Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T01:11:00.082Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Palaeolithic Art and Archaeology: The Mobiliary Evidence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2014

Ann Sieveking
Ann Sieveking
Affiliation:
Church Cottage, Darsham, Saxmundham, Suffolk IP17 3PXand University College London, University of London Institute of Archaeology, 31–34 Gordon Square, London WC1H OPY
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Art is unique amongst the categories of evidence which survive from the Palaeolithic period in that it was originally structured to communicate. It is true that style is an aspect of tool-making, and the particular forms adopted in the manufacture of tools may be intended as practical innovations or as recognizable types that define distinct social groups (Wiessner 1983) but art is only communication; it has no practical use. Its purpose is to convey a message, simple perhaps, as with ornamentation, or more complex as is suggested by the repertoire of painting and engraving in caves. In a culture without a literate tradition music, mime, recital and art are the vehicles of information. Only one of these remains from the Palaeolithic and, in isolation, the visual evidence is to a certain degree illuminating and to a certain degree frustrating in that certain deductions can be made from its intrinsic features, but not an explanation of its meaning.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 57 , Issue 1 , 1991 , pp. 33 - 50
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bahn, P. G. 1982. Inter-site and inter-regional links during the Upper Palaeolithic: The Pyrenean evidence. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 1 (3), 247–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barandiaran Maestu, I. 1973. Arte Mueble del Paleolítico Cantábrico. Zaragoza: Monografias arqueologicas XIV.Google Scholar
Barandiaran, I. 1989. El Magdaleniense en Asturias, Cantabria y País Vasco: constantes y variabilidad del arte portatil. In Otte, M. (ed.), Le Magdalénien en Europe, 379–96. Etudes et Recherches Archéologiques de l'Université de Liège, no. 38.Google Scholar
Bosinski, G. and Fischer, G. 1974. Der Magdalénien-Fundplatz Gönnersdorf. Band I. Die Menschdarstellungen von Gönnersdorf der Ausgrabungen 1968. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Bosinski, G. and Fischer, G. 1980. Der Magdalénien-Fundplatz Gönnersdorf. Band 5. Mammut- und Pferdedarstellungen von Gönnersdorf. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Breuil, H. 1905. La dégénérescence des figures d'animaux en motifs ornamenteaux à l'époque du renne. Comptes rendus Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 105–20.Google Scholar
Breuil, H. 1934. L'évolution de l'art pariétal dans les cavernes et abris ornées de France. Congrès Préhistorique de France, XIe. sess Périgeux, 102–18.Google Scholar
Capitan, L. and Peyrony, D. 1928. La Madeleine. Son Gisement, son Industrie, ses Oeuvres d'Art. Paris: Emile Nourry.Google Scholar
Cartailhac, E. 1885. Oeuvres inédites des artistes chasseurs de rennes. Materiaux pour l'Histoire Primitive et Naturelle de l'Homme 19, 63–75.Google Scholar
Chollot, M. 1964. Collection Piette — Art Mobilier Préhistorique. Editions des Musées Nationaux, Paris: Ministère d'Etat Affaires Culturelles.Google Scholar
Chollot-Varagnac, M. 1980. Les Origines du Graphisme Symbolique. Paris: Editions de la Fondation Singer-Polignac.Google Scholar
Clottes, J. 1989. Le Magdalénien des Pyrenées. In Otte, M. (ed.), Le Magdalénien en Europe, 281–331. Etudes et Recherches Archéologiques de l'Université de Liège, no. 38.Google Scholar
Conkey, M. W. 1985. Ritual communication, social elaboration and the variable trajectories of Paleolithic material Culture. In Price, T. D. and Brown, J. H. (eds), Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers, 299–323. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Deffarge, R., Laurent, P. and Sonneville-Bordes, D. de 1975. L'art mobilier du Magdalénien supérieur de l'abri Morin à Pessac-sur-Dordogne, (Gironde). Gallia Préhistoire 18, 1–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delluc, B. and , G., in press. Le problème des blocs ornés: art pariétal ou art mobilier. Colloque International d'Art Pariétal Paléolithique. Périgueux: Le Thot.Google Scholar
Delporte, H. 1975. Les oeuvres d'art magdaléniennes de la grotte de La Vache (Ariège). La Revue du Louvre et des Musées de France, 25e année, no 2.Google Scholar
Delporte, H. 1979. L'Image de la Femme dans l'Art Préhistorique. Paris: Picard.Google Scholar
Dyson-Hudson, R. and Alden Smith, E. 1978. Human territoriality: an ecological reassessment. American Anthropologist 80(1), 21–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamble, C. 1982. Interaction and alliance in Paleolithic society. Man (n.s.) 17, 92–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Girod, P. and Massenat, E. 1900. Les Stations de l'Age du Renne dans la Vallée de la Vezère et de la Corrèze. Paris: Baillière.Google Scholar
Graziosi, P. 1960. Palaeolithic Art. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
Hardy, M. 1891. La station quaternaire de Raymonden à Chancelade (Dordogne) et la sépulture d'un chasseur de Rennes. Bulletin de la Société Historique et Archéologique du Périgord 18, 65–89, 121–35, 193–212.Google Scholar
Jude, P. E. 1960. La Grotte de Rochereil. Station Magdalénienne et Azilienne. Archives de l'Institut de Paléontologie Humaine. Memoire 30. Paris: Masson.Google Scholar
Julien, M. 1989. Commentaire sur ‘El Magdaleniense en Asturias, Cantabria y País Vasco: constantes y variabilidad del arte portatil’. In Otte, M. (ed.), Le Magdalénien en Europe, 397. Etudes et Recherches Archéologiques de l'Université de Liège, no. 38.Google Scholar
Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1968. The Art of Prehistoric Man in Western Europe. (English edition). London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Lewis-Williams, D. 1991. Wrestling with Analogy: A methodological dilemma in Upper Palaeolithic art research. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 57(1), 149–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorblanchet, M. 1989. Caractères originaux du Magdalénien du Quercy. In Otte, M. (ed.), Le Magdalénien en Europe, 239–49. Etudes et Recherches Archéologiques de l'Université de Liège, no. 38.Google Scholar
Marshack, A. 1972. The Roots of Civilization: The Cognitive Beginnings of Man's First Art, Symbol and Notation. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.Google Scholar
Marshack, A. 1991. The female image: a ‘time-factored’ symbol. A study in style and aspects of image use in the Upper Palaeolithic. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 57(1), 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nougier, L. R. and Robert, R. 1970. Pendeloque ‘au cheval sautant’ du Magdalénien final des Pyrenées (Grotte de La Vache, Ariège). Bulletin de la Société Prehistorique de l'Ariège 25, 17–28.Google Scholar
Pales, L. and Tassin de Saint-Pereuse, M. 1969. Les Gravures de la Marche. I. Félins et Ours. Publications de l'Institut de Préhistoire de l'Université de Bordeaux. Memoire 7. Bordeaux: Delmas.Google Scholar
Pales, L. and Tassin de Saint Pereuse, M. 1976. Les Gravures de la Marche. II. Les Humains. Paris: Editions Ophrys.Google Scholar
Pales, L. and Tassin de Saint Pereuse, M. 1981. Les Gravures de la Marche. III. Equidés et Bovidés. Paris: Editions Ophrys.Google Scholar
Pericot y Garcia, L. 1942. La Cueva del Parpallo, Gandia. Madrid: Instituto Diego Velasquez.Google Scholar
Saint-Perier, R. de 1930. La Grotte d'Isturitz. I. Le Magdalénien de la Salle de Saint-Martin. Archives de l'Institut de Paléontologie Humaine. Memoire 7. Paris: Masson.Google Scholar
Saint-Perier, R. de 1936. La Grotte d'Isturitz II. Le Magdalénien de le Grande Salle. Archives de l'Institut de Paléontologie Humaine. Mémoire 17. Paris: Masson.Google Scholar
Sieveking, A. 1971. Palaeolithic decorated bone discs. In Sieveking, G. de G. (ed.), Prehistoric and Roman Studies, 206–29. London: British Museum.Google Scholar
Sieveking, A. 1979a. The Cave Artists. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Sieveking, A. 1979b. Style and regional grouping in Magdalenian cave art. Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology, London University 16, 95–109.Google Scholar
Sieveking, A. 1981. Continuité des motifs schématiques au Paléolithique et dans les périodes postérieurs en Franco-Cantabrie. Altamira Symposium 1979, 319–37. Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura.Google Scholar
Sieveking, A. 1987a. A Catalogue of Palaeolithic Art in the British Museum. London: British Museum Publications.Google Scholar
Sieveking, A. 1987b. Engraved Magdalenian Plaquettes. A Regional and Stylistic Analysis of Stone, Bone and Antler Plaquettes from Upper Palaeolithic sites in France and Cantabric Spain. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International Series 369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sonneville-Bordes, D. de (ed.) 1979. La Fin des Temps Glaciares en Europe. Colloque Internationaux du CNRS, no. 271. Paris: Editions de CNRS.Google Scholar
Straus, L. 1977. The Upper Palaeolithic cave site of Altamira (Santander, Spain). Quaternaria 19, 135–48.Google Scholar
Straus, L. 1982. Observations on Upper Paleolithic Art: old problems and new directions. Zephyrus 34–35, 71–80.Google Scholar
Wiessner, P. 1983. Style and social information in Kalahari San projectile points. American Antiquity 48, 253–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, R. 1985. Upper Paleolithic Land use in the Périgord. A Topographic Approach to Subsistence and Settlement. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International Series 253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, R. 1987. Glimpses of long term shifts in late Paleolithic land use in the Périgord. In Soffer, O. (ed.), The Pleistocene Old World, 263–77. Plenum Press: New York and London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, R. 1989. Visual thinking in the Ice Age. Scientific American July 1989, 74–81.Google Scholar
Wittkower, R. 1977. The interpretation of visual symbols. In Allegory and the Migration of Symbols (vol. 3 of the collected essays of R. Wittkower), 173–87. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar