Advertisement

Making sense of the chronology of Paleolithic cave painting from the perspective of material engagement theory

  • Tom Froese
Article

Abstract

There exists a venerable tradition of interdisciplinary research into the origins and development of Paleolithic cave painting. In recent years this research has begun to be inflected by rapid advances in measurement techniques that are delivering chronological data with unprecedented accuracy. Patterns are emerging from the accumulating evidence whose precise interpretation demands corresponding advances in theory. It seems that cave painting went through several transitions, beginning with the creation of simple lines, dots and disks, followed by hand stencils, then by outlined figures, and finally by naturalistic figures. So far the most systematic evidence comes from Europe, although there are also indications that this sequence could be a universal pattern. The shamanic hypothesis provides a useful theoretical starting point because of its emphasis on the role of performance and phenomenology in the creative process. However, it still tends to reduce this sequence to mere stylistic and thematic changes that were external products of an already fully formed modern mind. Here I show how key insights from semiotics and material engagement theory can advance this explanatory framework to the extent that we become able to postdict the major transitions in the chronology of Paleolithic cave painting. An intriguing implication is that this is at the same time a chronology of cognitive changes, namely from a performative-phenomenological to a reflective-representational mind.

Keywords

Origins of art Enactive cognitive science Embodied cognition Prehistory Cognitive archaeology Archaeology of mind Symbolic cognition 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The ideas for this article first took shape during a research visit to the University of Wollongong enabled by a Vice-Chancellor’s International Scholar Award. I am particularly indebted to feedback provided by Zenobia Jacobs, Alex Mackay, and Sam Lin from the Centre for Archaeological Science, and by Daniel Hutto from the School of Humanities and Social Inquiry. I also thank Lambros Malafouris and Duilio Garofoli for their helpful discussions that allowed me to further sharpen my proposal. Finally, I thank Juan Manuel Arguelles for clarifying my understanding of Homo taxonomy. This work was supported by UNAM-DGAPA-PAPIIT project “Explorando los alcances de la auto-organización social: Desde la cultura hasta la célula” (IA104717).

References

  1. Appenzeller, T. (2013). Old masters: The earliest known cave paintings fuel arguments about whether Neanderthals were the mental equals of modern humans. Nature, 497, 302–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aubert, M., Brumm, A., Ramli, M., Sutikna, T., Saptomo, E. W., Hakim, B., et al. (2014). Pleistocene cave art from Sulawesi, Indonesia. Nature, 514, 223–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrett, J. C. (2013). The archaeology of mind: it's now what you think. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 23(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beer, R. D. (2000). Dynamical approaches to cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(3), 91–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bressloff, P. C., Cowan, J. D., Golubitsky, M., Thomas, P. J., & Wiener, M. C. (2001). Geometric visual hallucinations, Euclidean symmetry and the functional architecture of striate cortex. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 356, 299–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark, A. (1999). An embodied cognitive science? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(9), 345–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clottes, J. (2016). What is Paleolithic art? Cave paintings and the Dawn of human creativity (O. Y. Martin, & R. D. Martin, Trans.). Chicago: The Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Clottes, J., & Lewis-Williams, D. (1998). The shamans of prehistory: trance and magic in the painted caves. New York: Harry N. Abrams.Google Scholar
  9. David, B., Geneste, J.-M., Petchey, F., Delannoy, J.-J., Barker, B., & Eccleston, M. (2013). How old are Australia's pictographs? A review of rock art dating. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40, 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Balbín-Behrmann, R., Alcolea-González, J.-J., & Alcaraz-Castaño, M. (2017). The Paleolithic art of Tito Bustill cave (Asturias, Spain) in its archaeological context. Quaternary International, 430, 81–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. d'Errico, F., Henshilwood, C. S., & Nilssen, P. (2001). An engraved bone fragment from c. 70,000-year-old middle stone age levels at Blombos cave, South Africa: implications for the origin of symbolism and language. Antiquity, 75, 309–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. d'Errico, F., Henshilwood, C. S., Vanhaeren, M., & van Niekerk, K. L. (2005). Nassarius kraussianus shell beads from Blombos cave: evidence for symbolic behaviour in the middle stone age. Journal of Human Evolution, 48, 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. d'Errico, F., Dayet Bouillot, L., García-Diez, M., Pitarch Martí, A., Garrido Pimentel, D., & Zilhão, J. (2016). The technology of the earliest European cave paintings: El Castillo cave, Spain. Journal of Archaeological Science, 70, 48–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eliade, M. ([1951] 2004). Shamanism: archaic techniques of ecstasy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Engel, A. K., Maye, A., Kurthen, M., & König, P. (2013). Where's the action? The pragmatic turn in cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(5), 202–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Froese, T. (2013). Altered states and the prehistoric ritualization of the modern human mind. In C. Adams, A. Waldstein, B. Sessa, D. Luke, & D. King (Eds.), Breaking convention: essays on psychedelic consciousness (pp. 10–21). London: Strange Attractor Press.Google Scholar
  17. Froese, T. (2015). The ritualised mind alteration hypothesis of the origins and evolution of the symbolic human mind. Rock Art Research, 32(1), 90–97.Google Scholar
  18. Froese, T., Woodward, A., & Ikegami, T. (2013). Turing instabilities in biology, culture, and consciousness? On the enactive origins of symbolic material culture. Adaptive Behavior, 21(3), 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gallagher, S., & Zahavi, D. (2012). The phenomenological mind (second ed.). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. García-Diez, M., Hoffmann, D. L., Zilhão, J., de las Heras, C., Lasheras, J. A., Montes, R., et al. (2013). Uranium series dating reveals a long sequence of rock art at Altamira cave (Santillana del Mar, Cantabria). Journal of Archaeological Science, 40, 4098–4106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. García-Diez, M., Garrido, D., Hoffmann, D. L., Pettitt, P. B., Pike, A. W. G., & Zilhão, J. (2015). The chronology of hand stencils in European Palaeolithic rock art: Implications of new U-series results from El Castillo cave (Cantabria, Spain). Journal of Anthropological Sciences, 93, 1–18.Google Scholar
  22. Garofoli, D. (2015). Do early body ornaments prove cognitive modernity? A critical analysis from situated cognition. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 14, 803–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hauser, M. D., Yang, C., Berwick, R. C., Tattersall, I., Ryan, M. J., Watumull, J., et al. (2014). The mystery of language evolution. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(401).  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00401.
  24. Henshilwood, C. S., & Dubreuil, B. (2011). The still bay and Howiesons Poort, 77-59 ka: symbolic material culture and the evolution of the mind during the African middle stone age. Current Anthropology, 52(3), 361–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Henshilwood, C. S., d'Errico, F., Yates, R., Jacobs, Z., Tribolo, C., Duller, G. A. T., et al. (2002). Emergence of modern human behavior: middle stone age engravings from South Africa. Science, 295, 1278–1280.Google Scholar
  26. Henshilwood, C. S., d'Errico, F., & Watts, I. (2009). Engraved ochres from the middle stone age levels at Blombos cave, South Africa. Journal of Human Evolution, 57, 27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Henshilwood, C. S., d'Errico, F., van Niekerk, K. L., Coquinot, Y., Jacobs, Z., Lauritzen, S.-E., et al. (2011). A 100,00-year-old ochre-processing workshop at Blombos cave, South Africa. Science, 314, 219–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hutto, D. D. (2008). Folk psychological narratives: the sociocultural basis of understanding reasons. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hutto, D. D. (2015). Overly enactive imagination? Radically re-imagining imagining. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 53(Spindel Supplement), 68–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Iliopoulos, A. (2016). The material dimensions of signification: rethinking the nature and emergence of semiosis in the debate on human origins. Quaternary International, 405, 111–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Iliopoulos, A., & Garofoli, D. (2016). The material dimensions of cognition: reexamining the nature and emergence of the human mind. Quaternary International, 405, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment: essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jeffares, B. (2014). Back to Australopithecus: utilizing new theories of cognition to understand the Pliocene hominins. Biological Theory, 9, 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jonas, H. ([1966] 2001). The phenomenon of life: Toward a philosophical biology. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Joordens, J. C. A., d'Errico, F., Wesselingh, F. P., Munro, S., de Vos, J., Wallinga, J., et al. (2015). Homo erectus at Trinil on Java used shells for tool production and engraving. Nature, 518, 228–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lewis-Williams, D. (2002). The mind in the cave: consciousness and the origins of art. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
  37. Lewis-Williams, D., & Clottes, J. (1998). The mind in the cave - the cave in the mind: altered consciousness in the upper Paleolithic. Anthropology of Consciousness, 9(1), 13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lewis-Williams, D., & Dowson, T. A. (1988). The signs of all times: entoptic phenomena in upper Paleolithic art. Current Anthropology, 29(2), 201–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Malafouris, L. (2007). Before and beyond representation: towards an enactive conception of the Paleolithic image. In C. Renfrew & I. Morley (Eds.), Image and imagination: a global prehistory of figurative representation (pp. 289–302). Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
  40. Malafouris, L. (2008). Beads for a plastic mind: the 'Blind Man's Stick' (BMS) hypothesis and the active nature of material culture. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 18(3), 401–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Malafouris, L. (2013). How things shape the mind: a theory of material engagement. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  42. Maravita, A., & Iriki, A. (2004). Tools for the body (schema). Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(2), 79–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ochoa, B., & García-Diez, M. (2015). Chronology of western Pyrenean Paleolithic cave art: a critical examination. Quaternary International, 364, 272–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ontañon, R., & Utrilla, P. (2017). The chronology of Palaeolithic cave art: new data, new debates. Quaternary International, 432, 2–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pettitt, P., & Bahn, P. G. (2015). An alternative chronology for the art of Chauvet cave. Antiquity, 89(345), 542–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pettitt, P., Castillejo, A. M., Arias, P., Ontañon Peredo, R., & Harrison, R. (2014). New views on old hands: the context of stencils in El Castillo and La Garma caves (Cantabria, Spain). Antiquity, 88, 47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pike, A. W. G., Hoffmann, D. L., García-Diez, M., Pettitt, P. B., Alcolea, J., De Balbín, R., et al. (2012). U-series dating of Paleolithic art in 11 caves in Spain. Science, 336, 1409–1413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Robert, E. (2017). The role of the cave in the expression of prehistoric societies. Quaternary International, 432, 59–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rodríguez-Vidal, J., d'Errico, F., Giles Pacheco, F., Blasco, R., Rosell, J., Jennings, R. P., et al. (2014). A rock engraving made by Neanderthals in Gibraltar. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 111(37), 13301–13306.Google Scholar
  50. Sacks, O. (2012). Hallucinations. London: Picador.Google Scholar
  51. Siegel, R. K. (2005). Intoxication: the universal drive for mind-altering substances. Rochester: Park Street Press.Google Scholar
  52. Sonesson, G. (1994). Prolegomena to the semiotic analysis of prehistoric visual displays. Semiotica, 100(2/4), 267–331.Google Scholar
  53. Stone, R. R. (2011). The jaguar within: shamanic trance in ancient central and south American art. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  54. Texier, P.-J., Porraz, G., Parkington, J., Rigaud, J.-P., Poggenpoel, C., Miller, C., et al. (2010). A Howiesons Poort tradition of engraving ostrich eggshell containers dated to 60,000 years ago at Diepkloof rock shelter, South Africa. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 107(14), 6180–6185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Thompson, E. (2007). Look again: phenomenology and mental imagery. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 6, 137–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Thompson, E., & Varela, F. J. (2001). Radical embodiment: neural dynamics and consciousness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(10), 418–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Valladas, H., Kaltnecker, E., Quiles, A., Tisnérat-Laborde, N., Genty, D., Arnold, M., et al. (2013). Dating French and Spanish prehistoric decorated caves in their archaeological contexts. Radiocarbon, 55(2–3), 1422–1431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Whitley, D. S. (2009). Cave paintings and the human spirit: the origin of creativity and belief. Amherst: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  59. Winkelman, M. (2010). Shamanism: a biopsychosocial paradigm of consciousness and healing (Second ed.). Santa Barbara: Praeger.Google Scholar
  60. Wood, B., & Boyle, E. K. (2016). Hominin taxic diversity: fact or fantasy? Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 159, S37–S78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Applied Mathematics and Systems Research (IIMAS)National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM)Mexico CityMexico
  2. 2.Center of the Sciences of Complexity (C3)National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM)Mexico CityMexico

Personalised recommendations