Left in the dark
Interpretations on the evolution of personal ornamentation and figurative art in Europe
40,000 – 26,500 years ago
Barbara Oosterwijk
0592358
Research MA thesis Archaeology
Prof. dr. Jan Kolen
1
Contents
Introduction
4
1
The problem of the actors
8
1.1.
Palaeolithic chronology
8
1.2.
The hominid actors in the transition.
10
1.2.1.
The homo Neanderthalensis
10
1.2.2.
The anatomically modern human
12
1.2.3.
Other hominids
13
1.3.
The middle to upper Palaeolithic transition
14
1.4.
The difficulties with hominid actors
15
2.
Catalogue of personal ornaments
17
2.1.
Mousterian ornaments from Spain
17
2.2.
The earliest ornaments from the coastal areas
18
2.3.
Châtelperronian personal ornaments
19
2.4.
Personal ornaments from the Aurignacian
20
2.4.1.
Aurignacian ornaments from Austria
21
2.4.2.
Aurignacian ornaments from Belgium
21
2.4.3.
Aurignacian ornaments from France
22
2.4.4.
Aurignacian ornaments from Italy
24
2.4.5.
Aurignacian ornaments from Southern Germany
24
2.4.6.
Aurignacian ornaments from Spain
25
2.5.
What can ornaments tell us?
25
3
Theories on the earliest ornaments
27
3.1.
The Neanderthal versus anatomically modern human debate
27
3.1.1.
The single species theory of Mellars
27
3.1.2.
The multiple species model by ‘D Errico and Zilhão
30
3.1.3.
Criticism by Bar-Yosef
34
3.2.
Discussion
36
4
Catalogue of the earliest figurative art
38
4.1.
The cave of El Castillo
39
4.2.
The cave of Tito Bustillo
40
4.3.
The Fumane cave
40
4.4.
The Abri Blanchard rockshelter
41
2
4.5.
The cave of Altamira
41
4.6.
The cave of Hohle Fels
42
4.7.
The rock shelter of La Ferrassie
43
4.8.
The Geißenklösterle cave
44
4.9.
The cave of Abri Castanet
45
4.10.
The Vogelherd Cave
46
4.11.
The female figurine of Galgenberg
46
4.12.
The Löwenmensch from Hohlenstein-Stadel
47
4.13.
The Chauvet cave
48
4.14.
Cave of Aldene
50
4.15.
The Venus of Willendorf
50
4.16.
Cosquer cave
50
4.17.
Gargas cave
51
4.18.
Abri Labbattut and other caves in the Dordogne
53
4.19.
Art that possibly fits the picture
53
4.20.
Regional differences and analysis
55
5
The interpretations on the emergence of Palaeolithic art
57
5.1.
Art for art’s sake, totemism and sympathetic magic
58
5.2.
The shamanistic interpretation
59
5.2.1.
The shamanistic interpretation of Lewis-Williams
59
5.3.
The cultural ecological interpretation
64
5.3.1.
The formation of aggregation sites
64
5.3.2.
Art as a result of social interaction
66
5.3.3.
Palaeolithic art as a reflection of natural history knowledge
68
5.4.
Analysis
73
6
Conclusion
77
7
Discussion
84
Bibliography
Appendix: Figures
Appendix: Tables
3
When the first anatomically modern human entered Europe at the transition of the Middle to
the Upper Palaeolithic 40,000 years ago, the landscape was unimaginably different from how
it is today. A vast arctic steppe inhabited by a wide variety of Ice Age adapted animals
extended from Northern Europe through Siberia to Alaska. The climate was far more extreme
than the climate today with temperatures and snow cover variations that changed annually
instead of over millennia.1 The anatomically modern human was not the only hominid
inhabiting the Northern hemisphere. Around 200,000 years ago the Homo neanderthalensis
migrated to Europe. They disappeared a mere 10,000 years after the arrival of the
anatomically modern human. Furthermore, in recent years two additional unknown human
species with origins in the transition period were discovered in Asia.2
At the transition of the Middle to the Upper Palaeolithic the material culture of the
hominids in Europe changed drastically. New specialized tools emerged in many variations:
For example, organic materials for tools were first introduced, grave goods started to
accompany burials, the first forms of personal ornamentation appeared, and the oldest objects
of figurative art made their entrance.3 The latter two have been connected to the earliest
appearance of ritual behaviour amongst hominids. The first objects of ornamentation
distributed from Germany throughout the Mediterranean, are made from materials that
connect them to the animal world, such as perforated animal teeth, pierced shells and
engraved bone. Likewise, the earliest examples of figurative art also have a close link to the
animal world in their appearances. The limestone caves in Southern Germany, Austria,
Southern France, Italy and Northern Spain contain a wide variety of figurative art that dates
between 40,000 to 10,000 years ago. A striking aspect of this art is that a diversity of Ice Age
animals, including ibex, lion, horse, mammoth, reindeer, rhinoceros, cave bear and bison are
depicted on cave walls and limestone blocks. These animals also appear in the form of carved
figurines.4 In addition, human hands, female and male genitals, therianthropes or
anthropomorphic figures, geometric patterns and strange dots and disks are depicted in
different ways.5 A clear dichotomy can be observed between northern Europe where
exclusively portable art was found and southern Europe where art appears in mural form. The
diversity in subjects makes interpretation of the art difficult. In addition, personal
1
Guthrie, 2005, p. 20
Krause et al, 2010, pp. 894-897.
3
Bar-Yosef, 2002, pp. 365-366.
4
Conard, 2003, pp. 830-832, Mellars, 2009, p. 711. Therianthropes are figures with both human and animal
traits. Anthropomorphic figures are seen as non-human figures with certain human qualities.
5
Pike et al, 2012, pp. 1411-1412.
2
4
ornamentation appears slightly earlier in the archaeological record than figurative art.
Therefore, scholars have debated if both can be seen as the start of hominid symbolic
behaviour. Some scholars see figurative art as a logical continuation of ornamentation and
others separate them into different categories. For example, Paul Pettit does not define
personal ornaments as art since they could be indicative of a simple desire to ornament the
body.6 It remains unclear if the personal ornamentation and figurative art can be connected to
the Neanderthal or the anatomically modern human.
The interpretation of Palaeolithic figurative art and the possible ritual systems of
prehistoric hunter- gatherers is mainly derived from the field of social anthropology. The first
scholars researching Palaeolithic rock art connected the images of animals to hunting magic,
implying that painted images of the animals they hunted would give the hunters better hunting
skills. Interestingly, however, it appears that the animals that were hunted differ from the
animals that were depicted.7 Anthropological research in the late 1800s and early 1900s
amongst hunter gatherers in Siberia, North America and parts of the Pacific, revealed that
their belief systems were connected to academically constructed concepts as totemism,
animism and shamanism.8 These concepts imply that the (prehistoric) hunter-gatherer saw the
natural world as a social being. To think of the natural world in social terms can be expressed
by attributing animals or inanimate things with humanlike minds.9 Thus, scholars associated
the occurrence of animals in Palaeolithic figurative art with these concepts. The South African
archaeologist Lewis-Williams connected ethnographical sources to shamanistic San rock art
and found interesting similarities with Palaeolithic rock art. One of his proposals was that the
animals depicted in the art could then be seen as the spirits the prehistoric shaman
encountered during trance 10
In recent years the so called magico-religious paradigm has been criticised and
scholars have called it short minded to assign all Palaeolithic rock art to shamanism and other
religious concepts.11 Other interpretations have emerged from different disciplines as
biology, anthropology, neuroscience and palaebiology, which bring new perspectives on
Palaeolithic art. Archaeologist Clive Gamble has suggested that the sudden occurrence of
figurative art can be explained by the emergence of so-called open social networks.12
6
Pettitt, 2008, p. 909.
Lewis-Williams, 2002, p. 10.
8
Mithen, 1999, pp. 48-49.
9
Ibid., pp. 48-49.
10
Lewis-Williams, 2002, pp. 14-15
11
Guthrie, 2005, p. 8.
12
Gamble, 1982, pp. 103-104.
7
5
Margaret Conkey also looked at the appearance of art from a cultural perspective, connecting
it to so-called aggregation sites where groups of hunter-gatherers came together.13
Paleobiologist Dale R. Guthrie has interpreted the appearance of animals in the first forms of
rock art as a reflection of the hunter-gatherer’s knowledge of natural history. He also argued
that about eighty percent of the art was made by youngsters.14
This thesis aims to answer three specific questions concerning the appearance of
personal ornamentation and figurative art during the transition of the Middle to the Upper
Palaeolithic. First, there are possibly four hominid actors in Eurasia that may have been
involved in the production of personal ornamentation and figurative art. Can we reveal the
specific producer or is it possible that multiple hominid actors concerned themselves with the
production of personal ornamentation and figurative art? Second and probably most
important, is the question how we can reveal the function, role and meaning of the earliest
forms of art. An important aspect is to observe how personal ornamentation and figurative art
evolved over time. Why were animal parts worn on the body as ornaments and in turn why
were animals, female representations, hybrid figures, abstract forms and handprints depicted
in the earliest forms of figurative art? Is it possible to observe if ornaments evolved into
figurative art? And finally, there are many different interpretations on both the earliest
ornaments and the appearance of figurative art and their meanings. Should these
interpretations merge? Can we exclude some interpretations? And how can we examine the
validity of these interpretations in the first place?
The first chapter describes the different human actors present in Europe at the
transition between the Middle and the Upper Palaeolithic. Furthermore, the chapter will also
deal with the problems concerning interbreeding and dating of hominids. The second chapter
will contain a catalogue of the earliest personal ornaments from the transition period in
Europe. The chapter will cover the key sites containing personal ornaments and the types of
ornaments that were found. The third chapter will discuss the different interpretations
concerning the first appearance of personal ornamentation, with an emphasis on the debates
concerning the hominid producers of the ornaments. The fourth chapter will return to the
material culture itself and contains a catalogue of the main Upper Palaeolithic sites in
Southern Germany, Austria, Italy, Southern France and Northern Spain that contain figurative
art. The catalogue will include the location, the art, the problems of dating the objects,
differences between areas and the latest insights. One of the aims of this thesis is to look at the
13
14
Conkey, 1980, p. 609.
Francis and Loendorf, 2002, pp. 34-36.
6
evolution of figurative art trough time. Therefore this catalogue will summarize sites with
figurative art in chronological order starting with the first appearance of art 40,000 year ago
and ending 26,500 years ago at the start of the Last Glacial Maximum. The fifth chapter will
briefly discuss the different interpretations on the earliest forms of art; Palaeolithic art as
hunting magic or sympathetic magic, the shamanistic interpretation mainly developed by
David Lewis-Williams and the cultural-ecological perspectives pioneered by Conkey, Clive
Gamble and Dale R. Guthrie. I will look critically at these interpretations and examine their
validity. Concluding, this thesis will attempt to answer the questions discussed in the
introduction and the main chapters.
1. The problem of the hominid actors in the transition
7
1.1. Palaeolithic chronology
In the Palaeolithic, lasting for a mere 2.3 million years, a number of humanlike actors
emerged, likely merged together and subsequently disappeared.15 The first member of the
homo lineage is known as Homo habilis, a hominid appearing in the fossil record around 2
million years ago (years ago referred to as ya). Evidence for use of stone tools emerges with
these actors although it is likely that the predecessors of the homo lineage the
australopithecines16 also produced tools. Around 1.8 million ya at the start of the Pleistocene
and the extension of the ice sheets in the northern hemisphere a new actor emerges, Homo
erectus, a larger brained and taller hominid. Homo erectus appears simultaneously in China,
Indonesia and East Africa. The Archaic Homo sapiens with a more rounded skull
subsequently lived in Africa and Asia until 500,000 ya the Homo heidelbergensis appears in
Europe. With the arrival of this hominid stone tools become more advanced (e.g. pear-shaped
hand axes). The Middle Palaeolithic starting 300,000 ya marks new tool development with the
Levallois lithic technology in which shaped flakes and points of stone surface were used. This
technique is connected to the homo neanderthalensis who arrive in Europe and the Middle
East 150,000 ya. The homo sapiens sapiens (or anatomically modern human) appears in
Africa roughly 100,000 ya. By 60,000 ya they had crossed the ocean from Southeast Asia to
Australia. At the start of the Upper Palaeolithic around 40,000 ya the anatomically modern
human made the big move to Europe.17
Parts of the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic are subdivided in cultural epochs that are
associated with certain human actors or traditions. As mentioned the Middle Palaeolithic
starts 300,000 ya and runs to approximately 40,000 ya. It runs synchronous with the first
cultural epoch, the Mousterian.18 Within the Mousterian is the Châtelperronian tradition
dating between 42,000- 32,000 ya and found at sites ranging from southwest France to
Northern Spain. This tradition has mostly been associated with the Neanderthal and the first
15
The Palaeolithic is a difficult timeframe to date as 75% lies outside the limits of the radiocarbon dating
method. The radiocarbon method covers the period between the present and approximately 50,000 - 30,000 ya.
Before this period the amount of carbon in organic material is too little to date. Another big problem is modern
contamination of carbon, one percent contamination could already set back a date 12,700 years. Charcoal has
traditionally been the preferred material for radiocarbon dating but new developments in accelerator mass
spectrometry (AMS) dating technology can use the much smaller amount of datable carbon in bone and antler.
Moreover, the rapid progress in calibrated radiocarbon dating, thermoluminescence, uranium-thorium dating and
electron spin resonance will provide more accurate dating in the future. (D’ Errico & Zilhão et al, 1998, p. 1, 6.
Bar-Yosef, 2002, p. 363, Joris & Street 2008, p. 785)
16
Australopithecines appear in the fossil record around 4.5 million ya. The most famous of these is Lucy, the
first apelike that walked upright. Australopithecines survive until about 1 million ya although there has been
debate on whether they survived longer. (Mithen, 1996, pp. 16-17)
17
Mithen, 1996, pp. 17-20.
18
D’ Errico et al, 1998, p. 1.
8
appearance of personal ornamentation.19 The Châtelperronian runs parallel with the Uluzzian
period in Italy and Greece, the Szellian period in Central Europe, the Bachokirian in Bulgaria
and the Altmuhlian in Germany and Austria. However, these counterparts date slightly earlier
than the Châtelperronian.20 The Mousterian also overlaps partly with the Aurignacian cultural
epoch associated with the arrival of the anatomically modern human, which starts around
45,000 ya, and ends between 35,000 and 22,000 ya at the start of the Upper Palaeolithic.
There has been intense debate about whether the Châtelperronian precedes or runs parallel
with the Aurignacian and if either one can be associated with the Neanderthal or the
anatomically modern human or both. This will be further discussed in chapter three. Also, it is
argued that the Aurignacian has variations in starting and ending dates in Southern and
Central Europe.21
The end of the Aurignacian marks the demise of the Neanderthal at approximately
25,500 ya although the exactness of this date is discussed.22 The Gravettian cultural epoch
then runs from 28,000 to 22,000 ya. The relatively short Solutrian epoch starts 22,000 and
ends 17,000 ya, during the last glacial maximum.23 The Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) saw
the last extension of the ice sheets in Europe. Clark mentions that the growth of the ice sheets
to their maximum positions occurred between 33,000 and 26,500 ya. Almost all ice sheets
were at their maximum extension at 26,500 ya and this lasted to approximately 19,000 ya.
Deglaciation of the west arctic started between 14,000 and 15,000 ya.24 Around 11,500 ya the
stable and warm Holocene started. 25 During the Last Glacial Maximum, northern and central
Europe was virtually void of humans.26 The Magdalenian marking the height of the famous
rock art in Southern France and Northern Spain runs from 17,000 ya to 9000 ya ago at the
beginning of the Mesolithic. The Gravettian and the Magdalenian presumably saw new
migration waves of the anatomically modern human into Europe.27 (For an overview of
Palaeolithic chronology see figure 1)
1.2. The hominid actors in the transition
19
Coolidge & Wyn, 2004, p. 55, Van Haeren & ‘d Errico, 2006, p. 1105.
Zilhao, 2007, p.24.
21
Van Haeren & ‘D Errico, 2006, p.
22
Martinon-Torres, 2010, p. 251.
23
Neugebauer-Maresh & Owen, 2005, p. 103.
24
Clark et al, 2010, p. 710.
25
Pala et al, 2012, p. 915.
26
Neugebauer-Maresh & Owen, 2005, p. 103.
27
Lewis-Williams, 2002, p. 72.
20
9
A scarcity of hominid fossils defines the transition period between the Middle and the Upper
Palaeolithic. Furthermore, a big problem with fossil research is the bad preservation of human
DNA over long periods of time. DNA degrades faster in tropical and humid regions, with as a
result that DNA sequences of our common ancestors as the homo erectus and the homo
heidelbergensis (who lived in these regions) are often not recovered.28 The few human fossil
remains of the Neanderthal and the anatomically modern human that were recovered in
Europe are often difficult to assign to certain cultural traditions. An exception is in
stratigraphic layers containing both lithic or cultural objects as well as hominid fossils.
Nevertheless, it is evident that a number of hominid actors were present in Eurasia at the
transition.
1.2.1. The homo Neanderthalensis
In August 1856 limestone miners working in the Feldhofer Grotte at the Neander valley of
northwest Germany accidentally uncovered a skullcap and partial skeleton of the species
presently knows as the Neanderthal.29 In addition to the Neander Valley, Neanderthal fossils
were retrieved from several other archaeological sites. The fossil from El Sidron in Spain
dates to 41,000-38,000 ya, skeletal remains found at Saint Cesaire to 36,500 ya and
Mezmaiskaya in the Caucasus yielded fossils dating to 29,000 ya.30 In addition Neanderthal
fossils of uncertain age were found at Vindija in Croatia.31
In addition to a keen adaptation to the cold, several morphological features
distinguished the Neanderthal from other hominids. Neanderthal were characterised by a long
low skull with large cranial capacity, a thickset-built skeleton, double arched brow ridges, a
large nose, a strongly developed flattened cranial fault with a strongly developed occipital
bun; little trace of a chin and large front teeth. The overall brain volume of the hominid was
between 1400-1600 cc.32 (See figure 2) The Neanderthal was muscular, strongly built and
had short legs. Also, a high degree of physical injuries and disease reveal they had a
physically demanding lifestyle.33
One of the most controversial questions concerning the Neanderthal is whether there was
interbreeding with the anatomically modern human. The morphology of fossil remains as well
as analysis of the DNA sequence has provided evidence both for and against a genetic
28
Krause, 2010, p. 893.
Schmitz & Serre, 2002, pp. 13342-13343.
30
Mellars, 1996, p. 711, Zilhao, 2007, p. 20.
31
Joris & Street, 2008, p. 787.
32
Mellars, 1996, p. 711.
33
Mithen, 1996, p. 23.
29
10
contribution by Neanderthals to present day humans. Analysis of the Neanderthal genome by
Green and colleagues has recently revealed that the split that gave rise to the Neanderthal and
anatomically modern human occurred between 270,000 and 440,000 ya. The authors searched
for evidence for interbreeding between the Neanderthals and the anatomically modern humans
by examining an excess of shared derived polymorphisms, which indicate recent shared
ancestry. Analysis of three Neanderthal bone specimens from three different individuals in
Vindija, Croatia showed that Neanderthals are on average closer to individuals in Eurasia than
to individuals from Africa. Green suggests that between 1 to 4 percent of the genomes of
Eurasians are derived from the Neanderthal implying that there must have been
interbreeding.34
Another interesting finding is that individuals from China are as closely related to the
Neanderthal as an individuals from France. This is remarkable since it would imply that gene
flow between the two hominids occurred before the divergence of Europeans, East Asians and
Papuans. Perhaps interbreeding occurred half way in the Middle East. Nevertheless, a 1 to 4
percent contribution points to a relatively limited amount of interbreeding. In addition, it is
possible that later migration flows to Europe have obscured traces of gene flow. Thus,
interbreeding between the two hominids might have occurred before and during the transition
of the Middle to the Upper Palaeolithic.35
The discovery of a skeleton of a 4-year-old Neanderthal child at Lagar Velho in
Portugal has led Duarte and colleagues to conclude there were likely millennia of
interbreeding between the Neanderthal and the anatomically modern human. This so-called
hybrid fossil dates to around 24,500 ya, which implies that Neanderthal and anatomically
modern human lived simultaneously in Europe for a longer time then previously assumed.36
Tattersal and Schwartz even argue that there is no consensus on what exactly a
Neanderthal/anatomically modern human hybrid would look like. They even argue the
anatomically modern human itself can be seen as the hybrid.37 Another possibility is that
certain areas in Europe (e.g. Southern Spain) saw more interbreeding than for instance Eastern
Europe. More research on Neanderthal genome and the retrieval of more fossil remains could
eventually provide more insight on our relation with the Neanderthal.
The most recent Neanderthal remains are dated at 24,500 ya and were found at the
Gorham’s cave in Gibraltar. After this the Neanderthal disappears from the archaeological
34
Green et al, 2010, pp. 711, 720.
Ibid., p. 720
36
Tattersal & Schwartz, 1999, pp. 7117-7118.
37
Ibid., pp. 7118-7119.
35
11
record.38 The explanations for this sudden disappearance differ. Certain scholars assign the
demise of the Neanderthal to the arrival of the anatomically modern human or to social
competition between Neanderthal groups for space and resources. Other scholars claim the
Neanderthal could not cope with the climatic changes that occurred during the transition
period. New research from Science even suggested that the anatomically modern human
outnumbered the Neanderthal 9 to 1 and the Neanderthal could not cope with the
competition.39 Overall, the exact cause of the demise of the Neanderthal remains unknown
and will not be extensively discussed here.
1.2.2. The anatomically modern human
The homo sapiens sapiens or anatomically modern human (from now on referred to as the
AMH) presumably migrated from the Far East into central Europe around 40,000 ya. The
morphological features of the AMH differ from the Neanderthal in that it has a more rounded
skull, less pronounced eyebrows, a less robust body and smaller teeth. The brain size of 12001700 cc is also slightly smaller than that of the Neanderthal. 40 (See figure 3 for the
differences between Neanderthal and anatomically modern human osteology) DNA research
revealed that the Neanderthal and the AMH share a common ancestor in the homo
heidelbergensis.41
Changes in material culture indicate the spread of AMH from the east in the Levant to
Western Europe. Scholars as Mellars and Bar-Yosef claim the transition of the middle to the
upper Palaeolithic is seen in the Far East around 45,000-47,000 BP, in central Europe around
40,000-43,000 BP and finally in Western Europe around 38,000-40,000 BP.42 However,
uncertainty remains on the exact arrival of the AMH due to the scarcity of fossils in the
Levant and Europe. 43 The earliest evidence for the arrival of the AMH in Europe is a human
mandible with archaic features from the Oase cave in Romania that dates to 36,000-34,000
BP.44 However; the fossil could not be associated with any material culture. The archaic
features of the Romanian fossil have led scholars to assume that the AMH and the archaic
38
The context and relevance of the dated radiocarbon dates retrieved at the Gorham’s cave have been questioned
by Zilhão and Pettitt. The radiocarbon from the Iberian Peninsula is of poor quality and results often contradict.
(See Joris & Street, 2008, p. 783 and Zilhão & Pettitt 2006)
39
Mellars & French, 2011, pp. 626-627.
40
Mithen, 1996, p. 23.
41
Schmitz & Serre, 2002, pp. 13342-13343.
42
Bar-Yosef, 2002, p. 271.
43
Mellars, 2005, p. 19
44
This date is similar to a directly radiocarbon dated AMH specimen from the Chinese Tianyuan cave. (Joris &
Street, 2008, p. 787)
12
homo sapiens likely interbred.45 In Romania, the caves of Muierii and Cioclovina revealed
slightly later AMH material from 30,000-29,000 ya. Juvenile mandibles from La Quina in
northern Spain and Les Rois in France date to 30,000 ya. In addition, dental remains from
Brassembouy in France date to 32,000 ya and may belong to the AMH, however this remains
uncertain. It turns out that no French human fossil is older than 33,000 ya.46 Today, the AMH
is the sole surviving member of the homo lineage. 47
1.2.3. Other Hominids
In recent years evidence for the existence of two additional hominid species in Asia at the
time of the transition has been discovered. In 2006, an almost complete skeleton of an
unknown hominid was found at Liang Bua, Flores in Indonesia. (See figure 4) The hominid is
considerably smaller than the Neanderthal or the AMH and was named homo floresiensis. A
likely explanation for its small size could be the long-term isolation of the species on the
Indonesian archipelago. Also, it appears that the endocranial volume falls in the
australophiticine range implying the homo floresiensis is a member of the australophiticine
lineage.48 It has been claimed the homo floresiensis lived until approximately 17,000 ya.49
However, no indications were found that the homo floresiensis lived in Europe.
A finger bone of another unknown hominid was retrieved from the Denisova cave in
the Altai Mountains of Southern Siberia in 2008. DNA from the so-called Denisova hominid
was analysed and revealed that the hominid lived between 30,000 and 50,000 ya and shared a
common ancestor with the Neanderthal as well as the AMH. Also, at that time individuals
carrying the Neanderthal DNA were present less than 100 kilometres away from the Denisova
cave. The excavator, Krause, claims this indicates there was a hominid migration out of
Africa that was distinct from the AMH as well as the Neanderthal. Upper Palaeolithic
material culture associated with the appearance of the first AMH in this regio is dated around
40,000 ya. Thus, in Siberia three different members of the homo lineage were present at the
same time. It is certainly possible that there was interbreeding and gene flow between these
three. However, future research should bring more light to this assumption.50 According to
45
Zilhão & ‘d Errico, 2006, pp. 44.
Zilhão, 2007, pp. 19-20.
47
Zilhão & ‘d Errico, 2006, pp. 44.
48
Brown et al, 2004, pp. 1055-1061.
49
Krause, 2010, pp. 895-896.
50
Ibid., pp. 893, 895-896.
46
13
Martin-Torres these conclusions are impossible to draw considering the virtual absence of
fossil material from continental Eurasia and the small amount of fossils from Africa.51
The evidence presented above suggest that four different hominids were present in
Asia. This does not necessarily imply, however, that these hominids were also present in
Europe. Further research in the field and the discovery of new fossils in less researched areas
of the world might reveal different theories on the genetic variability of the AMH and other
hominids.
1.3. The Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition
The transition of the Middle to the Upper Palaeolithic is characterised by significant changes
in the archaeological record that mark a change in hominid behaviour. The majority of
scholars view this as a cultural explosion that runs hand in hand with the sudden appearance
of the AMH.52 Others see it as a gradual process that was evident for both the Neanderthal
and the AMH.53 Scholars as Stephen Mithen have explained it as a series of cultural sparks
that occurred at different times and at different areas in the world.54
Changes in the archaeological record of the transition period are mostly derived from
the differences in material culture between the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic.55 First, there
are differences in the way flint is produced and distributed. A shift from flake technology to
blade technology appears and stone tools show regional diversity.56 A high degree of
standardization and morphological variability in stone tools also differentiates the Upper from
the Middle Palaeolithic. New raw materials such as bone, ivory and antler are exploited in the
Upper Palaeolithic. Even though these materials were also available at Middle Palaeolithic
sites they did not show evidence of exploitation then. In addition systematic use of pounding
and grinding stone tools appears which again is not found in the Middle Palaeolithic.57
Another interesting aspect is a clear change in the economic and social organisation of human
groups. Also, there was population increase.58 Lithic material, raw material and shells are
transported through long distance exchange networks compared to the transportation across
much smaller distances in the Middle Palaeolithic. Furthermore, even though hafted spears
51
Martinon-Torres et al, 2010, p. 251.
Mellars, 2005, p. 19.
53
D’Errico & Zilhão, 1998, pp. 2-3.
54
Mithen, 1999, p. 172. The different interpretations concerning the transition period and the changes in hominid
behavior will be discussed more extensively in Chapter 3.
55
Bar-Yosef, 2002, pp. 365-366.
56
Renfrew, 2008, p. 2042.
57
Bar-Yosef, 2002, p. 366
58
Renfrew, 2008, p. 2042.
52
14
are also known from the Middle Palaeolithic, in the Upper Palaeolithic improved hunting
tools as spear throwers start to appear. Another striking new appearance are storage facilities
and the spatial organisation of areas such as kitchen areas, butchering areas and sleeping areas
which again are absent from the Middle Palaeolithic. Although structured hearths are found in
the Middle Palaeolithic, in the Upper Palaeolithic hearths seem to be more advanced with the
use of circled rocks.59
The first evidence for human burial is known from the Middle Palaeolithic, which
provides evidence that the Neanderthal buried their dead. Nevertheless, the use of grave
goods, as practised by the AMH be appointed to the Neanderthals60 Paul Pettit estimates that
the occurrence of simple burials amongst the Neanderthal varies between 12 and 30
individuals during a period of 40,000 years (from 75,000-34,000). Burial practice was thus a
rarity amongst the Neanderthal.61
Important with regard to this research are the first forms of personal ornamentation
such as beads, pendants and perforated animal teeth which make their entrance in the Upper
Palaeolithic both in Europe and the Levant. These objects again are absent in the majority of
the Middle Palaeolithic.62 It appears that the use of ornamentation occurs in Central Europe as
well as Africa and West Asia at a similar time although some suggest ornamentation occurred
slightly sooner in West Asia and Africa.63 The earliest examples of personal ornamentation in
Europe will be further discussed in Chapter 2.
The transitional period also marks the first appearance of figurative art in Europe in
the form of human and animal figurines made of bone, antler, stone and ivory as well as
painting and carvings on stone block and cave walls. Chapter 4 will discuss the earliest
examples of figurative art in Europe.
1.4. The difficulties with the hominid actors
It is apparent that the transition period of the Middle to the Upper Palaeolithic has several
characteristics that make interpretation difficult. In general it is a difficult time period to date
due to problems with dating techniques. Furthermore, there is an absence of hominid fossil
remains and overlapping time periods further complicate time estimates. It is certain that at
the start of the transition at least two hominid actors were present in Europe, the Neanderthal
59
Bar Yosef, 2002, p-. 365-368
D’Errico, 2003, p. 197.
61
Pettitt, 2008, p. 909. The Neanderthal burial found at La Ferrassie could be an exception in this aspect. See
chapter 4.7.
62
Bar-Yosef, 2002, p. 365.
63
Kuhn et al, 2001, p. 7641.
60
15
and the AMH. As for now, there is no evidence that the homo Floresiensis or the Denisova
hominids were present in Europe. The matter of interbreeding between the Neanderthal and
the AMH also remains a topic of discussion. New discoveries and new techniques within the
field of DNA research however, may eventually lead to a better understanding of our relation
with the Neanderthal or possibly even the two other hominid species.
2. Catalogue of the earliest ornaments
16
This chapter will present a catalogue of the earliest forms of personal ornamentation. The
catalogue will aim to describe ornamentation in chronological order starting with the earliest
known examples from the Mousterian and ending with personal ornaments from the
Aurignacian and Early Gravettian period.64 There is a continuation of the appearance of
personal ornaments throughout the Upper Palaeolithic. As mentioned before, dating personal
ornaments made out of organic material from this time period is difficult because of the lack
of reliable dating techniques. Appointment of the personal ornaments therefore occurred
mainly on stylistic or stratigraphical grounds. 65 Since the record of personal ornamentation
from the Aurignacian is rather large, not all ornaments were included but a selection was
made from the key sites. As evident from the discussion in chapter 1 about the hominids that
may have populated the transition period, one of the issues with these ornamentations is to
which hominid they can be assigned. This question will be addressed in Chapter 3.
Examples of personal ornaments include objects that were worn on the body, such as
pendants and shell, stone and ivory beads. Beadwork is seen by members of traditional
societies as a powerful indicator of identity. The use of distinct bead types, particular
combinations and arrangement of beads on the body could indicate an ethnic dimension.
Other functions of personal ornaments might be that they reflect social status, gender, class,
age, wealth or could be used as exchange medium.66 It is reasonable to assume that use of
ornaments functioned in a similar way for the hominids in the Palaeolithic.
2.1. Mousterian shell ornaments from Spain
Recently, numerous pierced shells alongside patches of yellow and red colorants were found
at Cueva de los Aviones, a large cave near the coast of Murcia. (See figure 6) At the time the
cave was only 1 to 7 kilometers from the coast. Radiocarbon samples retrieved from the shells
date them between 50,000-45,000 ya, suggesting that they are some of the oldest objects of
personal ornamentation ever found in Europe. The shells have well-preserved surfaces which
indicate that the living animals in the shell were collected as a food source. The presence of
charcoal, hematite and pyrite indicates that large shells found at the site were used for mixing
pigment. Several artifacts contained remnants of pigments, such as an unmodified horse bone
and several of the pierced shells, indicating they were painted.67
64
Neugebauer-Maresch, 2005, pp. 139-140.
Knecht et al, 1993 p. 278.
66
Ibid., p. 1107.
67
Zilhão et al, 2010, p. 1023-1024.
65
17
At Cueva Anton, a large rockshelter approximately 60 kilometers from the present shoreline,
a perforated shell was found that was supposedly abandoned after it broke. The shell also
contains pigments of red hematite and yellow goethite on the external side. The inside of the
shell was naturally red.68 The discovery of these sites is especially interesting since it does not
only imply that the Neanderthals produced ornaments but also that they used pigment to paint
ornaments.
2.2. The earliest ornaments from the coastal areas
Some of the earliest ornaments of Europe are found in so-called transitional industries as the
Uluzzian contexts in Italy, and Bachokirian, Szeletian and Altmuhlian contexts in Central and
Eastern Europe.69 These contexts are contemporary with the Châtelperronian in France,
perhaps dating slightly earlier.70 The assemblages have mostly been associated with the
Neanderthal although this is debated (see further Chapter 3). In Central Europe, perforated
shells from an Altmuhlian context were found at the open-air site of Willendorf II and
radiocarbon dated at 41,000-39,000 ya. Unfortunately, it is not clear where these shells have
their origin. (See figure 5) In Eastern Germany the site of Ilsenhohle yielded a needle-like
point as well as an ivory disc with a central hole, which might have been worn as a pendant.
(See figure 5) At Trou Magritte in Belgium, an ivory ring was retrieved in the 19th century
which appears to be Châtelperronian. From the Uluzzian cultural traditions, the site of
Klisoura 1 in Greece yielded 24 shell beads belonging to at least two different shell types.
These shells were retrieved from a local source. At the Grotta del Cavallo in Italy tubular
fragments of dentalium were found as well as perforated shells. The exact dates of these
objects are, however, unknown. As mentioned the objects are mostly dated based on stylistic
terms.71
2.3. Châtelperronian personal ornaments
The Châtelperronian, with a distribution over south-western France and northern Spain, has
68
Ibid., pp. 1023-1024.
Joris & Street, 2008, p. 789.
70
Personal ornaments appear in Africa and Asia somewhat earlier than in Europe. The African site of Enkapure
ja Muto yielded beads of ostrich eggshell that have been dated to around 41,000 ya. In addition, the Levantine
contains examples of early forms of ornamentation. The Üçağızlı cave in Turkey yielded pierced mollusc shells.
An incised phalanx of a large predatory bird (vulture or eagle) was also found. In Lebanon, the site of Ksan Akil
showed similar shell beads and radiocarbon dates suggested these date to 43,000- 41,000 ya. Stratigraphic
evidence even suggests that the beads at Ksan Akil are older. (Kuhn et al, 2001, pp. 7641-7643, 7645.)
71
Zilhão et al, 2007, p. 24.
69
18
also mostly been associated with the Neanderthal, here again some scholars have questioned
this. (For an overview of Châtelperronian distribution see figure 7) Scholars have claimed the
Châtelperronian evolved from the earlier Mousterian of Acheulian Tradition since there are
similarities in the lithic tool types.72 As with the Bachokirian, Uluzzian and Altmuhlian
assemblages, the Châtelperronian period differs from the previous 200,000 years of
Neanderthal culture with the emergence of new lithic tools, bone tools and the introduction of
personal ornamentation. Nevertheless, ornaments are still not very common objects found in
this period.
The cave of Grotte de Fees de Châtelperron is located in a small valley of the
Graveron between the valleys of the Loire and the Allier. Excavations occurred in 1850 led by
A. Poirier and in 1867 and 1872 by G. Bailleau. During these excavations most of the filling
of the central part of the cave was removed. Bailleau identified only one archaeological layer
and a concentration of large mammoth tusks that were associated with a series of hearth
deposits. Additional excavations occurred between 1951-1955 by Henry Delporte. He
reported a sequence of eight archaeological layers containing five clearly defined levels of
Châtelperronian occupation, which were underlay by Mousterian deposits. Delporte also
reported that it was highly unlikely that the levels were disturbed.73 Analysis of the
archaeological material was performed by Delporte himself and later by F. Harrold. A total of
750 artefacts were found among which 200 retouched tools, 65 complete and incomplete
Châtelperronian points, end scrapers and various burins. Of most importance is the discovery
of a perforated fox canine and the canine of a large feline, however. (See figure 8) Three
additional perforated teeth were found of which the specific animal species and stratigraphic
provenance is unknown.74
The site of Grotte du Renne at Arcy –sur-Cure, is considered to be one of the key
Châtelperronian sites. Excavations started in 1949 and again in 1963 and revealed a
stratigraphy from the Mousterian, Châtelperronian, Aurignacian and Gravettian periods.
Stratigraphic sequences and artifacts were analyzed by Andre Leroi Gourhan. The
Châtelperronian layers contained 36 personal ornaments of perforated teeth of fox, wolf, bear,
hyena, red deer, bovid, horse, mammoth and reindeer. (See figure 9) In addition the layers
held ivory beads, a fossil shell, worked bone, projectile points, awls, pins, tools, decorated
72
Joris & Street, 2008, p. 788.
Gravina et al, 2005, pp. 51-52.
74
Ibid., pp. 51-52.
73
19
bird bones and byproducts of ivory manufacture or possibly ivory rings.75 (See figure 10)
Later excavations revealed a structure that has been interpreted by Leroi-Gourhan as a
mammoth tusk hut structure similar to the structure found at Grotte de Fees.76 During
excavations by Leroi Gourhan isolated Neanderthal teeth were found in the lowest
Châtelperronian layers which indicate that the Neanderthal was the producer of the
ornaments.77 Also, a temporal Neanderthal bone was retrieved in the talus of the cave.78
The rockshelter of La Roche-a-Pierrot Saint Cesaire is located at the base of a
limestone cliff in close proximity to the Atlantic coast. The site is importance since it was
here that Neanderthal fossils were first associated with Châtelperronian assemblages.79 A
secondary Neanderthal burial was found in 1979 during a so-called salvage excavation in a
small pit of about 70cm across.80 (See figure 1) The skeleton was dated as being 36,000 ya
old. Certain scholars have attested it was an intentional burial.81 Also, several shell beads
were found at the site which most likely originated from the Atlantic sea.82
The Quincay rockshelter was solely inhabited in the Châtelperronian period and
contained six perforated teeth (three fox, one wolf and two red deer canines). These were
perforated in the same manner as the teeth from Grotte du Renne. First the root was abraded,
then the surface was pierced with a puncture blow or pressure removals and subsequently the
tooth was smoothed and the hole was enlarged.83 The Caune de Belvis cave near the
Mediterranean coast of France yielded two beads of fossil Turritella temprina shells as well
as diagnostic Châtelperronian points.84
2.4. Personal ornamentation from the Aurignacian
In the Aurignacian, the period associated with the arrival of the AMH, personal ornaments
become more widespread in Europe.85 Also, the range of types becomes broader. Since the
75
D’Errico, 1998, p. 4.
Gravina et al, 2005, p. 53
77
Bar-Yosef, 2010, pp. 588-589.
78
Ibid., pp. 589.
79
Coolidge & Wynn, 2004, p. 55
80
Bar-Yosef, 2010, pp. 589.
81
Ibid., pp. 589.
82
Zilhão, 2007, p. 26.
83
Ibid., p. 25.
84
Ibid., 2007, p. 25.
85
The site of Kostenki in southeastern Russia yielded a large number of Aurignacian personal ornaments such as
pierced shells, engraved bone and ivory beads. Ornaments, ivory spear points, pierced snail shells and engraved
bones were also found in Romania dating from the Aurignacian. These sites are unfortunately not in the range of
the focus area. (See Neugebauer-Maresh, 2005, p. 40-45, 209-219)
76
20
record of Aurignacian ornaments is rather large, their occurrence will be discussed according
to geographical area.86
2.4.1. Aurignacian ornaments from Austria
On the west bank of the Danube eight Aurignacian sites were identified of which only one,
Willendorf II, has been properly excavated. Nine cultural horizons dating between 45,000 and
23,000 ya were recognized. In layer 4, dated at 32,000-31,000 ya, 20 fragments of ivory
batons were retrieved. Nearby the site of Krems Hundssteig yielded 128 perforated molluscs
and a pendant made of nephrite. As with the Châtelperronian, it is interesting that molluscs
have been found since the site of Willendorf is quite a distance from the sea. (For an overview
of types of perforated shells, see figure 11) At Senftenberg, an open air site about 5 kilometres
of Krems, a perforated turritella turris shell and 61 dentalia were found as well as pieces of
red ochre and graphite. The layer was radiocarbon dated at 36,350 ya. At Getzersdorf, 10
kilometres southeast of Krems, fragments of an ivory stick and two perforated chalk
concretions were interpreted as personal ornaments.87 At Lanmannersdorf a dentalium was
retrieved.88
In 1961, two Palaeolithic layers with isolated pieces of charcoal and bones were
discovered at the site of Gobelsburg north of the Danube. Radiocarbon dates from these layers
pointed to a date of 30,000-29,000 ya. One of the most remarkable finds at Gobelsburg was a
ornamented and perforated tooth of a cave bear.89
2.4.2. Aurignacian ornaments from Belgium
In Belgium at the site of Goyet, pierced canines of fox, bear and deer were found as well as
pierced incisors of deer, horse and wolf. (see figure 12 for an overview of types of perforated
teeth from the Aurignacian) Drop-like ivory beads, an ivory pendant and an antler pendant
were also discovered. At Prince a perforated deer incisor and an ivory bead were recovered
from Aurignacian layers. Princesse contained a pierced deer canine, an ivory ring and two
trap notch pendants of ivory and antler. The site of Spy yielded a large amount of personal
ornaments including perforated fox, deer, wolf and boar teeth, eight beads of ivory and bone
86
Very useful in completing the record of Aurignacian personal ornaments was the article by Vanhaeren and
D’Errico. Their database included 157 distinct types of ornaments found at 98 sites in Europe and the Near East.
(Vanhaeren & D’Errico, 2005)
87
Neugebauer-Maresh, 2005, pp. 8157
88
Vanhaeren and d’Errico, 2006, p. 1109.
89
Neugebauer-Maresch 2005, p. 153.
21
and an ivory ring. At Trou Margritte pierced canines of fox and deer were found as well as an
ivory ring, an ivory bead and a shell bead.90
2.4.3. Aurignacian ornaments from France
In the Dordogne, the occurrence of ornaments is widespread. At the Abri Castanet rock
shelter multiple marine shell beads, perforated fossil mollusks, basket shaped bone and ivory
beads, soft stone (manganese and hematite) beads and pierced reindeer teeth were uncovered
during excavations. In addition perforated hyena, fox, bovid, deer and fox teeth were
discovered.91 Moreover, fossil mollusks are unusually numerous here.92 The site of Abri
Blanchard contained over 20 marine shell beards, an ivory diadem, a bone diadem, several
ivory beads and pierced shells. At Cellier a perforated wolf incisor, an ivory pendant and
several shell beads were found. 93 It appears that the sites of Abri Castanet, Abri Blanchard
and Abri de la Souquete yield similar lithic and bone industry as well as pierced shells. These
shells come from nearby Miocene shell sources.94 The site of Pataud contained perforated
teeth of lion, fox, deer, wolf, bovid and multiple pieces of incised bones of fox and reindeer.
In addition ivory beads, a bone diadem and pierced shells were found.95 The cave at Ferrassie
contained five shell beads, an ivory diadem, a bone bead, an antler bead and pierced shells.96
The rockshelter site of La Laouza yielded an assemblage of marine shells including
seventeen that were perforated. Nearby, the Rotschild shelter contained nearly 400 beads of
which 90 percent were marine shells and the remainder mollusc shells.97 These originated
from nearby Miocene outcrops.98 At Grotte Tournel perforated shells were also present.99 The
Isturitz cave, in the Pyrenees-Atlantiques contained pierced shells and the perforated teeth of
horse, hyena, wolf, bear, fox, several deer, ivory beads, as well as a bone diadem and an
amber bead.100 The pierced shells that were found could have been obtained locally since
Miocene fossil beds were at hand. Pierced shells found at the inland site of Tuto de Camalhot
were obtained 100-250 kilometers from either coast.101
90
Vanhaeren & D’Errico, 2005, p. 1109.
Zilhao, 2007, p. 28-30.
92
Knecht et al, 1992, p. 217.
93
Vanhaeren & d’Errico, 2005, p.1109.
94
Knecht et al, 1992, p. 217.
95
Van Haeren and d’Errico, 2005, p.1109.
96
Knecht et al, 1992, p.213.
97
Zilhao, 2007, p. 28-30.
98
Knecht et al, 1992, p. 219.
99
Zilhao, 2007, p. 28-30.
100
Vanhaeren and D’Errico, 2005, p. 1109.
101
Knecht , 1992, p. 218.
91
22
Abri Peyrony yielded a perforated fox canine, a deer incisor and several marine shell beads.
Canecaude contained a single bear incisor. At Gatzarria pierced fox, deer, ibex, horse and fox
teeth were excavated as well as several bone, ivory and antler beads and two bone diadems.
At Grotte des Hyenes perforated teeth of fox, two wolves, lion, bear, bovid and deer were
found in addition to several shell beads.102 At Brassempouy, large quantities of so-called
basket-shaped beads of ivory were found that have been radiocarbon dated at 33,000-32,000
ya. In most cases however, beads and pendant from the Aurignacian are dated on stylistic
terms. Randall White mentions that lab work has pointed out that it took one hour of labour
per bead.103
The La Quina cave contained pierced teeth of hyena, fox, horse, bovid, several wolves
and shell beads. Le Piage is specifically interesting since it contained perforated teeth of fox,
ibex, deer and bovid but also of a shark. It is the only site in Europe or the Middle East where
a perforated shark tooth was found. At Pages incised wolf and fox canines were retrieved and
at Patary a perforated bear canine. Aside from several shell beads the site of Pecheurs
contained a pierced deer canine. The sites of Festons, Laouza, Lartet, Figuier, Combe Capelle
, Pasquet and Caminade Est contained solely pierced marine shells from an Atlantic
source nearby.104 Interestingly at the sites of Lespugue, La Chaise, Pair-non-Pair and Solutre
imitations of seas shells carved in bone were retrieved. Unfortunately no additional
information on these was found.105
Pierced shells appear especially throughout the Aurignacian in France. Shells were
obtained locally from at least three different sources: the Atlantic coast and Miocene fossils
deposits between the coast and the interior, more inland Miocene deposits in the area of Abri
Castanet and Abri Blanchard and the Mediterranean coast.106 Most shells were retrieved from
fossil beds and are hence not associated with the collection of living organisms. In the
Pyrenees, shells were obtained locally where Miocene fossil beds were at hand. The
appearance of these shells inland implies, however that there had to be some form of
exchange among the groups living in this region. This suggests not only that the Aurignacian
people had knowledge of how to exploit shell resources, but also that there was circulation of
unworked or worked shells between human groups.107
102
Vanhaeren & D’Errico, 2005, p. 1109
Knecht et al, 1992, p 281-282.
104
Ibid., p. 1109.
105
Salmony, 1948, p. 288.
106
Miocene beds were located on places where the continental shelf was exposed.
107
Knecht et al, 1992, p. 218.
103
23
2.4.4. Aurignacian ornaments from Italy
The Mochi rockshelter in Italy contained large collections of personal ornaments, including
18 marine shell beads, a pierced incisor of a small carnivore and four beads of bone or
stone.108 At the Fumane cave in Italy more than 650 marine shells were discovered of which
half were perforated. Radiocarbon dating proved these were contemporary to the
Aurignacian.109 Interestingly, the site is located a considerable distance from the source of the
marine shells, the Lugurian coast 110 In addition three grooved red deer incisors were found.
The Fosselone cave in Latium contained ornaments of pierced fox en red deer canines and
beads of deer antler. Also, beads of soft stone were found whereas shell beads were absent.111
The sites of Bombrini, Cala, Castelvita, Cavallo en Fanciliuli contained large amounts of
pierced marine shells. The latter also contained a perforated deer canine.112
2.4.5. Aurignacian ornaments from Southern Germany
According to radiocarbon dates, the Aurignacian might have started in Southern Germany as
early as 40,000 ya. Bockstein Hohle in the Ach Valley of the Swabian Jura contained two
perforated cave bear canines attributed to the Aurignacian as well as two stone and one ivory
pendant. The site of Breitenbach contained perforated fox canine.113 The Aurignacian at
Hohlenstein Stadel in the Lone valley was radiocarbon dated at 30,000 ya. In addition to lithic
assemblages and a therianthropic figurine, a perforated fox teeth, ivory beads and ivory
pendants were found. Radiocarbon dates from modified bones of the site of Vogelherd date at
36,000 ya. Interestingly the cave was excavated in 1931 by Gustav Rieck and yielded no
personal ornaments. When the cave was reexcavated recently, the backdirt revealed several
ornaments that can be placed in the Aurignacian such as double perforated ivory beads and a
perforated deer canine.114
At Sirgenstein in the Ach Valley, the uppermost Aurignacian layer contained a double
perforated ivory bead. The Aurignacian at Geissenklösterle was radiocarbon dated at 37,00035,000 ya making it the oldest Swabian Aurignacian site. Perforated fox canine, ivory
pendants and double perforated ivory beads were recovered from this layer.115 In addition a
108
Zilhao, 2007, p. 28-30, Vanhaeren & d’Errico, 2006, p. 1110.
Zilhao, 2007, p. 28, 30.
110
Joris & Street, 2008, p. 785.
111
Zilhao, 2007, p. 28, 30.
112
Vanhaeren & d’Errico, 2006, p. 1110.
113
Vanhaeren & d’Errico, 2006, p. 1110. Neugebauer-Maresch, 2005, p. 139-140, 142
114
Neugebauer-Maresch, 2005, p. 139-140, 142. Vanhaeren & d’Errico, 2005, p. 1110.
115
Neugebauer-Maresch, 2005, pp. 142, 145.
109
24
diadem from antler and one from ivory were recovered.116 The Hohle Fels cave yielded
double perforated ivory beads, disk-shaped ivory beads and toggle-shaped ivory beads as well
as perforated horse teeth in the Aurignacian layer that dates at 33,000-31,000 ya.117
The site of Lommersum contained ivory pendants and at Wildscheuer a perforated fox canine,
a perforated horse incisor and a stone pendant were recovered dating from the Aurignacian.118
2.4.6. Aurignacian ornaments from Spain
Interestingly, shell beads are not common in Spain. When found shell beads originate from
sites close to the Atlantic or Mediterranean coast. From the L’Arbreda site in Catalonia five
shell beads were recovered. At El Pendo a pierced red deer canine was retrieved.119. In
addition, imitations of pierced red deer canines in steatite were retrieved.120 The site of
Beneito yielded a perforated lynx canine and two shell beads. At both Cueva Mori and Pendo
a deer canine was found and the latter also yielded an elongated stone bead. Foradada yielded
seven shell beads and another lynch canine. The site of Otero contained perforated fox canine,
deer canine, ibex incisor and deer incisor. At Reclau Viver perforated seer canine and an
incised ibex femur were found. 121
2.5. What can the ornaments tell us?
If we look at the evolution of ornaments over time it appears that ornaments are not common
in the Châtelperronian period but become more widespread during the Aurignacian. The
earliest ornaments appear to be shells that were used as beads or pendants by making one of
two perforations. Notably, the site of Aviones in Spain indicates that some of the shells were
painted. Moreover, the Aurignacian shows a wider assemblage of ornaments. Beads appear in
the form of pierced shells, bones or ivory and pendants appear in the form of shells, bones or
perforated animal teeth. Diadems appear in ivory, bone and antler. The most common type of
ornament found in the Châtelperronian is the shell bead or pendant followed by perforated
animal teeth. Most of the shells appear to have been retrieved locally, although there is some
support for the idea that the shells were exchanged between groups over longer distances in
Austria. The perforated teeth stem from different animals: at least eight belong to fox, five to
deer and three to wolf.
116
Vanhaeren & D’Errico, 2005, p. 1110.
Neugebauer-Maresch, 2005, pp. 142, 145.
118
Vanhaeren & D’Errico, 2005, p. 1110.
119
Zilhao, 2007, p. 30.
120
Knecht et al, 1992, p. 61.
121
Vanhaeren & D’Errico, 2005, p. 1111.
117
25
As in the Châtelperronian, in the Aurignacian, the most commonly found ornaments are shells
followed by perforated teeth. Here again, there are indications that shells were exchanged
over considerable distances in Austria and Italy. Remarkable appearances are the imitations of
shells and teeth which could indicate that these specific ornaments had a special significance
to the people who wore them, for example maybe the original ornaments were worn by their
ancestors. Another possibility is that shell sources or animal teeth were not commonly
exploited at an area or were not available, but people did have knowledge of their existence.
In the Aurignacian, perforated teeth of deer dominate the record with at least twenty
examples, followed by fox with sixteen examples.122 In addition wolf and cave bear are found
more often than in the Châtelperronian. There appears to be no big differences between the
species of animals that were used for the ornaments between north and south Europe.
Differences could indicate that other animals were more common in an area or that people had
a specific taste for teeth used as ornaments. In Italy, shells are most commonly found, in
Spain the most common animal teeth used for ornamentation was the red deer. The use of red
deer teeth as ornament in Spain is consistent with deer being the principal source of diet
throughout the Perigord.123
However, can we reveal why animal parts were worn on the body as ornaments? The
use of ornamentation was likely a way to represent identity. We could simply say that people
lived so closely with these animals and hunted some of them that they figured out that their
teeth were also of use. Eventually hunter-gatherers found out which of the teeth worked best
for perforations and that mammoth ivory was good for carving beads and pendants. In case of
the red deer this makes sense. The animal was exploited as a food source and thus the
leftovers were used for other purposes. The teeth of animals that were exploited for fur could
also have been used for ornamentation. Social organization changed in the transition period
and it seems likely, as the shells indicate that certain objects were exchanged. Thus,
ornaments not only moved between individuals but also over the landscape. If certain animal
had a special meaning, however, is not clear from the record.
122
Vanhaeren and D’Errico state that the most popular ornaments types are the pierced fox canine followed by
bone beads and perforated red deed canines. Their catalogue also includes a perforated human tooth, found in a
Middle Eastern context. (Vanhaeren & D’Errico, 2005, p. 1113. See figure 11, no. 24)
123
Knecht et al, 1992, p. 67.
26
3. Theories on the earliest ornaments
3.1. The Neanderthal versus anatomically modern human debate
An on-going debate concerning the transition period is the possible interaction between
Neanderthals and AMH, especially with respect to the appearance of the first forms of
personal ornamentation. An important topic of discussion within this debate concerns the
Châtelperronian period and the divide with the Aurignacian timeframe.124 The variability of
both fossil and archaeological data sets from these periods are subject to several different
interpretations that share little common ground.125
Historically, it is claimed the Neanderthal did not have the correct cognitive abilities
for modern behaviour. Consequently, it is argued that the appearance of new technologies
such as tools, new material, ornaments and art should be seen as an achievement of the AMH
rapidly replacing the Neanderthal. Scholars as Mellars and Randall White propose this in a
model named the single species model. The acculturation model proposed by White, states
that the first personal ornaments found in Châtelperronian layers indicate that the Neanderthal
either imitated, or traded objects as personal ornamentation from the AMH. On the other end
of the spectrum are scholars as d’Errico and Zilhão who suggest that Neanderthal and AMH
individually developed personal ornamentation, possibly simultaneously. This theory is
referred to as the multiple species model. Scholars as Bar-Yosef have expressed doubt about
both theories. He states that reappraisal of the archaeological data has led to different
interpretations.
3.1.1. The single species theory of Mellars
Paul Mellars, a professor of Prehistory and Human Evolution at Cambridge University has
published extensively on the behavioural origins and geographic dispersal of AMH
populations and the extinction of European Neanderthals. Mellars claims that the Aurignacian
was the first period in which the appearance of bone, ivory and antler tools and ornamentation
occurred. According to Mellars these objects were absent during the Middle Palaeolithic and
hence should not be associated with the Neanderthal.126 He proposes two polarized
alternatives for the origin of new behaviour. On the one hand, behaviour and cognition may
have evolved by a purely internal process of behavioural and cognitive evolution among the
124
Ibid., p. 1.
Bar-Yosef, 2002, p. 364.
126
Mellars, 2004, p. 461.
125
27
local European populations through Neanderthal lineage. On the other hand, an entirely new
behavioural pattern may have evolved with the influx of new populations in Europe.127
The first theory argues that environmental changes caused increased demographic and
social competition between Neanderthal groups for space and resources, which in turn gave
rise to technological, social and economic change, such as symbolic expression. In tandem
with these changes the indigenous Neanderthal populations may have developed intellectual
and neurological capacities comparable to those necessary for modern behaviour. Although
Mellars states that the first theory is an important perspective on the origins of Palaeolithic
culture he also addresses some major obstacles. The first obstacle is the extreme coincidence
between the appearance of major behavioural innovations and the arrival of the AMH. He
calls this the ‘’impossible coincidence’’. According to Mellars, the evidence for the arrival of
the AMH rests on four independent lines of evidence that all lead to the same conclusion, that
the AMH arrived in Europe 50,000 to 40,000 ya. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) patterns of
modern human populations point to a dispersal of fully genetically modern populations
extending across Europe between 40,000 and 50,000 BP. These mtDNA patterns are radically
different from Neanderthal populations. A similar age estimate is concluded by scholars as
Rogers and Jorde trough analysis of microsatellite data. Although Mellars addresses the
scarcity of fossil remains from this period, he does argue that the available fossils indicate the
arrival of the AMH around this time period.128
The second obstacle is the dramatic speed and scale of the Upper Palaeolithic
revolution in Europe. There are changes in all visible archaeological dimensions of behaviour,
including demographic, economic and social patterns. Mellars claims that these changes show
a close correlation with the distribution of various Aurignacian and proto-Aurignacian
technologies and were absent from the Middle Palaeolithic. Furthermore, there is a sharp
contrast with the speed and abruptness of the transition as compared to similar technological
innovations in Africa. Certain aspects of the transition can be observed in Africa much earlier.
Here at around 200,000-250,000 BP scrapers and burins, geometric forms, shaped bone tools,
red ochre and artistic or decorative items appear. This does not solve the question of the actor,
however since it is not certain which hominid produced these objects. Another claim is the
evident dispersal of AMH over Europe starting in the Middle East 45,000-47,000 BP, in
central Europe around 40,000-43,000 BP and finally in Western Europe around 38,000-
127
128
Mellars, 2005, pp. 12-13
Ibid., pp. 13-15
28
40,000 BP. The chronological incline in the appearance of typical Upper Palaeolithic
technology from east to west may have been produced by the migrating AMH.129
A third obstacle is that separate development of Palaeolithic culture and technology in
the Châtelperronian in France, the Szeletian in Central Europe and the Uluzzian in Italy would
require an extraordinary degree of convergent and simultaneous evolution in technological
developments in these different regions. An alternative possibility is that these developments
are explained by intercommunication and transmission of technology between these different
areas. This would imply that there was large-scale diffusion among the Neanderthal
populations. Mellars argues that it is not difficult to assign these changes to a different group
of hominids.
The most puzzling aspect of the local origins model in Mellars eyes lies in the
disappearance of the Neanderthal. Proponents of the local origin model would dispute the
notion of intellectual superiority of AMH over Neanderthals. This raises the question as to
why they disappeared so swiftly, however. Moreover, if the Neanderthals successfully
adapted biologically and behaviorally in Europe for the last 200,000, then why did they not
survive when a less adapted species arrived at the scene?130
Together with colleagues Gravina and Bronk Ramsey, Mellars claims that results of
AMS (Accelerator mass spectrometry) dating at Grotte de Fee de Châtelperron strongly
suggest the chronological coexistence of the last Neanderthal and the early AMH. This could
support the idea of potential demographic and cultural interactions between the two hominids.
According to the AMS dating the Châtelperronian layers from Grotte de Fee date between
39,000-40,000 BP and the Aurignacian layers date between 36,000-39,000 BP. Mellars argues
that the personal ornaments found at Grotte de Fee show undeniable similarities with
Aurignacian tool types. Also, he states that a large number of Aurignacian like tool types are
present in Châtelperronian layers. Mellars and his colleagues state that the Châtelperronian
tools are made of bad quality local ’Tilly’ flint while the Aurignacian type tools were
produced from material retrieved from sites 100 kilometres away. Thus, the authors imply that
either there is a direct stratigraphic sequence of Neanderthal and AMH occupation or, as they
think is more realistic, there was interaction between the two hominids.131
129
Ibid., pp. 16-17, 19
Ibid., p. 19
131
Gravina et al, 2005, pp. 51-58.
130
29
3.1.2. The multiple species model of ‘D Errico and Zilhão
Francesco d’Errico and João Zilhão have also published extensively on the occurrence of
personal ornaments in the Châtelperronian. They oppose the assumption that Châtelperronian
bone tools, personal ornaments and ‘modern stone tools’ can be seen as the result of
acculturation of Neanderthals between Neanderthals and the AMH.132 In contrast, they present
a model of independent Neanderthal development through the reevaluation of Châtelperronian
technology and patterns of the chronological and geographical distribution of Aurignacian,
Châtelperronian, Uluzzian and Mousterian settlements.133
The acculturation theory which claims that the Neanderthal imitated, traded or
collected objects produced by AMH is associated with some major difficulties. First, there is a
limited quantity of human remains associated with archeological material from this period,
which makes it difficult to make statements about relationships between the two hominids.
Secondly, there is no consensus as to the meaning of acculturation. Often it is used to describe
an influence of one hominids on the other in ways that vary from marginal domination to
complete assimilation. If bone tools and lithic technology were imitated by Neanderthals or
traded with the AMH this should be clearly visible in the archaeological record.134 The third
problem lies with the criteria to test acculturation in the archaeological record. There is no
ethnoarchaeological frame of reference that could provide an example of known cases of
acculturation amongst hunter-gatherers. Thus, there is no evidence for Neanderthal
inferiority.135
According to d’Errico and Zilhão the following aspects should be verified at the cave
of Arcy to exclude the imitation model as a possibility. First, the personal ornaments and bone
tools from the Châtelperronian have to be identical to those found in the Aurignacian: no
evidence of in situ manufacture should be present if they are a product of trade. Furthermore,
if they are imitations they should conceptually be very similar to those found in the
Aurignacian.136 In their analysis ‘d Errico and Zilhão focused on possible reworking between
the Châtelperronian, Mousterian and Aurignacian layers of Arcy and found no evidence for
this. There is a sharp contrast between artifact densities between the upper and lower layers of
the Châtelperronian. The authors suggest that even if some objects from the earliest
Châtelperronian migrated down to the Mousterian, there is no indication that there was
132
D’Errico et al, 1998, pp. 1-2.
Ibid., pp. 1-4, 22.
134
Ibid., pp. 1-4.
135
d’Errico et al, 1998, pp.1-4.
136
Ibid., pp. 5-6.
133
30
mixing between the layers.137 Also, if mixing between these layers did occur, Aurignacian
lithic tools, bone tools and personal ornaments should be present, which is not the case (with a
few exceptions). Finally, if bone tools and ornaments from the Châtelperronian layer
originated in the Aurignacian their number should decline with depth and this is not evident.
The lowest Châtelperronian layer has more bone tools than any layer in the sequence. The
spatial distribution of the worked bone and personal ornaments also indicates that they were
in situ in the Châtelperronian layer.138
D’Errico and Zilhão also examined the possibility of trade or collection of bone tools
and ornaments by the Neanderthal and found two types of evidence that contradict this
assumption. Byproducts of tool production match the tools that are found at Arcy, suggesting
they were produced on the spot. These traces are inconsistent with a trade explanation. Also,
two incomplete ivory rings were found that could actually be the byproducts of ivory
working. Unfortunately, other personal ornaments such as perforated or grooved teeth do not
leave archaeologically visible production traces. The majority of bone artifacts were made
from the same animal species as the faunal remains that were found in the cave, namely
reindeer and horse. Animals as fox, wolf and marmot were probably brought to the site for fur
or the use of their teeth for ornaments. In short, the byproducts found in the cave indicate that
the same group that accumulated the lithics and faunal remains and produced the hearths and
other habitation features also produced tools and ornaments at the site.139
Another possibility is that new behavior was acquired when Neanderthals imitated or
learned from the AMH. If this was the case, similarities between Aurignacian and
Châtelperronian artifacts in production and appearance should be visible. Distinct techniques
were used for the manufacture of bone and antler which makes it possible to group them into
well-defined categories of projectile points, thin elongated points, pins, awls, bone and ivory
rods, burnished tools, picks and digging sticks. Also, evidence suggests that particular raw
materials were chosen for fabrication which implies that the producers had technological
knowledge. When examining these aspects d’Errico and Zilhão suggest that the differences
between the Châtelperronian and the Aurignacian are more significant than the similarities.
Awls, points and rods are present in the Châtelperronian as well as in the Aurignacian, but
lozenge shaped points, reindeer antlers and small thick awls are absent in Aurignacian layers.
Châtelperronian objects show perforations in the roots of fox canines and grooves on other
137
Ibid., pp. 5,6.
Ibid., pp. 8.
139
Ibid., pp. 8-9,11.
138
31
teeth; the latter is unknown in Aurignacian ornaments. The belemnite and fossil found at Arcy
are also unknown in Aurignacian contexts.140
D’Errico and Zilhão claim that the Châtelperronian and the Aurignacian are two very
different technocomplexes. Châtelperronian lithic technology differs strikingly from
Aurignacian both in production manner and the way blanks were transformed. For cores, the
Châtelperronian used large thick flakes or small blocks. Debitage was used to produce
scrapers. It is also evident from lithic production that Châtelperronian technology has a less
pronounced Mousterian component. Aurignacians produced large thick blocks that were
reduced to produce blades that were wide and robust. One could think that with occasional
contact between two different groups there would be some exchange of stone tools or
conceptual shapes. No typical Aurignacian tools are found in Châtelperronian layers,
however, nor are typical Châtelperronian tools found in Aurignacian layers. Thus, it seems
unlikely that the Châtelperronian was in some way influenced by the Aurignacian.141
In addition, d’Errico and Zilhão present several other Châtelperronian contexts that
contain personal ornaments similar to Arcy. At Belvis and Quincay perforated and sawed
teeth and perforated shells resemble objects found at Arcy. At Pech de l’Aze and Cambe
Grenal, knives, end scrapers, burins and truncated pieces were found that closely resemble
Châtelperronian knives.142 Also, in the Châtelperronian layers of Quincay and Charente awls
that resemble the ones found at Arcy were retrieved.143
Another point of discussion d’Errico and Zilhão want to address is the problem of
chronology of the Châtelperronian and the Aurignacian. They state that the evidence clearly
points to the Châtelperronian being older. If two different cultures existed at the same time,
then acculturation should have produced a single lithic technology. Moreover, it remains a
question why Neanderthals maintain such a widespread cultural uniformity and why the
trademark of Aurignacian technology, the mass production of bladelets, was not adopted by
them.144 In addition, a reappraisal of radiometric and stratigraphic evidence in Europe by
Vanhaeren and D’Errico indicates that the earliest occurrence of the Aurignacian is not older
than 36,500 BP and thus postdates the emergence of the Châtelperronian. Therefore material
culture from this period could very well belong to the Neanderthal.145
140
Ibid., pp. 8-9,11.
Ibid., pp. 13-14
142
Ibid., pp. 13-14.
143
d’Errico, 2003, p. 196
144
Ibid., pp. 15-17
145
Vanhaeren & d’Errico, 2006, p. 1107
141
32
Overall, d’Errico and Zilhão claim that several sources of evidence shows that there are too
many differences between the Châtelperronian and the Aurignacian. They strengthen this
claim further by addressing that the counterpart of the Châtelperronian in Italy, the Uluzzian
also differs significantly from the Aurignacian in both technology and typology. The Uluzzian
had a flake-based technology with low blade indexes, which stands in contrast with the
Aurignacian blade technology. Although there are some differences between the
Châtelperronian and the Uluzzian, similar awls have been found at the Uluzzian sites of
Cavallo and Castelcivita.146
Further challenges for the acculturation model are forwarded by the situation in Iberia.
Here a large number and extensive distribution of sites can be found in which Châtelperronian
occupation underlies the earliest Aurignacian. South of the Ebro the situation is very different,
however. The Châtelperronian and Mousterian were contemporary in this area for at least
5000 to 10,000 years. It can be assumed that during this period some contact between the
Neanderthal and the AMH was made. Still, nothing fundamentally changed in the material
culture of the Neanderthals in this region. Middle Palaeolithic industries were manufactured
until 28,000-30,000 ya according to radiocarbon dating in the caves of Caldeirao, Columbeira,
Figueira Brava, Lapa dos Furos, Salemas and Pedreira de Salemas. In Portugal Middle
Paleolithic industries survived after 35,000 ya ago and a similar late survival has been
suggested for southern Spain. Importantly, no split-based bone points or other items typical
for the early Aurignacian were found south of the Ebro. This suggests that the valley of the
Ebro functioned as a bio-cultural frontier for 5000-10,000 years. This might have been due to
ecological factors, as the southern regions were more wooded. Even though, many
opportunities for acculturation must have occurred at this frontier where two different groups
lived, the Iberian Neanderthals retained their traditional Mousterian technologies and no blade
debitage, bone tools or personal ornaments are known. This is yet another arguments against
the assumption that Châtelperronian, Uluzzian and others were byproducts of acculturation. In
addition, it suggest there was variation within Neanderthal populations in which some groups
did produce ornaments and other groups did not.147
The only similarities between the Châtelperronian and the Aurignacian that d’Errico
and Zilhão can find are the ivory rings, although these could have been byproducts of
manufacturing other ivory products. Furthermore, even if these rings were ornaments they do
not necessarily indicate acculturation but may also be explained as cultural interaction. The
146
147
Zilhao & D’Errico, 2007, pp. 19-22.
Ibid., pp. 19-22.
33
evidence that the authors have reviewed suggests that there were separate developments of the
Neanderthal and the AMH.148 The Châtelperronian occurred before the AMH population was
established in Europe. Hence it remains a possibility that the new situation of contact
between the two hominids stimulated the production of symbolic objects on both sides.149 If
one accepts the position that the Neanderthals created objects for personal display, then this
may lead to different assumptions about their cognitive evolution. The symbolic or
communicative function that these ornaments and other objects could have fulfilled suggests
cognitive capabilities that made the Neanderthal, at least in some ways, similar to the
AMH.150
3.1.3. Criticism by Bar-Yosef
Ofer Bar-Yosef, an anthropologist from Harvard University, takes a different approach with
respect to the appearance of personal ornaments at the transition. He critiques both the single
species and the multiple species model. Bar-Yosef’s research interests are very broad. First he
aims to reveal how long the Neanderthal survived in various regions of Eurasia. Second, he
seeks to define the hominid actors of prehistoric cultures as Châtelperronian, Aurignacian,
Gravettian. Lastly he wants to unraveling if the transition was a major evolutionary event of
global dimensions or a gradual transition. In addition, he wonders if the drive for change was
biological, cultural or both and if these archaeological manifestation such as new tool, types,
the appearance of ornamentation and figurative art are markers for the capacity for modern
culture. One point of general agreement is that cultural and technological traits in the Upper
Palaeolithic as well as a population increase in the developed more rapid and had more global
effects compared to the Middle Paleolithic. Bar-Yosef concluded that these components can
be seen as indicators for rapid technological innovations, emergence of self-awareness and
group identity, social diversification, formation of long distance alliances and the ability to
symbolically record information for instance trough language.151 Together, this implies that
the producers of the changes in the transition had modern cognitive capacities. Importantly,
Bar-Yosef does not deny that Neanderthals could have had the capacity for modern behavior,
but he does admit that it is hard to explain that they did not survive. The author states that we
should be ready to accept that Neanderthals or other species may have adopted similar
capacities as AMH. He also addresses that if the transition can be appointed to the newly
148
Ibid., p. 22
d’Errico, 2003, p. 196
150
d’Errico, 1998, p. 22.
151
Bar-Yosef, 2002, pp. 363-364, 368.
149
34
arrived AMH, the question still remains whether they already had the abilities when they
arrived or whether they evolved along the way.152
Bar-Yosef discusses the problem of the Châtelperronian and claims the Upper
Palaeolithic industries could have been produced by different human populations. There is no
complete certainty as to when exactly the AMH arrived and where. Lithic analysis indicates
the origin of Châtelperronian blade production in the Mousterian. Bar-Yosef sees the Upper
Palaeolithic transition as a process that most likely began in a core area and then expanded
across multiple regions by transmitting technology. The earliest occurrence of new material
culture occurred at Ksar Akil in Lebanon and Boker Tachtit in Israel and this layer has been
dated to 45,000-43,000 ya. Unfortunately, human fossils from this time period are lacking in
the Levant. 153
In addition, Bar-Yosef states that the use of the term Aurignacian is ambiguous and
that this is mostly due to the history of research. Western European scholars have claimed that
the Aurignacian is the first culture of the AMH. Some objects are categorized as Aurignacian
while they might not be, which raises the question of how we can label an object Aurignacian.
Moreover, Bar-Yosef rightfully addresses one of the biggest problems with the Upper
Palaeolithic transition, namely the inherent bias towards the well-researched European
material context as opposed to the underrepresented material context of parts of Asia and SubSaharan Africa.154
In recent years Bar-Yosef, has posited some serious doubts with both the singlespecies model as the multiple species model. He claims that the evidence for the
Châtelperronian as a cultural entity derived from the Neanderthals is based on only two sites;
Arcy and Saint Cesaire where the Châtelperronian actually overlies the Mousterian.
According to him a reexamination of the archaeological data of Arcy implies that the
excavations were not up to the current standards of field techniques. He sees clear evidence of
digging and leveling in the Mousterian level by the Châtelperronian inhabitants. Since
taphonomic mixing when newcomers arrive is a very common phenomenon in caves and rock
shelters, he raises the question if the Neanderthal teeth retrieved by Leroi Gourhan in the
lowest Châtelperronian layer were possibly derived from the Mousterian. This would make
the assumption that Neanderthals produced the Châtelperronian untenable. He adds that
occupation by carnivores could have also disturbed the layers. Another indication that the
152
Bar-Yosef, 2002, pp. 363-364, 368, 375-376, 378
Ibid., pp. 369-370, 372, 274.
154
Ibid., pp. 369-370, 372, 274.
153
35
Châtelperronian layer was mixed is the fact that old and new published radiocarbon dates
show a lack of correlation with the stratigraphy. Furthermore, he argues that the similarities in
manufacture of the Châtelperronian and Aurignacian tools from the site point at cultural
continuity even though there are differences in the type and amount of animal bone used. 155
A reappraisal of the data at Saint Cesaire has led Bar-Yosef to similar conclusions.
The Châtelperronian layer at the cave lies on top of a deposit of uncertain age that had
suffered erosion. The layer that contained the Neanderthal burial site lies on top of a similarly
eroded layer. The lithic industry in the cave clearly points to two distinct components; a
Mousterian and an Upper Palaeolithic. In addition, the burial site is located next to an area
where Mousterian artifacts dominate. Scholars who have researched the assemblages at Saint
Cesaire have pointed to adherent mixing of the layers which may have led to cultural levels
superimposing to form a Châtelperronian layer. In short, these observations make it difficult
to ascertain the burial site to the Châtelperronian and suggest that it may be more correct to
associate it with the Mousterian. Concluding, Bar-Yosef claims that associations between
Châtelperronian layers and the Neanderthals are still possible but that the available sites do
not provide clear evidence for this hypothesis.156
3.2. Discussion
In this chapter it has become clear that there is no agreement on which hominid actor
produced the earliest forms of ornamentation. Mellars is in favour of the single species theory,
he believes that the changes in material culture of the transition are due to the arrival of the
AMH. He also states that the Neanderthal did not have the same cognitive abilities as the
AMH. As mentioned he feels the arrival of the AMH is too much of a coincidence. However,
it appears that in time he adjusted his viewpoint. In his most recent work he does not deny that
the Neanderthal produced the ornaments although to him it is apparent that this was due to
interaction with the AMH. Why he adjusts his viewpoint is not complete clear. However, it is
possible that the recent discoveries of additional hominids in Asia have something to do with
it. D’Errico and Zilhão on the other hand are clearly in favour of the multiple species model.
They see no clues that indicate the Neanderthal did not have the same cognitive abilities as
the AMH to produce the Châtelperronian ornaments. They also feel that there is no evidence
for the acculturation theory, especially concerning the assumption that the Neanderthal was
acculturated by the AMH. Contact between the hominids could have stimulated the
155
156
Bar-Yosef, 2010, pp. 586-590
Ibid., pp. 590-592
36
production of symbolic objects on both sides. Thus, there is the possibility that the
Neanderthal influenced the AMH. Both the single species and the multiple species model are
criticized by Bar-Yosef. He seeks more to explain the transition period in evolutionary and
cultural terms. He states that only two Châtelperronian sites exist and after reappraisal these
can also date from the Mousterian. In the end he does not deny that the Neanderthal could
have had the same capacities for modern behaviour as the AMH, however they did not
survive and therefore we will never know.
Eventually, even with diverse theories on the hominid producers of the earliest
personal ornaments, it still remains unclear if they were produced by either the Neanderthal or
the AMH or both.
37
4. The earliest figurative art of Europe
One of the most striking aspects of the transition is the sudden appearance of the first forms of
figurative art in Europe.157 As with the first forms of ornamentation, there are difficulties with
retrieving an exact date for portable art objects or mural art as paintings or engravings.158
When present, charcoal or organic material retrieved from the paintings themselves or from
an area close by is used for radiocarbon dating. It is most reliable to date the pigment of the
paintings themselves, however this requires a small amount of the paint that was used.159
Accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS), a radiocarbon dating technique that relies on the
separation and counting of carbon isotopes, requires a smaller amount of sample material than
traditional radiocarbon dating.160 A recent dating technique, called uranium series
disequilibrium or uranium-thorium dating is more suitable for the Palaeolithic time period. In
this technique the amount of uranium series isotopes is measured from calcite layers which
often cover paintings or carvings. The isotopes can be measured in samples of only 10 mg.
The integrity of the method is tested by comparing the samples from the painting with
samples from layers close to the painting.161 The carbonate deposits of stalagmites and
stalagmites that have grown over drawings and other cave artefacts can nowadays also be
dated quite accurately.162 In case of portable art, dating techniques are more complicated.
Only if charcoal or organic material is found in a layer containing an object of art it can be
dated accordingly.
In this chapter an overview of the earliest forms of figurative art will be presented in
chronological order. The chapter includes figurative art occurring from around 41,000 ya,
which marks the presumed oldest datable rock art found in northern Spain, until 26,500 ya at
the height of the Last Glacial Maximum. As mentioned the ice sheets were at their maximum
extension 26,500 ya and large parts of Europe became depopulated due to the advancements
of the ice and the changing climate.163 The majority of the most famous Palaeolithic rock art
from sites as Lascaux and Les Trois Freres date from the Solutrian and Magdalenian period.
Since there is a significant gap in time between the rock art in the Aurignacian and the
157
The earliest example of figurative art from Africa comes from the Apollo 11 cave in Namibia. Here painted
slabs that have representations of a rhino, a zebra and a feline with human traits were discovered. The stone slabs
were dated between 34-18,000 ya. (Zilhão, 2007, p. 5) Fragments of stone plaques engraved with red ochre from
the Blombos cave in South Africa may date back to 80,000-70,000 ya. It is not certain these fragments can be
connected to symbolic expression. (Renfrew, 2008, p. 2042)
158
Cabrera Valdes, 1989, p. 577.
159
Pike et al, 2012, p. 1409.
160
De Leo & Rizzi, 2001, p. 479.
161
Pike et al, 2012, p. 1409-1410.
162
Harris, 2011, p. 869.
163
Clark et al, 2010, p. 710.
38
Magdalenian (of over 20,000 to 15,000 years) these sites will not be included. The Gravettian
and Magdalenian period most likely saw new migration waves, and as a result it can be
assumed that the art was produced by different people.164 Furthermore, certain areas are left
out such as Moravia and Eastern Europe due to differences in date and nature of the objects.
The catalogue will include mural art, portable art and engraved objects. The chapter will
conclude with a short discussion on the regional differences in type of media, animals
depicted and nature of the art.
4.1. The cave of El Castillo
The cave of El Castillo is located in Cantabrian Spain near the north Atlantic coast
approximately 30 kilometers from Santander. A network of limestone caves is located around
a 355 meter high conical mountain including Las Chimenean, Las Flecha, Las Monedas and
El Castillo cave. El Castillo cave was excavated between 1910 and 1915 by Obermaier, in
1964 by Freeman and again from 1980 until recently. Over 10,000 specimens of bones and
lithics were retrieved. Layers dating to the Lower Palaeolithic, the Mousterian, the
Aurignacian, the Solutrian and Magdalenian were identified.165 A fragment of bone incised
with repeated marks was found in proximity to a sample dating to 40,000 ya.166
El Castillo contains more than 100 painted images, mostly of animals. Radiocarbon
dates taken from images of bison and some engraved bones proved to be Magdalenian.167 It
was not until recently that several large red disks on the Panel de los Manos were dated to
40,800 ya with the use of uranium isotope dating.168 (See figure 13) This date makes it the
oldest example of art known, even though it remains uncertain if the paintings can be
considered to be figurative art. The red disks are depicted together with around 40 hand
stencils that date to 37,300 years ago.169 These hand stencils compromise the second oldest
record of figurative art. (See figure 14) Hand stencils or negative hand stencils occur
throughout Europe in the Upper Palaeolithic. The paintings were probably made by placing a
hand on a cave wall and spraying or blowing paint over it.170 Hand stencils are distinct from
handprints or positive handprints in which the hand is dipped in pigment and placed on the
164
Lewis Williams, 2002, p. 72.
Cabrera Valdes & Bischoff, 1989, pp. 578-579, 582.
166
Knecht et al, 1992, p. 59.
167
Valladas et al, 2001, pp. 979. Cabrera Valdes & Bischoff, 1989, pp. 578-579, 582.
168
Pike et al, 2012, pp. 1411-1412.
169
A total of 56 examples were found at El Castillo, these probably date from the Aurignacian to the
Magdalenian. (Snow, 2005, p. 393)
170
Pike et al, 2012, pp. 1411-1412.
165
39
wall. In the analysis of hand stencils, hands of adults males can usually be distinguished from
those of adult females by size of the hand alone.171
3.2. The cave of Tito Bustillo
The cave of Tito Bustillo is part of a Lower Pliocene karst system of limestone near the north
Atlantic coast of Spain.172 In the Galeria de los antropomorfos a stalagmite about three
meters above the present day ground level contains the painted images of anthropomorphic
figures on both sides. (See figure 15) One of the figures appears to have an open mouth or a
birdlike beak. Also, an upheld arm can be identified. (See figure 16) The figure on the other
side of the stalagmite is less pronounced. It is especially interesting that in this case natural
formations were used for the depiction of the figures. The calcite on top of the painting was
uranium dated and revealed an age between 37,700 -35,500 ya.173
Excavations performed at the cave yielded charcoal radiocarbon dates of 38,72936,665 BP. This finding should be interpreted with caution since the date lies at the outer
limits of the radiocarbon timescale. The other paintings in the cave proved to date from the
Magdalenian.174
4.3. The Fumane cave
The Fumane cave is located in pre-Alps of northeastern Italy and belongs to a fossil karst
system of tertiary age partially composed of limestone cavities. It was first investigated in
1964 and later in 1982 and 1988 under supervision of the Archaeological service of Veneto.
The cave yielded Mousterian, Uluzzian, Aurignacian and Gravettian layers containing
numerous stone tools and as mentioned in Chapter 2 numerous personal ornaments.175
In 1999, fragments of limestone with red monochrome paintings of a four-legged beast
and an 18 cm tall human figure with the head of an animal were discovered. (See figure 17)
Although the four legged animal is well distinguishable the human figure is less pronounced.
The slabs apparently fell from the cave roof and became embedded in the floor sediment. The
faunal remains found in the sediments were radiocarbon dated and provided a date of 36,500
ya.176 Scholars as Zilhão and Pettitt have claimed that it is not certain that the motifs can be
171
Interestingly, handprints and hand stencils are found all over the world from Borneo to Argentina and date
from a variety of periods. (Snow, 2005, p. 390)
172
Canaveras et al, 2001, p. 224
173
Pike et al, 2012, pp. 1412-1413
174
Ibid., pp. 1412-1413
175
Penesani et al, 2008, pp. 2986-2987.
176
Balter, 2000, p. 419.
40
interpreted as figures. According to these authors there is a possibility that the paintings are
just symbolic markings of red ochre that accidentally look like figures.177
4.4. The Abri Blanchard rock shelter
The rock shelter of Abri Blanchard is located in the Dordogne in Southern France and is part
of a network of rock shelters in the region.178 A 250 mm high phallus carved from the horn of
a bison was dated to 36,000 ya.179 (See figure 18) Scholars as S. Reinach have been skeptical
about the interpretation of this object as a phallic representation or example of figurative art.
It is possible that the top of the object depicts the glans of a penis. Phallic representations are
less common in Palaeolithic art compared to vulvar representations.180
In addition, a biochrome painting of a bovid was found which could be Aurignacian or
Gravettian of age. Partial engravings of horns and the head of an ibex were also observed.
(See figure 41) Randall White mentions the discovery of a six-hole flute in levels of the cave
that yielded the engraved images. No further information about this claim was obtained,
however. An engraving interpreted as a vulva representation was found on a limestone slab
which eventually turned out to be Magdalenian of age.181
4.5. The cave of Altamira
The Altamira cave in Cantabrian Spain is probably one of the most famous rock art caves and
has been extensively studied since its discovery by Sautula in 1979. The cave emerged on a
small calcareous hill of 158 meters high.182 It is now about four kilometers from the
Cantabrian Sea. The entrance of the cave consisted of a vestibule which was lit by the sun
before collapsing in the late Würm.183 On the ceiling 20 bison are depicted in red and black
coloring, which date from the Magdalenian period. It has long been suggested that the cave
has a long chronology and that paintings started to be produced in the Aurignacian and
continued being produced until the Magdalenian (spanning around 20,000 years). Scholars
177
Zilhão, 2007, p. 30. Pettitt, 2008, p. 910.
Abri is the French word for rockshelter.
179
Mellars, 2009, p. 177.
180
Zilhão, 2007, p. 34.
181
White 1992, p. 554. In 1986, Randall White mentions in a comment to an article from Whitney Davis that an
unpublished ivory figurine was found at Abri Blanchard, however no further information on this was found.
(Davis, 1986, p. 208)
182
Canaveras, 2001, p. 224.
183
Conkey, 1980, p. 614.
178
41
have claimed it took artists thousands of years to finish the art, although it is unclear what
evidence this claim is based on.184
Recent uranium series have dated a painting of a red claviform symbol at Altamira to
35,600 ya. (See figure 19) It is located at Techo de los Policromos, close to the entrance of the
cave. Abbe Breuil already suggested in the 19th century that the specific symbol was of
Aurignacian age. Other than this painting no other paintings dating from the Aurignacian or
early Gravettian were found, however. Furthermore, it can be challenged that a single
claviform symbol had any meaning or can be considered as art. On the other hand, the fact
that there was continuation of a practice over such a long period of time could be an
indication that the claviform had special meaning.185
4.6. The cave Hohle Fels
The site of Hohle Fels is located in the Ach Valley about 20 kilometers southwest of Ulm in
an area known as the Swabian Jura. The cave is currently being excavated by the University
of Tübingen. Faunal analysis revealed that the cave was seasonally inhabited in winter and
spring. The Aurignacian layers of the cave were reached in 1999 and revealed a great number
of personal ornaments, lithic assemblages, organic artifacts and ivory working debris. Three
ivory animal figurines were recovered including a water bird, a therianthrope and a horse.
(See figure 20 ) The water bird figurine possibly depicts a duck, diver or cormorant. Its wings
are close to its body and distinct lines represent feathers. The front seems to be unfinished,
however. The figurine of a (possible) therianthrope should be interpreted with caution. The
figurine has similarities with the Löwenmensch found at Hohlenstein Stadel (see 4.12) in that
it possibly mixed felid and human traits. Nevertheless, the figure stands only 25.5 mm tall and
details are very hard to distinguish. The sex of the figure could not be determined. The horse
figurine could also be interpreted as a bear or another animal. It has regular cross hatching and
fine parallel lines and nostrils and eyes are depicted.186
According to eleven AMS dates taken from the level in which the figurines were
found, the figurines date to approximately 30,000-33,000 ya. Professor Nicholas Conard, the
excavator, does state that due to the absence of reliable, high resolution radiocarbon dating
calibration for this period, the precise ages are unknown.187
184
Valladas, 2001, p. 982.
Pike et al, 2012, p. 1411.
186
Conard, 2006, p.309-310.
187
Ibid.,p. 309-310.
185
42
During excavations in 2008, a figurine representing a women known as the ‘Venus of Hohle
Fels’ was recovered of six fragments of carved ivory.188 (See figure 21) The figurine lacks a
head but displays a ring above the shoulders that suggests it was used as a pendant. 189 She
measures only 60mm long. The buttocks, hips, breasts and vulva are exaggerated and depicted
in great detail. It is possible that the arms, legs and head of the figurine were reduced to
emphasize the sexual characteristics.190 Conard claims the figurine was produced at least
35,000 ya.191 According to Mellars 30 radiocarbon dates place the figurine in this time period.
Furthermore, the dates were recovered in layers also containing characteristic Aurignacian
bone and ivory tools.192 Venus figurines are widely known from the Gravettian and
Magdalenian epochs and occur frequently in France, Eastern Europe (Moravia), near Lake
Baikal in Siberia and in Italy. They are surprisingly absent from Spain. Many features of the
Venus of Hohle Fels correspond with younger female figurines from Italy and France.193 In
the Gravettian layers, a phallus made from a stone slab was retrieved dating between 30,000
and 27,000 ya. Conard suggests the object was a retoucher, but could also have been used for
sexual stimulation.194
Finally, the oldest known musical instrument, a flute dating from approximately
32,000 ya produced of vulture bone was also found at the cave. (See figure 22) The flute has
five finger holes and two V-shaped notches on each end of the instrument. This has led
scholars to believe the player blew the flute to produce music.195
4.7. The rock shelter of La Ferrassie
The rock shelter of La Ferrassie has a long occupation history that starts in the Mousterian
and ends in the Gravettian. Excavations were performed by D. Peyrony and L. Capitan
between 1896 and 1928. Throughout the years multiple depictions of vulvar symbols were
discovered on limestone blocks. They vary in shape from 220 mm to only 60 mm and can be
circular, oval or triangular as a traditional depiction of the female pubic region.196 (See figure
23) As can be seen in the figure, the vulva form is not very pronounced and could also
188
For an interesting viewpoint on female figurines see Mack, 1990.
Conard, 2009, pp. 150, 248.
A Balzi Rossi in Italy, six Magdalenian Venus figurines show perforations indicating they were worn as pendant.
(Knecht et al, 1992, p. 109)
190
Mellars, 2009, p. 176.
191
Conard, 2009, pp. 150, 248.
192
Mellars, 2009, p. 176.
193
Conard, 2009, pp. 248.
194
Barth & Conard et al, 2009, p. 7.
195
Conard, 2003, pp. 830-832.
196
Delporte, 1993, p. 53.
189
43
symbolize something else. The carvings are accompanied by so-called cupules or holes in the
rock.197 (See figure 23) According to Mellars the vulvar symbols date to about 35,000 ya.198
Davis mentions that the cave also yielded depictions of an herbivore although only parts of
this painting can be observed. (See figure 41 E shows the legs and underbelly of an
herbivore.)199
In the early parts of the 19th century, a burial containing the remains of seven people
including a fetus, two infants, two children and two adults was discovered at La Ferrassie.
Zilhão mentions that the regional culture-stratigraphy indicates a date in the Mousterian
around 70,000-65,000 ya. A stone slab covering the burial pit of one of the children contained
similar cupules to the ones found near the carvings. In addition the burial pit of one of the
adults contained a bone fragment inscribed with four parallel lines.200
4.8. The Geißenklösterle cave
At Geißenklösterle, a cave also located in the Ach Valley in close proximity to the Hohle Fels
cave, four figurines were found in Aurignacian layers. The figurines include a mammoth, a
bear, a bovid and a relief of a human figure known as ‘the Adorant’. (See figures 24 and 25)
The relief was made of mammoth ivory and displays a person with raised arms as if in prayer.
The specific posture of the figurine has been interpreted as a depiction of a person in a state of
trance. The sex of the figure could not be determined.201 The scholar Hahn suggests that the
bear figurine appears to have an aggressive posture. On its prominent parts the figure had a
luster which indicates it might have been used as a fastening for clothing. The mammoth
showed perforations that imply that the figurine was worn as an ornament. With those
characteristics, the figurines can be placed in the category of personal ornaments as well as
the category of figurative art. In addition, Hahn mentions that the figurines were probably
produced by no more than two sculptors according to their similarities in appearance.202
Hahn has dated the figurines between 34,000 and 30,000 ya. In addition to the
figurines, he also reports that a piece of multicolored painted limestone was found in the
cave.203 Numerous AMS samples from the layers and charcoal from a hearth were also dated
197
Mellars, 2009, p. 177.
Ibid., p. 177.
199
Ibid., pp. 194, 198..
200
Zilhão, 2007, pp. 13-15, Zilhão, 2010, p. 1023.
201
Conard, 2003, pp. 830-832.
202
Knecht et al, 1992, p. 231, 235.
203
Ibid., p. 231.
198
44
to this period.204 In addition, three bone flutes were found at the cave, which were made from
wan radii or mammoth ivory.205
4.9. The cave of Abri Castanet
The cave of Abri Castanet, located in the Vezere Valley in southwestern France, was first
excavated between 1911-1913 and 1924-1925 until subsequently Randal White and
colleagues started excavating in the early 2000s. In 2007, limestone fragments containing an
engraving of a vulva and an animal form were discovered after part of the collapsed ceiling of
the shelter was excavated. There were no signs of sedimentation between the engraved
surface and the archaeological layer implying that Aurignacian occupants were the makers of
the imagery. The engraved block measures 131 by 91 centimeters and is flat with the clearest
image being a representation of a vulva. (See figure 26) The representation is similar to vulvar
representations that were recovered from the cave in 1910 and 1925. 206 Adjacent to the vulva
is a line in bas relief that points towards an, as it appears unfinished, anthropomorphic figure.
(See figure 26) The figure has a head, forequarters and a pointed front leg. The figure has an
unfinished rear that some suppose could have been a bison. The block shows signs of artificial
modification as chisel scars. With X ray fluorescence it was attempted to reveal the painted
segments of the block. A sample of unburned bone from beneath the engraved block was
taken to the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) for dating. The results average at
32,400 BP suggesting that the paintings may be slightly older than the paintings at Chauvet
cave.207
The stratigraphy of the cave and other results from the ORAU revealed a single
archaeological level indicating that the shelter was inhabited for a relatively short time. The
layer also contained osseous tools, projectile points, hundreds of personal ornament and
engraved and painted fragments of limestone. In addition to the vulvar and animal forms, socalled ‘’anneaux’’ or rings carved into isolated blocks have been retrieved. It is assumed that
these were attached to the ceiling as well.208
204
Pettitt, 2008, p. 910.
Conard, 2006, p. 330.
206
The Abbe Henri Breuil first discovered Aurignacian vulvar imagery in 1911. Unfortunately, a complete
overview of these examples is not available. (White et al, 2012, p. 6) It is uncertain if the carvings can actually
be interpreted as female genitalia. In some cases excavators may have projected a representation of a female
genital on images that may not have been intended to represent a vulva. At several Aurignacian Eastern
European sites, vulva images have repeatedly been over marked. (Davis, 1986, pp. 197, 206.)
207
White et al, 2012, pp. 1-3.
208
Ibid., pp. 2-3.
205
45
4.10. The Vogelherd cave
The Vogelherd cave, located in the Lone Valley in Southern Germany is a difficult case. The
cave was excavated by Rieck in the early 1900s and again by the University of Tübingen in
recent years. Backdirt from the previous excavation was re-excavated and stratigraphic
sequences are therefore largely unknown. The backdirt contained ten ivory statuettes of
animals of which two mammoths, four felids, one horse, a bovid, a quadruped and an
anthropomorph.209 (See figure 27) In 2006, fragments of a bone flute were found. Most of the
figurines are badly preserved and consist only of fragments. Striking is that the sculptures are
covered with X signs arranged in rows or other patterns. This could be interpreted as mere
decoration or, as scholars have claimed, point to a ritual significance.210
The horse, felid and mammoth had pierced front and hint legs, indicating that the
figurines were perhaps used as a fastening device and thus can also be placed in the
ornamentation category. Under the microscope the figurines showed traces of red ochre.
According to Hahn, it must have taken 40 hours to produce the figurine of the horse. Hence,
making figurines was a time consuming activity and it is imaginable that the figurines were
precious property. Hahn also mentions that similarities between the figurines point to a
restricted number of a maximum of five sculptors.211
The figurines show striking similarities with the Aurignacian figurines found at other
caves in the area. Due to the reexcavation of the cave the absolute dates of the figurines are
unknown. The most recent excavator of Vogelherd, Nicolas Conard has claimed that the
figurines can be placed in the same period as Hohle Fels and Geissenklösterle, around 32,00030,000 ya. The cave also contains Aurignacian lithics and bone points. In addition, he states
that the figurines are clearly Aurignacian since Gravettian figurines generally do not display
any X signs. Water screening and sorting of the deposits is still continuing and has uncovered
fragments of new animal figurines. Skeletal remains of the AMH were found at Vogelherd;
recent analysis of these remains has, however, dated these to the Neolithic.212
4.11. The female figurine of Galgenberg
In 1988, during excavations of the Palaeolithic site of Stratzing near the Wachau River in
Austria, a figurine of a standing female with a one raised arm was found. 213 (See figure 28)
209
Ibid., p. 75.
Conard, 2006, p. 309-310.
211
Knecht, 1993, pp. 231, 235, 240.
212
Conard, 2006, pp. 309-310.
213
Neugebauer-Maresch, 1993, p. 2.
210
46
The figurine was produced from local green slate of which fragments were found surrounding
the figurine. This indicates she was produced on the spot.214 She is also known as Fanny the
Dancer or the Venus of Galgenberg. As is evident from the picture, she looks different than
the traditional Venus figurines in that she is rather slim and rather flat, as opposed to three
dimensional. She does have large breasts and feminine legs. Scholars suggest that according
to her form and flatness could indicate that she was supposed to be held in the hand.215
The excavator Neugebauer-Maresch claims the figurine dates to 32,000-30,000 ya and
that debitage of the greenish slate was found in proximity.216 According to Pettit the dates for
the figurine were obtained by dating charcoal from a nearby hearth in combination with
diagnostic Aurignacian lithics from the site.217
4.12. The Löwenmensch from Hohlenstein-Stadel
One of the most spectacular figurines found in Southern Germany is the so-called
Löwenmensch. (See figure 29) The 28cm high ivory therianthrope was found tucked away 20
meters from the entrance of the Hohlenstein-Stadel cave in the valley of the Lone River.218
The figurine is missing its right arm and foot and is covered with notches and markings on its
arms and ears. In addition, the ears are erect associated with an animal on guard.219 After
discovery the figurine had to be reconstructed from 200 ivory fragments that were carved out
of a complete mammoth tusk section. A hanging penis clearly determines that the figurine
depicts a male figure, a sight rare in overall Upper Palaeolithic art.220 The figurine is dated,
relative securely at 30,000 to 32,000 ya based on dates from four samples as well as
associations with diagnostic Aurignacian lithics.221 In addition, the cave yielded ornaments as
ivory beads, endscrapers, burins and retouched blades as well as fragments of additional
animal figurines. Unfortunately, the nature of these animal figures is unknown.222 The cave
was presumably occupied from the Middle Palaeolithic until the Neolithic. A Neanderthal
femur was recovered from the cave, although it is uncertain if the bone was retrieved from a
cultural layer.223
214
Knecht, 1992, pp. 231, 237.
Neugebauer-Maresch, 1993, pp. 2-3.
216
Ibid., p. 3.
217
Pettit, 2008, p. 910.
218
Wynn, 2009, pp. 74-75.
219
Knecht et al, 1992, p. 235.
220
Wynn, 2009, p. 74.
221
Pettitt, 2008, p. 910.
222
Wynn, 2009, pp. 74-75.
223
Kronneck et al, 2004, p. 215.
215
47
4.13. The Chauvet cave
In 1994 three French spelunkers: Jean-Marie Chauvet, Etienne Brunel-Deschamps and
Christian Hellaire discovered a decorated cave on a limestone cliff in the Ardeche. At that
time the entrance was only half a meter wide and they had to remove rocks to enter the
narrow entrance. The cave consists of four successive chambers extending over 520 meters
with height ranges from 15 to 30 meters. (See figure 30) The original entrance was located
lower in the cave and probably illuminated the cave with daylight. The cave collapsed in
prehistoric times. Nowadays the whole cave including the paintings and prehistoric animal
bone are covered in a layer of sparkling calcite.224 Overall, more than 420 paintings have been
documented that have been extensively researched by Jean Clottes. Images of animals as
reindeer, cave bear, horse, auroch, rhinoceros, buffalo, mammoth, lion, an owl, as well as
handprints and abstract dots were distinguished. The animals are depicted realistically and
often the natural relief of the cave is used for the painting.225
The Brunel panel in the first chamber contains four panels with 420 prints of palms
covered with red paint. In the Red Panels gallery, a panel with three red hand stencils, three
clusters of dots and two black animals, an equid and a mammoth, are visible. Two of the hand
stencils are within the outlines of the animals. Interestingly, the handprint of a person with a
crooked finger keeps reappearing at other locations in the cave.226 The panel of red dots
located near the cave’s entrance contains a cluster of large dots which might represent a
mammoth.227 (See figure 31) The chamber contains mostly paintings of cave bears as well as
the only painting of a panther known in prehistoric art. One of the most famous panels is the
Panel of the Horses which contains 20 animals of which two rhinoceroses in confrontation.
The heads of four horses were drawn over other animals.228 (See figure 32) Pieces of charcoal
from the cave floor in the Panel of Horse were AMS dated and this revealed a date of 32,000
to 30,000 ya. In addition the rhinoceroses were dated to 32,410 to 30,790 ya. The bones of
cave bears were dated at 37,000 and 29,000 ya.229 An ivory point with a massive bas was
found at the Galerie de Megaceros dating to 32,650 ya.230
224
Clottes, 1996, pp. 11-12, 17, 19, 21.
Ibid., pp. 32, 33, 36, 40, 44.
226
Supposedly nearly 500 palm prints were found in the cave in addition to at least 12 handprints and 9 hand
stencils. (Snow, 2005, p. 394.)
227
This could be the earliest example of pointillism, which refers to a technique of painting in which small dots
are applied in patterns to form an image. (Clottes, 1996, 2006).
228
Ibid., pp. 32, 33, 36, 40, 44.
229
Cave bears supposedly went extinct in Southern France around 29,000 ya. (Harris, 2011, p. 869.)
230
Joris & Street, 2008, p. 794.
225
48
The Hillaire chamber contains an image of an owl. At the Salle du Fond, the deepest chamber,
the Panel of the Lions is found. It shows a hunting scene of multiple rhinoceros, a mammoth
and four bison that are being chased by no less than sixteen lions. (see figure 33) The animals
all face left.231 In addition a remarkable drawing was found in the middle of the chamber.
Here, a vertical limestone cone of almost 7 meters hangs from the ceiling of the chamber and
contains a representation of a female pubic region which is embraced by a figure of a bison.
The pubic region of the female is exaggerated. (See figure 34) The image is dubbed ‘Venus
and the sorcerer’ and since it shares characteristics with the Aurignacian Venuses from
central Europe it is dated in this period. At the Galerie des Megaceros and the Salle du Fond
four other female representations or vulvas were found close to entrances to chambers.232
The estimation that the Chauvet cave dates from the Aurignacian has been disputed by
scholars. Paul Pettitt claims that the 50 AMS samples that were used for the dating were
mainly taken from the cave floor and only six samples were obtained from the paintings
themselves. This is a rather small amount considering that the cave contains more than 420
paintings. The Chauvet team has acknowledged that some of the dates may have been
contaminated. Pettitt also points to the fact that the results of the radiocarbon dating were
done by one and the same laboratory (the Gif-sur-Yvette) and calls for verification of the
results by an independent laboratory. In addition, the results were not fully published. Another
interesting aspect that Pettitt points at is that at the discovery of the cave in 1994, it was
thought that the cave was Magdalenian of age due to similarities with Magdalenian art. The
stylistic traits, the themes of the art and the technical aspects of the production of the art are
unknown before the Gravettian and Magdalenian. The cave wall surface was prepared by
scraping before the paintings were applied, topographic features were used to bring out
dynamism, and shading , attention to detail and group composition were performed. These are
all aspects that are absent from other Aurignacian contexts. Furthermore, the art is not
homogenous but appears to constitute of two groups: red and black paintings. Pettitt argues
that this indicates that the art was created at several times by different individuals probably
from different cultural groups. Pettitt also argues that the Aurignacian is absent in the Ardeche
which would make Chauvet the only Aurignacian site in the area.233 In recent years, however,
it has become apparent that areas as the Perigord and the Dordogne also contain art that dates
around the time of Chauvet. Scholars as Zilhão have on the other hand claimed that the
231
Ibid., p. 794.
Clottes, 2003, pp. 20-24.
233
Pettitt, 2008, pp. 911-912, 915.
232
49
parietal art of Chauvet shares many similarities with the German figurines in style and
motifs.234
4.14. Cave of Aldene
Engravings at the Aldene cave in the Herault region of southeastern France were discovered
during phosphate mining of the karst sediment in 1927. The cave yields depictions of bears,
feline and human footprints about which no further information is accessible, unfortunately.
Most scholars have attributed the engravings to the Aurignacian according to its style and
nature. Ambert and colleagues studied the chronology of the cave by examining the
sedimentary dripstone floors and bones and charcoal. AMS dating of the charcoal that was in
the sediment fill showed that the most recent date was 30,260 ya, thus implying that the cave
was inhabited in the Aurignacian.235
4.15. Venus of Willendorf
In 1908 a limestone figurine of a woman was found in the loess layers of Willendorf in
Austria. (See figure 35) The figurine stands 105 mm high and was dated to about 28,000 ya.
She was dubbed the Venus of Willendorf. Interestingly, her head is covered by what seems to
be a braided cloth. No facial features are visible.236 The figure shares similarities with the
Venus of Hohle Fels and other Gravettian Venus figurines with large breasts, large buttocks
and a large belly.237
4.16. Cosquer cave
The Cosquer cave near Marseille was discovered in 1985 but it was not until 1991 that the
cave became publicly known after three divers died in the cave. At present, the entrance of the
cave is 37m underwater and 4/5th of the cave is submerged due to the rise of the
Mediterranean. (See figure 36) It is estimated that the sea level was 110-120 meters lower in
Palaeolithic times compared to present day. The walls and vaults are thus corroded by the sea
and covered by shells and algae. The remaining cave art that was recovered comprises of two
periods (retrieved by C14 dating): the early Gravettian era and the Magdalenian. Since the
discovery of the cave the paintings have been extensively researched by Jean Clottes. After
234
Zilhão, 2007, p. 34. Zilhão mention here that the indirect radiocarbon dates of 30,260 ya from the cave of
Aldene by Pales en Vialou have strengthened the assumption that the Chauvet paintings date from the
Aurignacian.
235
Ambert et al, 2005, pp.
236
Mellars, 2009, p. 909.
237
Gamble, 1980, p. 97.
50
Chauvet, cave Cosquer is the rock art site where most radiocarbon samples have been taken in
the world 238
The Early Gravettian drawings consist solely of 65 hand stencils and other related
motifs. There are 44 black-hand stencils, 21 red hand stencils and 216 geometric signs,
although the latter are of uncertain of age. (See figure 37) A bison was dated between 27,350
and 23,080 ya, two handprints to 27,110 and 27,740 ya, and an oval mark to 28,370 ya.239
Other than a single bison, no animal art was found dating to the earlier period; the
Magdalenian art contains images of ibex and a number of sea animals.240
The hand stencils are located on the east side of the chamber. Most of them were
applied on the walls in red and black paint and some are covered in scratches or dots. Many
stencils contain incomplete fingers, which was probably achieved by bending the fingers. (See
figure 37) This phenomenon is found at a number of other sites, implying that this practice
was widespread.241 Clottes claims that the mondmilch (soft surface of the limestone walls)
contained handprints of children which were rather high implying that they were held at arm’s
length or on the shoulders so that they could imprint their hands in the soft walls. (See figure
38) Most of the other hand stencils belonged to adults. Also, a number of broken stalagmites
and stalactites were found for which the broken of pieces were not recovered. Broken
stalagmites from areas that were inaccessible in Palaeolithic times were retrieved and thus
Clottes claims the stalagmites had to be broken off intentionally.242
Interestingly, handstencils found at the brink of a 17 meter deep vertical shaft are all
black. Research in 2003 revealed that some engravings near the big shaft appear to be older
than the handprints. This could suggest that some of the animal engravings also date from the
Gravettian, although it is uncertain which ones. Furthermore, throughout the cave sexual
symbols of unknown dates were found, such as a phallus and several hollows marked with
black paint that could be a reference to female sex organs.243
4.17. Gargas cave
Approximately 159 hand stencils and handprints were found at the cave of Gargas located in
the region Hautes-Pyrenees of Southern France. The hand stencils- and handprints outlined in
black and red were located on the cave walls. (See figure 39) In addition so-called finger
238
Clottes & Courtin, 1997, pp. 321-326.
Valladas, 2001, p. 980.
240
Clottes & Courtin, 1997, pp. 323-326.
241
Ibid., pp. 325-2326.
242
Clottes & Courtin, 2005, pp. 20-22.
243
Ibid., 2005, pp. 20-22.
239
51
flutings were found. Both Emile Cartailhac and the Abbe Breuil extensively examined the
hand prints in the early 1900s.244
One of the most striking aspects of the handprints and stencils is that the majority of
them have missing fingers. Over time some interesting hypotheses on the appearance of these
missing fingers have developed which are worth mentioning. The classical hypothesis which
was maintained by the Abbe Breuil is that the Aurignacians who produced the paintings cut of
their fingers for sacrificial reasons. A second hypothesis was developed by Breuil and Hugo
Obermaier which proposed that the loss of fingers was caused by thrombo-angitis obliterans
due to frostbite or dietary deficiency. According to Andre Leroi-Gourhan a third hypothesis
that seems more likely, however, is that the effect of missing fingers was acquired by bending
of the fingers.245 Leroi-Gourhan also posited hypotheses about the production and distribution
of the handprints. He claims that ochre powder was applied with a brush on the damp surface
of the wall to make prints. Furthermore, he found a number of characteristics with regard to
the location of the hand stencils. The number of hands increases as you get deeper into the
cave and the handprints also change from black painted to red painted hands as you move
closer towards the back of the cave. The hands are often arranged in pairs and some are
horizontally arranged. Most striking is that the majority of the hands is small and could have
belonged to adolescents or children.246
Radiocarbon analyses on samples from excavations performed between 2004 and 2005
date the cave at 27,00 to 25,000 ya.247 Earlier C14 dates of a bone chip extracted from a
fissure crossing a stenciled hand were dated at 26,900 ya.248 These dates demonstrate that the
art stems from a time at the edge of the focus period covered in this thesis.
4.18. Abri Labbatut and other caves in the Dordogne
Excavations at Abri Labattut first took place in 1912 under M. Castanet and in 1913 under
Didon.249An engraved horse was found on a limestone slab that measures 64.3 cm length and
49.7 cm height and was once part of the wall of the rock shelter which had collapsed in
Palaeolithic times. (See figure 40) There are traces of red coloring on the face, tail, back and
belly of the figure. Black paint may also have been present. The horse’s head was deeply
244
Leroi-Gourhan, 1986, pp. 19-20, 31.
Ibid., pp. 19-20, 31. Interestingly the Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert use a manual code while hunting which
corresponds to the hand stencils at Gargas. (Leroi-Gourhan, 1986, p. 22)
246
Leroi-Gourhan, 1986, pp. 21, 24, 30.
247
Vercoutere et al, 2006, pp. 301-30
248
De Leo & Rizzi, 2001, pp. 479.
249
Simek, 1986, pp. 404
245
52
incised and other parts of the engraving also have in incised lines of varying depth. Based on
these incisions, the cave is dated in the Aurignacian time period. Jan Simek argues that
stylistically the horse corresponds to Leroi-Gourhan’s Style II, which dates between 25,000
and 18,000 ya. Engravings of vulvas were also observed on the cave walls, although no
additional information on those was available.250
In addition to the caves of Abri Castanet and Abri Labattut, the Dordogne yields a
large number of other rock shelters of which a few can be placed in the Aurignacian. The cave
of Abri Cellier was also excavated by Peyrony and contained around six limestone blocks
with engravings. (See figure 41) Two of these displayed vulvar representations of which one
was oval and one periform. The vulva representations are quite similar to the ones found at
Abri Blanchard. Peyrony mentioned that one of the vulvas is connected to an image of an
animal, possibly an equid. The dates of the engravings are unknown.251 White and Davis
mention that images of several horns and cervid heads were observed that possibly date to the
Aurignacian.252 (See figure 41)
At Abri du Poisson, a rockshelter located in the Gorge d’Enfer, a single example of a
circular vulva representation was observed. The carving shows similarities with the vulvas
from La Ferrassie.253 Abri du Renne, located on the banks of the river Vezere, yielded a
complete outline engraving which supposedly represent an herbivore with a very short tail,
possibly an ibex (wild goat) or a stag (a male deer).254 (See figure 41)
4.19. Art that possibly fits the picture
Several sites throughout southern Europe contain rock art of which the origin is not certain.
Some scholars claim the art dates to the Aurignacian according to stylistic similarities with art
determined to be from this period, but often these claims are disputed. Nevertheless, this
chapter will cover some examples of art that may be relevant to the questions asked in this
thesis.
At the Fuente del Trucho cave Northern Spain hand stencils with incomplete fingers
were discovered, although no dates were available. A piece of frontal horse bone from the
Hornos de la Pena cave contained a supposed zoomorphic representation that supposedly
dated to the Aurignacian. The Pena de Candamo cave contains an image of black punctuation
250
Simek, 1986, p. 407.
Delporte, 1993, p. 53.
252
Davis, 1986, p. 194. White et al, 2012, p. 6.
253
Delporte, 1993, p. 54..
254
Davis, 1986, p. 193.
251
53
superimposed on two yellow bulls. Radiocarbon samples yielded results of 34,000 to 32,000
ya.255 Another example is an interesting engraved pebble found at La Colombiere in France.
The pebble displays multiple layers of animals drawn over each other including numerous
horses, mammoth, reindeer, ibex, bison, cervid and rhinoceros. The pebble supposedly is
Perigordian, a period before the Magdalenian, which implies that the pebble could date
30,000 and 10,000 ya. Unfortunately no further research was performed on the pebble after
the 1950s. It is also mentioned that an engraved mammoth bone was found which displayed a
depiction of a man, a woman and a (cave) bear. If indeed a cave bear was depicted, this could
imply that the objects found in the cave date from before 29,000 ya after which the cave bear
went extinct. 256
In 2012, rock paintings of six seals were found at the Nerja caves near Malaga in
Spain. (See figure 42) The cave also yielded many examples of Solutrian and Magdalenian
rock art that will not be discussed further. Charcoal found next to the six paintings of seals
dated to 42,300 and 43,500 ya, which would indicate that the paintings could not have been
produced by the AMH since they were not present in that region at the time. The paintings
themselves will not be dated until 2013. If their pigment matches the date of the charcoal this
could be the first rock art clearly associated with the Neanderthal.257
At La Souquette, in France a split base point manufactured of reindeer antler was
found that was transformed into a marine animal (a seal) by narrowing the point and creating
a hole where the animal’s eyes would be. The split base was supposed to represent the
animal’s flippers. White argues that this object is Aurignacian of age. At the site of Isturitz in
southwest France a flute manufactured from of bird bone was retrieved that has multiple
holes. Although some suggest that the flute is Aurignacian of age, other doubt that these
examples can be placed in the Aurignacian time period.258
4.20. Regional differences and analysis
If we look at the art discussed in the chapter (i.e. abstract forms, handprints, animal forms,
hybrid forms, human representations, vulva representations, female figurines and flutes) it
appears that images of animals are the most commonly found depictions from the focus
period of approximately 40,000 to 26,500 ya. Of the 27 sites 18 display depictions of animals.
255
Zilhão, 2007, pp. 33, 35.
Movius, 1956, pp. 138-140.
257
Retrieved from the New Scientist website on 18 February 2012
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21458-first-neanderthal-cave-paintings-discovered-in-spain.html.
258
White, 1992, p.558.
256
54
Several sites show depictions of animals, as well as handprints and female representations or
therianthropes. (See table 1 for an overview of subjects displayed at the sites) Now, what can
we say about the evolution of figurative art over time? The oldest art is abstract, followed by
handprints and depictions of animals. Moreover, therianthropic figures appear to be depicted
rather early in 37,700 BP at Tito Bustillo cave. Vulvas and female figures appear later in the
archaeological record. Footprints are only depicted once and phallus representations twice. A
clear pattern of specific subjects being depicted in specific periods is not evident. However, it
does seem clear that over time additional categories of figurative art evolve and these
categories can exist side by side. As mentioned, a single site can contain depictions of animals
as well as handprints and therianthropes.
It is apparent that there are regional differences between the areas that were covered in
this chapter. An apparent dichotomy between the north and the south in the appearance of
figurative art can be observed; in Southern Germany and Austria figurative art appears in the
form of portable art and in Southern France, north-western Italy and Northern Spain as mural
art. The only exception is the stone phallus from Abri Blanchard. In the early parts of the
Upper Palaeolithic, female figurines are only found in the northern parts of Europe, in
Southern Germany and in Austria. In contrast, during the Gravettian and Magdalenian
periods, female figurines are more common in the south of Europe. Also, the examples from
Austria are both made from stone while the example from southern Germany is made of
ivory. Chauvet cave contains a female representation that shares stylistic similarities with the
figurines from the north. The animal figurines were solely produced in mammoth ivory. This
could be due to the availability of this kind of material in the area. Another remarkable aspect
is that some of the figurines from Southern Germany were used as ornaments and thus fall in
the category of personal ornamentation as well as figurative art. Of the 18 figurines found in
Southern Germany, 6 were used as ornaments. It seems likely that other figurines could have
had a similar function. Thus, it is definitely possible that in Southern Germany ornaments
evolved into figurative art. It is remarkable, however, that mural art is completely absent in
the north.
Therianthropes are found in both areas with a wide distribution, at Tito Bustillo, Hohle
Fels, Hohlenstein Stadel, Vogelherd and possibly at the Fumane cave and Abri Castanet. It is
important to note, however, that it remains uncertain how to interpret these representations
since it is hard to distinguish between an animal and a human figure. The interpretation of
therianthropes will be further discussed in chapter 5. Flutes are found in the Swabian Jura of
Southern Germany as well as at one site in France. Handprints and hand stencils in turn are
55
absent from southern Germany and Austria while they are common throughout the focus
period in France and Spain, from La Castillo 38,000 ya to Cosquer and Gargas at 28-27,000
ya. Vulva representations are solely found in southern France, especially in the Dordogne, at
the sites of Abri Blanchard, Abri Castanet, Abri du Renne, Abri Poisson, La Ferrassie and
Chauvet. These site are in close proximity of each other. In addition, a periform figure from
Altamira could be considered to represent a vulva. The Venus of Hohle Fels displays
similarities with the vulva representations in the way the vulva is depicted. Phallus
representations are found in both France at Abri Blanchard and Germany at Hohle Fels,
however, with two examples they are not commonly found.
If we look at differences in the types of animals depicted between regions it appears
that the southern regions display a bigger variety of animals.259 Here ibex, reindeer, auroch,
rhino, buffalo, owl and a panther are depicted that are absent in southern Germany and
Austria. This is probably due to the differences in climate between these regions associated
with a different set of common animals. In general it can be said that birds are not depicted
commonly in both areas, only a water bird is known from southern Germany and only an owl
from France. Overall, it is not visible that specific animals depicted in the art have a special
meaning.
Another interesting observation is that numerous Aurignacian sites that contain
personal ornaments also yield figurative art. This is the case for the French sites of Abri
Castanet, Abri Cellier, La Ferrassie and La Souquette. In Italy, the Fumane cave contained
ornaments as well as figurative art and in Austria the site of Willendorf. In addition, in
Southern Germany the sites of Hohlenstein Stadel, Vogelherd, Geissenklösterle and Hohle
Fels yielded personal ornaments as well as figurative art. In the latter case, as mentioned, it
seems likely that ornaments evolved into figurative art.
259
Animals depicted in both areas are horse, bovid, mammoth, bear/cave bear, felid and lion.
56
5. The interpretations on the emergence of Palaeolithic art
Since its discovery in the late 1800s, Palaeolithic art has been subject to many different
interpretations. One important interpretation concerned the possible ritual system of the
prehistoric hunter-gatherer: Scholars have connected the art to magic and eventually to a
religious system including aspects of animism, totemism and shamanism.260 This
interpretation has led to the paradigm known as the magico-religious paradigm.261 Other
interpretations that do not focus on unraveling the religious systems of our ancestors also
exist. In these interpretations cognitive psychology, neuroscience, biology, behavioral science
and archaeology have been of utter importance.
Within these interpretations the debate on the hominid producers of Palaeolithic
figurative art keeps recurring. Archaeologists like Stephen Mithen and Davidson and Noble,
have concentrated on the role of cognition, development of the brain and language in both the
emergence and the meaning and interpretation of figurative art. They claim that these abilities
were specific for the AMH and that the Neanderthal did not have these abilities. Mithen
suggests the appearance of art was an evolutionary process.262 He distinguishes general
intelligence as well as specialized intelligences such as technical intelligence, social
intelligence, natural history intelligence and a fourth intelligence that supports linguistic
abilities. Mithen uses the analogies of a Swiss army knife and a cathedral to explain the
architecture of the human brain in which the latter made it possible that all intelligences were
connected.263 Davidson and Noble, an archaeologist and a neuropsychologist, claim that
critical to the AMH becoming human are mimicy (the deliberate copying) in depiction and
reflective language, since it is trough language that we realize what we perceive. Freezing an
image in a place as rock art makes it persistent in time, but it also allows for copying,
transporting and recopying. According to Davison and Noble this could not have been
possible without a language system.264 Since, the issue of the cognitive abilities was discussed
in chapter 4 and the factor of hominid cognitive abilities does not fall in the range of this
thesis, the decision was made not to cover these scholars extensively.
In this chapter we will start with the earliest interpretations concerning Palaeolithic art
followed by interpretations that involve aspects such as shamanism, culture, ecology and
260
Lewis-Williams, 2002, pp. 42, 45.
Guthrie, 2005, p. 8.
262
In 2005 Mithen published a book on the cognitive origins of music, ‘The Singing Neanderthal’. Here he
claims the Neanderthal might have had the correct cognitive abilities and that the AMH is relatively limited in
musical abilities as compared to the Neanderthal. See Mithen. 2005, p. 245
263
Mithen, 1999, p. 10, 24, 41-42.
264
Davidson & Noble, 1989, pp.127, 128, 130.
261
57
natural history. Here, the aim is to examine if these interpretations provide any insights into
the function, role and meaning of figurative art.
5.1. Art for art’s sake, totemism and sympathetic magic
In the 19th century symbolic interpretations of Palaeolithic art were mostly rejected, it was
thought that the prehistoric hunter-gatherer was incapable of symbolic behavior. Palaeolithic
art was seen as ‘art for art’s sake’, in which object of art were made merely for decoration or
enjoyment. This interpretation is problematic since it implies that prehistoric people had the
same sense of beauty or aesthetics as we have today. Also, someone would need advanced
cognitive skills to produce something pure for aesthetics. Eventually scholars realized this
assumption was not feasible.265 Cultural-anthropological research in the late 19th and early
20th century was concerned with defining and making distinctions between phenomena as
magic, science and religion.266 Sir James Frazer (1854-1941), who today is seen as one of the
founders of modern anthropology, wrote about how man progressed through time from
practicing magic to religious belief to eventually scientific thought. Magic was seen as the
first step in Frazer’s three phase theory of human cognitive evolution.267 An important
difference between magic and religion is posited by Keyser, who argues that even though both
magic and religion concerns supernatural agents, with magic supernatural agents cause effects
in known reality while with religion natural actions effect supernatural reality. According to
Keyser, magic is intended for a practical outcome while religion has a more ethereal goal. 268
The first to extensively cover the subject of magic in connection to Palaeolithic art
was Reinach in the early 20th century. He rejected the ‘art for art’s sake’ theory, based on the
observation that animals depicted in Palaeolithic rock art were only of certain species and
paintings were often placed at isolated and difficult to reach locations. Furthermore, Reinach
made connections between existing hunter-gatherers in Australia and North America and
hominid groups in the Palaeolithic.269 Of particular interest to Reinach were the Aboriginals
of Australia who believed that painting animals of their clan’s totems would cause them to
multiply. These aspects of totemism were incorporated into his interpretations of the animals
depicted in Palaeolithic art.270 The hypothesis of Reinach was further developed by the Abbe
265
Lewis-Williams, 2002, pp. 42-43.
Keyser, 2006, p. 4.
267
Sauvet, 2009. p. 320.
268
Keyser, 2006, p. 4.
269
Sauvet, 2009, pp. 320-322
270
Totemism can collectively be explained as the use of animals or plants as emblems of social groups in which
each group is identified with a different species. The name derived from the Ojibwan (a Native American tribe
266
58
Breuil into the theory of sympathetic magic which in turn has similarities with Frasier’s
concept of magic. With sympathetic magic the painted images were seen as a way to give the
hunter power over their prey. This reasoning predicts that only animals that were hunted
should be depicted. The faunal record of the Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers, however, showed
that the animals that were depicted did not correspond to the animals that were hunted. Also,
the majority of animals that were depicted in Palaeolithic art are not dead or wounded and the
theory did not explain why the images were hidden in dark chambers. Furthermore, scholars
failed to find ethnographic parallels for sympathetic magic or hunting magic. Today, the
sympathetic magic hypothesis does not have a large academic following.271 One of the
biggest points of critique was that it reduces hunter-gatherer religion to little more than
subsistence.272
5.2. The shamanistic interpretation
In Siberia anthropological scholars were first introduced to so-called shamans who are
important members of present day hunter-gatherers societies. The Siberian shaman was a
ritual specialist who entered altered states of consciousness for a variety of reasons, such as
visiting the spirit world and communicating with spirits.273 The concept of shamanism became
known in the archaeological world in the 1950s through Mircea Eliade, who stated that
shamanism was also applicable to past hunter-gatherer societies.274 This led to the hypothesis
that the animals depicted in rock art could be seen as the spirits that the prehistoric shaman
encountered during rituals.
5.2.1. The shamanistic hypothesis of David Lewis-Williams
A renewed interest in the shamanistic theory developed in the 1980s with research on South
African rock art by David Lewis-Williams (now referred to as LW). After numerous
publications on altered states of consciousness and research among the South African San, he
released in 2002 the book, ‘The mind in the cave’. His main argument is that entering altered
states of consciousness is inextricably connected to Palaeolithic art. LW argues that if the
living around the Great Lakes) word totem which is used as a religious word for an animal that represents as
group. The concept was developed by Claude Levi-Straus who once stated that animals are good to think with.
(Sauvet, 2009, pp. 320-322)
271
Lewis-Williams, 2002, p. 46. Sauvet, 2009, pp. 322. The sympathetic magic hypothesis was covered widely
in research of North American rock art by Keyser, 2006.
272
Keyser, 2006, p. 4.
273
Aldhouse-Green, 2005, p. 10.
274
The word shaman derived from šamán, a Siberian Tungus word that translates as ‘the ecstatic
one’.(Aldhouse-Green, 2005, p. 10.)
59
Palaeolithic artist depicted an animal because of personal associations, then these associations
would be lost to the viewer unless there would be a universal association or a shared meaning
of the image. By using the ethnographical analogies of the South African San and Native
American tribes in North America he explains Palaeolithic art as depictions of the altered
states of consciousness a shaman experienced.275
Consciousness is one of the biggest enigma’s in current theories of mind. LW explains
it as the ability to be aware of our physical selves, our own thoughts and the ability to predict
behavior of others. In his definition, based on the classification of Martindale, the spectrum of
consciousness can be explained by the different states we pass between waking and sleeping.
In waking consciousness we are concerned with problem solving usually in response to
stimuli in our surroundings. The next stage, realistic fantasy also involves problem solving.
Subsequently, these realistic fantasies grade into more autistic ones that stand outside of
external reality. In a stage called reverie thoughts are less directed and images follow each
other without narrative sequence. This stage evolves into hypnagogic states in which we fall
asleep. Hypnagogic states can be extremely vivid in that sometimes people experience
hallucinations that they believe are real. In the last stage, dreaming, a narrative succession of
images appears. LW refers to neurological research that suggests that during the day we
repeatedly shift between outward-directed states in which we are fully aware of our
environments and inward-directed states in which our mind drifts and we are less aware.276
Influenced by Martindale, LW identifies two different stages between waking and
dreaming that have two trajectories, the normal and the intensified. The intensified trajectory
concerns inward-directed states that can be induced by a variety of means including sleepdeprivation, audio-driving (e.g. moving on music), pain, fasting and the ingestion of
hallucinates. Pathological disorders such as schizophrenia or epilepsy can also induce these
states. States at the end of intensified trajectories are called altered states of consciousness.
The intensified trajectory can occur in all sensory modalities and does not solely rely on
visual hallucinations. Within the intensified trajectory three stages of visual imagery are
identified. The first and lightest state includes the visual experience of dots, grids, zigzags and
meandering lines. LW calls these entoptic phenomena. In stage two subjects try to make sense
of the entoptic phenomena by elaborating them into familiar objects. As a person moves into
stage three the imagery changes. Some people experience this stage as moving into a rotating
tunnel, while others a sense of flying or underwater and subterranean travel. In shamanism
275
276
Lewis-Williams, 2002, pp. 40, 44, 89, 94-95.
Ibid., pp. 104-105, 112, 123
60
this stage is seen as entering the spirit world.277 Stage three then encompasses iconic images
that are derived from memory; these images often change from one into another. In this stage
people may feel themselves transform into an animal.278
According to LW, altered states often give rise to an alternative reality or spirit world
that is often tiered (spiritual realms above and below the real world). The shaman who
possesses special powers is believed to have access to these spiritual realms. He uses altered
states to contacts the spirits, heal the sick, control the movements of animals and change the
weather. Spirits are supernatural entities such as animal helpers that assist shamans.279
As evidence for these stages of altered state of consciousness LW uses two analogies.
First, the South African San believe in a tiered universe, a world below and one in the sky,
where a God lives with members of his family, animals that shoot arrows of sickness to
people in the real world, strange monsters and the spirits of the dead. The San shaman has the
task to activate the supernatural potency of its people. The San see the altered state as a transcosmological journey taking place during a trance dance, a dream or a special curing
ceremony. Altered states are induced by intense concentration, audio driving (as dancing or
music), prolonged rhythmic movements and hyperventilating. During the dance people often
experience transformation into an animal. What makes this analogy so interesting is that LW
discovered that San rock art depicts the experiences of the shaman during altered states of
consciousness.280 Paintings are found in shallow rock shelters that were previously inhabited
and engravings occur on open plains on boulders. Some depictions actually show animals and
shamans coming out of deep clefts in the rock. Often shamans are depicted transformed into
animals with zigzag lines and dots representing entoptic phenomena surrounding them.
Moreover, the depictions show animals connected to natural phenomena move through the
tiered universe, first in the middle world, then through the water in the underworld and finally
in the sky. The tiered universe was manifested in the rock shelter and the walls became
gateways to access the spiritual realms.281
LW states that during the ceremonies held to induce the altered states of the shaman
oppositions were of utter importance. The full spectrum of consciousness had to be agreed
upon by all members of San society and thus there was a sharing of insights. He also suggests
277
Ibid., pp. 124-127.
Ibid., pp. 128-130, 133.
279
Ibid., p. 133.
280
LW does mention that there is actually no evidence that the shaman was the one that painted. However he
does think it is likely, because they were the ones experiencing the altered states. (Lewis-Williams, 2002, p. 149)
281
Similar examples come from Scandinavia. Among the Saami the concept of a vertical axis mundi exist which
connects the upper, middle and lower spheres of the cosmos. Often the axis mundi is depicted as a pillar, tree or
mountain. The lower world was accessible through the water. (Lahelma, 2005, p. 40. Lahelma, 2007, p. 123)
278
61
that the San images were painted in a normal state of consciousness, due to the preciseness in
which the art is made. This implies that the producer of the image made a cognitive
representation of the memory of his altered state and gave it symbolic meaning. Another
interesting aspect is that numerous paintings of human figures and animals appear to have
been touched or paint was smeared to create blurry halos around the images. LW connects
this to the appearance of human handprints in Palaeolithic art, which may be associated with
the ritual touching of the rock as opposed to the painting of human hands.282
The second analogy LW proposes are the Native American hunter-gatherers of the
United States. Among the Native American hunter-gatherers and foraging communities
shamanism is widely practiced. Nevertheless, the fundamental component of North American
shamanism is vision questing which are not all undertaken by shamans. A vision quest can be
seen as a way to see a spirit animal that will become the quester’s guardian spirit and helper
throughout life. Visions are induced by fasting, lack of sleep, enduring cold or smoking
tobacco. It may take up to three of four days to induce a vision. Furthermore, sexual arousal
was seen as an important aspect of going into an altered state. Also, in a vision, a spirit can
change from a natural phenomenon, into an animal into a human being. Travel often involves
entering a hole or passing through a tunnel and emerging again from a different place.283 The
person having the vision was often believed to die, drown, pass underwater, fly or transform
to an animal or spirit being when entering or during trance. Often the vision seeker bled from
the nose and mouth after a vision. Caves and rock formations were seen as entrances or
portals into the supernatural realm. At these sites vision seekers often depicted images of the
encountered spirits.284 The Native American people themselves believed the images at sites
were made by the spirits and not the vision seeker and thus the images possessed power. In
North American rock art different kinds of vision quests are manifested, specifically
concerning puberty rites. In puberty rites youngsters use hallucinates to induce a vision and
then depict the spirits they encountered on a rock wall. These ceremonies were overseen by
shamans.285 LW uses the findings of Whitley in stating that all three stages of altered state of
282
Ibid., pp. 139, 141, 149, 151.
A story about the Crow Indians tells of the vision quest of chief Plenty Coups who as a little boy went on a
vision quest in the Crazy Mountains. It is told that he cut off his finger and had a vision. In this vision he saw
himself coming out of a crack near the town of Pryor (100 km away). (prof. Prof. Tim Mc Cleary, personal
communication)
284
Lewis-Williams, 2002, pp. 174-175.
285
Ibid., pp. 139, 141, 149, 151, 164, 166-171.
283
62
consciousness are observable in the rock art of North America. A different with the San
rituals, however, is that North American shamanistic activity was conducted in secrecy.286
How does LW connect these analogies to the depictions in Palaeolithic art? First of all,
he argues that the AMH had a similar brain structure as the modern human that enabled the
hominid to remember and depict the mental images from altered states of consciousness.
Crucial to his interpretation is Edelman’s identification of two kinds of consciousness.
Primary consciousness is defined as awareness of the things around oneself. Higher-orderconsciousness is defined as experiencing a mental image that categorizes ongoing events
including recognizing one’s own acts or affections. LW assumes that higher-order
consciousness as well as a fully modern language developed in Africa with the AMH and as a
result art may have been solely a product of the AMH and its cognitive abilities. The
Neanderthal on the other hand probably had a simple form of language and a form of primary
consciousness.287
It is clear that LW favors the single species theory of the AMH replacing the
Neanderthal in the transition period. He also does not believe that body ornaments evolved
into 2D images of animals. The Neanderthal could have imitated personal ornaments from the
AMH since they did possess primary consciousness and was aware of the things around
themselves. LW assumes that the Palaeolithic art provides evidence that the AMH could
produce, generate, discuss and recall mental images which are an indication of a fully
developed modern brain. He hypothesizes that the Neanderthals lacked these abilities and the
AMH was aware of this which in turn led to competition. Hence, the art did not only have
consequences in terms of social bonding among the AMH, but could also have created social
tension with the Neanderthal.288
A good question is how the AMH decided to make images on walls and as 3D
figurines. One potential insight into this question is the hypothesis of Kluver, who proposes
that so-called afterimages occurred after people awakened from an altered state of
consciousness which were projected on walls. This may have worked the same with 3D
imagery or portable art. One possible consequence of the appearance of art is that only a
select group within a community experienced altered states and projected or reproduced these
states on cave walls. This set them apart from the people that did not have these abilities. As a
result, social circumstances changed when people started to make images. Furthermore, since
286
Whitley argues in a review article on ‘The mind in the cave, that he knows of no Native American society that
created the kinds of shamanistic art as seen in Palaeolithic art. (Lewis-Williams review article, 2003, p. 271.)
287
Lewis-Williams, 2002, pp. 187-189.
288
Ibid., pp. 89, 94-95, 98-99.
63
the Palaeolthic people believed a set of animals had special properties, this set of motives
must have been established before people started producing the art. 289 The location of the art
in caves can be seen as linking the tiers of the Upper Palaeolthic cosmos of the lower spiritual
world and the material world. The cave walls then could have acted as a membrane between
the people and the spirit world. The oppositions between light and darkness of a cave put
strength to this. Other evidence for Palaeolthic people going into altered states is the fact that
they made music, according to the many flutes that were found especially in Southern
Germany. Caves were places with good acoustics for music. Maybe entering the cave was
seen as entering an altered state or entry into the world of the spirits. Thus, LW suggests that
one of the functions of the cave was to seek some sort of vision quest.290
5.3. The cultural-ecological interpretation
In addition to the shamanistic interpretation, another perspective that interprets Palaeolithic
art is the cultural-ecological interpretation. This perspective is different from its predecessor,
because it examines the emergence of art from a different angle and focuses on how the
spread of art can be explained in terms of cultural aspects. For example, Margaret Conkey
emphasizes the formation of aggregation sites and Clive Gamble emphasizes the emergence
of open social networks. Both Conkey and Gamble focus on the function, role and distribution
of the art. In addition R. Dale Guthrie is another scholar with a cultural-ecological
interpretation who explains the art’s meaning as a reflection of Palaeolithic peoples
knowledge of natural history.
5.3.1. The formation of aggregation sites
Margaret Conkey is a scholar who has written about anthropological approaches to figurative
art and visual imagery since the late seventies. She connects the appearance of figurative art
in the Palaeolithic with the formation of aggregation sites. According to Conkey, huntergatherers from all over the world follow an annual rotation of concentration and dispersion.
As part of their seasonal movements, affiliated groups and individual hunter-gatherers who
were otherwise fragmented came together in aggregation sites to work. Aggregation sites are
distinguished from the home bases of groups or individuals. Nevertheless, there is more to
aggregation sites than mere subsistence ecology or the proximity of resources. When people
got together at these sites information was exchanged, social bonds were tightened, possibly
289
290
Ibid., pp. 192, 196, 199, 201.
Ibid., pp. 208-209, 214, 221, 225.
64
marriages were established and it seems likely there was a ritual component to the gatherings.
Because such large groups are unstable, Conkey proposes that the rituals may have actually
bonded the people together and thus stabilized groups and social relations. As examples for
social and ritual factors Conkey mentions trance dance, trading over long distances, marriage
and men’s initiation rites. These gatherings of hominids linked specific geographic locations
to social relation and food exchange.291
Several aspects are important when identifying aggregation sites. First is the duration
of occupation; it is important to distinguish if a site was seasonally occupied and if this was
repeated or if the site was continuously occupied. Another aspect is the spatial organization; if
a great variety of activities at the site are not visible elsewhere this could point to an
aggregation site. The more evidence is found of diverse activities, the more likely it is that the
site was aggregational. In addition ecological factors such as the availability of natural
resources or how a site was maintained are of importance in identifying a aggregation site.
Conkey uses these conditions to verify if the Magdalenian site of Altamira can be classified
an aggregation site.292
Certain characteristics of Altamira point to the function of an aggregation site. First,
the site was occupied for a long period of time ranging from the Aurignacian to the
Magdalenian, even though it is not known whether the site was inhabited seasonally.
Excavations by Obermaier revealed kitchen areas with cooking hearths where large deposits
of mollusks, red deer and remains of other mammals were found. The assemblages show that
the activities at the cave were clearly different from other Cantabrian sites. One of the aspects
that stands out according to Conkey is the fact that Altamira has a very rich bone and antler
industry and a poor lithic industry. Excavations revealed 58 decorated or incised bone and
antler artifacts. These objects are the products of individual labor and possibly indicate ritual
behavior. Conkey argues that the relative diversity of the stylistic elements of these bone and
antler objects provide evidence that Altamira was an aggregation site. The following
conditions support her argument: there has to be diversity of pieces, design elements should
be widespread over the Cantabrian area and certain design elements should be unique to
Altamira. Overall, the site corresponds to these conditions perfectly. Conkey concludes that
Altamira was an aggregation site and that one of the major activities was producing these
bone and antler objects. Subsequently, these objects were spread over the groups that attended
291
292
Conkey, 1980, pp. 609-611.
Ibid., pp. 609, 612, 614
65
the gatherings to be taken back to their home base. Furthermore, these objects may also have
been exchanged between the different groups.293
Interestingly, Conkey’s method can be applied to the spread of other forms of
figurative art as well. Her method seems especially applicable to the southern German sites of
Hohle Fels, Geissenklösterle and Vogelherd. These sites were seasonally inhabited; a
diversity of activities took place here including the production of lithics, bone and antler tools
and, most importantly the production of figurines. Figurines with the same stylistic features
also appear at many other sites in the area, which could imply that the figurines were
exchanged or moved from one site to the other. As such, the art was possibly a means of
communication between different groups. Also, aggregation sites can be connected to the
spread of other types of figurative art such as the vulva symbols or the handprints, although in
a less certain manner. If a cave site also functioned as an aggregation site people could have
exchanged ideas on mural art and taken these ideas back to their home bases. Nevertheless,
the character of cave sites including their inaccessibility and small amount of space make it
rather unlikely that the caves were regularly used as aggregation sites.
5.3.2. Art as a result of social interaction
Clive Gamble was one of the scholars to connect the emergence of Palaeolithic art with social
change in the Upper Palaeolithic. Instead of trying to interpretate the ritual system of
Palaeolithic peoples he tried to uncover the cause of the emergence and spread of art,
specifically the famous Palaeolithic Venus figurines. Gamble’s article was published in 1982
and predates the discovery of the oldest Venus figurines, those of Hohle Fels and Galgenberg.
Also, the majority of the figurines he discusses have their origin in the Magdalenian, outside
the focus period of this thesis.294
According to Gamble all material culture has the potency to carry information through
the way it is designed and decorated. Since Venus figurines have stability in design, Gamble
chose these objects for his analysis. Gamble hypothesizes that the earliest appearance of
objects of visual display, namely personal ornamentation, could have been part of the same
visual display system as the figurines. The contexts in which these appeared were domestic
and associated with group and individual activities. Gamble divides the figurines in three
groups. Group A consists of the classic Venus representations constructed out of a variety of
materials such as ivory, limestone, serpentine and baked clay. The Venus of Willendorf is
293
294
Ibid., pp. 616-617, 620.
Gamble, 1982, p. 92.
66
placed in this category. These figurines are found with a distribution from the Pyrenees to
European Russia. Group B shows a different basic design, the exaggerated proportions of the
body are not always held and the figurines are small and all made of stone. These figurines
are distributed over France, Italy and Southern Germany. Group C consist of the base reliefs
of female figures and are solely found in south-west France. When looking at the context of
discovery of these figurines most have been found in settlement debris and the majority of the
objects lack an archaeological context. In general the figurines are dated between 29,000 and
23,000 ya and they are mostly found in Northern Europe.295
Gamble argues that the appearance of the figurines reflects changing social
circumstances. In his model, Gamble uses the mating network model of Wobst to explain how
Palaeolithic groups were spatially arranged. According to this model, groups are arranged in
minimum bands that are located at specific places in a hexagonal plan. Gamble connects this
model to the climatic circumstances at the time of the appearance of the Venus figurines.
After 30,000 ya there was climatic and ecological deterioration in the living environment of
Palaeolithic peoples, which affected food resources. This in turn led to an increase in territory
size of hunting groups, an increase in population and a change in the spatial sizes of mating
networks. Importantly, as a consequence of these changes, minimum bands or social units are
expected to be more open to people from outside the group.296 The formation of a complex
pattern of alliances across an area could in turn have resulted in marriage outside of one’s
social group, trading and visiting, exchange of goods, name sharing and adoption or spouse
exchange. Gamble suggests that the exchange of visual information between local groups
during interaction may have had as a purpose to guarantee the exchange of marriage partners
among groups.297 Thus, Gamble’s theory also explains the role and function of the art as a
means of finding a mate.
In short, Gamble proposes that social contact between groups trough open social
networks and rapid information flow is necessary for dealing with uncertain ecological
conditions. The establishments of these open social networks, which involved the use of
visual media to exchange information, could have caused the spread of Venus figurines.
However, if there were little alliances there was also little pressure to develop media to
exchange information. Distance of over 300 kilometers between local groups would then be
too great. Interestingly, with distance the variation of information exchange and visual
295
Ibid., pp. 92, 94-98
Ibid., pp. 100, 102.
297
Ibid, pp. 103-104.
296
67
information exchange is expected to increase. Then you would see many different forms of
visual media. These trends can also be observed ethnographically.298 Gamble does mention
that these open networks and alliances were probably very different from the networks that
caused the spread of mural art in Western Europe. One reason for this is that mural art wasn’t
portable, and was fixed at one place. He suggests mural art was produced in closed social
networks. Finally, it is important to note that although Gamble explains the distribution of
figurines; his theory does not provide an explanation for the origins of the behavior of
creating figurative art.299
Gamble’s theory on the spread of art trough open social networks can also be applied
to other forms of figurative art. The discovery of older Venus figurines from Hohle Fels and
Galgenberg is interesting in this aspect. The Venus of Hohle Fels could be placed in Gamble’s
category A. Since only one example of a Venus figurine was found perhaps it can be placed in
a category with the animal figurines. Then, the animal figurines could have been a means of
visual communication between the different groups of Swabia such as finding a marriage
partner. On the other hand, the Adorant from Geissenklösterle and the Venus of Galgenberg
seem to fit more in group C which according to Gamble has a distribution over south-west
France. Here then, the distance for exchange between different groups would have been far
too great. Furthermore, Gamble’s theory may also be applicable to the distribution of personal
ornaments, such as beads and perforated bones. If personal ornaments are seen as another
example of visual information exchange, then they may have also evolved from and spread
through open social networks. This implies that both categories spread through the same
model and thus personal ornaments could have evolved into figurative art.
5.3.3. Palaeolithic art as a reflection of natural history knowledge
R. Dale Guthrie, an American paleobiologist takes a different route in interpreting
Palaeolithic art with his book, ‘The Nature of Palaeolithic art’.300 He argues that the art
reflects the knowledge that Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers had of natural history. The art gives
us a glimpse of how the Palaeolithic people saw their surroundings and thus it can be seen as
an archive of natural history. Guthrie covers only two pages to the possible hominid producer
of the art in which he states that art is connected to the AMH.301
298
Ibid, p. 99-102.
Gamble, 1982, pp. 99-104.
300
The Palaeolithic art Guthrie covers in his book spans from the Aurignacian until the Magdalenian and the
demise of rock art..
301
Guthrie, 2005, pp. 4-5, 42-44, 397.
299
68
Guthrie argues that hunting is a central theme in the art. The art predominantly depicts large
animals, which were often wounded.302 Only few images show a scenic assemblage of
figures. Another feature of the art is that adult animals are depicted more often than young
animals. Guthrie argues that this is due to large mammals reflecting power and social
currency for male status. Distortions in sex and age of the animals may further suggest that
the art had themes of power for adolescent hunters. Images of animals in threat, status display,
or alertness are common indicating that the artist had a taste for excitement. Also, this could
be due to the animals seeing the hunters as predators and the hunter depicted what they
saw.303 Furthermore, the hunting theme may be apparent from the fact that side views were
preferred in the art, which is the best angle for a hunter. Another interesting aspect is that even
though the most common animal hunted for food was reindeer, these do not appear
significantly in the art. Guthrie argues that this shows a connection between the large mammal
hunting and the human psyche; the hunter interacts with beings that are similar to himself,
also known as viscenal kinship with large mammals.304 Hunters watched very closely how
herds fed, drank, slept, moved, fought, groomed and copulated. They must have spent a large
amount of time on watching herds and becoming familiar with their every move.305 The
features of the depicted animals can tell us what species, rank, sex and age they were, how the
climate was and even how they migrated. For example, the size of the animals is a good
indicator of habitat and can thus show biogeographic variations. Environments that have
maximal food quality have larger size animals with larger social organs. Lions for instance
had smaller manes then their African counterpart.306
Hunting large animals is different from hunting smaller animals; the hunter has to
anticipate what the animal will do next by observing and drawing from earlier experience.
Guthrie tries to connect this to the occurrence of the so-called hybrid figures. When looking at
some of the hybrid forms from a different angle they do not look like hybrid figures. Not all
the lines and forms were intentional. As an example, Guthrie states that the löwenmensch
could also be interpreted as a bear standing upright in an aggressive posture.307 It is possible
that in some images body parts were drawn to better fit the shapes of the rocks. Also, the
302
Animals are often speared, are shown with blood spraying from their wounds or blood coming out of the
animal’s nose or mouth. A remark here is that for this analysis Palaeolithic art spanning from around 30,000 to
10,000 ya at the start of the Mesolithic was included. (Guthrie, 2005, pp. 240-241)
303
Ibid., pp. 42, 44-46, 259, 270.
304
Ibid., pp. 48-49, 259, 270.
305
Ibid., pp. 52-61, 64, 66, 70-71, 81-84, 86-88.
306
Ibid., pp. 81-84, 86-88.
307
Here Guthrie mostly mentions images from the Magdalenian era as the sorcerer from Les Trois Freres and the
bison from Altamira.
69
figures could refer to the imagination, such that the hunter imagined that he was the animal he
hunted (e.g. to hunt a bison is to be a bison). Perhaps the animal had to look human for the
hunter to be able to hunt it. The hybrid figure could be a hunter in hunting disguise for which
many ethnographical parallels exist.308 Red dots of ochre that are found often among
Palaeolithic rock art are interpreted by Guthrie as splatters of red blood or blood trailing. The
strange disks from El Castillo could also be seen in this light, since the ways in which these
are distributed over a wall give the impression of a blood trail. In addition, the trails of red
dots are often accompanying images of animals or appear to come from wounds. With the
idea of a hunting interpretation in mind this assumption is not strange.309
Guthrie tried to reveal the specific producers of the art by examining the Palaeolithic
handprints and stencils. Hand and footprints were made with the same pigments as
contemporary mural paintings.310 Overall, Guthrie obtained 201 usable hand images, of these
78% were made with the left hand. The handprints were compared to diagnostic sex and age
metrics of modern hands in a statistical study. Guthrie chose to use the handprints of
individuals from his hometown of Fairbanks, Alaska as a comparison, since these individuals
have a nutrient high diet of wild game similar to Palaeolithic peoples. He collected photocopy
images of left hands from each sex, with ages varying from five years old to thirty years old.
The first observation was that the late Palaeolithic Eurasians were similar in body size to the
modern humans. This may be because of their nutrient rich diet due to the abundance of large
mammals and fish. The second observation was that the majority of the Palaeolithic
handprints were male.311 Furthermore, the analysis showed that the majority of the
Palaeolithic people who left handprints were youngsters, most specifically adolescents.
According to Guthrie this is consistent with the assumption that Palaeolithic populations were
dominated by people under the age of twenty. Half of the people died before attaining
adulthood. Unfortunately, Guthrie does not mention any sources of evidence to support these
assumptions.312 Nevertheless, this finding is interesting, even more since Guthrie rightfully
states that the input of children is neglected in archaeology.313
308
Ibid., pp. 90-92, 99-100.
Ibid., pp. 270, 276, 279.
310
Foot prints are common in the Magdalenian timeframe. Scholars have suggested by comparison of footprints
of living Europeans that except for one example, they are from children. (Guthrie, 2005, p. 130)
311
Ibid., pp. 114,116-120, 122. Good predictors of age and sex are the width and length of the index finger and
the thumb width. Of the 201 analysed handprints 162 were male, whilst only 39 were female. (Guthrie, 2005, pp.
123-124)
312
Ibid., pp. 114,116-120, 122.
313
Archaeological evidence (although it is not cited what sort of archaeological evidence) suggest that there was
a short life expectancy of thirty-five to forty years old. (Guthrie, 2005, p. 196)
309
70
Guthrie thus argues that young people visited the caves and produced the rock art.
Interestingly, Guthrie is one of the few scholars that assigns the art to a specific sex and age.
The handprints correlate with the other images in caves in that they are made with the same
techniques, the same pigments and on similar locations. Palaeolithic people did not become
very old and thus spend the majority of their lives as a child. The facts that prints were done
quick and careless add fuel to this assumption, for example the missing fingers. Based on the
famous Rorschach test, Guthrie argues that our brains interpret random images as descriptions
of things with which we are already familiar. Perhaps children have this tendency to see the
world differently even stronger than adults. The subjects of the art as handprints, the animals
that were hunted, and vulva representations, are also indicative of sex and age. In addition, the
art has similarities with graffiti, which he states is mostly done by males. The images are
scattered irregularly, superimposed with other images, done with skewed angles and on their
sides. The sense of place is of importance with this assumption; the caves are private and
isolated but also dangerous.314
Guthrie proposes alternate arguments to claim the art was a male activity.
Ethnographic studies show that hunting, working stone and bone and trapping were activities
exclusively practiced by males. The later Palaeolithic art sporadically depicts males who are
hunting while similar images of women are absent. The male dominance in art is also applied
by Guthrie to explain the regular occurrence of images of females and vulvas, which are more
common than representations of men.315 Guthrie tries to explain this occurrence by suggesting
that men characteristically have intense erotic imagination and thus depict nude women with
exaggerated sex organs. Women are depicted in a way that is good for men; in their prime
reproductive phase, nude with exposed genitalia and with exaggerated proportions.316 Here
Guthrie suggests that young men from Palaeolithic groups had a lot of free time and were not
yet sexually active. However, they did have hormones to support erotic interest. Guthrie finds
it imaginable that when boys were hanging out in a cave with their peers they might have had
sex talks and drew representation of their fantasies of women or vulvae. Also, Palaeolithic
boys wanted to be good hunters and thus depicted animals they wanted to hunt. Interesting
here is that Guthrie point out that most genitalia are drawn hairless, this might also suggest the
314
Ibid., pp. 126-127, 130-132, 134, 136, 140, 144, 187.
According to Guthrie, phallus symbols that are found mostly in the Magdalenian eras could have been used as
dildo’s. Thus, they are not art objects but actual tools. (Guthrie, 2005, p. 356)
316
Ibid., pp. 162, 165, 174, 364-365.
315
71
age of the drawer.317 The figurines and depictions can thus be seen as predecessors of erotic
magazines. Human copulation scenes are rare, however, Guthrie found only sixteen and these
date from the Magdalenian period. Overall, Guthrie states that young males in all cultures,
who have restricted access to sex tend to make images of erotic nature.318
Guthrie also suggest that the origins of the art can be found in human play. Ethological
evidence indicates that fun of play is part of an evolutionary process in which an animal that
was opportunistic and intelligently flexible was developed. Art is a kind of play that involves
not only creativity but also imagination, daydreaming and fantasy. Social context also
encouraged play, it was meant to be fun. Thus, play, art and creativity were an important
aspect of the whole process of becoming a hunter specialist. Young people had most free
time, most energy and are more prone to play for learning. Within the tribal organization that
came into being in Palaeolithic times play was thus an important part of childhood. Here
Guthrie states that portable art as figurines of animals could have been used as toys. 319
Interestingly, Guthrie only dedicates 36 pages of his 430 page book to the art’s
possible connections to the supernatural or ritual. In the first part of the book he expresses his
discomfort with the magico-religious paradigm. According to Guthrie Palaeolithic art has
suffered from prehistorians who connected every image to myth and magic. Furthermore, he
argues that it is problematic to use historic groups as analogies because by the time of their
discovery these groups were already influenced by transitions (cultural as well as economic)
that cannot be compared to Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers.320 Nevertheless, belief in the
supernatural is universal to all cultures, therefore Guthrie assumes that Palaeolithic peoples
had this as well. Palaeolithic people had to construct a way of life in which they had to be
empirical, rational, imaginative and flexible and this is reflected in the art. Guthrie believes
that aesthetics as art, the spiritual and science as natural history are much more intertwined
then we think. The supernatural is often connected with the arts as singing, dance, graphic art,
architecture, dress, stories and theater. Guthrie believes that human attraction certainly
involves physic characteristics as trance states or visions which in turn are related to core
emotions. However, how exactly this worked for Palaeolithic people, we can never know.321
317
Pubic hair with human females was present at least during the last 100,000 years of human evolution. The
absence of pubic hairs thus indicates the young males did not know what an adult female vulva looked like. On
the other hand they did know how the voluptuous bodies of adult women looked. (Guthrie, 2005, p. 357)
318
Ibid., pp. 162, 165, 174, 180, 191, 197, 323, 327, 359.
319
Ibid., pp. 375, 378-379, 385, 387, 399.
320
Guthrie, 2005, pp. 8, 12,
321
Ibid., pp. 426-427, 432-433, 436, 438, 440-441
72
4.3. Analysis
In this chapter we aimed to examine if existing interpretations on Palaeolithic art provide any
insight into the meaning, function and role of figurative art. Unfortunately, we could not cover
all the interpretations that exist on figurative art in the Upper Palaeolithic. A selection was
made of interpretations that involves the possible meaning of the art and the role, function and
distribution of the art. Even though, the interpretations all focus on different aspects of
figurative art, they all seem to forward important insights. Thus, it is possible to merge
different interpretations. Figurative art in the Palaeolithic could have been a result of a
shamanic ceremony or a vision quest that occurred at an aggregation site and reflected the
producer’s knowledge of natural history and point to the producer’s sex and age. Before this
thesis attempts to combine the different interpretations, it is first important to discuss the
validity of each specific interpretation.
Interpretations as ‘art for art’s sake’ and hunting magic have lost ground . It seems
highly unlikely that art was produced solely for amusement. In addition, the fact that the
animals depicted do not correspond to the animals that were hunted sheds doubt on the
assumption that the art was produced as some form of hunting magic. Thus, it seems that al
least the ‘art for art’s sake’ interpretation can be excluded. On the other hand, there are some
aspects of the hunting magic interpretation that show some overlap with Guthrie’s
interpretation. For example, concepts as totemism may be compatible with the idea that the art
depicted mammals associated with power and status.
Lewis-Williams was one of the first scholars to extensively research the connections
of Palaeolithic art with shamanism. Although LW provided a very acceptable hypothesis for
the interpretation of Palaeolithic art, there are some points of criticism. First of all, he
perceives the rock art as a reflection of individual social and political power and control,
while on the other hand the art could be seen as a way of communication between people and
the spirit world. In this he puts too much emphasis on the shaman as the leader. It is certainly
possible, since every individual is capable of experiencing altered states of consciousness, that
other people also had these experiences and produced depictions and not solely the shaman. A
good example of this is the individual vision quest among Native American peoples in the
United States. Here, the vision quest was experienced by everyone in society. Among the
Crow and Shoshone it were mostly young men while among the Kootenai and Salish, all
youngsters went on vision quests and the vision quest was very much associated with rites of
passage and puberty rites. One could go on a vision quest multiple times during a lifetime and
possess the powers of multiple spirits. These powers would stay with a person for the rest of
73
their life.322 Actually, there is no record here of rock art made by actual shamans. At
numerous sites you can observe depictions of the animal and anthropomorphic spirits people
encountered during vision quests or depictions of the vision quester itself. Other sites, show
tally marks that indicate the number of days a vision quester was at a site to have a vision.323
LW does not deny the possibility of an individual vision quest but he connects the appearance
of Palaeolithic art mostly to social tensions and a shaman vision quest. Personally an
individual vision in which the individual experienced altered states seems more likely for the
Palaeolithic. Also, these vision quests were likely connected to puberty rites or rites of
passage, which LW does not pay attention to. There are no indications that Palaeolithic
hunter-gatherers had specific persons that exclusively regulated ritual life.
LW presumes that the images produced during altered states of consciousness 30,000
years ago are comparable to the depictions produced now and in recent history. Is there a
danger in using analogies? Can we connect ethnographical analysis to prehistoric states of
mind? It is impossible to tell whether the images of the San and Native American depict the
same altered states as the ones we experience at present day or even whether they portray
altered states at all. Altered states of consciousness have to be induced and do not occur
automatically. In addition there is a lot of variety within shamanistic societies in which
ceremonies, rituals and cosmologies are organized. Zigzag lines do not necessarily have to
depict entoptic phenomenon but could also be merely a form of decoration. Spirits could have
lived in the caves as opposed to behind the walls or as it is seen in Native American societies
the images themselves could have been seen as made by the spirits.324 The book also puts an
emphasis on the rock art found in the Magdalenian era which saw the appearance of for
instance many human figurines in the rock art. The emphasis on the depiction of animals is
also a shortcoming; he offers no explanation for the Venus figurines, vulva representations
and his interpretations of handprints as ritual touching of the rock is not convincing.
There are interesting similarities between Guthrie and Conkey and Gamble, in that
they all focus on the connection between art and social activities. In this, the models of
Conkey and Gamble are specifically relevant in revealing the role and function of different
forms of figurative art. Aggregation sites may not only have been relevant for the production
and exchange of ornaments and figurines, but cave sites with mural art may also be connected
to aggregation sites if one assumes that people learned techniques from each other and applied
322
Francis & Loendorf, 2002, p. 111, Malouf & White, 1953A , p. 1-3,5.
Malouf & White, 1953B, pp. 25-27.
324
Lewis-Williams review article, 2003, pp. 271.
323
74
them at their home base. In addition, the formation of open social networks could have played
an important role in the distribution of the art. The fact that there is diversity in subject can be
explained by greater distances between groups. Both models may thus provide with valuable
insights that are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Open social networks could have evolved
from aggregation sites and vice versa. Especially at places in the Swabian Jura it seems
probable that there was a lot of interaction between groups living here. However, as they both
state, the models do not provide an explanation for the appearance of mural art. A downside
of the theories of Conkey and Gamble is that they do not go into the meaning of the art.
Questions such as why social bands specifically chose female figurines or engraved bone and
antler for social display or information exchange remain open. In case of the female figurines
it could have been possible that they represented the urge for a male of finding a female mate,
an aspect that Gamble does discuss although not extensively. The occurrence of these
figurines could perhaps be connected to initiation rites of individuals in need of a mate. It
seems likely that the function of female figurines was linked to finding a suitable marriage
partner. Another point of criticism of both Conkey and Gamble could be that they use
anthropological models. We simply do not know if these models are applicable to Palaeolithic
hunter-gatherers.
With Guthrie a point of criticism is definitely that, similar to the concept of hunting
magic, he reduces figurative art to a survival mechanism. It seems highly likely that the art is
connected to hunting; nevertheless, the animals used for diet are not extensively depicted.
Especially large and potentially dangerous animals are depicted that were important for the
male hunter’s status. Guthrie’s interpretation differs from the hunting magic interpretation in
that is does not connect magic to it. His overall assumption that the art reflects natural history
knowledge is convincing. He explains very clearly how 30,000 years after the art was
produced, we can glimpse the knowledge that was prevalent knowledge in those times. In
addition, he also offers us a record of extinct animals. This is something that was never done
in a similar way in Palaeolithic archeology. However, even if the rock art reflects the huntergatherers knowledge of natural history, it is still possible that the art also involved ritual.
Guthrie states that the hunter gained social status when hunting a large mammal and depicting
this on a cave wall. This could then also be connected to a rite of passage or initiation rituals
in which a young male hunted his first mammal and ritually depicted the animal. Guthrie’s
assumption that the art was made by male youngsters according to the handprints is very
convincing. He is one of few scholars who actually connects the art to a specific age and sex.
In addition, the way in which women are depicted in Palaeolithic art clearly points to a male
75
perspective. Nevertheless, it is also possible that young girls had similar rites of passage and
they depicted different images on cave walls. The aspects of play and the erotic nature of the
art add to the assumption that the art can be connected to young males. Maybe elder men
introduced the boys to the images they made when they were young and encouraged the boys
to make their own. Since Guthrie puts such an emphasis on the male aspect of the art it is
therefore strange that he does not connect rites of passage or puberty rites to the appearance of
Palaeolithic figurative art. Anthropological research on rites of passage and initiation rites
amongst youngsters could provide insights into the dominance of male youngsters in the
production of art. Initiation rites can also be connected to the occurrence of other categories of
figurative art as the animal figurines and the female figurines. Perhaps these initiation rites
were linked to finding a marital partner.
Why were animals, female representations, hybrid figures, abstract forms and
handprints depicted in the earliest forms of Palaeolithic art? According to LW, animal figures
were depicted because these were spirits the shaman encountered during an altered state.
Abstract forms are explained as the entoptic phenomena the shaman experienced during
trance. The hybrid figures in turn are seen as the shaman transforming into an animal.
Nevertheless, LW does not provide an explanation for the female figurines or the handprints.
In addition, his interpretation of the handprints as ritual touching of the rocks is not
convincing. Guthrie explains the depiction of large mammals as a reflection of natural history
knowledge. The animals were depicted because they were there and people hunted them.
Also, they possibly reflected social status of young hunters. Hybrid forms are seen as
mistakes or simply a hunter strategy by Guthrie. The female figures and the vulva
representations are explained as a reflection of the sexual lusts of male youngsters. The
handprints in turn are seen by Guthrie as aspects of play and puberty. Unfortunately, Conkey
and Gamble do not provide any insight into why categories of figurative art were specifically
depicted. In case of Gamble, a possibility is that female figurines were depicted because
individuals from social groups sought a partner.
It has become evident that within the research on the origins of figurative art, the
debate concerning the hominid producers keeps recurring. Gamble and Conkey both pay no
attention to the problem of the actors. Lewis Williams in this way shares the ideas of Conard
and to a certain extent Mellars, in that he also claims the Neanderthal did not have the correct
abilities for producing art. Guthrie does not really concern himself with the debate
surrounding the producers of the art although it does become evident that he sees aspects as
play and art as characteristic for the AMH. These viewpoints can be seen in a new light with
76
view to the recent discoveries of rock art in Spain that might be assigned to the Neanderthal.
The Neanderthal was present in Europe until approximately 24,500 ya, which is at the edge of
the focus period of this thesis. Thus, it is possible that both the Neanderthal and the AMH
produced personal ornamentation and figurative art. Will scholars change their viewpoints if it
turns out the Neanderthal did have the necessary cognitive abilities and what effects will this
have on the archaeological world?
77
6. Conclusion
The Paleolithic, with its long time span, has proved to be a difficult time period to research.
Cultural traditions overlap, dating these traditions is problematic and numerous human actors
arrived and left the picture. Nevertheless, the most important hominid actors with regard to
the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic are the ones that were present in Eurasia at the time, the
Neanderthal and the AMH. The Neanderthal was without a doubt an actor in the transition,
having lived in Europe from 150,000 ya to 24,500 ya after which they disappeared.
Interbreeding between the Neanderthal and AMH is indicated by a 1 to 4 percent genetic
similarity of the two. Future DNA research and the discovery of new fossils could lead to a
better understanding of how this worked. The arrival of the AMH in Europe remains a
controversy. The earliest evidence dates to 34,000-36,000 ya. Thus, at this time the
Neanderthal was to stay in the picture for at least another 10,000 years. Here again, future
research and the discovery of new AMH fossils could set back or forth this date. There are no
clues that the homo floresiensis was present in Europe or anywhere outside of Indonesia. The
Denisova hominid is most interesting in this aspect. Although only a finger bone was found
she did share a common ancestor with the Neanderthal and the AMH. At the time the
Denisova hominid lived the Neanderthal and the AMH were also present in the region.
Therefore, it is possible there was interbreeding between the three. There are, however, no
clues that the Denisova was present in Europe in the transition period.
Thus, at the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition there were two actors present in
Europe, the Neanderthal and the AMH. The transition saw new technologies emerge of which
the appearance of personal ornamentation and the earliest form of figurative art are of most
importance for this thesis. Personal ornaments appear slightly earlier in the archaeological
record and can be a powerful indicator of identity for many traditional societies. The
Palaeolithic hominids probably had similar reasons for wearing ornaments. Personal
ornaments such as shell beads, ivory beads, pendants and diadems and perforated animal teeth
appear throughout Europe, from Greece to Romania, Russia, France and Southern Germany.
Over time personal ornamentation evolved from simple shell beads and perforated animal
teeth in the Châtelperronian to a wide assemblage of personal ornaments in the Aurignacian
with different forms of beads and materials coming into use. The earliest forms of
ornamentation are pierced shell beads that appear in southeastern Europe in the Uluzzian,
Bachokirian, Szeletian and Altmuhlian contexts. Interestingly, Mousterian shell beads found
in southern Spain were painted with ochre. From Châtelperronian contexts ornaments are
78
known that can be associated with Neanderthal fossils. The majority of personal ornaments,
however, date from the Aurignacian time period. Here again, the most common type of
ornament is the pierced shell followed by the perforated animal teeth. Interestingly, shells
from Austria, Italy and inland sites appear to have travelled a long distances to its destination
indicating that objects were exchanged. The majority of Aurignacian ornaments originated
from France. Here people exploited shell resources from the Atlantic and Mediterranean
coasts as well as inland Miocene deposits. In addition, many different types of perforated
teeth are found. Sites in Southern Germany contain large portions of ivory ornaments as
beads, pendants as well as perforated animal teeth. However, there appear to be no great
differences between the animals used for ornamentation in southern and northern Europe.
Why were animal parts worn on the body as ornaments? Here, we could simply say
that people hunted and lived very close with the animals. They were the prime source of
subsistence and probably held a special role for people. In time people figured out which teeth
were best for perforation of perhaps which teeth looked best as ornaments. Perforated red deer
teeth are most commonly found, which indicates they might have been left over from food
resources. Shells were most likely exchanged which indicates that people over greater
distances had knowledge about the production of the ornaments. The fact that both shells and
perforated teeth were imitated in stone also indicate a special meaning. Perhaps this was
connected to people’s ancestors also wearing ornaments. Ornaments thus moved between
people but also over the landscape. It is not evident that specific animals had a special
meaning.
Three conflicting theories on the appearance of personal ornamentation in the
transition period exist which concentrate on the hominid producers of the ornaments. Mellars
is the pioneer of the single species theory that claims the Neanderthal did not have the correct
cognitive abilities to produce cultural objects. It is noticeable that in time he adjusts his
viewpoint suggesting there might have been interaction between the Neanderthal and the
AMH. He does make a good point with his impossible coincidence. However this is no
argument for anatomically modern superiority. As we have seen, the exact arrival of the AMH
in Europe still remains unknown. D’Errico, Zilhão and colleagues are of the few scholars that
claim it is possible that the Neanderthal had the correct cognitive abilities to produce cultural
objects. They come with solid arguments and future research and new discoveries could add
fuel to the multiple species model. Also, they suggest that contact between the hominids
stimulated the production of ornaments on both sides leaving the possibility open that the
AMH was influenced by the Neanderthal. Unfortunately we can never tell since the
79
Neanderthal did not survive. Bar Yosef in turn can be seen as a scholar that lies in between
the viewpoints of Mellars and D’Errico and Zilhão. He finds both the single species as the
multiple species models possible but claims there is just not enough evidence. It is evident
that all three blocks have different areas of interest concerning the Palaeolithic. Yet, in the end
all three have credible theories that conflict but do not exclude each other. All three leave the
possibility for interaction between the AMH and the Neanderthal open although in different
variations. It is possible that the Neanderthal produced personal ornamentation either
imitating the AMH, influenced by the AMH or independent from the AMH. Cognitive
abilities could have developed independently of one another with both hominids. This matter,
however, could not be extensively discussed in this thesis. Bar-Yosef distinguish himself from
Mellars and Zilhão and D’Errico by stated the biggest problem of the Palaeolithic in the first
place, the underrepresented material context in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Future research
in these regions could drastically change our viewpoint. Overall, the question of which
hominid actor produced the first forms of ornamentation remains uncertain.
As mentioned, the decision was made to run the catalogue of figurative art from the
Upper Palaeolithic in chronological order which makes it easier to observe how figurative art
evolved over time. The ending date of 26,500 ya, at the height of the Last Glacial Maximum
was chosen because large parts of Europe were depopulated and subsequent time periods as
the Magdalenian saw new migration waves. Unfortunately, we also chose to include only
examples from Southern Germany, Austria and south-western Europe. This was mostly due to
differences in date and nature of the art in other areas of Europe. The art can be categorized in
abstract forms, handprints, animal forms, hybrid forms, human forms, vulva representations,
phallus representations and female representations. Also, the category of flutes was included.
In turn the art appears in both mural and portable media. Throughout the focus period,
depictions of animals, whether mural or portable are most common with 18 sites displaying
images of animals. The oldest art is abstract, followed by handprints and the depiction of
handprints. Also, therianthropes appear relatively early in the record while female
representations and vulva forms relatively late. Observing the evolution of art in the focus
period did not reveal a pattern of specific subjects being depicted in certain periods. The only
aspect that can be raised is that in time more categories of figurative art evolved and these
categories existed side by side at certain sites. This will be further addressed in the discussion
that will follow after the conclusion
The regional differences are evident from the catalogue. Portable art is found, with the
only exception being the stone phallus from Abri Blanchard, in the form of animal figurines
80
in Southern Germany and Austria. The female figurines are solely found here as well,
although in Austria produced from stone and in southern Germany produced of ivory. A
stylistically similar mural representation of a female figure was also observed at Chauvet.
Most remarkable in southern Germany is that the Venus of Hohle Fels as well figurines of a
bear and a mammoth from Geissenklösterle and figurines of a horse, felid and mammoth from
Vogelherd, displayed perforations indicating they could have been used as ornaments. Thus
these examples can be placed in the figurative art as well as the ornamentation category. Here
it seems likely that ornaments evolved into figurative art. Mural art is strikingly absent from
southern Germany and Austria. Handprints and stencils are solely found in the southern
regions throughout the focus period. Handprints and stencils are absent in the north but are
found throughout the focus period in France and Spain. Vulva representations are solely
found in France, if we exclude the Venus of Hohle Fels which has a distinct depiction of her
genitals. Here, it is remarkable that vulva forms appear in a specific area, the Dordogne at
sites that are in close proximity of each other. Therianthropes are found in both areas with a
wide distribution. The only human figure (excluding the female figurines) is from
Geissenklösterle and a possible human figure from the Fumane cave. Phallus representations
in the forms of stone retouchers are found in France as well as Southern Germany. Another
striking observation is that in some areas of France, Austria and Southern Germany
Aurignacian sites contain personal ornaments as well as figurative art. Here it seems likely
that the former evolved into the latter.
One of the main questions in this thesis was how we can reveal the function, role and
meaning of the earliest forms of art. The function and role of figurative art can be connected
to the aggregation sites of Conkey and Gamble’s model of open social networks. In both these
models art can be seen as a means for communication and social contact. The art could have
functioned as a way to bring groups closer together but also to provide individuals with mates.
Aggregation sites were places where different groups could have learned techniques from
each other and applied these at their home bases. It is also possible that objects were
exchanged at these sites. The establishment of open social networks involved the use of visual
media and thus could have caused the spread of Venus figures or other forms of art.
Remarkably, both the aggregation site model and the open social network model could have
existed side by side and could have influenced each other’s formation. The different
categories of figurative art could be explained by greater distances between groups. However,
Conkey and Gamble make a distinction between the occurrence of portable and mural art in
which portable art could have evolved from the formation of aggregation sites or open social
81
networks and mural art probably evolved from a different model. Conkey argues that it is
rather unlikely that caves were regularly used as aggregation sites due to their inaccessibility
and small amount of space. Gamble state that mural art could have been produced by closed
social networks. Interestingly, both models can also be applied to the spread and
establishment of ornaments. Then, it would seem likely that ornaments eventually evolved
into figurative art. Lewis Williams and Guthrie put their emphasis on the meaning of
figurative art. Lewis Williams connects the appearance of figurative art to shamanism in
which he states that the depictions reflect the shamans experience during an altered state of
consciousness. Guthrie on the other hand does not observe the appearance of art as something
ritual but as a reflection of the Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers knowledge of natural history.
Here too, both theories could have been in place at the same time.
As we have seen in chapter 5 many different interpretations exist on the meaning, role
and function of figurative art. Unfortunately it was not possible to cover all interpretations in
this thesis. The cognitive abilities necessary for concepts as figurative art and the cognitive
abilities of both the Neanderthal and the AMH were not extensively discussed because of
delineation. The discussed scholars, however, give plausible explanations for why depictions
of abstract forms, animals, female representations and handprints are depicted in figurative
art. Thus, they provide insight into the meaning of the art. Lewis-Williams explains the
depictions of abstract forms, animals and hybrid figures clearly as a reflection of the shaman’s
altered state of consciousness in which he encountered spirits or transformed into an animal.
Guthrie on the other hand perceives the animals and the hybrid figures purely as reflecting the
animals the young hunter’s hunted. He is the only scholar who looked at the age and sex of
the producer. Also, handprints are seen as a form of graffiti. On the other hand, the possibility
remains that the animals and hybrid figures have connections to a vision quest. In turn this
vision quest could have had close connections to puberty rites or rites of passage of
youngsters. This could imply that a cave was visited multiple times but also that these places
were collectively chosen for a vision quest. The female figurines and vulva representations
are seen by Guthrie as the first forms of erotic magazines. These, again, could also be
associated to rites of passage or initiation rites of either male participants or with the purpose
of finding a mate. More research on this subject in the future could provide more insight into
the meaning of Palaeolithic figurative art.
It has turned out that Lewis-Williams, Conkey, Gamble and Guthrie’s theories could
all provide a likely interpretation for the role, function and meaning of Palaeolithic figurative
art and that these interpretations can merge together. Personal ornaments could have evolved
82
into figurative art, as some sites suggest. In the end, however, with two different hominid
actors in the scene, diverse categories of ornamentation and figurative art and so many
different processes that could have existed side by side, we are still left in the dark.
83
Bibliography
Aldhouse-Green Miranda & Stephen Aldhouse-Green. The Quest for the Shaman. Thames
and Hudson, London, 2005.
Ambert, Paul & Jean-Louis Guendon et al. Attribution des gravures paléolithiques de la
grotted'Aldène (Cesseras, Hérault) à l’Aurignacien par la datation des remplissages
géologiques. 2004.
Balter, Michael. Paintings in Italian Cave may be Oldest Yet. Science, New Series 290:5491,
2000.
Barth, Martina M. & Nicolas J. Conard & Susanne C. Munzel. Palaeolithic subsistence and
organic technology in the Swabian Jura, in L. Fontana & L. Bridault (eds) In search of Total
Animal Exploitation, BAR International Series, Oxford.
Bar-Yosef, Ofer. The Upper Palaeolithic Revolution. Annual Review of Anthropology 13,
2002.
Bar-Yosef, O. & J Bordes. Who were the makers of the Châtelperronian culture? Journal of
Human Evolution, 2010.
Bednarik, R.G. The Earliest evidence of Palaeoart. Rock art Research 20:2, 2003.
Brown P. & T. Sutikna et al, A new small-bodied hominin from the Late Pleistocene of
Flores, Indonesia, Nature 431, 2004.
Cabrera Valdes, Victoria & James Bischoff. Accelerator 14C dates for Early Palaeolithic
(Basal Aurignacian) at El Castillo Cave (Spain). Journal of Archaeological Science 16, 1989.
Canaveras, J.C. & S. Sanchez-Moral et al. Microorganisms andMicrobially Induced Fabrics in
Cave Walls. Geomicrobiology Journal, 18, 2001.
84
Clark, Peter U. & A.S. Dyke et al, The Last Glacial Maximum, Science 325, 2009.
Clottes, Jean. Recent Studies on Palaeolithic art. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 6:2,
1996.
Clottes, J & J. Courtin et al. News from Cosquer cave: climatic Studies, recording, sampling,
dates. Antiquity 71, 1997.
Clottes, J. & J. Courtin et al. Cosquer redecouvert. Paris. Le Seuil. 2005.
Conard, Nicolas J. Palaeolithic Ivory sculptures from southwestern Germany and the origins
of figurative art. Nature 426, 2003.
Conard, Nicolas J. A female figurine from the basal Aurignacian of Hohle Fels Cave in
Southwestern Germany. Nature 459. 2009.
Conard, Nicolas. Cultural Modernity: Consensus of conundrum? Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) 107:17, 2010.
Conard, Nicolas J. & Michael Bolus. The Swabian Aurignacian and its place in European
Prehistory. 2006.
Conkey, Margaret. & Antonio Beltran et al. The Identification of Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherer
Aggregation: The Case of Altamira. Current Anthropology 21:5, 1980.
Corballis, Michael C. On the evolution of Language and generativity. Elsevier Science
Publishers, 1992.
Davidson Iain & William Noble et al. The Archaeology of Perception: Traces of Depiction
and Language. Current Anthropology 30:2, 1989.
Davis, Whitney. The Origins of Image making. Current Anthropology 27:3, 1986
De Leo, Giulio & Luca Rizzi et al. Evolution of prehistoric cave art. Nature 413, 2001.
85
Delporte, Henri. L’Image de La Femme dans l’Art Prehistorique. Picard, 1993.
D’Errico, Francesco & Christopher Henshilwood et al. Archaeological Evidence for the
Emergence of Language, Symbolism, and Music—An Alternative Multidisciplinary
Perspective. Journal of World Prehistory 17:1, 2003.
D’ Errico, Francesco and Joao Zilhão et al. Neanderthal Acculturation in Western Europe? A
Critical Review of the Evidence and Its Interpretation. Current Anthropology 39, 1998.
D’Errico, Francesco. The Invisible Frontier. A Multiple Species Model for the Origin of
Behavioral Modernity. Evolutionary Anthropology 12, 2003.
Francis, J.E. and L.L. Loendorf, Ancient visions: Petroglyphs and Pictographs of the Wind
River and Bighorn Country, Wyoming and Montana. The University of Utah Press, 2002.
Gamble, Clive. Interaction and Alliance in Palaeolithic society. Man, New series 17:1, 1982.
Gravina, B & P. Mellars et al. Radiocarbon dating of interstratified Neanderthal and early
modern human occupations at Châtelperronian type-sites. Nature 438, 51-58, 2005.
Green, Richard E & Johannes Krause et al. A draft sequence of Neanderthal genome. Science
328: 710, 2010.
Guthrie, R Dale. The Nature of Palaeolithic art. 2005. The University of Chicago Press.
Hahn, Joachim. Aurignacian signs, pendants and art Objects in Central and Eastern Europe.
World Archaeology 3:3, 1972.
Harris, James C. Chauvet Cave: The Panel of Horses. Arch Gen Psychiatry Vol. 68, 2011.
Hodgson, J.A. & C.M. Bergey et al, Neanderthal Genome: The ins and outs of African genetic
diversity. Current Biology 20:12, 2010.
86
Joris, Olaf & Martin Street. At the end of the 14C time scale – the Middle to Upper
Paleolithic record of western Eurasia. Journal of Human Evolution. 2008.
Keyser, J.D & David S. Whitley. Sympathetic magic in western North American rock art.
American Antiquity 71:1, 2006.
Knecht, Heidi. Anne Pike-Tay and Randall White (eds). Before Lascaux. The complex record
of the early Upper Palaeolithic. 1992, Telford Press.
Krause, Johannes and Qiaomei Fu et al. The complete mitochondrial DNA genome of an
unknown hominin from Southernh Siberia. Nature 464, 2010.
Kronneck, P. and L. Niven and H.P. Uerpmann. Middle Palaeolithic Subsistence in the Lone
Valley (Swabian Alb, Southern Germany), International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 14,
2004.
Kuhn, Steven & Mary C. Steiner et al. Ornaments of the Earliest Upper Palaeolithic: New
Insights from the Levant. PNAS 98:13, 2001.
Lahelma, A. Between the Worlds: Rock art, Landscape and Shamanism in Subneolithic
Finland. Norwegian Archaeological Review 38:1, 2005.
Lahelma, A. On the Back of Blue Elk: Recent Ethnohistorical sources and Ámbiguous Stone
Age Rock Art at Pyhanhaa, Central Finland. Norwegian Archaeological Review 40:2, 2007.
Leroi-Gourhan, Andre & Annette Micheson. The Hand at Gargas: Towards a General Study.
1986.
Lewis Williams, David. The mind in the cave: Consciousness And The Origins of Art.
Thames & Hudson, London, 2002.
Lewis-Williams, David. Review article: The mind in the cave. Cambridge Archaeological
Journal. 2003.
87
Malouf, C. I. and T. White. Recollections of Lasso Strasso, Archaeological sites in the
Flathead Lake region, Montana: A Symposium, 1953A.
Malouf, C.I. and T. White, The origin of Archaeological Specimens on the West Shore of
Flathead Lake: The Origin of Pictographs, Archaeological sites in the Flathead Lake region,
Montana: A Symposium, 1953B.
Martinon-Torres M. & Robin Dennell et al. The Denisova hominin need not be an out of
Africa story. Journal of Human Evolution 60, 2010.
Mellars, Paul & Jennifer C. French. Tenfold Population Increase in Western Europe at the
Neandertal–to–Modern Human Transition. Science 333:6042. 2011
Mellars, Paul. The Neanderthal Legacy. An Archaeological perspective from Western Europe.
Princeton University Press. 1996.
Mellars, Paul. Neanderthals and the modern human colonization of Europe. Nature 432, 2004.
Mellars, Paul. The impossible coincidence. A single species model for the origins of modern
behavior in Europe. Evolutionary Anthropology. 2005
Mellars, P. Archaeology: Origins of the female image. Nature 459:909. 2009.
Mithen, Stephen. The prehistory of the mind: a search for the origins of art, religion and
science. Thames & Hudson, London. 1996.
Movius, H.L. The rock shelter of La Colombiere: archaeological and geological
investigations of an upper Perigordian site near Poncin. Peabody Museum, Boston. 1956.
Neugebauer-Maresch, Christine. Zur Altsteinzeitlichen Besiedlungsgeschichte des
Galgenberges von Stratzing/Krems-Rehberg. Archaeologie Ostereich 4:1, 1993.
88
Neugebauer-Maresh, Christine & Linda R. Owen. New Aspects of the Central and eastern
European Upper Palaeolithic – methods, chronology, technology and subsistence. Wien,
2010.
Renfrew, Colin. Neuroscience, evolution and the sapient paradox: the factuality of value and
the sacred. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. 2008.
Pettitt, Paul. Art and the Middle-to-Upper Paleolithic transition in Europe: Comments on the
archaeological arguments for an early Upper Paleolithic antiquity of the Grotte Chauvet cave.
Journal of Human Evolution 55, 2008.
Penesani, Marco. & Mauro Cremaschi et al. Age of the final Palaeolithic and Uluzzian levels
at Fumane cave, Northern Italy. Journal of Archaeological Science 35:11. 2008.
Pike, A.W.G. & D.L. Hoffman et al. U-Serries Dating of Palaeolithic Art in 11 Caves in
Spain. Science. 2012.
Salmony, Alfred. An ivory carving from Malta, Siberia and its significance. Antibus Asiae
11:4, 1948.
Sauvet, Georges & Robert Layton et al. Thinking with animals in Upper Palaeolithic Rock
Art. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 19:3, 2009.
Schmitz, Ralf W & David Serre. The Neanderthal type site revisited: Interdisciplinary
investigations of skeletal remains from the Neander Valley, Germany. PNAS 90:20, 2002.
Simek, Jan. A Paleolithic Sculpture from the Abri Labattut in the American Museum of
Natural History Collection. Current Anthropology 27:4, 1986.
Snow, Dean R. Sexual dimorphism in Upper Palaoelithic hand stencils. Pennsylvania State
University. 2005
Tattersal I and J.F. Schwartz. Hominids and Hybrids; the place of Neanderthals in human
evolution. PNAS, 1999.
89
Valladas, H. & N Tisnerat-Laborde et al. Radiocarbon AMS Dates for Palaeolithic Cave
Paintings. Radiocarbon 43:2B, 2001.
Vanhaeren, Marian & Francesco D’Errico. Aurignacian ethno-linguistic geography of Europe
revealed by personal ornaments. Journal of Archaeological Science 33, 2006.
Vercoutere, Carole. & Christina San Juan-Foucher et al. Human modification on cave bear
bones from Gargas cave. Scientific Annals, School of Geology. Aristotle University of
Thessaloniki 98. 2006.
White, Randall. Beyond Art: Towards an Understanding of the Origins of Material
Representation in Europe. 21. Annual Review of Anthropology. 1992.
White, R. & Romain Mensan et al. Context and dating of Aurignacian vulvar representations
from Abri Castanet, France. PNAS, 2012.
Wynn T., Frederic Coolidge and Martha Bright. Hohlenstein-Stadel and the Evolution of
Human Conceptual Thought. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 19:1, 2009.
Zilhão, Joao. The emergence of Ornaments and Art: An archaeological Perspective on the
origins of ‘’Behavioral Modernity’’. J Archaeological res 15, 2007.
Zilhão, Joao & Diego E. Angelucci et al. Symbolic use of marine shells and mineral pigment
by Iberian Neanderthals. PNAS 107:3, 2010.
Zilhão, Joao & Francesco D’Errico. Analysis of Aurignacian interstratification at the
Châtelperronian-type site and implications for the behavioral modernity of Neanderthals.
PNAS 103:33, 2006.
Zilhão, Joao & Francesco D’Errico. The chronology of the Aurignacian and Transitional
Technocomplexes. Where do we stand? 2007.
Zilhão, Joao & Paul Pettitt. On the new dates for Gorham’s cave and the late survival of
Iberian Neanderthals. Before Farming 3, 2006.
90
Websites
New Scientist website (retrieved on 18 February 2012)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21458-first-neanderthal-cave-paintings-discovered-inspain.html.
91