The Lascaux Cave

1951 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 50-51
Author(s):  
Hallam L. Movius
Keyword(s):  
Western Europe ◽  
Forest Type ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Upper Palaeolithic ◽  
Art Galleries ◽  
Upper Pleistocene ◽  
The One ◽  
Lascaux Cave ◽  
Palaeolithic Art

The Lascaux Cave, one of the most important single sites of upper Palaeolithic art ever discovered, is located near Montignac (Dordogne), 16 miles up the Vézère River from the famous town of Les Eyzies. It was found in September 1940 by two French schoolboys out rabbit hunting. Called the “Versailles of Prehistoric Man,” Lascaux ranks among the world's oldest and most remarkable art galleries. It has been completely sealed off from the outside world since late upper Pleistocene times, and it is now generally believed that the majority of the paintings are upper Perigordian (Gravettian) in date—Phase 2 in the upper Palaeolithic art sequence of western Europe. That they were produced during a time of climatic amelioration, possibly the one known as the Achen retreat, is borne out by the fact that the animals depicted belong much more to a steppe and forest type of fauna, than they do to a colder tundra group. For example, there are no mammoths and no reindeer shown, but there are many horses, a considerable quantity of cattle, bison and several ibexes.

Wrestling with Analogy: A Methodological Dilemma in Upper Palaeolithic Art Research.

1991 ◽  
Vol 57 (01) ◽  
pp. 149-162 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. D. Lewis-Williams
Keyword(s):  
Western Europe ◽  
Upper Palaeolithic ◽  
Prehistoric Art ◽  
Scientific Opinion ◽  
Art Research ◽  
Analogical Argument ◽  
Palaeolithic Art

In 1902 Emile Cartailhac published hisMea Culpa d'un Sceptique. His acceptance of the high antiquity of prehistoric art in western Europe followed Capitan and Breuil's convincing discoveries in Font de Gaume and Les Combarelles and reflected a widespread change of opinion. Despite previous scepticism, researchers were beginning to allow that the parietal as well as the mobile art did indeed date back to the Upper Palaeolithic. But this swing in scientific opinion opened up an even more baffling problem: why did Upper Palaeolithic people make these pictures? In the year following Cartailhac's turn-about Salomon Reinach tried to answer this question by developing an analogical argument based on ethnographic parallels. He could see no other way of approaching the problem: ‘Our only hope of finding outwhythe troglodytes painted and sculpted lies in asking the same question of present-day primitives with whom the ethnography reveals connections’ (Reinach 1903, 259; my translation, his emphasis).

Preliminary Report on Stone Age Reconnaissance in north-eastern Iran

1964 ◽  
Vol 30 ◽  
pp. 382-399 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. B. M. McBurney
Keyword(s):  
Preliminary Report ◽  
British Museum ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Climatic Data ◽  
Middle Palaeolithic ◽  
Upper Palaeolithic ◽  
Upper Pleistocene ◽  
Eastern Iran ◽  
North Eastern ◽  
The One

The following is a preliminary report on the results achieved during approximately six weeks' archaeological fieldwork in north-eastern Iran in July and August 1963. The primary objective was to explore the area for traces of the local Upper Pleistocene cultural sequence, and in particular to establish if possible the date and character of the local Upper Palaeolithic. In the event no traces of Upper Palaeolithic were obtained. However, a start was made towards defining the problem by the discovery of two well-stratified deposits, the one yielding a Middle Palaeolithic (Mousterian) industry with distinctive regional affinities, and the other an early Post-glacial Mesolithic industry. Reliable samples were obtained for defining the statistical properties of both, together with carbon samples, traces of vertebrate fauna, and some other climatic data.Representative collections were lodged with the Musée Iran Bastan at Teheran; and the expedition's share is to be offered in part to the Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology in Cambridge and in part to the British Museum. The expedition was financed mainly by a grant from the British Academy, supplemented by further grants from the Crowther-Beynon Fund and the British Museum.

Light, Human Evolution, and the Palaeolithic

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Pettitt ◽  
Stefanie Leluschko ◽  
Takashi Sakamoto
Keyword(s):  
Western Europe ◽  
Human Perception ◽  
Evolutionary Significance ◽  
Middle Palaeolithic ◽  
Upper Palaeolithic ◽  
Low Light ◽  
Light Production ◽  
Constituent Component ◽  
Palaeolithic Art ◽  
Cave Art

Human light-producing technology (i.e. the controlled use of fire) evolved during the Palaeolithic. Among its more obvious advantages to survival (heat, cooking, protection), fire-provided light in the form of hearths and lamps probably had considerable evolutionary significance. As human symbolic systems spread with the late Middle Palaeolithic and Upper Palaeolithic in Eurasia, it became a constituent component of European cave art. After reviewing the biological basis of human perception in low-light situations, we examine the existing evidence for the evolution of controlled use of fire (light production), and focus on its use in the performance of Upper Palaeolithic art and other activities in the deep caves of Western Europe.

scholarly journals A New Look at the Berekhat Ram Figurine: Implications for the Origins of Symbolism

2000 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 123-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco d'Errico ◽  
April Nowell
Keyword(s):  
Near East ◽  
Upper Palaeolithic ◽  
Upper Pleistocene ◽  
Volcanic Material ◽  
Late Emergence ◽  
Lower Palaeolithic ◽  
Palaeolithic Art ◽  
New Look

This article addresses the nature of the evidence for symbolling behaviour among hominids living in the Near East during the Middle and Upper Pleistocene. Traditionally, Palaeolithic art and symbolling have been synonymous with the Upper Palaeolithic of Europe. The Berekhat Ram figurine, a piece of volcanic material from a Lower Palaeolithic site in Israel, described as purposely modified to produce human features, challenges the view of a late emergence of symbolic behaviour. The anthropogenic nature of these modifications, however, is controversial. We address this problem through an examination of volcanic material from the Berekhat Ram site and from other sources, and by experimentally reproducing the modifications observed on the figurine. We also analyze this material and the figurine itself through optical and SEM microscopy. Our conclusion is that this object was purposely modified by hominids.With comments from Ofer Bar-Yosef, Angela E. Close, João Zilhão, Steven Mithen, Thomas Wynn, and Alexander Marshack followed by a reply from the authors.

Art as information: Explaining Upper Palaeolithic art in western Europe

1994 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-207 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Michael Barton ◽  
G. A. Clark ◽  
Allison E. Cohen
Keyword(s):  
Western Europe ◽  
Upper Palaeolithic ◽  
Palaeolithic Art

Gravettian Figurative Art in the Western Pyrenees: Stratigraphy, Cultural Context, and Chronology

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 168-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Blanca Ochoa ◽  
Marcos García-Diez ◽  
José-Manuel Maíllo-Fernández ◽  
Álvaro Arrizabalaga ◽  
Paul Pettitt
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Context ◽  
Western Europe ◽  
Upper Palaeolithic ◽  
The North ◽  
Figurative Art ◽  
Degree Of Confidence ◽  
North Of Spain ◽  
Palaeolithic Art ◽  
Cave Art ◽  
Portable Art

The timing and nature of the emergence of art in human evolution has been one of the more debated subjects in palaeoanthropology in the last few years, and one of the areas where archaeology has made impressive advances. Here, we discuss the first evidence of figurative art on portable materials in the north of Spain. After analysis of the stratigraphic contexts of all examples potentially of this age, which eliminated those of uncertain provenance, only three examples can be said to be Gravettian with a degree of confidence. We examine their stratigraphic provenance, the integrity of their archaeological contexts, and the absolute dates available for them. We then discuss their thematic and stylistic traits, comparing them to the wider database of material in the adjacent regions of the French Pyrenees and Mediterranean Iberia. We conclude that figurative depictions were scarce in the Gravettian of south-western Europe, in contrast to the relatively abundant examples of cave art assigned to this period in the region. If this is correct, we should nuance our discussions of ‘Palaeolithic art’ by considering that parietal and portable art had their own trajectories and functions, at least in the Early to mid-Upper Palaeolithic.

Palaeolithic Art in Isolation: The Case of Sicily and Sardinia

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margherita Mussi
Keyword(s):  
Cervus Elaphus ◽  
Western Europe ◽  
Middle Pleistocene ◽  
Upper Palaeolithic ◽  
Oxygen Isotope Stage ◽  
Faunal Assemblages ◽  
Late Upper Palaeolithic ◽  
Intermittent Connection ◽  
The Alps ◽  
Palaeolithic Art

The archaeological record of Italy is long and complex, suggesting continuous peopling since the Middle Pleistocene (Mussi 2001; Mussi et al. in press). The evidence of Palaeolithic art, however, is rather restricted: Early Upper Palaeolithic (EUP) art is close to nil, including just a few notched implements; the Middle Upper Palaeolithic (MUP), admittedly, is much richer, with some twenty Gravettian Wgurines, the largest such sample in Western Europe (Mussi et al. 2000; Mussi 2004); parietal art is also documented at Grotta Paglicci, where painted horses and positive handprints were discovered (Boscato and Palma di Cesnola 2000; Zorzi 1962); when Late Upper Palaeolithic (LUP) lithic industries were produced which belong to the Epigravettian, portable and parietal art is known at a number of sites. In the late 1980s, Zampetti (1987) reviewed twenty-one Epigravettian cave sites, and a single open-air site, all of them with zoomorphic art. Three more have been discovered since: Riparo Dalmeri, Riparo di Villabruna, and Grotta di Settecannelle. I will examine below the artistic record of Sicily and Sardinia, both of them at the periphery of Italy, which, in turn, is secluded from Europe by the Alps. My aim is to contrast the effects of geographic isolation, with the circulation of people and ideas, if any, as documented by portable and cave art. Sicily, currently an island of 25; 700km<sup>2</sup> and the largest in the Mediterranean, lies 140 km from Africa, and a few kilometres off southern Italy. The strait of Messina is 3 to 25 km wide, but is far from easy to cross, because of violent tidal currents, and whirlpool, also known as ‘Charybdis’ by Greeks and Romans. The depth is just 72 m at the Sill of Peloro. Because of intense neotectonic activity, however, any palaeogeographic reconstruction is highly speculative. Analysis of the faunal assemblages, which during oxygen isotope stage (OIS) 2 include a limited number of species, none of which is endemic, suggests that intermittent connection with the mainland possibly existed around the Last Glacial Maximum (Mussi et al. in press). The large mammals, found in varying percentages, are the deer, Cervus elaphus, the aurochs, Bos primigenius, the small steppe horse, Equus hydruntinus, and Sus scrofa, the wild boar.

The Engravings of Gouy: France’s Northernmost Decorated Cave

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yves Martin
Keyword(s):  
Western Europe ◽  
Geographical Location ◽  
Upper Palaeolithic ◽  
Major Event ◽  
The West ◽  
Negative Argument ◽  
The North ◽  
Palaeolithic Art

For almost half a century the cave of Gouy, discovered in 1956, was the northernmost Palaeolithic decorated cave known in western Europe. Because of its originality and its geographical location, it overturned our knowledge, as has, today, in its turn, the magnificent discovery of the first British parietal Palaeolithic art which has at last been revealed in Church Hole, at Creswell Crags, in Nottinghamshire (Bahn et al. 2003). This revelation extends the distribution of Palaeolithic parietal art further to the north and the west. Following this major event, the possibilities of similar explorations have been reinforced. Even more than before, other discoveries can today be foreseen, not only in the neighbouring regions but very probably also some day soon in Belgium and Germany. Before the authenticity of its decoration was accepted unanimously, Gouy, like Church Hole, was not exempt from scepticism. This attitude inevitably accompanies discoveries which call into question our knowledge in all fields of research. However, doubt is necessary and, in some ways, it is obviously very useful. In particular, it incites one to gather together all the elements that support the accuracy of any new thing. Where Gouy is concerned, there were two principal objections which counted against it and perplexed researchers. The most frequently used negative argument from the very start was its geographical location. From 1946 to 1956 the Grotte du Cheval, at Arcysur- Cure in Bourgogne (Bailloud 1946), was the northernmost decorated cave. Even this cave appeared very eccentric at this latitude. Consequently, far away from the great regions of parietal art, Gouy could not be attributed to the Upper Palaeolithic. Moreover, the (recognized) open-air occupations of the Upper Palaeolithic and Final Upper Palaeolithic were thought to be virtually non-existent (in the regions close to Gouy). This view already ignored the proximity of the rockshelters of Métreville, near Saint-Pierre d’Autils, where there had been a ‘Magdalenian’ industry associated with mammoth bones (Poulain 1904, 1905). In reply to this opinion, which was still widespread in recent times, Gerhard Bosinski proclaimed in public, ‘it is . . . (the Final Upper Palaeolithic), look for it . . . in your region . . .

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document