Cave paintings.

beccabear67

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2024
Messages
98
Location
Canada
The earliest human artworks. Who made them? Joan D. Vinge thought they may've been made by women rather than male hunters in their down time, that the hand prints seemed rather small. My mother says they were a shopping list so the cave woman could point to what she wanted brought home!

Were they ever an attempt to tell a story visually? A sequential comic strip of sorts? Or maybe they were generational and added to over time; imagine someone today adding their pets or friends to the Last Supper fresco!

And what might an alien society have in it's distant past that served as cave art? If it was something biodegradable it could've been entirely forgotten, or have been like wood totem poles of which we have no thousands year old representations though they may have existed.
 
The short answer to all of the above questions is "We don't know." Well, except for the "shopping list." That's just a humorous idea. Are the hand prints "small" for the time, or are they just small in comparison with modern hands? We are pretty sure how they were made, and pretty sure how old most of them are. Apart from that we have to leave it at conjecture. Maybe in a generation or two we will have still better tools for measuring and dating and maybe some of these questions will be answered.
 
You're sat in a cave. It's winter. You've gathered all the food inside, and you have plenty of fuel for the fire. What else are you going to do until Spring comes.

It's a bit like asking why there are carvings in the stone in dungeons and jail cells. It's just something to do.
 
Both the above replies are wrong. We know a huge amount about these extraordinary works. And it's not "just something to do."

There are plenty of excellent books on cave art and why such art was created. Personally, I don't think you can go wrong with David Lewis-Williams' The Mind In The Cave.


I would also recommend Jean Clottes' book What Is Cave Art?


Let's celebrate what we do know, eh?
 
Both the above replies are wrong. We know a huge amount about these extraordinary works. And it's not "just something to do."

There are plenty of excellent books on cave art and why such art was created. Personally, I don't think you can go wrong with David Lewis-Williams' The Mind In The Cave.


I would also recommend Jean Clottes' book What Is Cave Art?


Let's celebrate what we do know, eh?

Sorry, I was too dismissive and sumplistic with my 'something to do' comment.

But we do know that when you put people in a confined place flr prolonged periods, they will create art. No doubt our ancestors played music and sang, made games etc. They likely also crafted arts (which have long sibce disappeared) but why would they not create painted images on a blank canvas of a cave wall?

I'm not an expert on prehistoric cave art, but I've been to plenty of historic sites such as jails, castles and dungeons. And there are plenty of very creative artworks and engravings on stone walls and doors.
 
Both the above replies are wrong. We know a huge amount about these extraordinary works. And it's not "just something to do."

There are plenty of excellent books on cave art and why such art was created. Personally, I don't think you can go wrong with David Lewis-Williams' The Mind In The Cave.


I would also recommend Jean Clottes' book What Is Cave Art?


Let's celebrate what we do know, eh?
I don't believe my answer was wrong. The "scholarly" work you site is interesting but it is not "scientific" in the strict sense. The arguments that Lewis-Williams use are generally in terms of inference. --- If we are think like this, then ____ must also have been thinking like this." --- Yes, probably, but not more than that. I would draw your attention to a work of fiction, "Clan of the Cave Bear." Jean Auel writes a great story and the background for the story is largely based on inference from a very limited amount of information. Just like Lewis-Williams she can't be read as saying anything actually definite. For me when something is inferred from something else big red flags fly. In the end it's just feelings and feelings often lie.
 
I actually find P. Marvin's idea intriguing. I've never heard it expressed before. Most people want to explain 'cave art' as magic, shamanism etc. Some even suggest it was intended as art - though IMO these drawings are seen as art rather than intended as such. But the idea that people may have made these drawings for entertainment, because they had time on their hands, is interesting. Were the hands small because making ochre spatter images was something children liked to do? Certainly we loved to 'leave our mark', e.g. with crayons & chalks, or as carvings on a tree.
 
The language of ancient Egypt was lost until only a century or so ago. We still don't know ezactly how the pyramids were built, or their entire purpose. Go back a bit further, and we speculate about the reason and the method of constructiong Stonehenge.

Much of even recent history is a mystery to us, so any conjecture about cave paintings must also be undertaken catiously. What were these early people like? Did they have oral or written language? What about religion? We just don't know

If they were anything like us, they would have been creative, imaginitive and artistic. Whatever the reason for the cave paintings, I think they ptove that point.

Would they have lived in dull, dreary homes? Probably not. They would have done what they could to make them nicer places to live in. When the Winter nights draw in, the snows fall and all the harvest and kindle has been gathered, what do you do for the next few months?

Kids are kids wherever and whenever they wete born. How do you kerp them entertained to stop them driving you out of their parent's minds?

Maybe the paintings were an early form of tv or novel, used to invent stories and add visual imagery to them. Maybe they were used ti impress the neighbours or one-up-manship. It sounds a bit out there, but hey - that's what humans today would do.

We do know however that most of our history has been lost forever. The pyramids, Stone Henge, are just the tip of the iceberg. Tens of thousands of years of human existence lost forever.
 
Sorry, I was too dismissive and sumplistic with my 'something to do' comment.

But we do know that when you put people in a confined place flr prolonged periods, they will create art. No doubt our ancestors played music and sang, made games etc. They likely also crafted arts (which have long sibce disappeared) but why would they not create painted images on a blank canvas of a cave wall?

I'm not an expert on prehistoric cave art, but I've been to plenty of historic sites such as jails, castles and dungeons. And there are plenty of very creative artworks and engravings on stone walls and doors.
People create art for reasons of meaning. Even improvised art - which I have happily done - uses subconscious templates of meaning that the creator doesn't necessarily feel. So I'm very disappointed to read you making a link between cave art and graffiti.
 
I don't believe my answer was wrong. The "scholarly" work you site is interesting but it is not "scientific" in the strict sense. The arguments that Lewis-Williams use are generally in terms of inference. --- If we are think like this, then ____ must also have been thinking like this." --- Yes, probably, but not more than that. I would draw your attention to a work of fiction, "Clan of the Cave Bear." Jean Auel writes a great story and the background for the story is largely based on inference from a very limited amount of information. Just like Lewis-Williams she can't be read as saying anything actually definite. For me when something is inferred from something else big red flags fly. In the end it's just feelings and feelings often lie.
I think David Lewis-Williams would be gobsmacked to find that you don't consider his work to be "proper science." And just to clarify about the small/children’s handprints, which have long been ignored by the overwhelmingly male archaeological cohort - children's art is fairly random at times, but even the simplest stick art has family and personal meaning. Such would have been the case forty thousand years ago.

I would strongly recommend that all Chronners who don't think David Lewis-Williams is "proper science" read his book Deciphering Ancient Minds.

I feel that at Chrons there is sometimes too much ease with the notion that "we don't know anything about X." Often this comes up in discussions of consciousness. That is careless thinking. I am as ready as the next person to take great care with matters of evidence, and to be healthily skeptical. This is why, amongst other things, I am an atheist. But we must recognise just how far we have come in 500 years since believing in demons, possession, female hysteria, and that children should be seen and not heard. We have progressed. We know things. Let's recognise that while seeing what we don't yet know.
 
People create art for reasons of meaning. Even improvised art - which I have happily done - uses subconscious templates of meaning that the creator doesn't necessarily feel. So I'm very disappointed to read you making a link between cave art and graffiti.


I wouldn't class it as graffiti, in the same way that most people wouldn't class their artwork as such simply because of the medium (ie a wall) used.

It's a case of making the most of limited resources.But I'm not suggesting that they simply allowed their kids to doodle on the walls.

Much of the stone and wood carvings in old prisons and castles is amazing. Yes there is some graffitu, but there is almost much to admire. For example the stone carving by a guard in Carliale castle and the craftwork of French and American sailors at Edinburgh castle. Artwork created in a confined space andcwith limited resources, other than time.
 
I think David Lewis-Williams would be gobsmacked to find that you don't consider his work to be "proper science."
I would assume that's true. But there is no way to test his hypothesis other than by inference, which is as good as we get in this case. But it is not science in the strict sense.

I would strongly recommend that all Chronners who don't think David Lewis-Williams is "proper science" read his book Deciphering Ancient Minds.
As I read your blurb on that book I believe it could be an excellent work of social science, at least as it regards the life of the tribe being studied. But when he makes the application to the ancient humans it is still only inference, and cannot be read as more than possibly true.

-----

Now I'm as ready as anyone to accept faith and hope as possible and good for the world. This is why I am a Christian. I am utterly convinced that I am a much better person because I am a Christian and a person of faith. But can I prove that assertion? No, it is a matter of faith, just as any conclusion about ancient people and what they thought and what their motivations must have been.
 
We simply splash colors on things and call it art. Art wasn't always that easy to make. People like to recreate the moment, look at all the photographs there are. Look at what I saw today. That didn't start yesterday. Over a 5 million year old timeline, 40,000 years is a drop in the bucket. It's like yesterday. There is a huge amount of effort spent to explain the meaning of art, from individuals to entire groups. That includes everything from whim of the moment to personal convictions. Including wish lists and dreams. More than likely there was a range of meanings, from spur of the moment graffiti to expressing dearly held beliefs.

Originally artists made their own paint, made their own brushes, picked what they wanted to paint on. This link can only be looked at once.

Plenty of time to think about what was being done. That basic process never changed for tens of thousands of years. Its unlikely that thinking about what was being done only came later. A lot of effort went into getting the pigments that made the paint. Chemistry was used to process the colors, trading was done to obtain minerals not found in the location the artwork was created in. Some materials had to be heated or mixed with other materials or both and common formulas were found over great distances in the prehistoric world. Color production workshops existed 100,000 years ago. All this work just for a whim seems so unlikely. That's all stuff we take for granted when we go to a store and buy painting supplies.

There would be a lot less artists around if one was required to produce their own materials. It required serious thought to make the colors and to make them permanently stick to the wall is another whole different problem. Since the techniques used were very similar or identical there was either a lot of communications going on between groups and individuals or a lot of parallel development among individuals involving chemistry, physics, knowledge of materials, either way it would indicate a great deal of intelligence. Colors and painting was already known from the practice of tattooing. Applying it to cave walls was just more step in appreciating and using art to express beliefs and opinions.

"From analysis of the things found, it’s clear that in the Palaeolithic period many colours of pigments were obtained from both inorganic sources such as minerals and organic materials like as dyes from such things as plants or animals. These were used to paint various surfaces such as rock, leather, clothing, tools, and indeed the human body."

With such a widespread use of color, it is very unlikely that they were not aware of the theory of color and how it affected people. It has also been proposed that the ability to detect colors in great deal only happened 23 million years ago. It could have been used to determine the difference between good food sources and poor food sources. For modern day people, describing a color is more about indicating what color it is. From writing it has been seen that ancient people described colors by the impact they had, not the color they appeared to be. Prehistoric people would also have been using colors to express ideas and beliefs.

Under microscopic investigation plain looking stone and wood statues and sculptures from thousands of years ago show that they were colored, painted, even coated with gold. Over the years the colors disappeared and without that microscopic examination we wouldn't know they weren't just made of stone or wood. This brings up the interesting question of where else did prehistoric painters paint their work. Inside a cave the work is protected from the weather and lasts 40,000 years which leads us to believe that pictures were only painted in caves. The simple logic is that the paintings were only preserved in caves. All the rest of the work that was not protected has been lost. Just because we can't find something we do today back in prehistoric times doesn't mean prehistoric people weren't also practicing some form of it back then. Every year we make discoveries that show us that prehistoric people were a lot more like us than we believed. Tools for working with leather have been dated as far back as 120,000 years ago. Even though we can't the clothing from back then it is highly unlikely that people were just hanging the skins on the walls for decoration.
 
Some really good points made.

It's possible that if these colour pigments were hard to come by that perhaps these illustrations were an indication of great wealth and/or power. Or an indication that this was an important site; perhaps religious.

But we do have to be careful. In 10,000 years someone may discover a computer monitor or laptop. Intricate wiring, requiring elements from around the globe to make it. Clearly the workings of an expert. Perhaps this device was an indication of great wealth and/or power. Or an indication that this was an important site; perhaps religious.

We simply cannot get inside the mind of our ancestors. What did they think, what did they believe? When they looked up at the Sun and Moon and stars what were the thoughts going through their minds? We just don't know.

Did they have written language? Probably not. Did they have oral language? Probably, but likely not as complex as our own. Perhaps they related tales of their exploits and their ancestors in the form of pictoral drawings: this is me, this is Bert, and these are the beasts we caught and slew.
 
I don't believe art needs language to exist. We have discovered that our form of complexity doesn't guarantee anything. It could in fact be a dead end. Which would put us on par with prehistoric people, such as Neanderthals. Or put them on par with us. The weather controlled their lives and we have created a future where the weather is back to controlling our lives. Equals in different worlds.

Back then everyone had the colors black and red to play with. Old or young, men, women, and children. Black was charcoal, found in every campfire, red was ochre, a very common clay mineral that is almost everywhere. Its in my backyard. Both black and red are very important colors in the world of art. Maybe that's because its in our genes. Neanderthals had pigment sticks, pigments bound with something sticky, which worked like crayons, pastels, or chalk, or pencils.

I'm sure that people didn't only draw things inside of caves. That was simply the only place the artwork lasted. Ancient life found nowhere on the surface of Earth has been found in deep underground caves. Caves are like that, they preserve things. People were drawing with charcoal sticks outside of the caves, at the very least on their bodies. Perhaps the charcoal pencils were used to doodle or create graffiti. Its possible that only the rich and powerful had a complete set of pigments, the common person only had the common implements that cost nothing. That's the same model we use today, so nothing has changed there.
 
I personally have no idea what the cave paintings mean. That doesn't mean that I can't appreciate them (even as something of a philistine):)

I'm going slightly of topic here but graffiti was mentioned and I find the graffiti as fascinating as the paintings simply because it is often the case that it can be translated so we don't need to speculate what was going through the mind of the creator - it's actually there scratched on the wall. Often, the translations reveal they are about trivial things and really aren't that much removed from the graffiti we might find scratched on a wall today. It seems that we haven't really changed that much over the millenia :)

Maeshowe is a fascinating place to visit. A stone age tomb visited by the Vikings who left rune messages like 'Olaf was here'.
 

Similar threads


Back
Top