitive to naturalistic representations. This idea had its origins in the interpretation of art history as progressing toward naturalism (Carrier 2008, p. 37; Elkins 2002, pp. 59-60). Fourth, Paleolithic art was systematically divided into parietal and portable representations. While this classification did not distinguish the significance of art, cave paintings were generally overemphasized relative to portable representational objects. A considerable number of Paleolithic representations (nonfigurative images, marks, personal ornaments) were disregarded in the analysis. As we show in the next section, however, vigorous signs of resistance to the parietal/portable dichotomy and, in particular, its effects on interpretations of Pleistocene visual cultures have emerged over the last 30 years.

Recent developments in the conceptualization of Paleolithic art

The parietal/portable dichotomy is still the most common way of classifying Paleolithic art among specialists, archaeologists, and the general public. This divide is a basic and useful typology, since movable and fixed forms of art are distinct media that reflect different aspects of Paleolithic art and symbolism. Furthermore, these technical terms have been used and accepted for so long that they are now difficult to replace (Bradley 1997, p. 5). The pervasiveness of the parietal/portable dichotomy does not mean, however, that the dichotomy is without critics. In the last 30 years several authors have explicitly called into question this "unjustifiable split within Paleolithic art" (Vialou 1998, p. 269). In particular, scholars have criticized the disdain for portable objects associated with this arrangement of Pleistocene representations (e.g., Clottes 1990, p. 5; Conkey 1997, pp. 174-175, 2010, p. 275; Nowell 2006, p. 245; White 1992, p. 541). Furthermore, recent developments in Paleolithic art studies have generated new avenues of research in which the parietal/ portable dichotomy is becoming less and less relevant. Here we consider three interrelated processes that explain, up to a point, recent developments in Paleolithic art research: the globalization of Pleistocene art studies, the broadening of the concept of Paleolithic art (best exemplified by the shift from the term "prehistoric art " to that of "Pleistocene images"), and the diversification of approaches to Paleolithic imagery and symbolism.

The globalization of Pleistocene art studies

Globalization has become a key concept in many social and human sciences (Ritzer 2010; Turner 2010; Waters 1995). As several authors have pointed out, this term refers to the intensification of worldwide social, economic, and cultural relationships (Giddens 1990, p. 64; Robertson 1992, p. 8). In the case of Paleolithic art studies, the impact of globalization has led to a number of important changes. First, in last 30 years archaeologists have effectively demonstrated that Paleolithic art is a

Springer


282 J Archaeol Res (201 3) 2 1 :269-306

worldwide phenomenon. Although today we take this for granted, it is important to keep in mind that as late as the 1960s leading specialists were persuaded that "beyond Europe, documents [were] few, very strange and insufficiently dated" (Leroi-Gourhan 1965-1995, p. 277). This belief had more to do with the Eurocentric bias that oriented prehistoric research than to a lack of evidence. The case of Namibian and South African rock paintings is a paradigmatic case of this ethnocentrism. Western scholars, including prehistoric art specialists, have known of the existence of this sophisticated rock art since the beginning of the 20th century (e.g., Cartailhac and Breuil 1906, pp. 173-199; Obermaier et al. 1930; Tongue 1909). Persuaded that the ancestors of African aboriginal peoples could have not created such advanced paintings, prestigious archaeologists and ethnologists like Dart (1925), Frobenius (1928), and Breuil (1952b) attributed these representations to travelers from Europe and Asia. The most notorious instance of this interpretation is the so-called "white lady of Brandberg." Discovered by Reinhart Maack in 1917, Breuil (1952b, p. 236) described this painting as "that of a young woman with a typically Mediterranean, perhaps Cretan profile" and that "her flesh is white and her hair dark reddish-brown [...] there can be no doubt about the Mediterranean character of the profile." Some years later, a less biased interpretation has led archaeologists to identify the white lady of Brandberg as a San painting depicting a man, probably a shaman, performing a ritual dance (Lewis-Williams 2000, pp. 69-71).

The Eurocentrism of Paleolithic art interpretations remained largely unchal- lenged until the 1970s. At that time, a number of political and cultural changes - the rise of postcolonial studies, the increasing resistance to racial segregation, and the entering of aboriginal groups into the political arena - promoted less Eurocentric views of non-European art. Furthermore, the worldwide expansion of systems of higher education after 1970 (Benavot 1992; Meyer et al. 1992) entailed the creation of departments of archaeology, anthropology, and art history in virtually all countries. As a result of these developments, an impressive number of sites with Paleolithic art have been discovered in Africa (Coulson and Campbell 2001 ; Deacon 2007; Le Quellec 2004; Lewis-Williams 2000, 2006), America (Loendorf et al. 2005; Whitley 2001), Australia (Bednarik 2010; Taçon 2010, 2011; Taçon et al. 2012), and Asia (Bednarik 1994; Olivieri 2010; Taçon et al. 2010). New institutions devoted to the documentation and preservation of sites with prehistoric art around the world have been created, including AURA (Australian Rock Art Research Association), IFRAO (International Federation of Rock Art Organisations), ARARA (American Rock Art Research Association), and the Bradshaw Founda- tion, a nonprofit organization based in Geneva. As a result of this globalization of knowledge production, the profile of prehistoric art specialists has significantly changed in the last decades. If until the 1960s most Paleolithic art specialists were French scholars mainly interested in European cave art, since the 1970s the study of Pleistocene art has attracted an increasing number of scholars from around the world. Moreover, since at least the 1960s, studies of Paleolithic art in most parts of the world have followed trends in anthropology, not art history. This anthropological turn explains recent developments in the conceptualization of Paleolithic images.

Springer


J Archaeol Res (2013) 21 :269-306 283

Recent developments in the conceptualization of Paleolithic images

In recent years, important changes in the terminology used to classify Paleolithic art have taken place. We distinguish two main processes that explain recent developments in the conceptualization of Pleistocene images. First, former concepts such as parietal and portable have taken on new meanings. Second, recent decades have witnessed the broadening of the concept of Paleolithic art beyond the parietal/ portable dichotomy. In this setting, prehistoric art specialists have incorporated new kinds of images, including abstract and nonfigurative depictions, into the analysis of prehistoric visual cultures.

The revalorization of portable art

As described above, the parietal/portable dichotomy engendered pejorative attitudes toward Paleolithic mobiliáry art. From 1900 to 1970, most specialists supported the idea that the manufacturing of portable items demanded less cognitive and technical skills than those required to paint or draw an animal on a rock surface. Second, scholars also tended to assume that certain portable items, such as ornaments or engraved pieces, were bagatelles or trifles of little value. Since the 1970s, however, this twofold prejudice concerning the manufacturing and the meaning of portable objects has been reexamined. Several archaeologists have demonstrated that the artistic skills involved in making Paleolithic figurines may be as complex as those required for cave paintings (e.g., Bosinski 1982; Clottes 1996; Conard 2003; Hahn 1986; Marshack 1985; Reinhardt et al. 1994; White 1992, 2006). The publication of Marshack's The Roots of Civilization in 1972 reawakened an interest in portable statuary. The sophisticated photographic techniques he used enabled specialists to see portable pieces with new eyes (Marshack 1972a). Some years later, the systematic application of optical and scanning electron microscopy led archaeologists to fully appreciate the complexity of certain portable pieces (e.g., D'Errico and Villa 1997; White 2006, 2007). Use of this technology has documented an impressive number of manufacturing procedures used in making prehistoric statuettes, including grooving, hammering, incising, pecking, scraping, polishing, and hacking (White 2006). Archaeologists also have questioned the minor role of mobiliáry materials in

interpretative theories. Whereas the potential social meanings of many forms of portable art (including decorated objects, engraved tools, and portable ornaments) were overlooked during the first half of the 20th century, since the 1970s numerous studies have demonstrated that portable pieces may possess highly symbolic value. These new characterizations of mobiliáry art have been influenced by the innovative approaches to the body that appeared after World War II. Although anthropological reflections on this topic can be traced back to Hertz (1928) and Mauss (1934), an "anthropology of the body" stricto sensu appeared in the 1970s. At that time, Douglas (1970), Blacking (1977), and others (e.g., Benthall and Polhemus 1975; Boltanski 1971; Polhemus 1978; Turner 1984) depicted human bodies as media of social and cultural expression. In this context, anthropologists became interested in the role played by bodily decorations in the transmission of social roles, statuses,

Springer


284 J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269-306

and memberships. They suggested that tattoos, hairstyles, engraved items, and personal ornaments were powerful means of expressing individual and collective identities (e.g., Schneider 1966; Turner 1980). Anthropological literature inspired an "archaeology of the body" that since the 1990s has conceptualized the body both as a surface of inscription that reflects the identity of past people (e.g., Fisher and Loren 2003; Hamilakis et al. 2002; Joyce 2005, 2008; White 1992, 2007) and as a site of embodied agency that articulates the relationships between the individual and his/her society (e.g., Boric and Robb 2008; Csordas 1994). In this framework, archaeologists have increasingly recognized the social and cultural significance of portable materials (e.g., Conard 2003; D'Errico et al. 2003; Farbstein 2006; Farbstein and Svoboda 2007; Nowell 2006; Taborin 2004; Vanhaeren and D'Errico 2006; White 1992, 1997, 2006, 2007).

Broadening the concept of Paleolithic art

If during the first half of the 20th century analysis of prehistoric art was restricted largely to cave paintings and the most spectacular carvings, during the last 40 years Paleolithic art studies have expanded to incorporate a wide variety of representations, including marks, abstract images (parietal or portable), and prehistoric ornaments. In this setting, authorized voices have proposed to replace traditional views, centered mainly on Paleolithic art , by new approaches interested in all kind of images. The current revalorization of nonfigurative representations illustrates the expansion of Paleolithic art research beyond traditional categories. There are a number of factors that explain the incorporation of nonrepresenta-

tional images into the analysis of prehistoric imagery since the 1970s. First, generally speaking, archaeological interests in nonfigurative representations have been fueled by the rise of abstract expressionism, where abstract images were understood to be as meaningfully constituted as representational art. This view had its origins in the early years of the 20th century, when a group of artists reacted against the predominant role of figurative forms in the history of Western art (Elkins

2002, p. 59, 2005, p. 62; Penrose 1973). Painters like Cézanne, Picasso, and Mondrian (or, more broadly, post-impressionists, cubists, and neoplasticists) explored new forms of art in which references to the real world were eliminated. These developments, however, were not fully incorporated into art history until the 1970s. At that time, the proliferation of visual studies helped ground understanding for many different kinds of images, including nonfigurative representations, geometric configurations, and "images that are not art" (Bal 2003; Elkins 1995; Mitchell 1986). Second, anthropological studies, especially where they were strongly aligned with archaeology (like in the US), gave rise to a greater understanding of non-Western art that included nonfigurative imagery that was highly symbolic. For instance, Boas' Primitive art (1927) examined a considerable number of nonrepresentative images in the context of small-scale societies, including symmetrical designs, geometrical forms, conceptual images, and many other formal elements. In the 1970s and 1980s, semiotics influenced relevant

developments in material cultural studies, including the studies of Faris (1972) on Nuba, Seeger (1981) on the Suya, and O'Hanlon (1989) on the Wahgi. In sum, by

â Springer


J Archaeol Res (201 3) 2 1 ¡269-306 285

the 1980s numerous sociological and anthropological studies had demonstrated the highly symbolic value of nonfigurative representations in hunter-gatherer societies. The revalorization of nonfigurative art in the West set the ground for new

approaches to nonrepresentational images in Paleolithic art research. Current interests in geometric and abstract imagery can be traced back to the 1960s when structuralist authors interpreted nonfigurative images as signs that played an important role in Paleolithic symbolic systems. Leroi-Gourhan (a pupil of Marcel Mauss who completed his doctorate on the archaeology of the North Pacific) attributed masculine/feminine values to Paleolithic representations on the basis of their association with certain nonfigurative signs. Furthermore, Leroi-Gourhan (1993, p. 190) suggested that "abstraction was the source of graphic expression." He argued that "graphism [graphisme] certainly did not start by reproducing reality in a slavishly photographic manner. On the contrary, we see it develop over the space of some ten thousand years from signs which, it would appear, initially expressed rhythms rather than forms" (Leroi-Gourhan 1993, p. 190). Under the influence of structuralism, semiotics, and anthropological studies, new perspectives on Paleolithic imagery emerged in the 1970s and the 1980s in the Anglo-American world (e.g., Conkey 1978, 1984, 1985; Marshack 1972a, b, 1976, 1979; Marshack and Mundkur 1979; Wobst 1977). According to some of these authors, Paleolithic images were not a homogeneous unitary phenomenon but "systems of visual representation in permanent archaeologically visible media" (Conkey 1984, p. 262). These systems varied over time and across space, reflecting differences in their contexts of production. The formal variability of media, techniques, and symbolic repertories in Paleolithic art was interpreted as different ways of transmitting valuable information within or among hunter-gatherer groups. Debates about style and function illustrate this interpretation. The concept of style was used extensively in Paleolithic art research until the 1970s to refer to the different periods that define

the formal development of Paleolithic art. For instance, Leroi-Gourhan (1965-1995, p. 51) suggested that cave paintings have evolved through five styles that correspond to five chronological periods. Since the 1 970s, however, a number of authors have used this term in a different way (e.g., Brantingham 2007; Conkey 1978; O'Brien and Lyman 2003; Sackett 1977, 1982). Wobst (1977, p. 335) interpreted stylistic behavior as "that aspect of artifact form and structure which can be related to processes of information exchange." Style was no longer understood as each one of the periods defining the formal evolution of Paleolithic art but as a conventional way of exchanging information within hunter-gatherer groups (Barton et al. 1994, Pfeiffer 1982; Wiessner 1983). The definition of Paleolithic images as conventional systems opened the door to new understandings of Pleistocene art. After all, if prehistoric images were nothing more than conventional visual schemes for exchanging information, then there was no reason to consider any particular mode of representation (figurative art) as being superior to any other. As a result of these developments, since the 1980s archaeologists have increasingly accepted that nonfigurative signs might have been of equal importance as figurative cave paintings to hunter-gatherer groups. The engraved ochre pieces discovered at Biombos cave (South Africa) in the 1990s are the best example of how nonfigurative images have become theoretically important (Fig. 3). Two of these

â Springer


286 J Archaeol Res (201 3) 2 1 :269-306

pieces were deliberately engraved with a geometric cross-hatched pattern and have been securely dated at about 70,000-77,000 years ago (Henshilwood et al. 2002). Notably, many scholars consider the Biombos ochres as the most ancient instances of Paleolithic art and symbolism (D'Errico et al. 2003, p. 4; Henshilwood et al. 2009; Knight 2010; Zilhão 2007). Parallel to the reassessment of nonfigurative images is the réévaluation of

figurative art. As we argued above, during most of the 20th century figurative cave paintings were placed at the crown of Paleolithic art. It is not just that most attention was paid to cave art but that realistic cave paintings were interpreted as the culmination of prehistoric art. Breuil, Laming-Emperaire, and Leroi-Gourhan suggested that Paleolithic art had evolved from simple beginnings to very realistic forms. In this schema, the highly figurative images of Altamira and Niaux were considered the end of a long history of attempts to create naturalistic depictions. Recent discoveries, however, have demonstrated the existence of very sophisticated figurative art since the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic. In particular, the dating of the Grotte Chauvet has provoked a revolution in the study of cave art (Fig. 4). This French site was discovered in December 1994. At the end of the cave, there is an area decorated with realistic black paintings of felines, horses, rhinoceroses, and other animals. On the basis of stylistic criteria, these representations were initially assigned to the Solutrean (i.e., 17,000-21,000 years BP, see Clottes in Leroi-

Fig. 3 Biombos ochres (photograph by and reproduced with Chris Henshilwood and Francesco D'Errico' s permission)

Ô Springer


J Archaeol Res (201 3) 2 1 :269-306 287

Gourhan 1965-1995, p. 572). In this setting, the AMS radiocarbon dating of two rhinoceroses (32,410 ± 720 BP - Gif A 95132 and 30,940 ± 610 BP - Gif A 95126) and a bison (30,340 ± 570 - Gif A 95128) surprised many specialists (Chauvet et al. 1995; Clottes 1996; Clottes et al. 1995; Pettitt and Bahn 2003; Valladas et al. 2001; Züchner 1996). After all, these dates made Chauvet the earliest cave art known in Europe. Although AMS radiocarbon dating is not without problems (Pettitt and Pike 2007), the numerous dates published since the discovery of the cave confirm an age of about 32,000 years BP (Cuzange et al. 2007; Clottes and Geneste 2012). The main corollary of these dates is that Paleolithic art did not progress toward figurative art. On the contrary, figurative art was one representational system among others, including personal adornments, symbolic systems produced on perishable materials (such as clothing or body paintings), ethnic markers, and geometric signs. The current reexamination of figurative and nonfigurative images illustrates

recent developments in the conceptualization of prehistoric images. Related to these changes are "the regular and repeated attempts to consider the image-making of Upper Paleolithic periods as being beyond art" (Conkey 2009, p. 174). In the last 30 years, an increasing number of authors have criticized the use of the term "art" to define Pleistocene representations. They have argued that this category, so intrinsically linked to the Western ideas of aesthetics and beauty, cannot accommodate the great diversity of media, subject matter, images, techniques, and visual conventions that make up Paleolithic visual cultures (e.g., Conkey 1987, p. 413; Layton 1991, pp. 1-6; Odak 1991, 1992; Soffer and Conkey 1997, pp. 2-3; Tomášková 1997, pp. 268-269; White 1992, p. 538). They have proposed to replace the label of "art" with other terms (such as visual culture, imagery, and material representation) that may incorporate more kinds of images into the analysis of the material and social life of hunter-gatherer groups. Whereas some scholars (mainly art historians) still consider "art" a legitimate word (e.g., Blocker 1994; Heyd 2005; Lorblanchet 1992; Whitley 2001), modern research has integrated an impressive

Fig. 4 Grotte Chauvet (photogaph by and reproduced with Jean Clottes' permission)

Springer


288 J Archaeol Res (20 13) 21 :269-306

variety of representations in the study of prehistoric artistic and symbolic systems, including colorants (Barham 2002; Guineau et al. 2001; Hovers et al. 2003; Zilhão et al. 2010), finger flutings (Sharpe 2004; Sharpe and Van Gelder 2006), portable representational objects (Farbstein 201 1; Tosello 2003; White 1992, 2006), negative hand prints (Clottes and Courtin 1994; Von Petzinger and Nowell 201 1), ornaments (Vanhaeren and D'Errico 2006; White 1999, 2007), nonfigurative signs (Cole and Watchman 2005; Henshilwood et al. 2001, 2009; Sauvet 1990), and cupules (Bednarik 2008).

The diversification of approaches to Paleolithic imagery and symbolism

The globalization of Paleolithic art studies has thus revealed an enormous diversity of designs, marks, themes, material forms, symbolic repertoires, and visual devices associated with Pleistocene societies. Furthermore, the operating concepts for analyzing and interpreting Paleolithic art have expanded, enlarged, and become more complex. As a result of these processes, approaches to Paleolithic visual cultures also have diversified in the last decades. As more and more images and objects are grouped together under the label of Paleolithic art, the number of scholars interested in Pleistocene artwork has significantly increased, as has the number of discussions and debates about Paleolithic representations. Here we consider how new approaches to Paleolithic art reflect current theoretical debates on hunter-gatherer material culture. Few areas have generated more discussion in Paleolithic art than paleoanthro-

pology and human evolution. In particular, personal ornaments have played an essential role in contemporary debates on the origins of modern human behavior. Until very recently, behavioral modernity was unanimously linked to the arrival of anatomically modern people to Europe at the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic (e.g., Bar- Yosef 2002, 2007; Jelinek 1994; Klein 1994, 2000; Mellars 1989, 2005; Noble and Davidson 1993; White 1982). According to this model, known as the human revolution, Homo sapiens was the only hominid species with the cognitive hardware necessary to create and develop modern cultural innovations. Since the 2000s, however, a number of archaeologists have proposed the multiple-species model for explaining the origins of behavioral complexity (D'Errico et al. 1998, 2003; Soressi and D'Errico 2007; Vanhaeren 2005; Vanhaeren and D'Errico 2006; Zilhão 2007). This model suggests that Neanderthals were able to develop most of the features defining cultural modernity, including art and symbolism. According to these authors, the primary evidence for Neanderthals' artistic abilities lies in the presence of ornaments in a number of archaeological strata containing Neanderthal remains (D'Errico et al. 1998). Although there is no consensus about whether Neanderthals created artwork, this debate highlights the current revalorization of personal ornaments. During most of the 20th century, these items were regarded as trinkets merely devoted to embellish their owners' appearance (White 1992, p. 539). As a result, personal ornaments were typically excluded from most explanations concerning art and symbolism. This situation began to change in the 1990s when due to the influence of the literature on the archaeology of the body and anthropological views on ornamentation, prehistoric ornaments began to be

â Springer


J Archaeol Res (2013) 21 :269-306 289

considered differently. Newell et al. (1990) published a pioneering study on the ethnical dimensions of Mesolithic ornaments. Davidson and Noble (1992) showed that in a context in which communication involved the use of arbitrary signs, beads

might indicate membership within or among hunter-gatherer groups. Taborin (1993) published a monumental study on Paleolithic shell ornamentation. In the same period, White (1992, 1993, 1995) devoted several studies to the technical bases of Upper-Paleolithic ornamentation. At the turn of the 21st century, Kuhn et al. (1999, 2001) and Stiner (1999) published their work on beads from the Riparo Mochi and Ûçagizli cave. These works have stimulated a rich literature on the many social, symbolic, and cultural dimensions associated with personal ornaments (e.g., Bvocho 2005; Hill et al. 2009; Kuhn and Stiner 2007; Soressi and D'Errico 2007; Taborin 2004). In this context, personal ornaments have been described as artifacts that define exchange networks (Alvarez Fernández 2002; D'Errico and Vanhaeren 2002; Vanhaeren et al. 2004), conveyors of ethnic, social, and personal identity (Vanhaeren 2005; Zilhão 2007), ethnic markers (Boyd and Richerson 1987; McElreath et al. 2003; Nettle and Dunbar 1997), and items that reflect changing technological and economic conditions (Kuhn and Stiner 2007; White 1995). Discussions of prehistoric imagery have equally played an important role in

cognitive archaeology. This field emerged in the 1980s as the branch of archaeology that aspired to deal with the development of human cognition in a scientific manner (Renfrew 1998, p. 2). Although cognitive archaeology was not far from certain postprocessual approaches to symbols, the discipline was founded on an evolutionist-processual approach to material culture (Donald 1991; Renfrew 1982; Renfrew and Zubrow 1994; Renfrew et al. 1993). Since it is widely accepted that images constitute the best archaeological evidence to explore human cognitive evolution (Malafouris 2007, p. 291; Renfrew 1998, p. 2), much of the recent discussion on this topic has centered on the development of the human capacity to create artistic and symbolic representations. Although there is no consensus about when and why this faculty first appeared, there is widespread agreement that Pleistocene images are precious for exploring the origins of human creativity (Mithen 1998; Turner 2006; Whitley 2009), symbolization (Henshilwood et al. 2001; Meilars 1996; Reuland 2005), language (Botha 2007; Davidson 1996; Deacon 1997; D'Errico 1995; D'Errico and Vanhaeren 2009; D'Errico et al. 2003; Henshilwood and Dubreuil 2009; Layton 2007; Mithen 2005), memory (Coolidge and Wynn 2005; D'Errico 1998; Wynn and Coolidge 2010), perception (Davidson and Noble 1989; Hodgson 2000; Ouzman 1998), imagination (Mithen 2000; Renfrew and Morley 2007), and musicality (D'Errico et al. 2003; Morley 2009). In addition, different kinds of prehistoric artwork have recently been examined through the lens of cognitive archaeology and neurosciences, including rock art (Whitley 1998), cave paintings (Hodgson 2008; Malafouris 2007; Onians 2007), statuettes and carvings (Wynn et al. 2009), anthropomorphic images (Svoboda 2007), animal representations (Hodgson and Helvenston 2006), and beads (Malafouris 2008).

Technological studies also have benefited from a greater attention to Paleolithic images and representations. Advances in technology have been linked mainly to recent developments in lithic studies. In this field, a new generation of scholars has raised serious doubts about traditional morphological approaches to lithic

Springer


290 J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269-306

assemblages based on the construction of cultural taxonomies (e.g., Bar-Yosef and Van Peer 2009; Boëda 1995; Pelegrin 1990). These researchers have argued that the many social, cultural, and economical dimensions of lithic technology can only be understood from a more theoretically oriented approach. For this reason, they have examined the cognitive processes involved in tool making (Ambrose 2010; McPherron 2000; Nowell 2010; Nowell and Davidson 2010; Schlanger 1996; Stout et al. 2008), the links between Paleolithic technology and human evolution (Ambrose 2001; Gibson and Ingold 1993; Stout and Chaminade 2009), the study of how stone tools were produced (Bar-Yosef and Van Peer 2009; Hopkinson 2011), and the social and cultural dimensions of lithic technology (Dobres 1999, 2000; Sinclair 2000). Since the making of prehistoric artwork is situated within particular technologies, similar kinds of questions have been extended to the analysis of Paleolithic imagery. In fact, it is not by chance that archaeologists have applied concepts and methods first developed in lithic studies to the analysis of Paleolithic representations. They have analyzed Paleolithic portable imagery through the lens of the chaîne opératoire approach (Farbstein 2011; White 1995) and have used optical and scanning electron microscopy for understanding the making of personal ornaments (e.g., D'Errico and Villa 1997; White 2006, 2007). Furthermore, technological studies have examined cave images and portable representations from new perspectives, including the technological processes involved in the making of Paleolithic images (Álvarez et al. 2001; Chalmin et al. 2003; Dobres 2001; Fritz 1999a), the links between materiality and the making of meaning (Conkey 2009; Dobres 2001), and the social processes influencing Paleolithic artists' choices (Dobres 1999; Fritz 1999b; Soffer 2000; Soffer et al. 2000). Together with these new perspectives, more conventional approaches are still

playing a significant role in Paleolithic art research. Regional studies (Corchón Rodríguez 1997; Delluc and Delluc 1991; Delporte and Clottes 1996; González Sáinz 1989; Vialou 1986), new discoveries (Arias et al. 1999; Bahn 1995; Clottes 1995; Clottes and Courtin 2005; Conard 2003, 2009; Geneste 2005; Pettitt et al. 2008), new perspectives on old sites (Aujoulat 2004; Bégouën et al. 2009; Clottes 2010; Delluc and Delluc 2003), methodological advances in the recording, analyzing, and dating of Paleolithic images (Bahn 2003; Fritz and Tosello 2007; Lorblanchet and Bahn 1993; Pastoors and Weniger 2010), and studies on the geographical and spatial distribution of Paleolithic art (Chippindale and Nash 2004; Fritz et al. 2007; Gamble 1986; Ross 2001) all continue to enrich the field of Paleolithic visual cultures. As a result, Paleolithic art studies are a dynamic and multidisciplinary area that has incorporated many activities, practices, and ideas from other disciplines. The challenge is to determine whether these recent developments are defining what could constitute a paradigm shift in the conceptualization of Paleolithic images.

Conclusion

The question of whether we are moving toward a new conceptualization of Paleolithic images is complex, since there are signs indicating both the persistence

â Springer


J Archaeol Res (20 13) 21 :269-306 29 1

of traditional categories and the impact of new explanatory models. As textual analysis demonstrates, concepts such as rock art, cave art, and portable art are still the primary ways of classifying Paleolithic artwork in dictionaries, encyclopedias, textbooks, and specialized books. After many years of use, these terms have become widely accepted by scholars and the general public. In this heuristic and practical sense, these categories are sanctioned-by-tradition ways of referring to prehistoric art that have proved to be useful in many ways. At the same time, we are entering a new period marked by a rapid diversification of approaches to Paleolithic visual imagery, a growing self-consciousness concerning the underlying assumptions involved in our interpretations, and new ontological and epistemological issues about the multiple meanings of prehistoric representations. The increasing globalization of the field, the impact of recent discoveries, advances in technical methodologies, and the emergence of new approaches to art, images, and symbolism are defining new frameworks in which a single classification, such as the parietal/ portable dichotomy, does not play an all-encompassing role. In fact, contemporary research on Pleistocene visual cultures is so global and fragmentary that it is difficult to foresee the emergence of a new unified program or paradigm. As has happened with many other disciplines, Paleolithic art studies have entered an age marked by the diversity and multiplicity of approaches and perspectives. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that an increasing number of categories, terms, concepts, and ideas will be applied to the description, analysis, and interpretation of Pleistocene images in the coming years. In this fluctuating context, the history of archaeology can contribute to modern research by reminding scholars that their ways of conceptualizing Pleistocene images are not timeless classifications. The main categories involved in the understanding of prehistoric images are always the product of social universes that are historically situated and dated, whether the universe is the social context of the bourgeois society at the end of the 19th century or the technological and globalized world at the beginning of the 21st century. Archaeologists, like other scientists, tend to forget the historical origins of their concepts. This is what Bourdieu (1996, p. 297) calls "genesis amnesia," i.e., the transformation of social and cultural distinctions, such as the parietal/portable dichotomy, into natural ones. Against amnesia, scholars need to be acutely aware of their own subjectivities and influences in their interpretative strategies. In this sense, the history of archaeology can help scientists better understand the social mechanisms that orient their practices. It was in the hope of contributing to this reflexivity that this cultural history was written.

Acknowledgments Research for this paper was generously supported by Memorial University of Newfoundland (Canada) and Instituto Internacional de Investigacions Prehistóricas de Cantabria (Spain). We are grateful to those colleagues who commented on earlier versions and offered assistance with our research, including Jean Clottes, Noël Coye, Claude Blanckaert, Víctor M. Fernández, César González Sáinz, Arnaud Hurel, John Robb, Nathan Schlanger, Alain Schnapp, Lawrence G. Straus, Eduardo Palacio Pérez, and Randall White. Thanks go to Chris Henshilwood, Francesco D'Errico, and especially Jean Clottes for the photographs used in this paper. We are deeply grateful to the seven anonymous JARE referees for their constructive comments. Finally, we especially thank Jennifer Selby for her editorial assistance and Gary Feinman for his support.

â Springer


292 J Archaeol Res (20 1 3) 2 1 :269-306

Reference cited

Abrams, M.-H. (1985a). Art-as-such: The sociology of modern aesthetics. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 38: 8-33.

Abrams, M.-H. (1985b). From Addison to Kant: Modern aesthetics and the exemplary arts. In Cohen, R. (ed.), Studies in Eighteenth-Century British Art and Aesthetics , University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 16-48.

Alvarez, M., Fiore, D., Favret, E., and Castillo Guerra, R. (2001). The use of lithic artefacts for making rock art engravings: Observation and analysis of use-wear traces in experimental tools through optical microscopy and SEM. Journal of Archaeological Science 28: 457-464.

Alvarez Fernández, E. (2002). Perforated Homalopoma sanguineum from Tito Bustillo (Asturias): Mobility of Magdalenian groups in northern Spain. Antiquity 76: 641-646.

Ambrose, S. H. (2001). Paleolithic technology and human evolution. Science 291: 1748-1753. Ambrose, S. H. (2010). Coevolution of composite-tool technology, constructive memory, and language:

Implications for the evolution of modern human behavior. Current Anthropology 51: si 35- sI47. Arias, P., González Sáinz, C, Moure, A., and Ontañón, R. (1999). La Garma : un descenso al pasado ,

Gobierno de Cantabria y Universidad de Cantabria, Santander. Aujoulat, N. (2004). Lascaux: le geste , V espace et le temps , Seuil, Paris. Bahn, P. G. (ed.) (1992a). Collins Dictionary of Archaeology, Harper Collins, Glasgow. Bahn, P. G. (1992b). Expecting the Spanish inquisitions: Altamira' s rejection in its 19th century context.

In Goldsmith, A. S., Garvie, S., Selin, D., and Smith, J. (eds.), Ancient Images, Ancient Thought: The Archaeology of Ideology , University of Calgary Archaeological Association, Calgary, pp. 339-346.

Bahn, P. G. (1995). Cave art without the caves. Antiquity 69: 231-237. Bahn, P. G. (1997). Journey Through the Ice Age , Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London. Bahn, P. G. (2001). The Penguin Archaeology Guide , Penguin Books, London. Bahn, P. G. (2003). Location, location: What can the positioning of cave and rock art reveal about Ice

Age motivations? In Pastoors, A., and Weniger, G. C. (eds.), Höhlenkunst und Raum: Archäologische und architektonische Perspektiven , Jan van der Most, Düsseldorf, pp. 1 1-20.

Bahn, P. G., and Vertut, J. (1988). Images of the Ice Age , Facts On File, New York. Bal, M. (2003). Visual essentialism and the object of visual culture. Journal of Visual Culture 2: 5-32. Barham, L. S. (2002). Systematic pigment use in the Middle Pleistocene of south-central Africa. Current

Anthropology 43: 1 8 1 - 1 90.

Bar-Yosef, O. (2002). The Upper Paleolithic revolution. Annual Review of Anthropology 31: 363-393. Bar-Yosef, O. (2007). The archaeological framework of the Upper Paleolithic revolution. Diogenes 214:

3-18.

Bar-Yosef, O., and Van Peer, P. (2009). The chaîne opératoire approach in Middle Paleolithic archaeology. Current Anthropology 50: 103-130.

Barton, C. M., Clark, G. A., and Cohen, A. (1994). Art as information: Explaining Paleolithic art in Europe. World Archaeology 26: 184-206.

Bednarik, R. G. (1994). The Pleistocene art of Asia. Journal of World Prehistory 8: 351-375.

Bednarik, R. (1996). Crisis in Paleolithic art studies. Anthropologie 34: 123-130. Bednarik, R. (2001). Rock Art Science: The Scientific Study of Palaeoart , Brepols, Turnhout. Bednarik, R. (2003). Rock Art Glossary: A Multilingual Dictionary , Brepols, Turnhout. Bednarik, R. G. (2008). Cupules. Rock Art Research 25: 61-100. Bednarik, R. G. (2010). Australian rock art of the Pleistocene. Rock Art Research 27: 95-120. Bégouën, H. (1929). The magic origin of prehistoric art. Antiquity 3: 5-19. Bégouën, R., Fritz, C., Tosello, G., Clottes, J., Pastoors, A., and Faist, F. (2009). Le sanctuaire secret des

Bisons : Il y a 14000 ans, dans la caverne du Tue d'Audoubert, Somogy, Paris. Benavot, A. (1992). Educational expansion and economic growth in the modern world, 1913-1985. In

Fuller, B., and Rubinson, R. (eds.), The Political Construction of Education, Praeger, New York, pp. 117-134.

Benthall, J., and Polhemus, T. (eds.) (1975). The Body as a Medium of Expression, Dutton, New York. Bermingham, A. (1992). The origin of painting and the end of art: Wright of Derby's Corinthian maid. In

Barrell, J. (ed.), Painting and the Politics of Culture: New Essays on British Art, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 135-166.

Blacking, J. (ed.) (1977). The Anthropology of the Body, Academic Press, New York.

Springer


J Archaeol Res (2013) 21 :269-306 293

Blocker, H. G. (1994). The Aesthetics of Primitive Art , University Press of America, Lanham, MD. Boas, F. (1927). Primitive Art , Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Boëda, E. (1995). Levallois: A volumetrie construction, methods, a technique. In Dibble, H. L., and

Bar-Yosef, O. (eds.), The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology , Prehistory Press, Madison, WI, pp. 41-68.

Boltanski, L. (1971). Les usages sociaux du corps. Annales: Economie, Société , Civilisations 26: 205-223.

Borges, J. L. (1996). El idioma analítico de John Wilkins. In Borges, J. L. (ed.), Obras completas //, Buenos Aires, Emecé, pp. 84-87.

Boric, D., and Robb, J. (eds.) (2008). Past Bodies : Body-Centered Research in Archaeology , Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Bosinski, G. (1982). Die Kunst der Eiszeit in Deutschland und in der Schweiz , R. Habelt, Bonn. Botha, R. (2007). Prehistoric shell beads as a window on language evolution. Language &

Communication 28: 197-212.

Boule, M. (1923). Les hommes fossiles: Éléments de paléontologie humaine , Masson, Paris. Bourdieu, P. (1996). The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field. Stanford University

Press, Stanford, CA.

Boyd, R., and Richerson, P. J. (1987). The evolution of ethnic markers. Cultural Anthropology 2: 65-79. Bradley, R. (1991). Rock art and the perception of landscape. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1:

77-101.

Bradley, R. (1997). Rock Art and the Prehistory of Atlantic Europe: Signing the Land, Routledge, London.

Bradley, R. (2009). Image and Audience: Rethinking Prehistoric Art , Oxford University Press, Oxford. Brantingham, P. J. (2007). A unified evolutionary model of archaeological style and function based on the

price equation. American Antiquity 72: 395-4 1 6. Bray, W., and Trump, D. (eds.) (1970). A Dictionary of Archaeology, Penguin Press, London. Breuil, H. (1905). La dégénérescence des figures d'animaux en motifs ornementaux à l'époque du renne.

Comptes-Rendus des Séances de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres: 49e année 1: 105-120.

Breuil, H. (1906). L'art à ses débuts: l'enfant, les primitifs , Imprimerie-Librairie de Montligeon, Monti igeoin.

Breuil, H. (1907). L'évolution de l'art pariétal des cavernes de l'âge du renne , Imprimerie de Monaco, Monaco.

Breuil, H. (1909). L'évolution de l'art quaternaire et les travaux d'Edouard Piette , Leroux, Paris. Breuil, H. (1941). Une altamira française: la caverne de Lascaux à Montignac (Dordogne). Comptes-

Rendus des Séances de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres 85e année V: 347-376. Breuil, H. (1949). Beyond the Bounds of the History , Gawthorn, London. Breuil, H. (1952a). Quatre cents siècles d'art pariétal: les cavernes ornées de l'âge du renne , Centre

d'Etudes et de Documentation Préhistorique, Paris. Breuil, H. (1952b). The influence of classical civilizations on the cave paintings of South Africa. In

Proceedings of the First Pan-African Congress on Prehistory , Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 234-237. Breuil, H., and Lantier, R. (1959). Les hommes de la pierre ancienne (Paléolithique et Mésolithique ),

Payot, Paris. Brézillon, M. (1969). Dictionnaire de la préhistoire , Larousse, Paris. Brézillon, M. (1984). Le paléolithique supérieur et l'art pariétal paléolithique. In Beaussang, G. (ed.),

L'art des cavernes: atlas des grottes ornées paléolithiques françaises , Ministère de la Culture, Paris, pp. 25-39.

Bvocho, G. (2005) Ornaments as social and chronological icons: A case study of southeastern Zimbabwe. Journal of Social Archaeology 5: 409-424.

Capitan, L. (1902a). Association française pour l'avancement des sciences: Congrès de Montauban (Août 1902). Compte Rendu de la Section d'Anthropologie: Revue de l'Ecole d'Anthropologie de Paris Douzième Année XII: 334-349.

Capitan, L. (1902b). Les origines de l'art en Gaule: extraits d'un compte rendu de l'Association Française pour l'Avancement des Sciences , Chaix, Paris.

Capitan, L. (1913). Les dernières découvertes préhistoriques se rapportant aux origines de l'art. Revue Scientifique 23: 705-708.

Capitan, L. (1931). La préhistoire , Payot, Paris.

â Springer


294 J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269-306

Capitan, L., and Bouyssonie, J. (1924). Limeuil, son gisement à gravures sur pierres de l'âge du Renne : un atelier d'art préhistorique , Nourry, Paris.

Capitan, L., and Breuil, H. (1902). Gravures paléolithiques sur les parois de la grotte des Combarelles près des Eyzies (Dordogne). Bulletins de la Société d'Anthropologie de Paris Vo Série 3: 527-535.

Capitan, L., Breuil, H., and Peyrony, D. (1902). Les figures gravées à l'époque paléolithique sur les parois de la grotte de Bernifal. Revue de l'École d'Anthropologie de Paris 6: 201-209.

Capitan, L., Breuil, H., and Peyrony, D. (1903). Une nouvelle grotte à parois gravées à l'époque préhistorique: la grotte de Teyjat (Dordogne). Revue de l'École d'Anthropologie de Paris Treizième année X: 364-367.

Capitan, L., Breuil, H., and Peyrony, D. (1906). Les gravures de la grotte des Eyzies. Revue de l'École d'Anthropologie de Paris XVI: 429-441.

Capitan, L., Peyrony, D., and Bouyssonie, J. (1913). L'art des cavernes: les dernières découvertes faites en Dordogne , Picard, Paris.

Carrier, D. (2008). A World Art History and Its Objects , Penn State University Press, University Park. Cartailhac, E. (1889). La France préhistorique , Félix Alean, Paris. Cartailhac, E. (1902). Les cavernes ornées de dessins: la grotte ď Altamira, Espagne: mea culpa d'un

sceptique. L'Anthropologie 13: 348-354. Cartailhac, E. (1906). Dessins préhistoriques de la caverne de Niaux, dans les Pyrénées de l'Ariège.

Comptes-Rendus des Séances de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 50: 533-537. Cartailhac, E., and Breuil, H. (1906). La caverne ď Altamira à Santillane près Santander (Espagne),

Imprimerie de Monaco, Monaco. Chalmin, E., Menu, M., and Vignaud, C. (2003). Analysis of rock art painting and technology of

Paleolithic painters. Measurement Science and Technology 14: 1590-1597. Chauvet, J.-M., Brunel-Deschamps, E., and Hillaire, C. (1995). La Grotte Chauvet à Vallon- Pont-ď Arc ,

Seuil, Paris. Chippindale, C., and Nash, G. (2004). The Figured Landscapes of Rock-Art: Looking at Pictures in Place,

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Chippindale, C., and Taçon, P. (eds.) (1998). The Archaeology of Rock Art , Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge. Chiron, L. (1889). La grotte Chabot, commune d'Aiquèze (Gard). Bulletin de la Société d'Anthropologie

de Lyon 8: 96-97. Clottes, J. (1990). L'art des objets au paléolithique , Ministère de la Culture, Paris. Clottes, J. (1995). Paleolithic petroglyphs at Foz Côa, Portugal. International Newsletter on Rock Art 10:

2.

Clottes, J. (1996). Thematic changes in Upper Paleolithic art: A view from the Grotte Chauvet. Antiquity 70: 276-288.

Clottes, J. (2008). Cave Art , Phaidon Press, New York. Clottes, J. (2010). Les cavernes de Niaux: art préhistorique en Ariè ge -Pyrénées, Errance, Paris. Clottes, J., and Courtin, J. (1994). La grotte Cosquer: peintures et gravures de la caverne engloutie , Seuil,

Paris.

Clottes, J., and Courtin, J. (2005). Cosquer redécouvert, Seuil, Paris. Clottes, J., and Geneste, J.-M. (2012). Twelve years of research in Chauvet Cave: Methodology and main

results. In McDonald, J., and Veth, P. (eds.), A Companion to Rock Art, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 583-604.

Clottes, J., Chauvet, J.-M., Brunel-Deschamps, E., Hillaire, C., Daugas, J.-P., Arnold, M., Cachier, C., Evin, J., Fortin, P., Oberlin, C., Tisnerat, N., and Valladas, H. (1995). Les peintures de la Grotte Chauvet Pont d'Arc, à Vallon-Pont-d'Arc (Ardèche, France): datations directes et indirectes par la méthode du radiocarbone. Compte Rendu de l'Académie de Sciences 320: 1 130-1 140.

Cole, N., and Watchman, A. (2005). AMS dating of rock art in the Laura Region, Cape York Peninsula, Australia: Protocols and results of recent research. Antiquity 79: 661-678.

Conard, N. (2003). Paleolithic ivory sculptures from southwestern Germany and the origins of figurative art. Nature 42: 830-832.

Conard, N. (2009). A female figurine from the basal Aurignacian of Hohle Fels cave in southwestern Germany. Nature 459: 248-252.

Conkey, M. W. (1978). Style and information in cultural evolution: Toward a predictive model for the Paleolithic. In Redman, R., Berman, M. J., Curtin, E. V., Langhorne, W. T., Versaggi, N. M., and Wanser, J. C. (eds.), Social Archaeology: Beyond Subsistence and Dating, Academic Press, New York, pp. 61-85.

â Springer


J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269-306 295

Conkey, M. W. (1984). To find ourselves: Art and social geography of prehistoric hunter gatherers. In Schrire, C. (ed.), Past and Present in Hunter Gatherer Studies , Academic Press, Orlando, FL, pp. 253-276.

Conkey, M. W. (1985). Ritual communication, social elaboration, and the variable trajectories of Paleolithic material culture. In Price, T. D., and Brown, J. A. (eds.), Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers:

The Emergence of Cultural Complexity , Academic Press, Orlando, FL, pp. 299-323. Conkey, M. W. (1987). New approaches in the search for meaning? A review of research in 'Paleolithic

art.' Journal of Field Archaeology 14: 413-430. Conkey, M. W. (1997). Mobilizing ideologies: Paleolithic 'art,' gender trouble, and thinking about

alternatives. In Hager, L. D. (ed.), Women in Human Evolution , Routledge, London, pp. 172-207. Conkey, M. W. (2009). Materiality and meaning-making in the understanding of the Paleolithic arts. In

Renfrew, C., and Morley, I. (eds.), Becoming Human: Innovation in Prehistoric Material and Spiritual Culture , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 179-194.

Conkey, M. W. (2010). Images without words: The construction of prehistoric imaginaries for definitions of 'us.' Journal of Visual Culture 9: 272-283.

Coolidge, F., and Wynn, T. (2005). Working memory, its executive functions, and the emergence of modern thinking. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 15: 5-26.

Corchón Rodriguez, M. S. (1997). La comiche cantabrique entre 15000 et 13000 ans BP: la perspective donnée par l'art mobilier. L'Anthropologie 101: 114-143.

Coulson, D., and Campbell, A. (2001). African Rock Art: Paintings and Engravings on Stone, Abrams, New York.

Crabtree, P. J., and Campana, D. V. (eds.) (2006). Exploring Prehistory: How Archaeology Reveals Uur Past , McGraw-Hill, New York.

Csordas, T. J. (1994). Embodiment and Experience: The Existential Ground of Culture and Self Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Cuzange, M.-T., Delqué-Količ, E., Goslar, T., Grootes, P. M., Higham, T., Kaltnecker, E., Nadeau, M.-J., Oberlin, C., Paterne, M., Van der Plicht, J., Ramsey, C. B., Valladas, H., Clottes, J., and Geneste, J.-M. (2007). Radiocarbon intercomparison program for Chauvet Cave. Radiocarbon 49: 339-347.

Dart, R. (1925). The historical succesion of cultural impacts upon South Africa. Nature 115: 425-429. Darvill, T. (2002). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology , Oxford University Press. Oxford. Davidson, I. (1996). The power of pictures. In Conkey, M. W., Soffer, O., Stratmann, D., and Jablonski,

N. G. (eds.), Beyond Art: Pleistocene ¡mage and Symbol , Allen Press, San Francisco, CA, pp. 125-153.

Davidson, I., and Noble, W. (1989). The archaeology of perception: Traces of depiction and language. Current Anthropology 30: 125-155.

Davidson, I., and Noble, W. (1992). Why the first colonization of the Australian region is the earliest evidence of modern human behavior. Archaeology in Oceania 27: 135-142.

Deacon, J. (ed.) (2007). African Rock Art: The Future of Africa s Past, TARA, Nairobi. Deacon, T. W. (1997). The Symbolic Species: The Co-evolution of Language and the Brain, Norton, New

York.

Déchelette, J. (1908). Manuel d'archéologie préhistorique celtique et gallo-romaine, Alphonse Picard, Paris.

Delluc, B., and Delluc, G. (1991). L'art parietal archaïque en Aquitaine, CNRS, Pans. Delluc, B., and Delluc, G. (2003). Lascaux retrouvé, Pilote 24, Périgueux. Delporte, H. (1979). L'image de la femme dans l'art préhistorique, Picard, Pans. Delporte, H. (1990). L'image des animaux dans l'art préhistorique, Picard, Paris. Delporte, H., and Clottes, J. (eds.) (1996). Pyrénées préhistoriques : arts et sociétés, Comité des Travaux

Historiques et Scientifiques, Paris. De Morgan, J. (1909). Les premières civilisations: études sur la préhistoire et l'histoire jusqu'à la fin de

l'empire macédonien, Leroux, Paris. D'Errico, F. (1995). New model and its implications for the origin of writing: La Marche antler revisited.

Cambridge Archaeological Journal 5: 3-46. D'Errico, F. (1998). Paleolithic origins of artificial memory systems. In Renfrew, C., and Scarre, C.

(eds.), Cognition and Material Culture: The Archaeology of Symbolic Storage, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, UK, pp. 19-50.

D'Errico, F., and Vanhaeren, M. (2002). Criteria for identifying red deer (C ervus elaphus) age and sex from upper canines: Application to the study of Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic ornaments. Journal of Archaeological Science 29: 21 1-232.

Springer


296 J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269-306

D'Errico, F., and Vanhaeren, M. (2009). Earliest personal ornaments and their significance for the origin of language debate. In Botha, R., and Knight, C. (eds.), The Cradle of Human Language , Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 24-60.

D'Errico, F., and Villa, P. (1997). Holes and grooves: The contribution of microscopy and taphonomy to the problem of art origins. Journal of Human Evolution 33: 1-31.

D'Errico, F., Zilhão, J., Julien, M., Baffier, D., and Pelegrin, J. (1998). Neanderthal acculturation in Western Europe? A critical review of the evidence and its interpretation. Current Anthropology 39: 1-44.

D'Errico, F., Henshilwood, C., Lawson, G., Vanhaeren, M., Tillier, A.-M., Soressi, M., Bresson, F., Maurille, B., Nowell, A., Lakarra, J., Backwell, L., and Julien, M. (2003). Archaeological evidence for the emergence of language, symbolism, and music: An alternative multidisciplinary perspective. Journal of World Prehistory 17: 1-70.

Dickson, B. D. (1990). The Dawn of Belief: Religion in the Upper Paleolithic of Southwestern Europe , University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Dobres, M. A. (ed.) (1999). The Social Dynamics of Technology: Practice, Politics, and World Views , Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Dobres, M. A. (2000). Technology and Social Agency: Outlining a Practice Framework for Archaeology, Blackwell, Oxford.

Dobres, M. A. (2001). Meaning in the making: Agency and the social embodiment of technology and art. In Schiffer, M. B. (ed.), Anthropological Perspectives on Technology , University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 47-76.

Donald, M. (1991). Origins of the Human Mind: Three Stages in the Evolution of Culture and Cognition , Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Douglas, M. (1970). Natural Symbols , Vintage, New York. Dowson, T. A. (1994). Reading art, writing history: Rock art and social change in southern Africa. World

Archaeology 25: 332-345. Dreyfus, C. (1888). L'évolution des mondes et des sociétés, Alean, Paris. Dupont, M. E. (1872). L'homme pendant les âges de la pierre dans les environs de Dinant- sur- Meuse, C.

Muquardt, Bruxelles. Elkins, J. (1995). Art history and images that are not art. The Art Bulletin 77: 553-571. Elkins, J. (2002). Stories of Art, Routledge, New York. Elkins, J. (2005). Master Narratives and Their Discontents , Routledge, New York. Evans, J. (1878). Les âges de la Pierre: instruments, armes et ornements de la Grande-Bretagne, Germer

Baillière, Paris. Fagan, B. M. (1996). The Oxford Companion to Archaeology, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Farbstein, R. A. (2006). Rethinking constructions of the body in Pavlovian portable art: A material-based

approach. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 21: 78-95. Farbstein, R. A. (201 1). Technologies of art: A critical reassessment of Pavlovian art and society: Using

chaîne opératoire method and theory. Current Anthropology 52: 401-432. Farbstein, R. A., and Svoboda, J. (2007). New finds of Upper Paleolithic decorative objects from

Předmostí, Czech Republic. Antiquity 81: 856-864. Faris, J. (1972). Nuba Personal Art, Duckworth, London. Feder, K. L., and Park, M. A. (eds.) (2007). Human Antiquity: An Introduction to Physical Anthroplogy

and Archaeology , McGraw-Hill, Boston. Fisher, G., and Loren, D. (2003). Introduction: Embodying identity in archaeology. Cambridge

Archaeological Journal 13: 225-230. Freeman, L. G. (1994). The many faces of Altamira. Complutum 5: 331-342. Fritz, C. (1999a). Towards the reconstruction of Magdalenian artistic techniques: The contribution of

microscopic analysis of mobiliáry art. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 9: 189-208. Fritz, C. (1999b). La gravure dans l'art mobilier magdalénien: du geste à la representation , Maison des

Sciences de l'Homme, Paris. Fritz, C., and Tosello, G. (2007). The hidden meaning of forms: Methods of recording Paleolithic parietal

art. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 14: 48-80. Fritz, C., Tosello, G., and Sauvet, G. (2007). Groupes ethniques, territoires, échanges: la 'notion de

frontière' dans l'art magdalénien. In Cazals, N., González Urquijo J., and Terradas, X. (eds.), Frontières naturelles, frontières culturelles dans les Pyrénées préhistoriques, Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, pp. 165-182.

ô Springer


J Archaeol Res (20 13) 21 :269-306 297

Frobenius, L. (1928). Early African culture as an indication of present Negro potentialities. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 140: 153-165.

Gamble, C. (1986). The Paleolithic Settlement of Europe , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Geneste, J. M. (ed.) (2005). Recherches pluridisciplinaires dans la grotte Chauvet , Société Préhistorique

Française, Paris. Gibson, K. R., and Ingold, T. (eds.) (1993). Tools, Language and Cognition in Human Evolution,

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity , Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. Gombrich, E. H. (1960). Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation , Phaidon

Press, London. González Sáinz, C. (1989). El Magdaleniense superior-final de la región cantábrica , Tantin y

Universidad de Cantabria, Santander.

Goury, G. (1927). Précis d'archéologie préhistorique: origine et évolution de l'homme: tome premier: époque paléolithique , Picard, Paris.

Graziosi, P. (1960). Paleolithic Art , Faber and Faber, London. Guineau, B., Lorblanchet, M., Gratuze, B., Dulin, L., Roger, P., Akrich, R., and Muller, F. (2001).

Manganese black pigments in prehistoric paintings: The case of the black frieze of Pech Merle (France). Archaeometry 43: 21 1-225.

Hahn, J. (1986). Kraft und Aggression: die Botschaft der Eiszeitkunst im Aurignacien Süddeutschlands? Archaeologica Venatoria, Tübingen.

Hamilakis, Y., Pluciennick, M., and Tarlow, S. (eds.) (2002). Thinking Through the Body: Archaeologies of Corporeality, Kluwer, New York.

Henshilwood, C., and Dubreuil, B. (2009). Reading the artefacts: Gleaning language skills from the Middle Stone Age in southern Africa. In Botha, R., and Knight, C. (eds.), The Cradle of Language, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 41-63.

Henshilwood, C., D'Errico, F., Marean, C., Milo, R., and Yates, R. (2001). An early bone tool industry from the Middle Stone Age at Biombos Cave, South Africa: Implications for the origins of modern human behaviour, symbolism and language. Journal of Human Evolution 41: 631-678.

Henshilwood, C., D Errico, F., Yates, R., Jacobs, Z., Tribolo, C., Duller, G. A., Mercier, N., Sealy, J., Valladas, H., Watts, I., and Wintle, A. (2002). Emergence of modern human behavior: Middle Stone Age engravings from South Africa. Science 295: 1278-1280.

Henshilwood, C. S., D'Errico, F., and Watts, I. (2009). Engraved ochres from the Middle Stone Age levels at Biombos Cave, South Africa. Journal of Human Evolution 57: 21 -Al.

Hertz, R. (1928). Sociologie religieuse et folklore, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris. Heyd, T. (2005). Aesthetics and rock art: an introduction. In Heyd, T., and Clegg, J. (eds.), Aesthetics and

Rock Art, Ashgate, Hampshire, pp. 1-17. Hill, K., Barton, M., and Hurtado, A. M. (2009). The emergence of human uniqueness: Characters

underlying behavioral modernity. Evolutionary Anthropology 18: 1 87-200. Hodgson, D. (2000). Art, perception and information processing: An evolutionary perspective. Rock Art

Research 17: 3-34.

Hodgson, D. (2008). The visual dynamics of Upper Paleolithic art. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 18: 341-353.

Hodgson, D., and Helvenston, P. (2006). The emergence of the representation of animals in palaeoart: Insights from evolution and the cognitive, limbic and visual systems of the human brain. Rock Art Research 23: 3-40.

Hopkinson, T. (2011). The transmission of technological skills in the Paleolithic: Insights from metapopulation ecology. In Roberts, B., and Vander Linden, M. (eds.), Investigating Archaeological Cultures: Cultural Transmission and Material Culture Variability, Springer, New York, pp. 229-244.

Hovers, E., Ilani, S., Bar-Yosef, O., and Vandermeersch, B. (2003). An early case of color symbolism. Current Anthropology 44: 491-522.

Jelinek, A. J. (1994). Hominids, energy, environment, and behavior in the late Pleistocene. In Nitecki, M. H., and Nitecki, D. V. (eds.), Origins of Anatomically Modern Humans, Plenum, New York, pp. 67-92.

Joyce, R. A. (2005). Archaeology of the body. Annual Review of Anthropology 34: 139-158.

Joyce, R. A. (2008). Ancient Bodies, Ancient Lives: Sex, Gender, and Archaeology , Thames and Hudson, London.

Kipfer, B. A. (2000). Encyclopedic Dictionary of Archaeology, Kluwer, New York.

Ö Springer


298 J Archaeol Res (20 13) 21 :269-306

Klein, R. G. (1994). The problem of modern human origins. In Nitecki, M. H., and Nitecki, D. V. (eds.), Origins of Anatomically Modern Humans , Plenum, New York, pp. 3-17.

Klein, R. G. (2000). Archaeology and the evolution of human behaviour. Evolutionary Anthropology 9: 17-36.

Knight, C. (2010). The origins of symbolic culture. In Frey, U. J., Stornier, C., and Willführ, K. P. (eds.), Homo novus: A Human Without Illusions , Springer, Berlin, pp. 193-211.

Kristeller, P. O. (1951). The modern system of the arts: A study in the history of aesthetics, Part I. Journal of the History of Ideas 12: 496-527.

Kuhn, S., and Stiner, M. (2007). Body ornamentation as information technology: Towards an understanding of the significance of early beads. In Mellars, P., Boyle, K., Bar-Yosef, O., and Stringer, C. (eds.), Rethinking the Human Revolution: New Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origin and Dispersal of Modern Humans , McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, pp. 45-54.

Kuhn, S. L., Stiner, M. C., and Giileç, E. (1999). Initial Upper Paleolithic in south-central Turkey and its regional context: A preliminary report. Antiquity 73: 505-517.

Kuhn, S. L., Stiner, M. C., Reese, D. S., and Giileç, E. (2001). Ornaments in the earliest Upper Paleolithic: New results from the Levant. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98: 7641-7646.

Laming-Emperaire, A. (1962). La signification de l'art rupestre paléolithique: méthodes et applications , Picard, Paris.

Lartet, H., and Christy, H. (1864). Objects graves et sculptés des temps pré-historiques dans l'Europe occidental (extrait de la Revue Archéologique ), Librairie Académique Didier et Ce, Paris.

Layton, R. (1991). The Anthropology of Art, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Layton, R. (2007). Art, language and the evolution of spirituality. In Renfrew, C., and Morley, I. (eds.), Image and Imagination: A Global Prehistory of Figurative Representation , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 307-320.

Le Quellec, J. L. (2004). Rock Art in Africa: Mythology and Legend , Flammarion, Paris. Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1965-1995). Préhistoire de I art occidental ( nouvelle édition revisee par G. et B.

Delluc), Mazenod, Paris. Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1970). Analyse méthodique de l'art préhistorique. In Leroi-Gourhan, L. (ed.), L'art

pariétal: langage de la préhistoire , Jérôme Million, Grenoble, pp. 205-214. Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1976). Interprétation esthétique et religieuse des figures et des symboles dans la

préhistoire. Archives des Sciences Sociales des Religion 42: 5-15. Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1982). The Dawn of European Art: An Introduction to Paleolithic Cave Painting ,

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1988). Dictionnaire de la préhistorie , Presses Universitaires de France, Paris. Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1993). Gesture and Speech. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Lewis-Williams, D. (1983). The Rock Art of Southern Africa , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Lewis- Williams, J. D. (2000). Discovering Southern African Rock Art , David Philip, Cape Town. Lewis-Williams, J. D. (2006). The evolution of theory, method and technique in southern African rock art

research. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 13: 343-377. Loendorf, L., Chippindale, C., and Whitley, D. S. (2005). Discovering North America Rock Art ,

University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Lorblanchet, M. (1992). Le triomphe du naturalisme dans l'art paléolithique. In Clottes, J., and Shay, T.

(eds.), The Limitations of Archaeological Knowledge , Etudes et Recherches Archéologique à l'Université de Liège, Liège, pp. 115-140.

Lorblanchet, M. (1995). Les grottes ornées de la préhistoire: nouveaux regards, Édition Errance, Paris. Lorblanchet, M. (2004). L'art préhistorique du Quercy , Éditions Loubatières, Portet-sur-Garonne. Lorblanchet, M., and Bahn, P. G. (eds.) (1993). Rock Art Studies: The Post-stylistic Era or Where Do We

Go from Here? Oxbow, Oxford. Luquet, G. -H. (1926). L'art et la religion des hommes fossiles , Paris, Masson. Luquet, G.-H. (1930). L'art primitif Doin, Paris. Malafouris, L. (2007). Before and beyond representation: Towards an enactive conception of the

Paleolithic image. In Renfrew, C., and Morley, I. (eds.), Image and Imagination: A Global Prehistory of Figurative Representation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 289-302.

Malafouris, L. (2008). Beads for a plastic mind: The 'blind man's stick' (BMS) hypothesis and the active nature of material culture. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 18: 401-414.

Ô Springer


J Archaeol Res (20 13) 21 :269-306 299

Marshack, A. (1972a). The Roots of Civilization: The Cognitive Beginnings of Man's First Art, McGraw- Hill, New York.

Marshack, A. (1972b). Cognitive aspects of Upper Paleolithic engravings. Current Anthropology 13: 445-477.

Marshack, A. (1976). Some implications of the Paleolithic symbolic evidence for the origin of language. Current Anthropology 17: 274-282.

Marshack, A. (1979). Upper Paleolithic symbol systems of the Russian plain: Cognitive and comparative analysis. Current Anthropology 20: 271-31 1.

Marshack, A. (1985). Hierarchical Evolution of the Human Capacity : The Paleolithic Evidence , American Museum of Natural History, New York.

Marshack, A., and Mundkur, B. (1979). On the dangers of serpents in the mind. Current Anthropology 26: 139-152.

Mauss, M. (1934). Les techniques du corps: communication présentée à la Société de Psychologie le 17 mai 1943. Journal de Psychology 32: 271-293.

McDonald, J. (2006). Rock art. In Balme, J., and Patterson, A. (eds.), Archaeology in Practice: A Student's Guide to Archaeological Analyses , Blackwell, London, pp. 59-96.

McElreath, R., Boyd, R., and Richerson, P. J. (2003). Shared norms and the evolution of ethnic markers. Current Anthropology 44: 1 22- 1 29.

McPherron, S. P. (2000). Handaxes as a measure of the mental capabilities of early hominids. Journal of Archaeological Science 27: 655-663.

Mellars, P. (1989). Major issues in the emergence of modern humans. Current Anthropology 30: 349-385.

Mellars, P. (1996). Symbolism, language, and the Neanderthal mind. In Mellars, P., and Gibson, K. (eds.), Modelling the Early Human Mind , McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, pp. 15-32.

Mellars, P. (2005). The impossible coincidence: A single-species model for the origins of modern human behaviour in Europe. Evolutionary Anthropology 14: 12-27.

Meyer, J. W., Ramirez, F. O., and Soysal, Y. N. (1992). World expansion of mass education, 1870-1980. Sociology of Education 65: 128-149.

Mitchell, W. J. (1986). Iconology: Image, Text, Ideology , University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Mithen, S. (ed.) (1998), Creativity in Human Evolution and Prehistory , Routledge, London. Mithen, S. (2000). The evolution of imagination: An archaeological perspective. SubStance 30: 28-54. Mithen, S. J. (2005). The Singing Neanderthals: The Origins of Music, Language, Mind and Body,

Weidenfeld and Nicholson, London.

Morley, I. (2009). Ritual and music: Parallels and practice, and the Paleolithic. In Renfrew, C., and Morley, I. (eds.), Becoming Human : Innovation in Prehistoric Material and Spiritual Culture , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 159-175.

Moro Abadía, O. (2006). Art, crafts and Paleolithic Art. Journal of Social Archaeology 6: 1 19-141. Moro Abadía, O., and González Morales, M. R. (2004). Towards a genealogy of the concept of

'Paleolithic mobiliáry art.' Journal of Anthropological Research 60: 321-339. Mortillet, G. (1883). Le préhistorique: antiquité de l'homme , Reinwald, Paris. Mortillet, G. (1897). Formation de la nation française , Félix Alean, Paris. Mortillet, G., and Mortillet, A. (1902). Musée préhistorique , Reinwald, Paris. Nettle, D., and Dunbar, R. I. (1997) Social markers and the evolution of reciprocal exchange. Current

Anthropology 38: 93-99. Newell, R. R., Kielman, D., Constandse-Westermann, T. S., Van der Sanden, W. A., and Van Gijn, A.

(1990). An Inquiry into the Ethnic Resolution of Mesolithic Regional Groups: The Study of Their Decorative Ornaments in Time and Space , Brill, Leiden.

Noble, W., and Davidson, I. (1993). Tracing the emergence of modern human behavior: Methodological pitfalls and a theoretical path. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 12: 121-149.

Nowell, A. (2006). From a Paleolithic art to Pleistocene visual cultures. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 13: 239-249.

Nowell, A. (2010). Working memory and the speed of life. Current Anthropology 51: s 1 21- s 133. Nowell, A., and Davidson, I. (eds.) (2010). Stone Tools and Evolution of Human Cognition , University

Press of Colorado, Boulder. Obermaier, H., Kühn, H., and Maack, R. (1930). Bushman Art: Rock Paintings of South- West Africa,

Oxford University Press, London.

â Springer


300 J Archaeol Res (20 13) 21 :269-306

O'Brien, M. J., and Lyman, R. L. (2003). Style, Function, Transmission : Evolutionary Archaeological Perspectives , University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Odak, O. (1991). A new name for a new discipline. Rock Art Research 8: 3-12. Odak, O. (1992). Kenya rock art studies and the need for a discipline. In Lorblanchet, M. (ed.), Rock Art

in the Old World : Papers presented in Symposium of the AURA Congress Darwin (Australia) 1988 , Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts, New Delhi, pp. 33-47.

O'Hanlon, M. (1989). Adornment, Display and Society Amongst the Wahgi People , British Museum, London.

Olivieri, L. M. (ed.) (2010). Pictures in Transformation: Rock Art Research between Central Asia and the Subcontinent , Archaeopress, Oxford.

Onians, J. (2007). Neuroarchaeology and the origins of representation in the Grotte Chauvet. In Renfrew, C, and Morley, I. (eds.), Image and Imagination : A Global Prehistory of Figurative Representation , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 307-320.

Otte, M. (1999). La préhistoire, De Boeck and Larcier, Bruxelles. Ouzman, S. (1998). Towards a mindscape of landscape: Rock-art as expression of world-understanding.

In Chippindale, C., and Taçon, P. S. (eds.), The Archaeology of Rock-Art , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 30-4 1 .

Ouzman, S. (2001). Seeing is deceiving: Rock art and the non-visual. World Archaeology 33: 237-256. Pastoors, A., and Weniger, G.-C. (2010). Cave art in context: Methods for the analysis of the spatial

organization of cave sites. Journal of Archaeological Research 19: 377^400. Pelegrin, J. (1990). Prehistoric lithic technology: Some aspects of research. Archaeological Review from

Cambridge 9:1 16-125.

Penrose, R. (1973). In praise of illusion. In Gregory, R. L., and Gombrich, E. H. (eds.), Illusion in Nature and Art , Charles Scribners's Sons, New York, pp. 245-286.

Pettitt, P., and Bahn, P. (2003). Current problems in dating Paleolithic cave art: Candamo and Chauvet. Antiquity 75: 134-141.

Pettitt, P., and Pike, A. (2007). Dating European Paleolithic cave art: Progress, prospects, problems. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 14: 27-47.

Pettitt, P., Bahn, P., and Ripoll, S. (eds.) (2008). Paleolithic Cave Art at Creswell : Crags in European Context , Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Peyrony, D. (1914). Éléments de préhistoire , Eyboulet, Ussel. Pfeiffer, J. (1982). The Creative Explosion : An Inquiry into the Origins of Art and Religion , Harper and

Row, New York.

Piette, E. (1873). La Grotte de Gourdan pendant l'Age du Renne: extrait des Bulletins de la Société d'Anthropologie de Paris, séance du 18 avril 1873, Typographie A. Hennuyer, Paris.

Piette, E. (1894). Notes pour server à l'histoire de l'art primitif: extrait de L'Anthropologie, n°2, Imprimerie Burdin, Paris.

Piette, E. (1902). Gravures du Mas d'Azil et Statuettes de Menton: extrait des Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d'Anthropologie de Paris, séance du 5 novembre 1902, Masson, Paris.

Piette, E. (1904). Classification des sédiments formés dans les cavernes pendant l'âge du Renne: extrait de L'Anthropologie, tome XV, Masson, Paris.

Piette, E. (1907). L'art pendant l'âge du renne, Masson, Paris. Polhemus, T. (ed.) (1978). Social Aspects of the Human Body, Penguin, London. Price, T. D., and Feinman, G. M. (2010). Images of the Past, 6th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York. Raphaël, M. (1945). Prehistoric Cave Paintings, Pantheon, New York. Read, H. (1942). On art and connoisseurship. The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs 80(471):

134-135.

Reinach, S. (1889-1894). Description raisonnée du Musée de Saint-Germain-en-Laye: antiquités nationales: époque des alluvions, Firmit-Didot, Paris.

Reinach, S. (1912). Art and magic. In Reinach, S. (ed.), Cults, Myths and Religions, David Nutt, London, pp. 124-137.

Reinach, S. (1913). Répertoire de l'art quaternaire, Ernest Leroux, Paris. Reinhardt, B., Wehrberger, K., and Bosinski, G. (eds.) (1994). Der Löwenmensch: Tier und Mensch in der

Kunst der Eiszeit, J. Thorbecke, Sigmaringen. Renfrew, C. (1982). Towards an Archaeology of Mind, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Renfrew, C. (1998). Mind and matter: Cognitive archaeology and external symbolic storage. In Renfrew,

C., and Scarre, C. (eds.), Cognition and Material Culture: The Archaeology of Symbolic Storage , McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, pp. 1-6.

Ô Springer


J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269-306 301

Renfrew, C., and Bahn, P. G. (2000). Archaeology : Theory, Methods and Practice , Thames and Hudson, London.

Renfrew, C., and Morley, I. (eds.) (2007). Image and Imagination: a Global Prehistory of Figurative Representation , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Renfrew, C., and Zubrow, E. B. (eds.) (1994). The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeology , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Renfrew, C., Peebles, C. S., Hodder, I., Bender, B., Flannery, K. V., and Marcus, J. (1993). Viewpoint: What is cognitive archaeology? Cambridge Archaeological Journal 3: 247-270.

Reuland, E. (2005). Language: Symbolization and beyond. In Botha, R., and Knight, C. (eds.), The Cradle of Language , Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 201-224.

Ritzer, G. (2010). Globalization: A Basic Text , Wiley-Blackwell, Maiden, MA. Robertson, R. (1992). Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture , Sage, London. Ross, M. (2001). Emerging trends in rock-art research: Hunter-gatherer culture, land and landscape.

Antiquity 75: 543-548. Sackett, J. R. (1977). The meaning of style in archaeology: A general model. American Antiquity 42:

369-380.

Sackett, J. R. (1982). Approaches to style in lithic archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1: 59-112.

Sanz de Sautuola, M. (1880). Breves apuntes sobre algunos objetos prehistóricos de la provincia de Santander , Telesforo Martínez, Santander.

Sauvet, G. (1990). Les signes dans l'art mobilier. In Clottes, J. (ed.), L'art des objets au paléolithique: tome 2, Ministère de la Culture, Paris, pp. 83-99.

Sauvet, G., and Wlodarczyk, A. (1995). Élemens d'une grammaire formelle de l'art pariétal paléolithique. L ' Anthropologie 99: 1 93-2 1 1 .

Schlanger, N. (1996). Understanding Levallois: Lithic technology and cognitive archaeology. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 6: 231-254.

Schneider, H. K. (1966). Turu esthetic concepts. American Anthropologist 68: 156-160. Seeger, A. (1981). Nature and Society in Central Brazil: The Suya Indians of Mato Grosso , Harvard

University Press, Cambridge, MA. Sharpe, K. (2004). Line markings: Human or animal origin? Rock Art Research 21: 57-84. Sharpe, K., and Van Gelder, L. (2006). The study of finger flutings. Cambridge Archaeological Journal

16: 281-296.

Shiner, L. (2001). The Invention of Art: A Cultural History , University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Sieveking, A. (1979). The Cave Artist , Thames and Hudson, London. Simpson, F. (1951). The English connoisseur and its sources. The Burlington Magazine 93: 355-356. Sinclair, A. (2000). Constellations of knowledge: Human agency and material affordance in lithic

technology. In Dobres, M.- A., and Robb, J. E. (eds.), Agency in Archaeology , Routledge, London, pp. 196-212.

Smith, P. H. (2006). Art, science and visual culture in early modern Europe. Isis 97 : 83-100. Soffer, O. (2000). Gravettian technologies in social contexts. In Roebroeks, W., Mussi, M., Svoboda, J.,

and Fennema, K. (eds.), Hunters of the Golden Age: The Mid Upper Paleolithic of Eurasia , University of Leiden, Leiden, pp. 59-75.

Soffer, O., and Conkey, M. W. (1997). Studying ancient visual cultures. In Conkey, M. W., Soffer, O., Stratmann, D., and Jablonski, N. G. (eds.), Beyond Art: Pleistocene Image and Symbol , Allen Press, San Francisco, CA, pp. 1-15.

Soffer, O., Adovasio, J. M., and Hyland, D. C. (2000). The "Venus" figurines: Textiles, basketry, gender and status in the Upper Paleolithic. Current Anthropology 41: 51 1-537.

Soressi, M., and D'Errico, F. (2007). Pigments, gravures, parures: les comportements symboliques controversés des Néandertaliens. In Vandermeersch, B., and Maureille, B. (eds.), Les Néandertal- iens: biologie et cultures , CTHS, Paris, pp. 297-309.

Stiner, M. C. (1999). Trends in Paleolithic mollusk exploitation at Riparo Mochi (Balzi Rossi, Italy): Food and ornaments from the Aurignacian through Epigravettian. Antiquity 73: 735-754.

Stout, D., and Chaminade, T. (2009). Making tools and making sense: Complex, intentional behavior in human evolution. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 19: 85-96.

Stout, D., Toth, N., Schick, K. D., and Chaminade, T. (2008). Neural correlates of Early Stone Age tool- making: Technology, language and cognition in human evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B 363: 1939-1949.

Ö Springer


302 J Archaeol Res (201 3) 2 1 ¡269-306

Summers, D. (1987). The Judgment of Sense: Renaissance Naturalism and the Rise of Aesthetics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Summers, D. (2003). Real Spaces: World Art History and the Rise of Western Modernism , Phaidon Press, London.

Svoboda, J. A. (2007). Upper Paleolithic anthropomorph images of northern Eurasia. In Renfrew, C., and Morley, I. (eds.), Image and Imagination: A Global Prehistory of Figurative Representation , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 57-68.

Taborin, Y. (1993). La parure en coquillage au Paléolithique: XXIXe supplément à Gallia préhistoire , CNRS, Paris.

Taborin, Y. (2004). Langage sans parole: la parure aux temps préhistoriques , La Maison des Roches, Paris.

Taçon, P. S. (2010). Identifying ancient sacred landscapes in Australia: From physical to social. In Preucel, R. W., and Mrozowski, S. A. (eds.), Contemporary Archaeology in Theory : The New Pragmatism , Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 77-91.

Taçon, P. S. (201 1). Special places and images on rock: 50,000 years of Indigenous engagement with Australian landscapes. In Anderson, J. (ed.), Cambridge Companion to Australian Art , Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, pp. 11-21.

Taçon, P. S., Ross, J., Paterson, A., and May, S. (2012). Picturing change and changing pictures: Contact period rock art of Australia. In McDonald, J., and Veth, P. (eds.), A Companion to Rock Art , Wiley- Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 420-436.

Taçon, P. S., Boivin, N., Hampson, J., Blinkhorn, J., Korisettar, R., and Petraglia, M. (2010). New rock art discoveries in the Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh, India. Antiquity 84: 335-350.

Tatarkiewicz, W. (1963). Classification of arts in antiquity. Journal of the History of Ideas 24: 231-240. Tatarkiewicz, W. (1970). Did aesthetics progress? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 31:

47-59.

Tongue, M. H. (1909). Bushman Paintings , Clarendon Press, Oxford. Tomášková, S. (1997). Places of art: Art and archaeology. In Conkey, M. W., Soffer, O., Stratmann, D.,

and Jablonski, N. G. (eds.), Beyond Art: Pleistocene Image and Symbol , Allen Press, San Francisco, CA, pp. 265-287.

Tosello, G. (2003). Pierres gravées du Périgord magdalénien: art, symboles , territoires , CNRS editions, Paris.

Turner, B. S. (1984). The Body and Society: Explorations in Social Theory , Blackwell, Oxford. Turner, B. S. (2010). The Routledge International Handbook of Globalization Studies , Routledge, New

York.

Turner, M. (ed.) (2006). The Artful Mind: Cognitive Science and the Riddle of Human Creativity, Oxford University Press, New York.

Turner, T. (1980). The social skin. In Cherfas, I., and Lewin, R. (eds.), Not Work Alone , Temple Smith, London, pp. 112-140.

Ucko, P., and Rosenfeld, A. (1967). Paleolithic Cave Art , World University Library, London. Valladas, H., Tisnérat-Laborde, N., Cachier, H., Arnold, M., Bernaldo de Quiros, F., Cabrera Valdês, V.,

Clottes, J., Courtin, J., Fortea Pérez, J. J., González Sainz, C., and Moure Romanillo, A. (2001). Radiocarbon AMS dates for Paleolithic cave paintings. Radiocarbon 43: 977-986.

Vanhaeren, M. (2005). Speaking with beads: The evolutionary significance of personal ornaments. In D'Errico, F., and Blackwell, L. (eds.), From Tools to Symbols: From Early Hominids to Modern Humans , Witwatersrand University Press, Johannesburg, pp. 525-553.

Vanhaeren, M., and D'Errico, F. (2006). Aurignacian ethno-linguistic geography of Europe revealed by personal ornaments. Journal of Archaeological Science 33: 1 105-1 128.

Vanhaeren, M., D'Errico, F., Billy, I., and Grousset, F. (2004). Tracing the source of Upper Paleolithic shell beads by strontium isotope dating. Journal of Archaeological Science 31: 1481-1488.

Vialou, D. (1986). L'art des grottes en Ariège magdalénienne: Gallia préhistorique (suppl. 22), CNRS, Paris.

Vialou, D. (1998). Problématique de l'interprétation de l'art paléolithique. Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche XLIX: 267-281.

Vialou, D. (ed.) (2004). La préhistoire: historie et dictionnaire, Robert Laffont, Paris. Von Petzinger, G., and Nowell, A. (201 1). A question of style: Reconsidering the stylistic approach to

dating Paleolithic parietal art in France. Antiauity 85: 1 165-1 183.

Waters, M. (1995). Globalization, Routledge, London.

â Springer


J Archaeol Res (201 3) 2 1 :269-306 303

White, R. (1982). Rethinking the Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition. Current Anthropology 23: 169-192.

White, R. (1986). Dark Caves, Bright Visions: Life in Ice Age Europe , American Museum of Natural History, New York.

White, R. (1992). Beyond art: Toward an understanding of the origins of material representation in Europe. Annual Review of Anthropology 21: 537-564.

White, R. (1993). A social and technological view of Aurignacian and Castelperronian personal ornaments in France. In Cabrera, V. (ed.), El origen del hombre moderno en el suroeste de Europa , Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia, Madrid, pp. 327-357.

White, R. (1995). Ivory personal ornaments of Aurignacian age: Technological, social and symbolic perspectives. In Hahn, J., Menu, M., Taborin, Y., Walter, P., and Widemann, F. (eds.), Le travail et l'usage de l'ivoire au Paléolithique Supérieur , Centre Universitaire Européen pour les Biens Culturels, Ravello, pp. 29-62.

White, R. (1997). Substantial acts: From materials to meaning in Paleolithic representations. In Conkey, M., Soffer, O., Stratmann, D., and Jablonski, N. G. (eds.), Beyond Art: Pleistocene Image and Symbol , California Academy of Science, San Francisco, CA, pp. 93-121.

White, R. (1999). Integrating social and operational complexity: The materai construction of social identity at Sungir. In Averbouh, A., Cattelain, P., and Jullien, M. (eds.), L'Os: Festschrift for Henriette Camps-Fabrer , Université de Marseille, Aix-en-Provence, pp. 120-137.

White, R. (2003). Prehistoric Art: The Symbolic Journey of Humankind, Harry H. Abrams, New York. White, R. (2006). The women of Brassempouy: A century of research and interpretation. Journal of

Archaeological Method and Theory 13: 250-303. White, R. (2007). Systems of personal ornamentation in the early Upper Paleolithic: methodological

challenges and new observations. In Mellars, P. (ed.), Rethinking the Human Revolution: New Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origin and Dispersal of Modern Humans , McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, pp. 287-302.

White, R. (2010). Les parures de l'Aurignacien ancien et archaïque: perspectives technologiques et régionales des fouilles récentes. In Mistrot, V. (ed.), De Néandertal à l'homme moderne: l'Aquitaine préhistorique , vingt ans de découvertes , Éditions Confluences, Bourdeaux, pp. 93-103.

Whitehead, C. (2005). The Public Art Museum in Nineteenth Century Britain: The Development of the National Gallery , Asheate, London.

Whitehouse, R. D. (1983). Dictionary of Archaeology, Facts On File, New York. Whitley, D. S. (1998). Cognitive neurosciences, shamanism and the rock art of native California.

Anthropology of Consciousness 9: 22-37. Whitley, D. S. (ed.) (2001). Handbook of Rock Art Research, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA Whitley, D. S. (2009). Cave Paintings and the Human Spirit: The Origins of Creativity and Belief,

Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY.

Wiessner, P. (1983). Style and social information in Kalahari San projectile points. American Antiquity 48: 253-276.

Wilson, T. (1898). Prehistoric art or the origin of art as manifested in the works of prehistoric man. In Report from the US National Museum for 1896, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, pp. 325-664.

Wobst, H. M. (1977). Stylistic behavior and information exchange. In Cleland, C. (ed.), For the Director: Research Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin, Anthropological Papers No. 61, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pp. 317-342.

Wynn, T., and Coolidge, F. (2010). Beyond symbolism and language: An introduction to supplement 1, working memory. Current Anthropology 51: 5-16.

Wynn, Y., Coolidge, F., and Bright, M. (2009). Hohlenstein-Stadel and the evolution of human conceptual thought. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 19: 73-83.

Zervos, C. (1959). L'art de l'époque du Renne en France, Cahier d'Art, Paris. Zilhão, J. (2007). The emergence of ornaments and art: An archaeological perspective on the origin of

'behavioral modernity.' Journal of Archaeological Research 15: 1-54. Zilhão, J., Angelucci, D., Badal-García, E., D'Errico, F., Daniel, F., Dayet, L., Douka, K., Higham, T.

F. G., Martínez-Sánchez, M. J., Montes-Bernárdez, R., Murcia-Mascarós, S., Pérez-Sirvent, C., Roldán-García, C., Vanhaeren, M., Villaverde, V., Wood, R., and Zapata, J. (2010). Symbolic use of marine shells and mineral pigments by Iberian Neandertais. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107: 1023-1028.

â Springer


304 J Archaeol Res (2013) 21 :269-306

Züchner, C. (1996). The Chauvet cave: radiocarbon versus archaeology. International Newsletter on Rock Art 13: 25-27.

Bibliography of recent literature

Audouze, N., and Schlanger, N. (eds.) (2004). Autour de l'homme : contexte et actualité d'André Leroi- Gourhan , APDCA, Antibes.

Azéma, M. (2009-2010). L'art des cavernes en action , Errance, Paris. Bahn, P. G. (ed.) (2009). An Enquiring Mind: Studies in honor of Alexander Marshack, Oxbow Books,

Oxford.

Bahn, P. G. (ed.) (2010). Prehistoric Rock Art: Polemics and Progress , Cambridge University Press, New York.

Bahn, P. G., and Pettitt, P. (eds.) (2010). Britain's Oldest Art: The Ice Age Cave Art of Creswell Crags , English Heritage, Swindon.

Berghaus, G. (ed.) (2004). New Perspectives on Prehistoric Art , Praeger, Westport, CT. Blundell, G., Chippindale, C., and Smith, B. (eds.) (201 1). Seeing and Knowing: Understanding Rock Art

with and without Ethnography , Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA. Bocherens, H., Drucker, D. G., Billiou, D., Geneste, J.-M., and Van Der Plicht, J. (2006). Bears and

humans in Chauvet Cave (Vallon-Pont-d'Arc, Ardèche, France): Insights from stable isotopes and radiocarbon dating of bone collagen. Journal of Human Evolution 20: 370-376.

Bosinski G. (1991). Homo sapiens: l'histoire des chasseurs du Paléolithique Supérieur en Europe (40.000-10.000 av. J.-C), Errance, Paris.

Clottes, J. (ed.) (2001). La grotte Chauvet: l'art des origins , Seuil, Paris. Clottes, J. (2002). World Rock Art , Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles. Clottes, J. (201 1). Pourquoi l'art préhistorique ? Gallimard, Paris. Clottes, J., and Azéma, M. (2005). Les félins de la grotte Chauvet , Seuil, Paris. Clottes, J., and Lewis-Williams, D. (1996). Les chamanes de la préhistoire : transe et magie dans les

grottes ornées , Seuil, Paris. Clottes, J., and Lewis-Williams, D. (2007). Les chamanes de la préhistoire: transe et magie dans les

grottes ornées, Suivi de Après "Les Chamane,s " polémique et réponses , Seuil, Paris. Conard, N., Malina, M., Münzel, S., and Seeberger, F. (2004). Eine Mammutelfenbeinflöte aus dem

Aurignacien des Geißenklösterle: Neue Belege für eine musikalische Tradition im frühen Jungpaläolithikum auf der Schwäbischen Alb. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 23: 447-462.

Coye, N. (ed.) (2006). Sur les chemins de la préhistoire: l'Abbé Breuil, du Périgord à l'Afrique du Sud , Somogy, Paris.

Delluc, B., and Delluc, G. (2008). Dictionnaire de Lascaux , Éditions Sud-Ouest, Bordeaux. Dissanayake, E. (2000). Art and Intimacy: How the Arts Began , University of Washington Press, Seattle. Domingo Sánz, I., Fiore, D., and May, S. K. (eds.) (2008). Archaeologies of Art: Time, Place, Identity ,

Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA. Fortea, F. J. (2000-2001). Los comienzos del arte paleolítico en Asturias: aportaciones desde una

arqueología contextual no postestilística. Zephyrus 53- 54: 177-216. Garate Maidagán, D. (2008). Las pinturas zoomorfas punteadas del Paleolítico Superior cantábrico: hacia

una cronología dilatada de una tradición gráfica homogénea. Trabajos de Prehistoria 65: 29-47. Garate Maidagán, D. (2008). Perduration des traditions graphiques dans l'art pariétal pré-magdalénien des

Cantabres. INORA 50: 18-25.

Gely, B., and Azema, M. (2005). Les mammouths de la grotte Chauvet , Seuil, Paris. González Sáinz, C. (2007). De quelques particularités des centres pariétaux paléolithiques dans la région

cantabrique. Préhistoire, Art et Sociétés LXII: 19-36. González Sáinz, C. (2007). Dating Magdalenian art in north Spain: The current situation. In Pettitt, P.,

Bahn, P., and Ripoll, S. (eds), Palaeolithic Cave Art at Creswell: Crags in European Context , Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 247-262.

González Sáinz, C., and San Miguel, C. (2001). Las cuevas del desfiladero: arte rupestre paleolítico en el valle del río Carranza ( Cantabria- Vizcaya), Universidad de Cantabria y Consejería de Cultura del Gobierno de Cantabria, Santander.

Gonzalez Sainz, C., Cacho, R., and Fukazawa, T. (2003). Arte paleolítico en la región cantábrica: base de datos multimedia photo VR , Universidad de Cantabria, Santander.

Springer


J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269-306 305

Guthrie, R. D. (2005). The Nature of Paleolithic Art, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Jorge, V. O. (ed.) (1995). Dossier eòa, Sociedade Portuguesa de Antropologia Etnologia, Porto. Lewis-Williams, D., and Challis, S. (201 1). Deciphering Ancient Minds: The Mystery of San Bushman

Rock Art , Thames and Hudson, London. Lewis-Williams, J. D. (2002). The Mind in the Cave : Consciousness and the Origins of Art , 1 names and

Hudson, New York. Lorblanchet, M. (1990). The archaeological significance of the results of pigment analyses in Quercy

caves. Rock Art Research 7: 19-20.

McDonald, J. and Veth, P. (eds.) (2012). A Companion to Rock Art , Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester. Moro Abadía, O., and González Morales, M. R. (2005). L'analogie et la representation de 1 art primitif a

la fin du XIXe siècle. L'Anthropologie 109: 703-721. Moro Abadía, O., and González Morales, M. R. (2007). Thinking about style in the "post-stylistic era":

Reconstructing the stylistic context of Chauvet. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 26: 109-125. Moro Abadía, O., and González Morales, M. R. (2008). Palaeolithic art studies at the beginning of the

21st century: A loss of innocence. Journal of Anthropological Research 64: 529-552. Moro Abadía, O., and González Morales, M. R. (2010). Redefining Neanderthals and art: An alternative

interpretation of the multiple species model for the origin of behavioural modernity. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 29: 229-243.

Moro Abadía, O., and González Morales, M. R. (201 1). Les origines de l'art et les théories sur l'évolution humaine: le cas français. L'Anthropologie 115: 343-359.

Moro Abadía, O., and Pelayo, F. (2010). Reflections on the concept of 'precursor': Juan de Vilanova and the discovery of the Altamira. History of the Human Sciences 23: 1-20.

Moure Romanillo, A., Gonzalez Sainz, C, and Gonzalez Morales, M. R. (1991). Las cuevas de Kamales de la Victoria ( Cantabria ): arte rupestre paleolítico en las cuevas de Covalanas y La Haza, Universidad de Cantabria, Santander.

Moure Romanillo, A., González Sáinz, C., Bernaldo de Quiros, F., and Cabrera Valdes, V. (1996). Dataciones absolutas de pigmentos en las cuevas cantábricas: Altamira, El Castillo, Chimeneas y Las Monedas. In Moure Romanillo, A. (ed.), "El hombre fósil" 80 años después: volumen conmemorativo del 50 aniversario de la muerte de Hugo Obermaier , Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, pp. 295-324.

Müller-Beck, H., Conard, N., and Schürle, W. (eds.) (2001). Eiszeitkunst im Süddeutsch-Schweizerischen Jura. Anfänge der Kunst, Theiss, Stuttgart.

Palacio-Pérez, E. (2010). Cave art and the theory of art: The origins of the religious interpretation of Palaeolithic graphic expression. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 29: 1-14.

Palacio-Pérez, E. (2010). Salomon Reinach and the religious interpretation of Palaeolithic art. Antiquity 84: 853-863.

Palacio-Pérez, E. (2012). The orgins of the concept of 'Palaeolithic art': Theoretical roots of an idea. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory (in press).

Pastoors, A., and Weniger, G. C. (2011). Cave art in context: Methods for the analysis of the spatial organization of cave sites. Journal of Archaeological Research 19: 1-24.

Petragnani, S., and Robert, E. (2009). A propos de la chronologie des signes paléolithiques: constance et émergence des symboles. Anthropologie Brno XL VII: 169-180.

Pike, A., Hoffmann, D. L., García-Diez, M., Pettitt, P., Alcolea, J., Balbin, R., Gonzalez Sainz, C., De las Heras, C., Lasheras, J. A., Montes, R., Zilhão, J. (2012). U-Series of dating of Paleolithic art in 1 1 caves in Spain. Science 336: 1409-1413.

Rosenfeld, A., and Smith, C. (1997). Recent developments in radiocarbon and stylistic methods or dating rock-art. Antiquity 71: 405^1 1.

Sanchidrián Torti, J. L. (1994). Arte paleolítico de la zona meridional de la Peninsula Iberica. Complutum 5: 163-195.

Sanchidrián Torti, J. L. (2001). Manual de arte prehistórico, Ariel, Barcelona. Sauvet, G., Fritz, C., and Tosello, G. (2007). L'art aurignacien: émergence, développement,

diversification. In Cazals, N., González Urquijo J., and Terradas, X. (eds.), Frontières naturelles, frontières culturelles dans les Pyrénées préhistoriques, Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, pp. 319-338.

Sauvet, G., Layton, R. H., Lenssen-Erz, T., Taçon, P., and Wlodarczyk, A. (2009). Thinking with animals in Upper Palaeolithic rock art. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 19: 319-336.

Schürle, W., and Conard, N. (eds.) (2005). Zwei Weltalter: Eiszeitkunst und die Bildwelt Willi Baumeisters, Hatje Cantz Verlag, Ostfildern-Ruit.

Ô Springer


306 J Archaeol Res (20 1 3) 2 1 :269-306

Taçon, P. S., Li, G., Yang, D., May, S.K., Liu, H., Aubert, M., Ji, X., Cumoe, D., and Herries, A. I. (2010). Naturalism, nature and questions of style in Jinsha River rock art, northwest Yunnan, China. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 20: 67-86.

Tosello, G., Fritz, C., and Sauvet, G. (2005). Découverte d'une nouvelle figure dans la grotte supérieure de Gargas (Hautes-Pyrénées). Préhistoire, Art et Sociétés LX: 45-51.

Vialou, D. (1991). La préhistoire , Gallimard, Paris. Vialou, D. (1996). Au cœur de la préhistoire : chasseurs et artistes , Gallimard, Paris.

â Springer


paleolithic art: a cultural historyarchlocality.org/paleolithicart_files/paleolithic art-a cultural...

Documents