PREHISTORIC ART
Ring of Brodgar, Scotland
Created by
MeganOgborn
Sweet Briar college
Senior
SeminarProject
January 29, 2003
When was
thePrehistoric Era?
Lower and Middle
Paleolithic:c. 750,000-40,000 BP
Upper Paleolithic: c.
40,000-10,000BP
Mesolithic: c. 8,000-6,000 BP
Neolithic: c. 6,500-1500 BP
What isPrehistoric Art?
Prehistoric art can beseveral
things, from megaliths to little stone figurines, to paintings on thewalls of
caves. The term“prehistoric” indicates
that the culture that produced the artwork did not havea written language. Some of themore famous examples are
Stonehenge, the Nasca lines in Peru, and LascauxCave. Prehistoric artifacts andartwork can be found all over the world.
There are several forms ofprehistoric artifacts and artwork. There are small stone figurines (1), petroglyphs (2) found all over theworld, geoglyphs (3), megaliths (4), and last but not least, cave paintings(5). This webpage will focus ontwo examples of cave paintings, as well as female figurines, particularly the“Venus” figurines.
1. Stone Female Figurine
2. Petroglyph
3.
Geoglyph—Monkey from the Nasca Lines (Peru)
4. Megalith in Scotland
4. Altamira Cave, Spain
History ofPrehistoric Artwork:
The study of prehistoric work includes the collaborativeefforts of archaeologists, historians, and art historians. Each brings a particular skill to thetable; archaeologists look at tangible evidence, through examination of stones,minerals, bone, tusks, etc. Historians work towards creating a chronology of evolution while the arthistorian studies the artwork in relation to its culture. However, in the case of prehistoricartwork, there simply is not enough evidence for an art historian to look atthe socio-economic structure behind the work produced. Thus, the art historian will look atthe image, or object, compare it to others of the time, and of other cultures,and will offer some suggestions, as will the other two disciplines, for thepsyche and motivation for these ancient cultures to produce the works theydid. When interpreting prehistoricartwork, concerns are the current threats, different approaches of interpretation,pigments (cave paintings), and dating. Throughout the search and study of prehistoric artwork, there haveexisted many theories to the meaning of driving force behind the creation ofthe work. To fully appreciateprehistoric work, archaeologists, historians, and art historians seek out cluesof the cultures that produced such works. To go through each theory ever developed about prehistoric art would bepainfully long, so the three main players of twentieth century prehistorictheory will be discussed.
Breuil, LeRoi-Gourhan,
andMarshack: The Theorists
Abbé Henri Breuil “The Pope of Prehistory”
Perhaps one of thestrongest voices of the twentieth century, Breuil was most noted for hissketchings of the cave paintings he visited rather than solid scholarlywork. It was under his theoriesthat the links between prehistoric cave art and “magic hunting,” totemsism,spirituality, and the ever strong motivation of ritual. Breuil believed that at the core ofeach action to create prehistoric art was a ritual act or ceremony in someway. Although most of his theorieshave been disproved, his was the voice that was unquestioned for the majorityof the twentieth century.
Andreas Leroi-Gourhan
A careful scholar,Leroi-Gourhan was meticulous in his observations. He is known for his “structuralist” approach to thechronology of prehistoric cultures. Perhaps the greatest concept was the idea of the cave as a “globalenvironment.” This idea is basedfurther on view of “sanctuary” and “style.” He creates terms for differentstyles, “prefigurative,” “primitive,” “archaic,” and “classical.” He again divides when looking at thearrangement and placement of the animals. His works divide and divide again different groups.
Alexander Marshack
Marshack is acontemporary scholar who focuses on the cognitive development of prehistoriccultures. His approach is one thatdoes not separate the cognitive developments of today’s human from thePaleolithic homo sapiens. His efforts are meticulous, and all inclusive. He differs from Breuil, feeling thatthe “magic” and “fertility” are oversimplified terms that ignore severalcases.
Lascaux Cave,
nearMontignac, Dordogne, France:
http://www.culture.fr/culture/arcnat/lascaux/en
This wonderful cave was discovered in 1940. There are several aspects of this sitewhich make is extremely important, enabling scholars to study the style ofPaleolithic art. There are stonetools near the engraved segments, numerous lamps were found, and clumps ofpigment were found.
Lighting:
As the cave paintings go back several chambers into rock,light must have been brought into the cave. For most caves, portable lights were used, most likely inthe form of torches. To infer whatmethod was used for lighting, let our attention fall on another Paleolithiccave, Altamira. As with Lascaux,bones were left near the cave walls. Although Breuil suggested that the bones, filled with bone marrow, blood,resins were used to bind the pigment to the wall, scholar Matilde MuzquizPerez-Seoane suggests that in fact the marrow was used for lighting. A clay pot or bone holding marrow coulduse a plant fiber for a wick. Herstudies indicated that these “torches” did not produce soot, which would haveharmed the paintings over time, but the flame was somewhat unstable. The use of at least three torches wouldprovide a steady glow to work by. Yet the flickering light might help create an atmosphere where theviewer could almost see the wild bison moving. The soft light of the torch would have also given a softlight to the paints, making red appear to be brown, yellow look more orange. The pigments were made of local flora,and the technique to obtain the colors was fairly sophisticated. For the red pigment, iron oxide (redochre) was used. Black wasmanganese dioxide, although in some cases, charcoal from juniper or pine wasused. The use of shells to mix thepigments was common, as seen with both caves at Tito Bustillo, and Altamira,both located in Spain. To adhereto the cave wall, the pigment was mixed with water, or oils from flora andanimals. In his studies,Leroi-Gourhan noticed that certain groups of animals were placed in the samelocation in several different caves. Lascaux caves work as an example of his theory. Group A contained horses—about 30% ofthe animals depicted. Group Bshows bison and aurochs—again 30% of the total. Group C portrays ibex, deer and mammoth at 30%, and finallyGroup D represents 10%. Rareanimals such as felines, bears, and rhinoceroses are displayed in Group D. Thus, the animals in Groups A and Bwere located on the main walls in the central area. Group C animals were located near the entrance, and on theperipheries of the central areas. Group D animals were placed in the more remote areas.
Pigments:
Paleolithic artists have five colors at their disposal:yellow, red, brown, black and white. Although white is a rare color, it is seen at Lascaux! Pigment was applied to the wall inseveral ways, but the most effective was a brush made of animals fur. The ceilings were painted as well, butno extended brush was needed, as the ceilings were so low.
Spit painting: best eyen 2-4 inches from wall. As French prehistoric art specialistMichel Lorblanchet said, “Human breath, the most profound expression of a humanbeing, literally breathes life onto a cave wall. The painter projects his being onto the rock.”
Recent news:
The Lascaux caves were an immediate sensation. Shortly after the end of World War II,scientists began to note some deterioration on the paintings. Not long after, patches of green moldand algae ere visible. On April20, 1963, the Ministry of Cultural Affairs closed the Lascaux cavesindefinitely. The deteriorationwas the result of gas acidified affecting the water vapor being breathed in andout by visitors. Other threats toprehistoric works are animal droppings, weather, and temperature changes. In 1980, a popular reproduction projectwas set in motion. Today all cavesof Lascaux are in their original condition, and visitors can still marvel atall chambers of Lascaux.
Methods to Date Prehistoric Art:
Relative Dating:
Relative dating relies on stylistic analysis, superimpositionanalysis, weathering, and inter-site patterning. When considering the weathering method, it is mostly basedupon common-sense observation: a less weathered engraving could be younger. Factors of the weathering method aremicro-environment, or the depth of an engraving. Through stylistic dating researchers study superimpositionand weathering in order to create a chronology of different styles and activityof different groups.
Absolute Dating:
Absolute dating is much less reliable, comparing oneobject to another to obtain a chronology. The concept of stratified art holds some bearing, in which the layers ofsoil, varnishes, or deposits can date an object over the object in question. Association dating, however, isextremely unreliable. The conceptwith this method holds that an object can be compared to another object of aknown date, thus dating the object in question. However, if an Egyptian object is brought to Greece,although the Egyptian object might at one time have been contemporary with theGrecian object in question, the Egyptian piece could have been kept as anheirloom, and not buried until some centuries after it was originally broughtover.
Scientific Methods:
1. AcceleratorMass Spectrometry (AMS):
A method ofradio-carbon dating which counts the actual number of carbon 14 atoms presentin a sample, rather than the small number of 14C atoms which decayradioactively during the measurement time. It requires only a tiny sample of carbon, and is a quickerbut more expensive method than conventional radiocarbon dating.
2. Carbon-ratiodating:
A techniquebased on the fact that the ration of calcium and potassium/titanium in rockvarnish may decrease exponentially with age.
3. Micro-erosionAnalysis:
An opticaltechnique for assessing the age of petroglyphs from their degree of erosion,based on marks of known age.
4. Proton-inducedX-ray emission:
A technique foranalyzing chemical composition, since X-rays emitted from the sample havedifferent wavelengths, which are characteristic of the elements present.
5. Radio-Carbondating:
A datingmethod, which measures the decay of the radioactive isotope of carbon (14C) inorganic (plants and animals) material to nitrogen. This decay begins as soon as an organism dies, so that asample’s connect of 14C is an indicator of the time elapsed since death. The dates are expressed as a number,followed by a plus/minus sign and then another smaller number. The first number is the age in yearsbefore present; the second is the associated probably error.
6. Scanningelectron microscopy (SEM):
A technique forexamining the microscopic and submicroscopic structure of objects up to atleast 50,000X magnification. Themicroscope forms an image as the sample is scanned by a high-energy electronbeam.
7. X-raydiffraction:
A technique foridentifying the mineralogy of crystalline material by exposing it to a beam ofX-rays. The different X-rayintensities transmitted after passing through the sample identify the elementspresent.
Chauvet Cave:
History:
The cave was discovered in 1994, and was authenticated as aHistoric Monument on October 13, 1995. On Feb 14, 1997, the state became the owner of the cave, having in courtcome to the agreement of paying $87,5 million francs to the three finders. Authentication was based more onobservation. Researchers looked atthe engraved lines. When a line isnewly engraved, the interior cut is clear, white, and after thousands of yearsupon the wall of a cave, the interior has become covered inmicro-crystals. For a modernartist to re-create such images, the individual would have to be a master ofanimal representation, and of prehistoric art and those animals of theera. The floors were also acontingent—the floors were completely covered with animal skulls, andbones. The cave dates back 31,000years ago, disproving the theories of Leroi-Gourhan. For protection against unwanted visitors or vandals, thecave is now fortified through permanent audio and video surveillance, and thosewho are allowed to enter must follow strict procedures including a special suitand shoes set that have not been in contact with the exterior of the cave. Within the cave, a system ofclimatological and biochemical surveillance has been installed to regulate thehygrometry and temperature within the cave, including the bacteriology andgrowth of concretions.
Research:
Through analysis, researches have found that to maintain thedelicate environment within the cave, humans may only be within the cave for upto 8 hours, for 15 days. Themaximum amount of persons to enter should be 12. Bearing this in mind, researchers conduct two studies ayear, lasting for 15 days. Geologists and floor specialist are allowed two additional weeklongstudies. Only half of the teamenters on any given interval, equaling 8/9 persons per day for roughly 6-7hours.
Discoveries:
When entering the Brunel Chamber, there exist two groups ofred, painted dots. Researchershave carefully suggested the technique they believe was used throughobservation of the direction of paint, the marks left by the creators. The dots were created by theapplication of a thick layer of colorant applied to the palm of the hand. It has been suggested that these groupsof dots were created by different people—as indicative of the size of thedots. For the smallest group, itis believed that a woman or adolescent made them, as male created the largergroup. The prints were made withthe palm of the right hands. Smallmarks left by the thumb, or middle finger helps researchers place the postureand stance of the creators.
http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/arcnat/chauvet/en/index.html
As an unexpected surprise, the cave bears severalimpressions of predatory animals, usually not seen within Paleolithicpaintings. Animals such as therhinoceros, lions, and bears are depicted. It is believed that the Aurignacian culture, which is consideredthe first culture of the early Upper Paleolithic era are the originators. This culture has produced flint tools,which were standardized to include end-scarpers, and burins. The development of body ornamentationwas significant innovation of the Aurignacian culture, including bracelets, ivorybeads, carved bone pendants.
Another huge discovery was located on a
ceilingoverhang. The decoration of
theoverhang includes a depiction of a “Venus” figure. In short, a Venus figure was that of a woman, and thedepiction of
her pubic region by the portrayal of a triangle or the letter “V”was used. Near the Venus exists amammoth and two felines. Above theVenus figure was the composite of a
man-bison, or “Sorcerer.” It is believedthat the Venus was not only the
earliest painting. As an interesting
observation, the other figures near her werenever superimposed.
Venus of Willendorf
FemaleFigurines:
It is undeniable that during the prehistoric era severalfemale figurines were sculpted. There are generally two sets of the figurines: those belonging to theUpper Paleolithic, and those belonging to the Neolithic era. Of those within the Upper Paleolithicera, another sub-group can be noted, usually referred to as the “Venusfigures.” These figurines coverthe majority of Europe—from Western France to Russia. Those in the Neolithic period include a more diverse image,and geographically cover the Mediterranean island and Eastern Europe.
UpperPaleolithic:
Prehistoric artwork within the early Upper Paleolithic era(25,000-23,000 BC) includes cave paintings in France and Spain depictinganimals both hunted and feared (as seen in Chauvet Cave.) Other forms ofartwork include engraved or carved bone and stone objects, as well as the Venusfigurines. Of the Venus figurines,most are made of stone or mammoth ivory, and can range in size anywhere from4cm up to 22cm, although most stay on the smaller size. They are known by having large breasts,buttocks, and thick thighs. Thearms and feet are significantly decreased and disproportionate, or absent. The faces are abstract or devoid ofdetails. Several were found closeto flint tools.
Neolithic:
Those in the Neolithic period are mostly female, but thereare some male figurines, as well as a few animal models. Several do not show any particulargender characteristics. Severalalso hold similar markings and design throughout the region, suggesting perhapsa common meaning and links the figurines to a social or religious traditionthroughout Europe. As many weresimilar in shape, several also have identification markers that distinguishthem, usually indicating their location.
Theories:
There are multiple theories that suggest how the figurinesfit into the culture in which they were produced. Some theories suggest that the figurines are of the “MotherGoddess,” a deity that represents fertility for both crops and the futureexistence of the society. It hasbeen suggested by scholar Margaret Ehrenberg that this ideology will not workwhen considering that the belief systems of forager societies, “who are closelyin touch with the natural world and whose own social systems are based ongreater equality than that of later socially stratified societies, typicallycenter on general spirits and forces, rather than personified gods andgoddesses (74).” Another suggestionClive Gamble makes suggests that the figurines were left as markers in openareas during the zenith of glaciation for other nomadic peoples while one-triberetreats to regional caves.
One question that commonly springs up from the discovery ofthese female figurines concerns the role of the genders within society. Darwin suggested that before thepatriarchal societies became dominant, the majority of prehistoric societieswere matriarchal. Scholar LeRoyMcDermott has offered the original idea that perhaps the figurines were createdby women as self-representations. The question still remains how these figures fit into society. McDermott offers that the figurineswere part of learning within the society. In this sense, McDermott’s theoryaligns well with Alexander Marshack’s. Marshack believed that the prehistoric cultures were just as advancedcognitively as contemporary society. If prehistoric societies, largely believed to be hunter and gatherers,could track the grazing patterns of animals, and follow the “rhythms of theland” to gather food, then surely these ancient cultures would be able tocreate artwork, either through cave painting or through sculpture. The use of these figurines aseducational models to teach about the physical changes which occur in a women’slife, including, “maturation, menstruation, copulation, pregnancy, birth, andlactation” (1991A:282). Thisideology does fit into the lifestyles of some contemporary tribes in Nigeria. Women desiring a child would carry asmall figurine with her in hopes to become pregnant, just as a woman expectingher child might carry a small red painted female figurine with her to ward offany problems that might arise.
McDermott suggests that the exaggerated forms of the femalefigurines comes from the point of view the woman creating would have by lookingat her own body. McDermotttherefore suggests that it is only women who are sculpting these figurines,which has been hailed just as much a sexist comment as solely men making thefigurines by Paul Bahn. Anotherflaw in McDermott’s argument is the depiction of hair, which is out of view forwomen, if they were creating the sculptures in their own image. As so many of the cave paintings duringthis period display cognitive advancement, and alteration in correctproportions, the concept of women merely copying their own bodies, without anythought, is another strong disagreeing thought, offered by Whitney Davis.
Bibliography
Bahn, Paul G. Cambridge Illustrated History: PrehistoricArt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1998.
Bandi, Hans-Georg; Breuil, Henri; Berger-Kirchner, Lilo;Lhote, Henri; Holm, Erik; Lommel, Andreas. The Art of the Stone Age. Methuen, Holle and Co., 1961.
Bataille, Georges. Prehistoric Painting: Lascaux or theBirth of Art. Lusanne, Switzerland: Skira,1955.
Beltran, Antonio. The Cave of Altamira. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1998.
Chauvet Cave. http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/arcnat/chauvet/en/index.html
Cheyne, Dr. J.A. “Prehistoric Art.” http://online.elcamino.cc.ca.us/art2/prehistoric/html
Ehrenberg, Margaret. Women in Prehistory. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1989.
Graizosi, Paolo. Paleolithic Art. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1960.
Jacobs, James Q. “The Dawn of Prehistoric Rock Art.” http://www.jgjacobs.net/rock_art/dawn.html 1998.
Lascaux Cave. http://www.culture.fr.culture/arcnat/lascaux/en
Levine, Morton H. “Prehistoric Art and Ideology.” AmericanAnthropologist, Vol 59, Issue 6 (Dec.,1957), 949-964. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7294%28195712%292%3A59%3A6%3C949%3APAAI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K
Marshack, Alexander. The Roots of Civilization: TheCognitive Beginnings of Man’s First Art, Symbol, and Notation. New York: Mc-Graw Hill, 1972.
McDermott, LeRoy. “Self-Representation in Upper PaleolithicFemale Figurines.” Current Anthropology,Vol 37, Issue 2 (Apr., 1996), 227-275. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0011-3204%28199604%2937%3A2%3C227%3ASIUPFF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X
Morwood, M.J. and Smith, C.E. “Contemporary Approaches toWorld Rock Art.” 1996. http://www.une.au/Arch/ROCKART/Analysis.html
Valladas, H., Clottes, J., Geneste, J.M., Garcias, M.A.,Arnold, M., Cachier, H., Tisnerat-Laborde, N. “Paleolithic paintings: Evolutionof prehistoric cave art.” Nature.October 4, 2001.http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/n…/41347a0_r.html&filetype=&dynoptions 2001
Whitehouse, Dr. David. “Oldest Lunar calendar identified.” BBCNews Online. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/975360.stm October 16, 2001.
Witcombe, Christopher L.C.E. “Art Resources on the Web.”October 24, 1995. http://witcombe.sbc.edu/researchresources