L’art bourgeois de la fin du XIX e siècle face à l’art mobilier Paléolithique

Abstract

On the occasion of the centenary of the Emile Cartailhac’s « Mea culpa d’un sceptique”, we want to reflect on one of the main questions of our discipline: Why has so-called « cave art” only been accepted as Paleolithic art in 1902, whereas the so-called « mobiliary art” had been accepted as Paleolithic art at the beginning of 1860s? In this paper, we want to suggest a definition of the conception of primitive art during the last third of the 19th century in order to understand: (A) Why Paleolithic paintings in the walls of some caves (Niaux, Chabot, Altamira) were not accepted as Paleolithic art between 1860 and 1902. (B) Given that what we now call mobiliary art is the same artistic phenomenon that prehistorians of the late 19th century thought of as primitive art, this article allows us to suggest a genealogy of mobiliary art. This genealogy will enable us to show that this concept not only defines a wide variety of forms, from engraving stones to carving in antler or ivory, but hides a multiplicity of meanings and connotations which originated in the period between 1860 and 1900.