Paleolithic Art: A Cultural History

Oscar Moro Abadıa • Manuel R. Gonzalez 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 mobiliary) 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 por-

table/parietal division has remained a popular divide among archaeologists, in the

last 30 years increasing numbers of specialists have crossed the boundaries estab-

lished 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 Abadıa (&)

Department of Archaeology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland

A1C 5S7, Canada

e-mail: omoro@mun.ca

M. R. Gonzalez Morales

Instituto Internacional de Investigaciones Prehistoricas, Edificio Interfacultativo, Avda. de los

Castros s/n, Universidad de Cantabria, 39011 Santander, Spain

e-mail: moralesm@unican.es

123

J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269–306

DOI 10.1007/s10814-012-9063-8

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,

(f) 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 MOBILIARY 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 mobiliary 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 mobiliary) 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 Andre Leroi-Gourhan

dominated the field of Paleolithic art studies and publications focused on the

Franco-Cantabrian region. Furthermore, the interpretation of Pleistocene images

270 J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269–306

123

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 mobiliary 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 conceptu-

alization 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 encyclo-

pedias in which archaeologists provide comprehensive coverage of the main

concepts used in archaeological research. These reference works are generally

J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269–306 271

123

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 mobiliary 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 parietal, and art

rupestre (Otte 1999, p. 216). Dictionaries and encyclopedias that appeared before

1990 often distinguished between cave/parietal art and mobiliary art (Bray and

Trump 1970, p. 51; Brezillon 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 l’art parietal et rupestre (sometimes called l’art des parois) and

l’art mobilier (Brezillon 1984, p. 30; Delporte 1979, p. 12, 1990, p. 32;

Fig. 1 Grotte Cosquer (photograph by and reproduced with Jean Clottes’ permission)

272 J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269–306

123

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 Tacon 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; Zilhao 2007),

economic networks (Alvarez Fernandez 2002; Kuhn and Stiner 2007), and techno-

logical 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

J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269–306 273

123

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 Museum 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

Munchen 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.

274 J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269–306

123

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

J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269–306 275

123

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

Abadıa 2006; Moro Abadıa and Gonzalez Morales 2004), so we limit ourselves here

to a brief summary of how this authentication determined Western conceptualiza-

tions 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’age 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

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

276 J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269–306

123

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 naıve 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 Pena,

and Teyjat in 1903, El Pendo in 1905, Niaux in 1906, Le Cap-Blanc in 1910, La

Pasiega in 1911, Le Tuc d’Audoubert and Les Trois-Freres in 1912, and

Santimamine 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 nonfig-

urative 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

J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269–306 277

123

compared to Renaissance frescoes (Breuil 1941, p. 375) and the Sistine chapel

(Dechelette 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 represen-

tations. 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 mobiliary 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’archeologie prehistorique celtique et

gallo-romaine, Dechelette (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 premieres

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 prehistoire, 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; Raphael 1945; Ucko and Rosenfeld

1967).

Although some specialists called for the unity of mobiliary and cave represen-

tations (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 decoupes,

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 procede de degenerescence) of naturalistic representations. He

278 J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269–306

123

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 Musee Prehistorique (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

J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269–306 279

123

founded on cave paintings. Specialists rarely took into account portable represen-

tations in considering the meanings of Paleolithic visual cultures. For example,

leading archaeologists and art historians, including Reinach (1912), Begouen (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-Freres 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-Freres).

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; Raphael 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 mobiliary objects. He provided two

main reasons. First, ‘‘unlike mobiliary 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 mobiliary 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

280 J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269–306

123

(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 consid-

erable 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 relation-

ships (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

J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269–306 281

123

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; Tacon 2010, 2011; Tacon et al.

2012), and Asia (Bednarik 1994; Olivieri 2010; Tacon 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 anthropolog-

ical turn explains recent developments in the conceptualization of Paleolithic

images.

282 J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269–306

123

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 mobiliary 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 archaeol-

ogists 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 mobiliary 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 mobiliary 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,

J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269–306 283

123

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 representa-

tions, 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 Cezanne, 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

284 J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269–306

123

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 1970s, 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

Blombos cave (South Africa) in the 1990s are the best example of how

nonfigurative images have become theoretically important (Fig. 3). Two of these

J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269–306 285

123

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 Blombos ochres as the most ancient instances

of Paleolithic art and symbolism (D’Errico et al. 2003, p. 4; Henshilwood et al.

2009; Knight 2010; Zilhao 2007).

Parallel to the reassessment of nonfigurative images is the reevaluation 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 Blombos ochres (photograph by and reproduced with Chris Henshilwood and FrancescoD’Errico’s permission)

286 J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269–306

123

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; Zuchner 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 representa-

tional 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;

Tomaskova 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)

J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269–306 287

123

variety of representations in the study of prehistoric artistic and symbolic systems,

including colorants (Barham 2002; Guineau et al. 2001; Hovers et al. 2003; Zilhao

et al. 2010), finger flutings (Sharpe 2004; Sharpe and Van Gelder 2006), portable

representational objects (Farbstein 2011; Tosello 2003; White 1992, 2006), negative

hand prints (Clottes and Courtin 1994; Von Petzinger and Nowell 2011), 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;

Zilhao 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

288 J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269–306

123

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

Ucagizli 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 Fernandez 2002; D’Errico and Vanhaeren 2002;

Vanhaeren et al. 2004), conveyors of ethnic, social, and personal identity

(Vanhaeren 2005; Zilhao 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; Mellars 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

J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269–306 289

123

assemblages based on the construction of cultural taxonomies (e.g., Bar-Yosef and

Van Peer 2009; Boeda 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 chaıne operatoire 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 (Alvarez 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 (Corchon

Rodrıguez 1997; Delluc and Delluc 1991; Delporte and Clottes 1996; Gonzalez

Sainz 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; Begouen 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

290 J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269–306

123

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 Prehistoricas de Cantabria (Spain).

We are grateful to those colleagues who commented on earlier versions and offered assistance with our

research, including Jean Clottes, Noel Coye, Claude Blanckaert, Vıctor M. Fernandez, Cesar Gonzalez

Sainz, Arnaud Hurel, John Robb, Nathan Schlanger, Alain Schnapp, Lawrence G. Straus, Eduardo

Palacio Perez, 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.

J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269–306 291

123

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 Fernandez, 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: s135–s147.

Arias, P., Gonzalez Sainz, C., Moure, A., and Ontanon, R. (1999). La Garma: un descenso al pasado,

Gobierno de Cantabria y Universidad de Cantabria, Santander.

Aujoulat, N. (2004). Lascaux: le geste, l’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.), Hohlenkunst und Raum:

Archaologische und architektonische Perspektiven, Jan van der Most, Dusseldorf, pp. 11–20.

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: 181–190.

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 chaıne operatoire 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.

Begouen, H. (1929). The magic origin of prehistoric art. Antiquity 3: 5–19.

Begouen, 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 Tuc 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.

292 J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269–306

123

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.

Boeda, E. (1995). Levallois: A volumetric 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, Societe, Civilisations 26:205–223.

Borges, J. L. (1996). El idioma analıtico de John Wilkins. In Borges, J. L. (ed.), Obras completas II,

Buenos Aires, Emece, 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: Elements de paleontologie 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: 395–416.

Bray, W., and Trump, D. (eds.) (1970). A Dictionary of Archaeology, Penguin Press, London.

Breuil, H. (1905). La degenerescence des figures d’animaux en motifs ornementaux a l’epoque du renne.

Comptes-Rendus des Seances de l’Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres: 49e annee 1:105–120.

Breuil, H. (1906). L’art a ses debuts: l’enfant, les primitifs, Imprimerie-Librairie de Montligeon,

Montligeoin.

Breuil, H. (1907). L’evolution de l’art parietal des cavernes de l’age du renne, Imprimerie de Monaco,

Monaco.

Breuil, H. (1909). L’evolution de l’art quaternaire et les travaux d’Edouard Piette, Leroux, Paris.

Breuil, H. (1941). Une altamira francaise: la caverne de Lascaux a Montignac (Dordogne). Comptes-

Rendus des Seances de l’Academie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres 85e annee V: 347–376.

Breuil, H. (1949). Beyond the Bounds of the History, Gawthorn, London.

Breuil, H. (1952a). Quatre cents siecles d’art parietal: les cavernes ornees de l’age du renne, Centre

d’Etudes et de Documentation Prehistorique, 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 (Paleolithique et Mesolithique),

Payot, Paris.

Brezillon, M. (1969). Dictionnaire de la prehistoire, Larousse, Paris.

Brezillon, M. (1984). Le paleolithique superieur et l’art parietal paleolithique. In Beaussang, G. (ed.),

L’art des cavernes: atlas des grottes ornees paleolithiques francaises, Ministere 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 francaise pour l’avancement des sciences: Congres de Montauban (Aout

1902). Compte Rendu de la Section d’Anthropologie: Revue de l’Ecole d’Anthropologie de Paris

Douzieme Annee XII: 334–349.

Capitan, L. (1902b). Les origines de l’art en Gaule: extraits d’un compte rendu de l’Association

Francaise pour l’Avancement des Sciences, Chaix, Paris.

Capitan, L. (1913). Les dernieres decouvertes prehistoriques se rapportant aux origines de l’art. Revue

Scientifique 23: 705–708.

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

J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269–306 293

123

Capitan, L., and Bouyssonie, J. (1924). Limeuil, son gisement a gravures sur pierres de l’age du Renne:

un atelier d’art prehistorique, Nourry, Paris.

Capitan, L., and Breuil, H. (1902). Gravures paleolithiques sur les parois de la grotte des Combarelles

pres des Eyzies (Dordogne). Bulletins de la Societe d’Anthropologie de Paris V� Serie 3: 527–535.

Capitan, L., Breuil, H., and Peyrony, D. (1902). Les figures gravees a l’epoque paleolithique sur les parois

de la grotte de Bernifal. Revue de l’Ecole d’Anthropologie de Paris 6: 201–209.

Capitan, L., Breuil, H., and Peyrony, D. (1903). Une nouvelle grotte a parois gravees a l’epoque

prehistorique: la grotte de Teyjat (Dordogne). Revue de l’Ecole d’Anthropologie de Paris Treizieme

annee X: 364–367.

Capitan, L., Breuil, H., and Peyrony, D. (1906). Les gravures de la grotte des Eyzies. Revue de l’Ecole

d’Anthropologie de Paris XVI: 429–441.

Capitan, L., Peyrony, D., and Bouyssonie, J. (1913). L’art des cavernes: les dernieres decouvertes 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 prehistorique, Felix Alcan, Paris.

Cartailhac, E. (1902). Les cavernes ornees de dessins: la grotte d’Altamira, Espagne: mea culpa d’un

sceptique. L’Anthropologie 13: 348–354.

Cartailhac, E. (1906). Dessins prehistoriques de la caverne de Niaux, dans les Pyrenees de l’Ariege.

Comptes-Rendus des Seances de l’Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 50: 533–537.

Cartailhac, E., and Breuil, H. (1906). La caverne d’Altamira a Santillane pres 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 a Vallon-Pont-d’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 Tacon, P. (eds.) (1998). The Archaeology of Rock Art, Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.

Chiron, L. (1889). La grotte Chabot, commune d’Aiqueze (Gard). Bulletin de la Societe d’Anthropologie

de Lyon 8: 96–97.

Clottes, J. (1990). L’art des objets au paleolithique, Ministere de la Culture, Paris.

Clottes, J. (1995). Paleolithic petroglyphs at Foz Coa, 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 prehistorique en Ariege-Pyrenees, 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 redecouvert, 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, a Vallon-Pont-d’Arc (Ardeche, France): datations directes et indirectes par la

methode du radiocarbone. Compte Rendu de l’Academie de Sciences 320: 1130–1140.

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.

294 J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269–306

123

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.

Corchon Rodrıguez, M. S. (1997). La corniche cantabrique entre 15000 et 13000 ans BP: la perspective

donnee 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 Our

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., Delque-Kolic, 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 Image 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.

Dechelette, J. (1908). Manuel d’archeologie prehistorique celtique et gallo-romaine, Alphonse Picard,

Paris.

Delluc, B., and Delluc, G. (1991). L’art parietal archaıque en Aquitaine, CNRS, Paris.

Delluc, B., and Delluc, G. (2003). Lascaux retrouve, Pilote 24, Perigueux.

Delporte, H. (1979). L’image de la femme dans l’art prehistorique, Picard, Paris.

Delporte, H. (1990). L’image des animaux dans l’art prehistorique, Picard, Paris.

Delporte, H., and Clottes, J. (eds.) (1996). Pyrenees prehistoriques: arts et societes, Comite des Travaux

Historiques et Scientifiques, Paris.

De Morgan, J. (1909). Les premieres civilisations: etudes sur la prehistoire et l’histoire jusqu’a la fin de

l’empire macedonien, 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 (Cervus elaphus) age and sex

from upper canines: Application to the study of Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic ornaments.

Journal of Archaeological Science 29: 211–232.

J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269–306 295

123

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., Zilhao, 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’evolution des mondes et des societes, Alcan, Paris.

Dupont, M. E. (1872). L’homme pendant les ages 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 ages de la Pierre: instruments, armes et ornements de la Grande-Bretagne, Germer

Bailliere, 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. (2011). Technologies of art: A critical reassessment of Pavlovian art and society: Using

chaıne operatoire method and theory. Current Anthropology 52: 401–432.

Farbstein, R. A., and Svoboda, J. (2007). New finds of Upper Paleolithic decorative objects from

Predmostı, 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 mobiliary art. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 9: 189–208.

Fritz, C. (1999b). La gravure dans l’art mobilier magdalenien: du geste a 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, echanges: la ‘notion de

frontiere’ dans l’art magdalenien. In Cazals, N., Gonzalez Urquijo J., and Terradas, X. (eds.),

Frontieres naturelles, frontieres culturelles dans les Pyrenees prehistoriques, Universidad de

Cantabria, Santander, pp. 165–182.

296 J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269–306

123

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, Societe Prehistorique

Francaise, 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.

Gonzalez Sainz, C. (1989). El Magdaleniense superior-final de la region cantabrica, Tantın y

Universidad de Cantabria, Santander.

Goury, G. (1927). Precis d’archeologie prehistorique: origine et evolution de l’homme: tome premier:

epoque paleolithique, 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: 211–225.

Hahn, J. (1986). Kraft und Aggression: die Botschaft der Eiszeitkunst im Aurignacien Suddeutschlands?

Archaeologica Venatoria, Tubingen.

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 Blombos 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 Blombos Cave, South Africa. Journal of Human Evolution 57: 27–47.

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: 187–200.

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.

J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269–306 297

123

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., Stormer, C., and Willfuhr, 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 Gulec, 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 Gulec, 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 paleolithique: methodes et applications,

Picard, Paris.

Lartet, H., and Christy, H. (1864). Objects graves et sculptes des temps pre-historiques dans l’Europe

occidental (extrait de la Revue Archeologique), Librairie Academique Didier et Ce, Paris.

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

Layton, R. (2007). Art, language and the evolution of spirirtuality. 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). Prehistoire de l’art occidental (nouvelle edition revisee par G. et B.

Delluc), Mazenod, Paris.

Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1970). Analyse methodique de l’art prehistorique. In Leroi-Gourhan, L. (ed.), L’art

parietal: langage de la prehistoire, Jerome Million, Grenoble, pp. 205–214.

Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1976). Interpretation esthetique et religieuse des figures et des symboles dans la

prehistoire. 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 prehistorie, 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 paleolithique. In Clottes, J., and Shay, T.

(eds.), The Limitations of Archaeological Knowledge, Etudes et Recherches Archeologique a

l’Universite de Liege, Liege, pp. 115–140.

Lorblanchet, M. (1995). Les grottes ornees de la prehistoire: nouveaux regards, Edition Errance, Paris.

Lorblanchet, M. (2004). L’art prehistorique du Quercy, Editions Loubatieres, 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.

298 J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269–306

123

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: 271–311.

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 presentee a la Societe 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: 122–129.

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 Abadıa, O. (2006). Art, crafts and Paleolithic Art. Journal of Social Archaeology 6: 119–141.

Moro Abadıa, O., and Gonzalez Morales, M. R. (2004). Towards a genealogy of the concept of

‘Paleolithic mobiliary art.’ Journal of Anthropological Research 60: 321–339.

Mortillet, G. (1883). Le prehistorique: antiquite de l’homme, Reinwald, Paris.

Mortillet, G. (1897). Formation de la nation francaise, Felix Alcan, Paris.

Mortillet, G., and Mortillet, A. (1902). Musee prehistorique, 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: s121–s133.

Nowell, A., and Davidson, I. (eds.) (2010). Stone Tools and Evolution of Human Cognition, University

Press of Colorado, Boulder.

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

Oxford University Press, London.

J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269–306 299

123

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 prehistoire, De Boeck and Larcier, Bruxelles.

Ouzman, S. (1998). Towards a mindscape of landscape: Rock-art as expression of world-understanding.

In Chippindale, C., and Tacon, P. S. (eds.), The Archaeology of Rock-Art, Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, pp. 30–41.

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 9:116–125.

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). Elements de prehistoire, 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 Societe

d’Anthropologie de Paris, seance du 18 avril 1873, Typographie A. Hennuyer, Paris.

Piette, E. (1894). Notes pour server a 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 Memoires de la

Societe d’Anthropologie de Paris, seance du 5 novembre 1902, Masson, Paris.

Piette, E. (1904). Classification des sediments formes dans les cavernes pendant l’age du Renne: extrait

de L’Anthropologie, tome XV, Masson, Paris.

Piette, E. (1907). L’art pendant l’age 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.

Raphael, 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 raisonnee du Musee de Saint-Germain-en-Laye: antiquites

nationales: epoque 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). Repertoire de l’art quaternaire, Ernest Leroux, Paris.

Reinhardt, B., Wehrberger, K., and Bosinski, G. (eds.) (1994). Der Lowenmensch: 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.

300 J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269–306

123

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, Malden, 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 prehistoricos de la provincia de

Santander, Telesforo Martınez, Santander.

Sauvet, G. (1990). Les signes dans l’art mobilier. In Clottes, J. (ed.), L’art des objets au paleolithique:

tome 2, Ministere de la Culture, Paris, pp. 83–99.

Sauvet, G., and Wlodarczyk, A. (1995). Elemens d’une grammaire formelle de l’art parietal paleolithique.

L’Anthropologie 99: 193–211.

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: 511–537.

Soressi, M., and D’Errico, F. (2007). Pigments, gravures, parures: les comportements symboliques

controverses des Neandertaliens. In Vandermeersch, B., and Maureille, B. (eds.), Les Neandertal-

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.

J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269–306 301

123

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 Paleolithique: XXIXe supplement a Gallia prehistoire,

CNRS, Paris.

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

Paris.

Tacon, 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.

Tacon, P. S. (2011). 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.

Tacon, 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.

Tacon, 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.

Tomaskova, 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 gravees du Perigord magdalenien: 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., Tisnerat-Laborde, N., Cachier, H., Arnold, M., Bernaldo de Quiros, F., Cabrera Valdes, V.,

Clottes, J., Courtin, J., Fortea Perez, J. J., Gonzalez Saınz, 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: 1105–1128.

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 Ariege magdalenienne: Gallia prehistorique (suppl. 22), CNRS,

Paris.

Vialou, D. (1998). Problematique de l’interpretation de l’art paleolithique. Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche

XLIX: 267–281.

Vialou, D. (ed.) (2004). La prehistoire: historie et dictionnaire, Robert Laffont, Paris.

Von Petzinger, G., and Nowell, A. (2011). A question of style: Reconsidering the stylistic approach to

dating Paleolithic parietal art in France. Antiquity 85: 1165–1183.

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

302 J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269–306

123

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 Educacion 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 Paleolithique Superieur, Centre Universitaire Europeen 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 materal construction of social

identity at Sungir. In Averbouh, A., Cattelain, P., and Jullien, M. (eds.), L’Os: Festschrift for

Henriette Camps-Fabrer, Universite 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 archaıque: perspectives technologiques et

regionales des fouilles recentes. In Mistrot, V. (ed.), De Neandertal a l’homme moderne: l’Aquitaine

prehistorique, vingt ans de decouvertes, Editions Confluences, Bourdeaux, pp. 93–103.

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

National Gallery, Ashgate, 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’epoque du Renne en France, Cahier d’Art, Paris.

Zilhao, J. (2007). The emergence of ornaments and art: An archaeological perspective on the origin of

‘behavioral modernity.’ Journal of Archaeological Research 15: 1–54.

Zilhao, J., Angelucci, D., Badal-Garcıa, E., D’Errico, F., Daniel, F., Dayet, L., Douka, K., Higham, T.

F. G., Martınez-Sanchez, M. J., Montes-Bernardez, R., Murcia-Mascaros, S., Perez-Sirvent, C.,

Roldan-Garcıa, C., Vanhaeren, M., Villaverde, V., Wood, R., and Zapata, J. (2010). Symbolic use of

marine shells and mineral pigments by Iberian Neandertals. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences 107: 1023–1028.

J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269–306 303

123

Zuchner, 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 actualite d’Andre Leroi-

Gourhan, APDCA, Antibes.

Azema, 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.) (2011). 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, Ardeche, 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 Paleolithique Superieur 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. (2011). Pourquoi l’art prehistorique? Gallimard, Paris.

Clottes, J., and Azema, M. (2005). Les felins de la grotte Chauvet, Seuil, Paris.

Clottes, J., and Lewis-Williams, D. (1996). Les chamanes de la prehistoire: transe et magie dans les

grottes ornees, Seuil, Paris.

Clottes, J., and Lewis-Williams, D. (2007). Les chamanes de la prehistoire: transe et magie dans les

grottes ornees, Suivi de Apres ‘‘Les Chamane,s’’ polemique et reponses, Seuil, Paris.

Conard, N., Malina, M., Munzel, S., and Seeberger, F. (2004). Eine Mammutelfenbeinflote aus dem

Aurignacien des Geißenklosterle: Neue Belege fur eine musikalische Tradition im fruhen

Jungpalaolithikum auf der Schwabischen Alb. Archaologisches Korrespondenzblatt 23: 447–462.

Coye, N. (ed.) (2006). Sur les chemins de la prehistoire: l’Abbe Breuil, du Perigord a l’Afrique du Sud,

Somogy, Paris.

Delluc, B., and Delluc, G. (2008). Dictionnaire de Lascaux, Editions Sud-Ouest, Bordeaux.

Dissanayake, E. (2000). Art and Intimacy: How the Arts Began, University of Washington Press, Seattle.

Domingo Sanz, 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 paleolıtico en Asturias: aportaciones desde una

arqueologıa contextual no postestilıstica. Zephyrus 53- 54: 177–216.

Garate Maidagan, D. (2008). Las pinturas zoomorfas punteadas del Paleolıtico Superior cantabrico: hacia

una cronologıa dilatada de una tradicion grafica homogenea. Trabajos de Prehistoria 65: 29–47.

Garate Maidagan, D. (2008). Perduration des traditions graphiques dans l’art parietal pre-magdalenien des

Cantabres. INORA 50: 18–25.

Gely, B., and Azema, M. (2005). Les mammouths de la grotte Chauvet, Seuil, Paris.

Gonzalez Sainz, C. (2007). De quelques particularites des centres parietaux paleolithiques dans la region

cantabrique. Prehistoire, Art et Societes LXII: 19–36.

Gonzalez Sainz, 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.

Gonzalez Sainz, C., and San Miguel, C. (2001). Las cuevas del desfiladero: arte rupestre paleolıtico en el

valle del rıo Carranza (Cantabria-Vizcaya), Universidad de Cantabria y Consejerıa de Cultura del

Gobierno de Cantabria, Santander.

Gonzalez Sainz, C., Cacho, R., and Fukazawa, T. (2003). Arte paleolıtico en la region cantabrica: base

de datos multimedia photo VR, Universidad de Cantabria, Santander.

304 J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269–306

123

Guthrie, R. D. (2005). The Nature of Paleolithic Art, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Jorge, V. O. (ed.) (1995). Dossier coa, Sociedade Portuguesa de Antropologia Etnologia, Porto.

Lewis-Williams, D., and Challis, S. (2011). 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, Thames 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 Abadıa, O., and Gonzalez Morales, M. R. (2005). L’analogie et la representation de l’art primitif a

la fin du XIXe siecle. L’Anthropologie 109: 703–721.

Moro Abadıa, O., and Gonzalez 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 Abadıa, O., and Gonzalez 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 Abadıa, O., and Gonzalez 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 Abadıa, O., and Gonzalez Morales, M. R. (2011). Les origines de l’art et les theories sur l’evolution

humaine: le cas francais. L’Anthropologie 115: 343–359.

Moro Abadıa, 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 Ramales

de la Victoria (Cantabria): arte rupestre paleolıtico en las cuevas de Covalanas y La Haza,

Universidad de Cantabria, Santander.

Moure Romanillo, A., Gonzalez Sainz, C., Bernaldo de Quiros, F., and Cabrera Valdes, V. (1996).

Dataciones absolutas de pigmentos en las cuevas cantabricas: Altamira, El Castillo, Chimeneas y

Las Monedas. In Moure Romanillo, A. (ed.), ‘‘El hombre fosil’’ 80 anos despues: volumen

conmemorativo del 50 aniversario de la muerte de Hugo Obermaier, Universidad de Cantabria,

Santander, pp. 295–324.

Muller-Beck, H., Conard, N., and Schurle, W. (eds.) (2001). Eiszeitkunst im Suddeutsch-Schweizerischen

Jura. Anfange der Kunst, Theiss, Stuttgart.

Palacio-Perez, 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-Perez, E. (2010). Salomon Reinach and the religious interpretation of Palaeolithic art. Antiquity

84: 853–863.

Palacio-Perez, 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.

Petrognani, S., and Robert, E. (2009). A propos de la chronologie des signes paleolithiques: constance et

emergence des symboles. Anthropologie Brno XLVII: 169–180.

Pike, A., Hoffmann, D. L., Garcıa-Diez, M., Pettitt, P., Alcolea, J., Balbın, R., Gonzalez Saınz, C., De las

Heras, C., Lasheras, J. A., Montes, R., Zilhao, J. (2012). U-Series of dating of Paleolithic art in 11

caves in Spain. Science 336: 1409–1413.

Rosenfeld, A., and Smith, C. (1997). Recent developments in radiocarbon and stylistic methods of dating

rock-art. Antiquity 71: 405–411.

Sanchidrian Torti, J. L. (1994). Arte paleolıtico de la zona meridional de la Penınsula Iberica. Complutum

5: 163–195.

Sanchidrian Torti, J. L. (2001). Manual de arte prehistorico, Ariel, Barcelona.

Sauvet, G., Fritz, C., and Tosello, G. (2007). L’art aurignacien: emergence, developpement,

diversification. In Cazals, N., Gonzalez Urquijo J., and Terradas, X. (eds.), Frontieres naturelles,

frontieres culturelles dans les Pyrenees prehistoriques, Universidad de Cantabria, Santander,

pp. 319–338.

Sauvet, G., Layton, R. H., Lenssen-Erz, T., Tacon, P., and Wlodarczyk, A. (2009). Thinking with animals

in Upper Palaeolithic rock art. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 19: 319–336.

Schurle, W., and Conard, N. (eds.) (2005). Zwei Weltalter: Eiszeitkunst und die Bildwelt Willi

Baumeisters, Hatje Cantz Verlag, Ostfildern-Ruit.

J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269–306 305

123

Tacon, P. S., Li, G., Yang, D., May, S.K., Liu, H., Aubert, M., Ji, X., Curnoe, 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). Decouverte d’une nouvelle figure dans la grotte superieure

de Gargas (Hautes-Pyrenees). Prehistoire, Art et Societes LX: 45–51.

Vialou, D. (1991). La prehistoire, Gallimard, Paris.

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

306 J Archaeol Res (2013) 21:269–306

123