C 2006)

Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 13, No. 4, December 2006 (!
DOI: 10.1007/s10816-006-9020-2

From A Paleolithic Art to Pleistocene Visual

Cultures (Introduction to two Special Issues on
Advances in the Study of Pleistocene Imagery
and Symbol Use)
April Nowell1
Published online: 30 November 2006

This paper serves as an introduction to two special issues on advances in the

method and theory of Pleistocene imagery and symbol use. In order to contextualize
the contributions that comprise these two issues, this paper defines the temporal
and geographic scope of Pleistocene imagery, outlines the contexts in which the
images are found, briefly reviews the history of interpretation of the images and
discusses some of the current trends and future directions of the field.
KEY WORDS: upper paleolithic; cave art; personal adornment; figurines; visual culture.

This is the first of two issues of the Journal of Archaeological Method and
Theory that focus on Pleistocene art that I am pleased to be guest editing.
Pleistocene art refers to a large and varied corpus of paintings and engravings
on the walls, ceilings and floors of caves and rock shelters throughout regions of
Australasia, Africa and Europe that predate the Holocene. It also includes items
of personal adornment such as beads, pendants, bracelets and rings as well as
engraved and incised bone, antler and stone. Ivory and, more rarely, clay sculptures
of animals and human figures form part of this corpus as well. Found in a variety of
archaeological contexts from caves to open-air sites and burials, these artifacts are
associated with men and women, adults and children including infants. Though
it is often erroneously thought of as a homogenous block of imagery primarily
located in Western Europe (Conkey, 1995, see especially note 16), the staggering
variety of techniques, materials, subjects, locations and contexts and associations
makes it impossible to characterize Pleistocene art in a meaningful way that
would hold true for all regions and cultural periods.
1 Department

of Anthropology, University of Victoria, Cornett Building Room B214, 3800 Finnerty

Road, Victoria, BC, Canada, V8P 5C2; e-mail: anowell@uvic.ca.
239
C 2006 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
1072-5369/06/1200-0239/1 !

240

Nowell

The definition of Pleistocene art has had to broaden as research has

intensified outside of Western Europe. For example, in South Africa alone there
are more than 30,000 known rock art sites containing a total of more than 1 million
images with many of them in excess of 10,000 years (White, 2003). Paintings,
engravings, items of personal adornment and elaborate burials also date to the
Pleistocene of Australia (Davidson, 1997; Davidson and Noble, 1992; White,
2003; Brumm and Moore, 2005) and recent research in Borneo has uncovered
Pleistocene cave paintings there as well (Plagnes et al., 2003; Chazine, 2005).
For this reason, this first issue contains primarily papers that explore Pleistocene art outside the traditional arena of Western Europe. The paper by LewisWilliams examines San Rock art in South Africa, and the role of the ethnographic
record in rock art studies. Drawing on the Australian record, Ross and Davidson
explore the contexts in which rock art is produced. The paper by Deacon lays
out the ethical issues surrounding rock art tourism and conservation. The final
paper in this issue is one by White that reexamines, not cave art, but figurines
from the French site of Brassempouy offering both a critical examination of the
socio-political context of these finds and new insights into their manufacture.
The second issue (March 2007), focuses on (1) Western European rock art
studies with a unique and detailed synthesis by Bicho and colleagues of current research in Spain and Portugal and (2) on the methodological approaches
to studying both cave and portable imagery. Pettit explores issues of dating,
Tosello and Fritz discuss innovations in the recording and analysis of cave art
such as 3D scanning of cave walls and Nowell and dErrico take a taphonomic approach to studying purported examples of Neandertal symboling from Molodova
(Ukraine).
Following Soffer and Conkey (1997), I am using the term Pleistocene art instead of Paleolithic art. Paleolithic in a large sense refers to the archaeological
record from 2.5 million to 10,000 years ago but in a strict sense it is a cultural term
that is not used in Australia whereas Pleistocene is a geological term with global
applicability. The Pleistocene dates from 1.75 million to 10,000 years ago but in
practical terms its temporal span is more limited in this context as widely accepted
examples of imagery/symbolic artifacts do not exceed ca. 100,000 years of age.
While there are examples of symbol use dating to between 100,000 BP and
40,000 BP (e.g. McBrearty and Brooks, 2000; dErrico et al., 2003; Brumm and
Moore, 2005; Vanhaeren et al., 2006), more than 99% of the known Pleistocene
art dates roughly from 35,000 BP to 10,000 BP. While the origin and development of symbolic behavior remains a contentious issue (see Nowell and dErrico,
this volume), in Europe at least, this is a time period (known here as the Upper
Paleolithic) of unparalleled creativity and symbolic expression. As White (2003,
p. 68) observes, it is not an exaggeration to state that just a few square meters at certain Aurignacian sites have yielded more representational objects than
are known for the entire planet in the period before 40,000 years ago. This explosion of human creativity did not take place in a vacuum but was associated

From A Paleolithic Art to Pleistocene Visual Cultures

241

with global changes in technology, trade, subsistence, human migration and social
organization (Bar-Yosef, 2002).
It should be emphasized that Pleistocene art does not refer to contemporary
or historic rock art such as that of the San or Australian Aboriginal peoples. These
bodies of imagery are discussed in this volume because issues such as conservation
and tourism development (Deacon, this volume and references therein) are of great
significance to all rock art researchers and a tremendous amount of the method and
theory related to these issues is being generated in the context of contemporary
and historic rock art. Furthermore, many researchers are interested in what can
be learned from the ethnographic record in terms of methods and meanings of
rock art and the contexts in which it was produced (e.g. Lewis-Williams, 1981;
Gamble, 1982; Lewis-Williams and Dowson, 1999; Lewis-Williams, this volume;
Ross and Davidson, this volume).
For historical and practical reasons the majority of what we know about
Pleistocene art comes from studies of cave sites in Western Europe. After
viewing Lascaux, Picasso is said to have observed that we have learned nothing
new in art in 17,000 years (e.g. Spivey, 2005 but see Bahn, 2005/2006). Extensive
research into the techniques and materials of Pleistocene art at various sites has
revealed that painters heated ochre, sometimes up to 1000 degrees Celsius, and
blended ochre and other pigments to create a variety of colors (Bahn and Vertut,
1997). They built scaffolding to extend their reach. They used brushes, their fingers,
their mouths, animal hides and bird bones (spit painting) to apply the paint and
experimented with different binders and extenders to create different paint recipes
(Clottes et al., 1990). In some cases the painters took great care to prepare and
then create entire panels or to work around existing images while in other cases
they painted over earlier images or purposely damaged them. In some caves there
are examples of images that were initially sketched and then correctedthe
product of what Lamarque, (2005) terms an internal critical tradition.
Upper Paleolithic peoples achieved visual effects normally associated with
later periods including the intentional distortion of an image to enhance viewing from the ground such as the well known anamorphosed cow from Lascaux
(Clottes, 2005). Some images, such as the Bison from Marsoulas were created
by hundreds of dotsthousands of years before Pointillism in the history of art
(Bahn and Vertut, 1997). Upper Paleolithic peoples also added shading and relief
to animals to give a sense of texture and even movement. In fact, a light source
held at just the right angle will cause painted and engraved images of animals to
project from the cave walls giving them a three dimensional quality (Eastham
and Eastham, 1991). This is aided by the practice of working with the caves natural topographyconvexities were used to give corporeal substance to an animals
torso while concavities were sometimes used to create an animals eye. Advances
in dating techniques (Pettit, March 2007 issue), chemical analyses of paint recipes
(Chalmin et al., 2003), the use of infrared and digital photography (Clogg and
Diaz-Andreu, 2000 and Tosello and Fritz, March 2007 issue), the meticulous,

242

Nowell

almost forensic, study of newly discovered caves such as Chauvet (Clottes, 2001)
and experimental research into lighting conditions (de Beaune, 1987), techniques
of manufacture (Lorblanchet, 1991; White this volume) and the acoustic properties
of caves (Waller, 2006) are revolutionizing how we see, record and think about
Pleistocene art.
Ironically, this body of research has raised as many questions as it has answered. We still do not know, for instance, who made the images (see for example,
Russell, 1992), who was its intended audience(s) or even if there was an intended
audience. Some of the images are located in such narrow and awkward places that
not even the artist could have seen what he or she was creating. From handprints
on cave walls and footprints we know that men, women, children and even babies
were entering these caves on occasion (e.g. Clottes et al., 2005) but there is no
evidence to suggest that they were habitation sites. This last point leads us to
questions of context.
Context, as they say, is everything and this is especially true in archaeology.
As with all archaeological materials, Pleistocene images, regardless of media are
enmeshed in multiple layers of context (see Conkey, 1997). These include the relationships between different images (location, techniques, styles, materials), their
associations with artifacts (e.g., stone tools, bird bones with traces of pigment in
them, items of personal adornment, sculptures) and features (hearths, burials, footprints) and their immediate physical surroundings. As White writes (2003, p. 117)
Photographs . . . do not capture any of the dynamic, non-visual qualities of cave images and
indeed of the caves themselves; what Leroi-Gourhan described as the cave as participant.
In other words, one cannot hope to enter the ancient dialogue with the caves without
experiencing the images in all the multisensorial richness of the caves themselves. Add fear;
uncertain footing; flickering lamplight; moving shadows; sounds of dripping water, the cave
floor underfoot, childrens cries; the smell of humid limestone confronted by smoldering,
sizzling, juniper wick of a fat-burning lamp or torch, and one begins to reassemble the
original cloak of the context, meaning and state of mind that wrapped itself around the
visual perception of paintings and engravings.

To this we need to add the acoustic properties of caves and the existence of numerous flutes which hint at yet another layer of context (dErrico et al., 2003; Waller,
2006). The imagery is also situated within particular technologies, subsistence
practices, climates, and landscapes including social landscapes (Davidson, 1989).
Conkeys research (1997, p. 360), for example, is an attempt to create a social geography of the imagery in order to fill in the heretofore vacant spaces between
the caves and to provide a sense of the pathways and lines of sight that may have
linked caves, materials and people (see also Eastham and Eastham, 1991). By
juxtaposing the physical and social landscapes of Upper Paleolithic peoples and
identifying the resonances and discords she is working toward what she has called
an ice age sensibility (Conkey, 2004).
The notion of an ice age sensibility brings us to the central question of
meaning. For more than a century, approaches to this question have mirrored

From A Paleolithic Art to Pleistocene Visual Cultures

243

contemporary issues and directions in archaeology generally. Initial explanations

in the late 1800s were based on discoveries of portable examples of art. Researchers argued that the art was made by hunter-gatherers to pass the time
(Bahn and Vertut, 1997; see also Moro Abada, 2006 and see Lorblanchet, 2002).
In the 1900s as more painted caves were discovered this explanation gave way
to a series of functionalist hypotheses focusing on hunting magic, fertility rites,
shamanistic trances and the like (Bahn and Vertut, 1997). In this researchers drew
heavily on the ethnographic record and the hypotheses were used to explain both
parietal and portable art. For instance, the hunting magic hypothesis explained
broken engravings of animals on plaquettes (flat pieces of stone)once the animal was killed and the ritual was over, the image was of no further use.. and it was
discarded (Bahn and Vertut, 1997, p. 172). Some of these initial approaches have
been revived in the last two decades. Examples include Halversons (1987) art for
arts sake and numerous aesthetic approaches to the imagery (see papers in Heyd
and Clegg, 2005) and the hunting hypothesis which has been reinvented as the
cave as a source of hunting information approach and in ecological approaches
(e.g., Mithen, 1991).
The beginning of the second half of the 20th century was a turning point in
the study of cave imagery with what Conkey (1989) has termed the structuralist
breakthrough stemming from the work of Leroi-Gourhan (1958) and LamingEmperaire (1962). By looking for the structuring principles underlying the choice
and location of the images these researchers moved away from a literal interpretation toward a semiotic study of the art (Leone, 1982; Conkey, 1989). As Bahn
and Vertut (1997, p. 196) note, the images could no longer be seen as simple
representations with an obvious and direct meaning; instead it was realized that
they were full of conceptual ideas . . . Subsequent interpretations of Pleistocene
imagery have drawn on their results and have modified or rejected them (ibid.).
In the late 1970s and 1980s there was a concern with social explanations (e.g.
Gamble, 1982). For example, Jochim (1983) hypothesized that as a result of
climatic conditions at the end of the Last Glacial Maximum (18,000 BP) large
numbers of people migrated into Southwestern France and Northern Spain where
much of the cave art is found and made images to demarcate their territory.
More recently, researchers have applied the methods and theory of landscape
archaeology (Conkey, 1997), cognitive archaeology (dErrico, 2001; but see also
Marshack, 1990 and his interpretation of sequentially marked bones as calendars)
and neuropsychology (Hodgeson, 2006) to both cave imagery and portable art.
They have focused on issues of taphonomy (Chase and Nowell, 1998; dErrico and
Nowell, 2000; Nowell and dErrico, March 2007 and references therein), agency,
space and place. Shamanism (or altered states of consciousness) as an explanation
has remained popular especially for South African rock art (e.g. Lewis-Williams
and Dowson, 1988; Lewis-Williams, 2002, this volume). Similarly, in Australia,
researchers argue that due to historical circumstances a continuity of interpretive
threads or themes can be found between Pleistocene images and those from the

244

Nowell

ethnographic present which are potentially capable of shedding considerable light

on technical, spiritual, ceremonial, religious and symbolic underpinnings of the
thousands of known prehistoric representations (White, 2003, p. 180; see also
Flood, 2004). Currently, Paleolithic archaeologists are also involved in debates
concerning conservation and cultural resource management (e.g. Chorruchaga
and Monforte, 2003; Clottes, 2003; Allemand and Bahn, 2005; Castellani, 2005)
of painted caves. In this, they engage in a broader conversation with specialists
concerned with the ethics of rock art tourism, cultural appropriation and conservation when studying the rock art of contemporary peoples in Australia and South
Africa (see Deacon this volume; Heyd, 2003; see Lewis-Williams this volume for
a detailed discussion of the historical and political context of methods and theory
in southern African rock art studies).
It has been argued by Bahn and Vertut (1997) (see also Conkey, 1989) that
grand explanatory schemes such as hunting magic and structuralism do not
account for the majority of parietal or portable Upper Paleolithic art and are not
testable. As Trigger observes (1989, p. 395), how can it ever be proved that LeroiGourhan was correct or even moving in the right direction, in associating bison
with female principals and horses with male ones in European Upper Paleolithic
Cave Art? My own view is given the temporal and regional span of the images
and the different contexts in which they were produced it does not make sense that
there could be one explanation for all of Pleistocene art (see also Davidson, 1997).
As White (2003, p. 220) observes, we should not imagine that these systems of
representation were everywhere inspired by the same perceived needs and cultural
bodies of ideas. Furthermore, Paleolithic archaeologists have moved away from
unicausal explanations in much the same way that archaeologists of other periods
have long abandoned the search for the single cause of agriculture or for the
rise of civilizations. These are far too complex phenomena. As Conkey (1997,
p. 344) wrote a decade ago, we are now at a point in the history of research where
we can decouple the imagery from grand vitalistic and evolutionary schemes. . .the
imagery. . . can now be fruitfully approached as local, historical phenomena (see
also Davidson, 2005/2006).
The search for meaning is not for specific meanings but rather why would
the making of imagery have been meaningful and to whom, in what contexts?
(Conkey, 1997, p. 359, my emphasis, see also Davidson, 1997). This brings us
back to the idea of contextualization and the cultivation of a historically situated
ice age sensibility that will allow us to move away from a homogenous Paleolithic
art toward Pleistocene visual cultures (Soffer and Conkey, 1997; see also White,
1992). As progress toward this we have largely decoupled our analyses from
assumptions associated with the term art. Art as a modern Western construct is
anachronistic with the Paleolithic (Conkey, 1983, 1987; White, 1992, 2003; papers
in Conkey et al., 1997, Moro Abada, 2006) and largely predetermines how we
will interpret images (Nodelman, 1985). It should be noted that the use of the term
visual is not meant to undermine the importance of tactile (e.g. the choice of raw

From A Paleolithic Art to Pleistocene Visual Cultures

245

material because of texture, for instance), olfactory or acoustic properties of the

parietal and portable imagery and the contexts in which they were experienced
(see dErrico, 2001 and papers in Scarre and Lawson, 2006).
Integral to the establishment of Pleistocene visual cultures is the integration
of cave imagery with studies of items of personal adornment. The importance
of these items is often overlooked. For example, in a discussion of imagery from
Eastern European Gravettian sites, Oliva (2000) states that disregarding numerous
personal adornments, real works of art are known only from four large sites.
There is, however, ample ethnographic evidence to support the fact that . . .
personal adornment is one of the most powerful and pervasive forms in which
humans construct and represent beliefs, values and social identity. . . (White,
1992, p. 539; see also Vanhaeren, 2005). Joyce (2005, p. 142) in her paper on
the archaeology of the body goes even further by arguing that we need to move
from body ornaments to ornamented bodies in order to emphasize the fact
that items of personal adornment actively construct identity and are not simply
signaling independently existing identities (but see Ross and Davidson, this
volume). While she does not discuss cultures of the Pleistocene, her work is
applicable to a construction of a Pleistocene visual culture. In much the same
way that Conkey (1997) plays off traditional settlement archaeology against the
phenomenological approach of landscape archaeology (see also Mack, 2004 as
an example in a different context) to contextualize cave imagery, the interface
between more traditional bioarchaeological studies and the phenomenological
approach of the archaeology of the body may have a lot to offer studies of body
ornamentation in the Pleistocene.
Similarly, the importance of other types of portable representational artifacts
such as engraved and incised bone, antler and stone as well as figurines made
from a variety of materials are often underestimated. While their geographical
distribution does overlap with that of painted caves there are concentrations of
artifacts in Eastern and Central Europe where cave imagery is rare or absent
(Davidson, 1997; White, 2003). It is interesting to note that the worlds first
ceramics were not pots or other containers associated with agricultural peoples but
rather were clay figurines. Dating to approximately 26,000 BP and associated with
the worlds first evidence of textiles (Adavasio et al., 1996; Soffer et al., 2000)
figurines from the sites of Dolni Vestonice and Pavlov in the Czech Republic
attest to a well developed ceramic technology at a very early date. Pleistocene
figurines have been variously interpreted as pornographic objects made by men
for men, fertility charms, womens self-portraits and goddess icons (see Conkey
and Tringham, 1998 for a review; see also McDermott, 1996). Detailed, context
based analyses (see White, this volume), however, can reveal much about skill
levels, decision making, and raw material exchange and can more fully integrate
them into a holistic understanding of Pleistocene visual cultures.
Finally, the methods and theory of visual anthropology, a sub-discipline of
anthropology that focuses on aspects of culture that rely on visual representations,

246

Nowell

may be key to establishing robust Pleistocene visual cultures when interpreting and
recording cave imagery and portable representational artifacts. This sub-discipline
may also be useful in defining the archaeologists role in creating context (what
Lewis-Williams (1990) refers to as the contexts of contexts) through notions of
spectatorship, in exploring issues of cultural appropriation through media, tourism,
merchandising and advertising and in examining narratives of museum displays
(Nowell, in prep.). This includes exploring the consequences of choices we make
when deciding what images to reproduce and what ones to leave out in replicas of
painted caves for tourists (e.g., Chorruchaga and Monforte, 2003).
In sum, the study of Pleistocene visual cultures is a dynamic, creative and
productive field. A realization of the importance of visual cultures outside of
Western Europe, new discoveries (Jones, 2001; Bahn et al., 2003; Ripoll et al.,
2004; Vanhaeren et al., 2006), advances in the technical aspects of recording,
analyzing, conserving and dating of these materials coupled with fresh perspectives
on their interpretation suggest that the next decade will be a remarkable period
in the history of Paleolithic archaeology. The authors in this and the subsequent
volume of the Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory exemplify these
developments by offering new historical or regional syntheses (Bicho et al.; LewisWilliams), re-analyses of existing finds (White; Nowell and dErrico); recent
advances in technology (Tosello and Fritz; Pettit), new interpretations of the
context of rock art production (Ross and Davidson) and engaged discourses in
the ethics of rock art tourism and conservation (Deacon).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Catherine Cameron, Iain Davison, and Randall White
for their helpful comments. I would also like to thank Catherine Cameron and
James Skibo for their continued enthusiasm, patience, good humor and support
throughout this project. Finally, I would like to thank all of the authors and
reviewers of these papers for sharing their research and their time.
REFERENCES CITED
Adovasio, J. M., Soffer, O., and Kilma, B. (1996). Paleolithic fiber technology: data from Pavlov I, ca.
26,000 BP. Antiquity 70: 52634.
Allemand, L., and Bahn, P. (2005). The best way to protect rock art is to leave it alone. Nature 433:
800.
Bahn, P. (2005/2006). A lot of bull? Pablo Picasso and ice age art. Homenage a Jesus Altuna. Munibe
57: 197205.
Bahn, P. G., and Vertut, J. (1997). Journey Through the Ice Age, University of California Press,
Berkeley.
Bahn, P. G., Pettitt, P., and Ripoll, S. (2003). Discovery of Paleolithic cave art in Britain. Antiquity 77:
22731.
Bar-Yosef, O. ( 2002). The Upper Paleolithic revolution. Annual Review of Anthropology 31: 363393.

From A Paleolithic Art to Pleistocene Visual Cultures

247

Brumm, A., and Moore, M. (2004). Symbolic revolutions and the Australian Archaeological record.
Cambridge Archaeological Journal 14(1): 157175.
Castellani, F. (2005). Historical monuments: the film crew. Nature 433: 100101.
Chalmin, E., Menu, M., and Vignaud, C. (2003). Analysis of rock art painting and technology of
Paleolithic painters. Measurement Science and Technology 14: 15901597.
Chase, P.G., and Nowell, A. (1998). Taphonomy of a suggested Middle Paleolithic bone flute from
Slovenia. Current Anthropology 39(4): 549553.
Chazine, J.-M. (2005). Rock art, burials, and habitations. Asian Perspectives 44(1): 219230.
Chorruchaga, J. A. L., and Monforte, P. F. (2003). The new museum of Altamira: finding
solutions to tourism pressure. Paper presented at the World Archaeological Congress. http://
museodealtamira.mcu.es/pdf/the new meuseum of altamira.pdf
Clogg, P., and Diaz-Andreu, M. (2000). Digital image processing and the recording of rock art. Journal
of Archaeological Science 27(9): 837843.
Clottes, J. (2001). La Grotte Chauvet: Iart des origins, Seuil, Paris.
Clottes, J. (2003). Return to Chauvet Cave, Thames and Hudson, New York.
Clottes, J. ( 2005). Foreword. In Heyd, T., and Clegg, J. (eds.), Aesthetics and Rock Art, Ashgate,
Hampshire, pp. 1926.
Clottes, J., Menu, M., and Walter, P. (1990). New light on the Niaux paintings. Rock Art Research 7(1):
2126.
Clottes, J., Courtin, J., and Vanrell, L. (2005). Cosquer Redecouvert, Le Seuil, Paris.
Conkey, M. (1983). On the origins of Paleolithic art: a review and some critical thoughts. In Trinkaus,
E.. (ed.), The Mousterian Legacy: Human Biocultural Change in the Upper Pleistocene, British
Archaeological Reports, International Series 164, BAR, Oxford, pp. 210227.
Conkey, M. (1989). The structural analysis of Paleolithic art. In Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. (ed.),
Archaeological Thought in America, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 13554.
Conkey, M. (1995). Making things meaningful: approaches to the interpretation of the Ice Age imagery
of Europe. In Lavin, I. (ed.), Meaning in the Visual Arts: Essays in the Honor of E. Panofsky,
Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp. 6277.
Conkey, M. (1997). Beyond Art and Between the Caves: Thinking About Context in the Interpretive
Process. In Conkey, M., Soffer, O., Stratmann, D., and Jablonski, N. G. (eds.). Beyond Art:
Pleistocene Image and Symbol, Memoirs of the California Academy of Sciences 23, San Francisco,
pp. 343368.
Conkey, M. (2004). Making Meanings: Paleolithic Art and Archaeological Interpretation. Lansdowne
Lecture series, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, October 19, 2004.
Conkey, M., Soffer, O., Stratmann, D., and Jablonski, N. G. (eds.)(1997). Beyond Art: Pleistocene
Image and Symbol, Memoires of the California Academy of Sciences, 23, San Francisco.
Conkey, M., and Tringham, R. (1998). Rethinking figurines: a critical view from the archaeology of
Gumbatas, the Goddess and popular culture. In Goodison, L., Morris, C. (eds.), The Ancient
Goddesses: Myths and the Evidence, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, pp. 2245.
Davidson, I. (1989). Freedom of information: aspects of art and society in western Europe during
the last Ice Age. In Morphy, H.. (ed.), Animals into Art, Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 440
456.
Davidson, I. (1997). The power of pictures. In Conkey, M., Soffer, O., Stratmann, D., and Jablonski,
N. G. (eds.). Beyond Art: Pleistocene Image and Symbol, Memoirs of the California Academy of
Sciences 23, San Francisco, pp. 125159
Davidson, I. (2005/2006). The painting and the tree: symbolism in the Upper Paleolithic. A tribute to
a great Basque scholar. Homenage a Jesus Altuna. Munibe 57: 197205.
Davidson, I., and, Noble. W. (1992). Why the first colonization of the Australian region is the earliest
evidence of modern human behavior.
De Beaune, S. (1987). Lampes et Godets au Paleolithique, e dition du CNRS, XXIII`eme suppl. a` Gallia
Prehistoire, Paris.
dErrico, F. (2001). The archaeology of the oldest artificial memory systems. In Nowell, A. (ed.), In the
Minds Eye: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Evolution of Human Cognition, International
Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, pp. 3349.
dErrico, F., and Nowell, A. (2000). A new look at the Berekhat Ram Figurineimplications for the
origins of symbolism. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 10(1): 123167.

248

Nowell

dErrico, F., Henshilwood, C., Lawson, G., Vanhaeren, M., Tillier, A-M., Soressi, M., Bresson, F.,
Maureille, B., Nowell, A., Lakarra, J., Backwell, L., and Julien M.,(2003). The Origin of Language
and Symbolism. Journal of World Prehistory 17(1): 170.
Eastham, M., and Eastham, A. (1991). Paleolithic parietal art and its topographic context. Proceedings
of the Prehistoric Society 57: 115128.
Flood, J. (2004). Linkage between rock art and landscape in Aboriginal Australia. In Chippendale, C.,
and Nash, G. (eds.), The Figured Landscape of Rock Art: Looking at Pictures in Place, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Gamble, C. (1982). Interaction and alliance in Paleolithic society. Man 17: 92107.
Halverson, J. (1987). Art for arts sake in the Paleolithic. Current Anthropology 28: 6389.
Heyd, T. (2003). Rock art aesthetics and cultural appropriation. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism
61: 39-46.
Heyd, T., and Clegg, J. (2005). Aesthetics and Rock Art, Ashgate, Hampshire.
Hodgeson, D. (2006). Altered states of consciousness and paleoart: an alternative neurovisual explanation. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 16 (1): 2737.
Jochim, M. (1983). Paleolithic cave art in ecological perspective. In Bailey, G.. (ed.), Hunter-Gatherer
Economy in Prehistory: A European Perspective, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
pp. 212219.
Jones, N. (2001). Ancient cave etchings reveal new figures. New Scientist.
Joyce, R. A. (2005). Archaeology of the Body. Annual Review of Anthropology 34: 139158.
Lamarque (2005). Paleolithic Cave Painting: A Test Case for Transcultural Aesthetics. In Heyd, T.,
and Clegg, J. (eds.), Aesthetics and Rock Art, Ashgate.
Laming-Emperaire A. (1962). La Signification de lArt Rupestre Paleolithique, Picard, Paris.
Leone, Mark. (1982). Some opinions about recovering mind. American Antiquity 47 (4): 742760.
Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1958). Le symbolisme des grands signes dans lart parietal paleolithique. Bulletin
de la Societe Prehistorique Francaise 55: 384398.
Lewis-Williams, D. (1981). Believing and Seeing: Symbolic Meanings in Southern San Rock Paintings,
Academic Press, London.
Lewis-Williams, D. (1990). Documentation, analysis and interpretation: Dilemmas in rock art research.
A review of The Rock Paintings of the Upper Brandberg, Part I: Amis Gorge, by H. Pager (1989).
South African Archaeological Bulletin 45: 126136.
Lewis-Williams, D. (2002). The Mind in the Cave: Consciousness and the Origins of Art, Thames and
Hudson, New York.
Lewis-Williams, D., and Dowson, T. (1988). The signs of all times: entopic phenomena in Upper
Paleolithic art. Current Anthropology 29: 201245.
Lewis-Williams, D., and Dowson, T. (1999). Images of Power: Understanding South African Rock Art,
2nd edition, Struik, Cape Town.
Lorblanchet, M. (1991). Spitting images. Replicating the spotted horses of Pech Merle. Archaeology
44(6): 2431.
Lorblanchet, M. (2002). La Naissance de LArt, Actes-Sud, Arles.
Mack, A. (2004). One landscape, many experiences: differing Perspectives of the Temple Districts of
Vijayanagara. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 11(1): 5986.
Marshack, A. (1990). Early hominid symbol and the evolution of human capacity. In Mellars, P., and
Stringer, C. (eds.), The Human Revolution: Behavioral and Biological Perspectives on the Origins
of Modern Humans, vol. 2, Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp. 457498.
McBrearty, S., and Brooks, A. (2000). The revolution that wasnt: a new interpretation of the origins
of modern human behavior. Journal of Human Evolution 38: 453563.
McDermott, L. (1996). Self representation in Upper Paleolithic female figurines. Current Anthropology
37(2): 227275.
Mithen, S. (1991). Ecological interpretations of Paleolithic art. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society
57(1): 103114.
Moro Abadia, O. M. (2006). Arts, crafts, and Paleolithic art. Journal of Social Archaeology 6(1):
119141.
Nowell, A. (in prep.) Exploring Paleolithic visual cultures.
Oliva, M. (2000). Some thoughts on Pavlovian adaptations and their alternatives. In Roebroeks, W.,
Mussi, M., Svoboda, J., and Fennema, K. (eds.), Hunters of the Golden Age: The Mid Upper
Paleolithic of Eurasia 30,00020,000 BP, University of Leiden, Leiden, pp. 219229.

From A Paleolithic Art to Pleistocene Visual Cultures

249

Plagnes,V., Causse, C., Fontugne, M., Valladas, H., Chazine, J.-M., and Fage, L.-H. (2003). Cross
dating (Th/U-14C) of calcite covering prehistoric paintings in Borneo. Quaternary Research
60(2): 172179.
Ripoll, S., Munoz, F., Bhan, P., and Pettitt, P. (2004). Paleolithic cave engravings at Cresswell Cave,
England. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 70: 193206.
Russell, P. (1992). Men only? The myths about European Paleolithic artists. In Willows, D. W.
(ed.), The Archaeology of Gender.Proceedings of the 22nd annual Chacmool conference. The
Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary Canada.
Scarre, C., and Lawson, G. (2006). (eds.). Archaeoacoustics, McDonald Institute Monographs,
Cambrdige.
Soffer, O., and Conkey, M. (1997). Studying ancient visual cultures. In Conkey, M., Soffer, O.,
Stratmann, D., and Jablonski, N. G. (eds.), Beyond Art: Pleistocene Image and Symbol, Memoirs
of the California Academy of Sciences 23, San Francisco, pp. 116.
Soffer, O., Adovasio, J. M., and Hyland, D. C. (2000). The Venus Figurines: textiles, basketry, gender
and status in the Upper Paleolithic. Current Anthropology 41(4): 51137.
Spivey, N. (2005). How Art Made the World, BBC Books, London.
Trigger, B. (1989). A History of Archaeological Thought, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Vanhaeren, M. (2005). Speaking with beads: the evolutionary significance of personal oraments. In
dErrico, F. and Backwell, L. (eds.), From Tools to Symbols. From Early Hominids to Modern
Humans. Witwatersrand University Press, Witwatersrand.
Vanhaeren, M., dErrico, F., Stronger, C., James, S. L., Todd, J. A., and Mienis, H. K. (2006). Middle
Paleolithic shell beads in Israel and Algeria. Science 325: 17851788.
Waller, S. (2006). Intentionality of Rock-art Placement Deduced from Acoustical Measurements and
Echo Myths 31. In Scarre, C. and Lawson, G. (eds.), Archaeoacoustics, MacDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research, Cambridge, pp. 3140.
White, R. (1992). Beyond arttoward an understanding of the origins of material representation in
Europe. Annual Review of Anthropology 21: 537564.
White, R. (2003). Prehistoric Art: The Symbolic Journey of Humankind, Harry N. Abrams, New York.