Prehistoric Art

PREHISTORIC ART or ARTIFACT?

Created by Autum MatysekSnyder
Sweet Briar College
Art History Senior Seminar 2004

I. Background
    A. Prehistoric Art
    Prehistory begins with the beginning of traces of man-made objects
    Art created before the existence of written records or documentation

    B. Dates
       Begins around 40,000 BCE and ends when written records were produced in the area.
          1. problems that this time line creates
                a. When does it end?

    C. Location of Art
       Prehistoric Art is spread out and appears in many different types of locations
          1. cave art

Cave drawing Chauvet
www.tigtail.org/.../Europe/ prehistory-europe.html

dotted horse Pech Merle
http://www.quercy.net/pechmerle/english/visite.html#12

cave etchings Cosquer Cave, Ibex
http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/archeosm/en/fr-cosqu1.htm

2. rock shelter art

cattle of the Sahara
http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/archeosm/en/fr-cosqu1.htm

          4. portable art

       Cave art is primarily concentrated in the Franco-Cantabrian area (France and Spain)

II. Primitive Man
    A. assumption of no religion and the assumption that the beginning of art was art for arts sake rather than taking the time to re-evaluate prehistoric man and primitivism.

    B. What I found when researching primitive art was that historians always gave representations of African art, which says a lot about Eurocentrism. We view non primitive art as having started in Europe.

III. Art vs. Artifact
        1. Artifact as stated in the American heritage Dictionary is "An object produced or shaped by human craft, especially a tool, weapon, or ornament of archaeological or historical interest."

Artifact

Spear heads

recreation of Prehistoric tools
tools

tools

Artifact?

Bison. Tuc d'Audoubert, Ariege
www.hominids.com/donsmaps/ cavepaintings3.html

      2. What is Art? If we say that art is something aesthetic then is an artifact considered aesthetic or a representation of something beautiful?

      3. I believe that art and artifact in prehistoric time create a gray area.

IV. Caves
        1. a common misconception about prehistoric man is that they were "cavemen." We have very few traces that man actually lived in the caves that they painted.

     A. Lascaux (interactive lascaux website)
          1. location: Southwest France in Dordogne Country. It was discovered in 1940 and until recently it has been considered the oldest representation of prehistoric art.

          2. Great Hall
             Are the black bulls in some kind of composition?

          3. Horses
             a. All the horses seem to share similar characteristics- short legs, round hoofs that seem detached from leg, short mane and often in different colors, small head.
             b. Are the horses in herds?

          4. Chinese Horse
             a. there is an obvious understanding of anatomy

          5. Jumping Cow
             a. extremely lively

          6. Human Scene

          7. Engravings
             lascaux is actually rich in engravings, but we mainly only see the images. There are estimated to be about 1500 engravings in lascaux (groveart). So what was more important the engravings or the images? If we go by the sheer number of representations then the engravings would seem to win, but if we take the opposite of that theory then the images seem to be more important because of there limited number of representations.

detail of hall of bulls, Lascaux

http://riccardi.intrasun.tcnj.edu/Courses/Art%20105/Lascaux.gif

wide view of hall of bulls, lascaux

http://www.maitrhea.org/images/earthimages/ss3lascaux.JPG

horse, lascaux

http://www.nona.dti.ne.jp/~okumoto/nenpyou/image/lascaux.jpg

horse, Lascaux

http://www.dordogne-vacation.com/photos-dordogne/dordogne-22-lascaux-caves.jpg

Chinese Horse, Lascaux
http://www.values.ch/Art-Gallery/Rock-Paintings/lascaux.jpg

Jumping Cow, lascaux

http://www.uiowa.edu/~c009113/images/lascaux-two.gif

Jumping cow, Lascaux

http://www.muenster.de/~rsbstein/steinzeit/images/lascaux.jpg

Human Scene, laxcaux

http://www.arthistory.sbc.edu/arthwitcombe/sen-sem/prehistoric.html

B. Altamira
          1. Location: South of Santander Spain. It is considered the Sistine Chapel of Rock Art because of the painted animals. It dates to about 16,00-14,000 BCE and was discovered in 1868.

          2. Superposition
             a. the surface was reworked
             b. Great Hall: 25 polychrome figures in brilliant colors

          3. Undulating rocks
             a. was the use of protruding rocks intentional or not?

Bulls on rock protrusions, Altamira Spain	Great hall of Bulls, Altamira. Undulating surface http://home.iprimus.com.au/gus_tillers/images/santandercaves/c2.jpg
superimposed bull. Altamira Spain http://www.ayto-santander.es/Concejalias/Turismo/Imagenes/Congresos_Cuevas_Altamira.jpg

V. Interpretations of Cave Art
        1. Hunter magic

          2. Art as a teaching device and a guide book to hunting

Bull with marks on chrest, lascaux

http://www.krinklewood.com/images/lascaux.jpg

Profile of ibex with large horns, lascaux

http://pro.wanadoo.fr/quatuor/art_b14_0004_30.jpg

          3. Was it just a record of the animals they saw

             4. Or was it purely just for decoration

VI. Threats facing Caves
    Unfortunately these wonderful master pieces of prehistoric art are under attack from tourism and natural elements.
             1. Popularity
                with many caves now open to tourism they are facing many new problems that they never faced previously

             2. Natural weathering
                a. deterioration

             3. Detailed descriptions: A blessing in Disguise?

             4. Vandalism and Theft

VII. Issues raised by Cave Paintings
             1. what is the purpose of the cave art

             2. Why are the paintings mainly of animals and why is it that they animals are not from the region

             3. Why are they in profile

             4. What are the markings for

             5. Why create them at all

             6. Is it possible that the cave paintings were in some way a prehistoric school of art

VIII. Figurines
    "Any attempt to conclude that Paleolithic woman must have resembled these statuettes would be like basing the Anthropology of the modern Frenchwoman on works by Picasso or Bernard Buffet."( 90, Leroi-Gourhan)

             1. Design: Characteristics
                 a. breasts, abdomen and pelvic region all seem to be within a circle
                 b. extravagated fullness and tapered body
                 c. Head- featureless

             2. Questions about usage

             3. Why no males

Venus of Willendorf front http://www.garfnet.org.uk/new_mill/winter98/jpegs/beauty18.jpg	Venus of Willendorf Profile http://www.hobbythek.de/dyn/pics/6295-6296-2-kap1_1.jpg
female figurine, kostenky settlement 23,000-21,000 BCE http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/html_En/03/hm3_2_1a.html

Article Analysis: Stone Age Woman: The Woman of Willendorf Christopher Witcombe
This article deals with the question of why was the figure (Venus of Willendorf) created. Three main ideas on it creation and understanding were proposed; 1. A venus figure/goddess designed as a fertility symbol, which can obviously been seen in it representation. She is fat, has enlarged breasts and pelvic regions which all denote healthy and successful reproduction. 2. A good luck charm that could have been carried during the hunt to ensure success during the hunt as well as remind the hunter of his mate back home. And 3. a mother goddess/diety, which suggest a lot about the prehistoric society, in particular that they had religion. This one debate flips many historians beliefs on the actual primitivism of prehistoric man. And it also brings into play that woman had a very important place in prehistoric society. Witcombe deals with the question of why it was named the Venus of Willendorf and the connotations that come with the name. He also delves into the question of patriarchal vs. matriarchal societies and the constant debate between civilized vs. primitive. The primitive society must have been uncivilized based on the fact that the female figure seems so open and comfortable with her nakedness and protruding sexuality. It seems that modern historians do not want to consider the "primitive man" anything but primitive and are constantly trying to find way to interpret the figure in a light that which re-inforces modern mans disassociation with primitive man. Witcombe ends with a tantalizing idea that maybe the figure was actually carved by a female and not a male based on it possible connection to female menstruation, but he leaves us hanging and unsatisfied with little evidence. Finally, it seems that anyway you look on the figure and try to come up with an interpretation one always ends up with the same conclusion that it is tied to fertility in some way; 1. A mother goddess/creator=fertility, 2. A good luck charm/reassurance of plentiful hunts=fertility and 3. A venus=goddess of sexual love and beauty=fertility.

Discussion:
1. Are these the only possible uses of the figure? Could we be looking to far into the figure and in actuality it might just have been a doll for young girls.

2. I would like to think that it is a representation of the importance of women in prehistoric society and believe that she represents a mother goddess/creator figure. It seems very plausible based on the long history of the idea of mother earth.

Article Analysis 2: Art for Art's Sake in the Paleolithic John Halverson
In John Halverson's article Art for Art's Sake he tackles the question of the meaning of prehistoric Paleolithic art and whether or not it actually has a meaning. The theory of art for art's sake has been all but ignored in the past century in favor of other theories, many with just as little evidence as this one. Halverson's main point is that art had to start somewhere and why not have it start as just being art as a representational activity that had no meaning other than to represent what one saw in nature. Halverson suggests that theorist are reading too much into the the images and that the ethnogrphical information that we know about other primitive hunter gather societies. He agrees with theories Van Gennep that Paleolithic man did not have the mental intelligence to have meaning for early art, it was just a self rewarding process of representing what one saw on a daily basis. If these images were created as pure and simple art than there is no other purpose beyond the art itself. Halverson brings up three good questions about Paleolithic art:
    1. Why are the figures so "naturalistic"
       Halverson answers this question by arguing that the artist was just reproducing what he saw in everyday life. Which seems to be the basis of most theories anyway. The prehistoric artists for whatever reason depicted faithfully what he saw, nothing beyond that, just representing an object.
    2. Why are they located where they are
       It seems plausible that they were painted in caves because art was private and that the surfaces of caves provided good working areas.
    3. Why animals
       Why animals is a good question, Halverson seems to nail it right on the head when he says that it was what they were preoccupied with, so why not depict them.

If there was no meaning behind the simple representations of the animals, which is very plausible because there is little emphasis placed on composition there would seem to be no reason not to assume that Paleolithic art was just art for the sake of art.

Discussion:
1. Can we assume that the art was produced for the intrinsic rewards of art for art's sake. Or is there another reason for creating art?

2. If we make the analogy that art was created for religious reasons, or hunter magic by comparison with Australian Aboriginal rock art how do we do this without confirming that prehistoric man had religion. We tend to believe (or like to believe) that prehistoric man is primitive, thus without religion.

3. Finally, does art have to have a meaning?

IX. Grand Issues at stake
1. Because we have to assume so much about prehistoric people, when does the assumptions become too much? Where do we stop?

2. Is our main problem with prehistoric art that we feel we have to have a cut and dry explanation for everything?

Bibliography