Abstract

Can we reconstruct how prehistoric people perceived things (their “ways of seeing” or visual culture)? This challenge is made more difficult by the traditional disciplinary assumptions built into prehistoric art studies, for instance focusing narrowly upon a single body of art in isolation. This paper proposes an alternative approach, using comparative study to reveal broad regional changes in visual culture. Although prehistoric art specialists rarely work comparatively, art historians are familiar with describing continent-wide general developments in visual culture and placing them in social context (for instance, the traditional broad-brush history from Classical to medieval to Renaissance systems of representation). This paper does the same for Neolithic (6000–2500 BC) vs. Bronze Age (2500–800 BC) and Iron Age (800 BC–Classical) rock and cave art from sites across Europe, uncovering broad patterns of change. The principal pattern is a shift from a Neolithic iconic art which uses heavily encoded imagery, often schematic geometric motifs, to a Bronze/Iron Age narrative art, which increasingly involves imagery of identifiable people, animals and objects. Moreover, there is also an increasing tendency for motifs to be associated in scenes rather than purely accumulative, and with contextual changes in how art is used—a movement from hidden places to more open or accessible places. Underlying all these changes is a shift in how rock and cave art was used, from citations reproducing ritual knowledge to composed arrays telling narratives of personhood.

Highlights

  • Can we reconstruct how prehistoric people perceived things? This challenge is made more difficult by the traditional disciplinary assumptions built into prehistoric art studies, for instance focusing narrowly upon a single body of art in isolation

  • This paper attempts to look at prehistoric art in a way which is both new and old— entirely new for prehistoric art studies, but deeply familiar for visual culture in general

  • The Neolithic inspires a deep feeling of alterity

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Can we reconstruct how prehistoric people perceived things (their “ways of seeing” or visual culture)? This challenge is made more difficult by the traditional disciplinary assumptions built into prehistoric art studies, for instance focusing narrowly upon a single body of art in isolation. Looking at prehistoric art comparatively as visual culture can reveal things we would never understand from studies of individual corpora or periods, about broad social change Such a synthesis in no way threatens or supplants studies of individual bodies of art, any more than formulating the general ways in which Renaissance art differed from medieval art obviates a specialist study of Michelangelo or Leonardo. If we define “prehistoric art” in the conventional archaeological sense of representative and decorative imagery, including cave art, rock art, tomb and megalithic art, statuary, stelae, figurines, figured objects of metal, clay and bone, and many other less common genres, there are hundreds of bodies of “art” known (Robb 2015) Much of it is deeply unimpressive, and the famous images are often famous because they look the most like modern “art” to us; for every Palaeolithic bison or fancy “Celtic” mirror, there are thousands of sketchily engraved bone fragments, lumpy, broken figurines or enigmatic circular rock carvings

Objectives
Methods
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call