Cave Paintings, Magic or Instruction ?
Brian Wood
Like most people, I suppose, I have seen reproductions of the
beautiful, (presumably) cro-magnon cave paintings in southern
France and elsewhere in Europe.
I notice that many of them seem to portray animals with
spears, darts or other weapons protruding from them. I was taught
in school, a long time ago, that these were examples of
"sympathetic magic". Apparently the idea was that by killing the
image of the beast on the eve of the hunt the likelihood of
killing the actual creature would be increased.
This always struck me as a pretty screwy idea. Time spent
sharpening weapons or practicing throws would seem much more
likely to improve hunting results than sitting around in a cave
drawing pictures. The concept that a sharp blade cuts better
would seem a much easier concept for a (primitive?) mind to grasp
then some tenuous connection to painted images.
I wonder if perhaps these images were intended for
instructional purposes. Surely it would be safer to show young,
up and coming hunters where to aim their throws by using these
early "graphic teaching aids" than to attempt a marksmanship
lecture in the face of a charging beast.
The deep, remote locations for these works would still be hard
to explain, but perhaps they were made everywhere from
trees to sand, and only the remotest of them have survived the
ages.
If this is old hat, I apologize. Just wondered what others
might think.
Kiran Wagle
> I wonder if perhaps these images were intended for
>instructional purposes. Surely it would be safer to show young,
>up and coming hunters where to aim their throws by using these
>early "graphic teaching aids" than to attempt a marksmanship
>lecture in the face of a charging beast.
This idea is discussed in _Bionomics_, a new economics book with lots
of interesting ideas in it.
--
"The truffle is not an outright aphrodisiac, but it may in certain
circumstances make women more affectionate and men more amiable."
...Brillat-Savarin
Phil OKunewick
Unfortunately.
But, if one believes that a better understanding of the past can be
drawn from what's going on in the present, then ancient cave painting
can possibly be compared to modern cave painting.
There are two reasons why vandals paint a cave. First, to mark a
way back to the entrance. (Ironically, there's usually a much easier
route than the one the arrows point to. Tossing a coin at an
intersection often has a higher probability of finding the easiest way
out.)
Second, the painter wants to leave a mark of what he feels is a
great achievement - namely, he feels that he did something that few
other people can do, and decides to leave a monument of his passing.
This is usually his name, his organization's name (fraternity symbols
aren't unusal), or a nickname he has given himself or his group
("Sniper Team"). Bathroom-wall type grafitti is almost nonexistant in
caves, unless the vandals specifically want to annoy somebody. (e.g.
If the owner gates the cave to protect it, and vandals break in, they
sometimes write nasty messages to the owner.)
Inner-city grafitti is similar.
So, if we use what's happenning today as a way to draw an
understanding of the past, then we might suspect that primitive man
had a similar motivation - if you can't write your name, what do you
put on the wall as a monument to what you do?
Incidentally, modern cave painting (a.k.a. grafitti) is highly
illegal in many states. A teen-ager near Pittsburgh just paid $500 in
fines and court costs for putting his initials on the wall of a
western PA cave. And the people who caught him got a $400 reward from
The Robertson Association (a caving group, dedicated to preserving
caves and having a good time).
Martin Costabel
Wood) writes:
|>
|> Like most people, I suppose, I have seen reproductions of the
|> beautiful, (presumably) cro-magnon cave paintings in southern
|> France and elsewhere in Europe.
Just coming back from a very exciting weekend in Perigord with
visits to some of the most interesting of these caves, I cannot
resist to throw in my 2 cents worth:
|>
|> I notice that many of them seem to portray animals with
|> spears, darts or other weapons protruding from them.
Not here. There are many unexplained symbols in the paintings,
but very few that can be considered as weapons.
|>I was taught
|> in school, a long time ago, that these were examples of
|> "sympathetic magic". Apparently the idea was that by killing the
|> image of the beast on the eve of the hunt the likelihood of
|> killing the actual creature would be increased.
|>
The guides at the sites as well as most serious guide books are
now very reluctant to give any interpretation at all. The impression
I got was the same: There exists no simple interpretation that
fits the facts. One can only imagine some very complicated religious
system that is (and may stay) completely unknown. In any case,
the speculations shown here on the net are far too primitive (:-).
|> This always struck me as a pretty screwy idea. Time spent
|> sharpening weapons or practicing throws would seem much more
|> likely to improve hunting results than sitting around in a cave
|> drawing pictures. The concept that a sharp blade cuts better
|> would seem a much easier concept for a (primitive?) mind to grasp
|> then some tenuous connection to painted images.
|>
These paintings, carvings and sculptures were certainly not made
by people with a primitive mind.
|> I wonder if perhaps these images were intended for
|> instructional purposes. Surely it would be safer to show young,
|> up and coming hunters where to aim their throws by using these
|> early "graphic teaching aids" than to attempt a marksmanship
|> lecture in the face of a charging beast.
|>
|> The deep, remote locations for these works would still be hard
|> to explain, but perhaps they were made everywhere from
|> trees to sand, and only the remotest of them have survived the
|> ages.
|>
No. There are many easily accessible parts of the caves where
they could have made nice instructional paintings, but they didn't.
Instead they frequently used places where the "students" would
have had to creep for half an hour to reach the classroom and
then only one of them would have been able to see the blackboard.
|> If this is old hat, I apologize. Just wondered what others
|> might think.
|>
|>
I, too, would be interested in any credible interpretations of
these amazing products of human culture. But it is more difficult
than the above guesses.
Martin Costabel
(Please excuse me if I missed some days of the discussion.
Our news feeder here is very slow.)
Fred Franceschi
> In article <1992Apr10.1...@panix.com>, be...@panix.com (Brian
> Wood) writes:
> |>
> |>
>
> No. There are many easily accessible parts of the caves where
> they could have made nice instructional paintings, but they didn't.
> Instead they frequently used places where the "students" would
> have had to creep for half an hour to reach the classroom and
> then only one of them would have been able to see the blackboard.
>
task, in the form of "thinking the actions" can improve skills. This can
be applied to coordination tasks such as flying an airplane. If I
remember correctly, meditating the task has a training effectiveness of
about 80% of actually doing the task. (If you know the task already.)
It is possible that drawings of animals in a remote location would
be beneficial to a person planning to hunt. The hunter could
refresh himself on how to approach the animal(s), how close
to get, kill zones on the animal, etc. In effect, re-live the last
kills and mentally plan and make the future kill.
Possibly the drawings were made by persons who intuitively knew what
some of our social scientists are now rediscovering.
--
Fred Franceschi
tech...@spacm1.spac.spc.com
My statements may not be my companys.
Brilliant, witty saying goes here.
Johnny Battle
|> Cave painting is a practice which is still carried on today.
|>
|> Unfortunately.
|>
|> But, if one believes that a better understanding of the past can be
|> drawn from what's going on in the present, then ancient cave painting
|> can possibly be compared to modern cave painting.
I like this train of thought. But wouldn`t painting on the walls of your
home be more analoglus? The ones who do that around my house are my kids.
I wonder how many of the bird pictures and hand outlines drawn by ancient
man were actually drawn by ancient kids. Of course, the beauty and
sophistication of paintings like the ones in France argue against it
having been done by kids (on the other hand, young Picasso did some
impressive stuff). The painters also appear to have sometimes built
scaffolding to stand on (like Michaelangelo in the Sistine), and they
placed many of the paintings deep in the caves, in relatively
inaccessible areas. These facts seem to indicate that they were neither
the idle drawings of children nor the hurried defacements of graffiti
painters.
David Shapiro
we can legitimately compare the cave-paintings of Cro-Magnon man and modern hum
man. We are living in a fundamentally different society, so different, in
fact, that to try to make comparisons is to push the limits of credibility.
However, I will agree that the tendency among archaeologists to ascribe
religious meaning to everything mysterious is often disturbing. This is in
no way to say that there is no possible evidence for ritual activity.
This is an issue which can be debated for millenia, so I'll stop wasting
bandwidth.
-----------
David Shapiro
Phil OKunewick
>It seems to me that an awfully big assumption is being made by saying that
>we can legitimately compare the cave-paintings of Cro-Magnon man and modern
>in fact, that to try to make comparisons is to push the limits of
>credibility.
Exact comparisons, yes. But some parallels can be drawn.
Much understanding of the past is based on similar cases in the
present. People worship dieties today; people use instructional tools
today; people today like to leave a mark of their passing. It's
reasonable to suspect that ancient man had similar motivations. There
are other possible motivations as well.
>However, I will agree that the tendency among archaeologists to ascribe
>religious meaning to everything mysterious is often disturbing. This is in
>no way to say that there is no possible evidence for ritual activity.
Matter of fact, there _is_ evidence for ritual activity among some
ancient cave markings. (Again drawing a parallel with modern times,
there isn't too much difference between something painted on a cave
wall and something carved into it. It's just a matter of what tools
are available.) Not all markings are religious, but definitely some
are. The Rio Camuy cave system in Puerto Rico is a good example.
The Rio Camuy cave system is fairly extensive. 7 km of the main
river disappears underground here, and is joined underground by
several tributaries. The landscape is covered with massive sinkholes
(hundreds of meters in diameter, and just as deep), many of which open
up into the underground river system. There is virtually no water on
the surface in this area - it's all underdrained. And a lot of the
water's underground course is in passages big enough to fly a small
helicopter.
In addition, Puerto Rico has a lot of "pre-columbian" indian
history. Throughout this cave system there are numerous petroglyphs,
and there is a religious/recreational indian ruin about 30 km away
from the cave system. (The Puerto Rican indians were virtually wiped
out during the first several years of spanish rule - of the few that
survived the european diseases, most died from enslavement.)
The entrance to the Angeles section of the cave is fairly massive,
and exposes a large stream. This is an excellent water source,
especially because the sinkhole can be entered by walking. (Several
sinkholes are sheer vertical drops.) On the wall above a place ideal
for drawing water, there is an indian petroglyph of a face. According
to Norman Veve (who found the petroglyph and brought in somebody to
identify it several years ago), this petroglyph symbolized the indian
water god.
It would be really foolish to conclude from this that all ancient
cave markings are religious. But some appear to be.
As a side note, the religious/recreational area is interesting.
It's locally referred to as an indian "ballpark". It's pleasant to
see historians acknowledge that stone age cultures did things for fun
too.
Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892
>
> Like most people, I suppose, I have seen reproductions of the
>beautiful, (presumably) cro-magnon cave paintings in southern
>France and elsewhere in Europe.
>
>instructional purposes. Surely it would be safer to show young,
>up and coming hunters where to aim their throws by using these
>early "graphic teaching aids" than to attempt a marksmanship
>lecture in the face of a charging beast.
>
> The deep, remote locations for these works would still be hard
>to explain, but perhaps they were made everywhere from
>trees to sand, and only the remotest of them have survived the
>ages.
>
historical actions. Like a time of great success in hunting, or a great
leader's (or great artist's!) first kill etc. There is some evidence
that neo(?)lithic paintings in the American South West were done to
record astronomical events. The Anisazi(?) 'supernova of 1054 AD' drawing,
in NW New Mexico and the apparent Chumash solar eclipse N. of Santa Barbara
CA. Please feel free to post corrections to my terminology, as I know more
about astronomy, than archaeology.
Tom Bruno
A little more along the lines of ethnographic analogies...
Here at MIT there are students who like to find little nooks and crannies
inside, on top of, and under the buildings of the Institute. Going under the
collective term of 'hackers,' they have formed their own subculture here.
(Hackers do a lot more here than cave around inside the empty spaces between
walls- they engineer lots of spectacular stunts such as the weather balloon
exploding on the 50-yard line at the yearly Harvard-Yale football game... =) )
One of the most prestigious things a hacker can do is find a place that no
student has ever crept into before- usually a crevice 3 feet wide and forty feet
above the floor in a steam tunnel. When the hacker gets there, he leaves his
'mark'- usually an exceptionally florid name or symbol, with the accompanying
date. It's absolutely amazing where these writings WILL turn up- hackers will
risk life and limb to 'go boldly where no one has gone before.' Some walls in
the old steam tunnels have names and dates stretching back to the original
construction of the Institute in Cambridge (circa 1910). It's a long standing
tradition which shows no real sign of slowing (save for the ever-increasing
use of infrared and motion detectors in areas the administration would rather
not have explored!).
I doubt that our prehistoric ancestors had the exact same things on their
mind when they painted in caves, but there certainly could be some sort of
prestige system going on- perhaps paintings or certain representations signified
a certain tribe or culture? (Just a guess. I don't know the first thing about
the details of cave painting... but still, it's interesting...)
tom bruno
department of archaeology
mit
fis...@sc2a.unige.ch
(David Shapiro) writes:
> It seems to me that an awfully big assumption is being made by saying that
> we can legitimately compare the cave-paintings of Cro-Magnon man and modern
I have to agree with this. We might be able to reconstruct the technique
that was used, to date the paintings, to correlate styles with material
cultures, to discover internal correlations between different "artistic"
artefacts (sculptures, paintings and engravings, for example), to identify
the species (animals or plants), and of course to document our findings
in order to present them to the public. The interpretation of the
*function* of the drawings does alas not belong to (our?) field, i.e.
prehistorical archaeology, but to the field of prehistory as well as to
the imagination of the public :-) This is due to the fact that the
social context of the activity is lost.
> This is an issue which can be debated for millenia, so I'll stop wasting
> bandwidth.
I'm in the mood to wast some more :-) to give some food for the imagination
of the non-archaeologists reading this group (and for the prehistorians
behind most prehistorical archaeologists...), in the form of an incomplete
list of some things that I heard or read about cave-paintings.
- Cave-paintings are the earliest manifestations that the modern man
acknoleges as art, together with the sculptures and gravings that appear
roughly simultaneoulsy. This is an important step in human evolution and
is also the main reason why we accept to share the name "Homo sapiens"
with the artists :-)
- Since that time, all "Homo sapiens" practice some forms of art, among
which there is wall/cave painging/engraving. In present societies, we
can roughly distinguish "l'art pour l'art" and functional drawings
relating to writing, to be found only in "higher" civilisations,
"decorative art", as on ceramics, fabrics, architecture, etc. and
"ritual art" - present in all societies - that relates to some often
complex social mechanism (body art is usually a good example).
To interpret paleolithic cave-paintings as "just art" or as having a
definite material purpose (meaning also with a semantic content) seems
now out of date. This is because these activities are historically
correlated with the concept of civilisation and of writing, but who
knows, really?... Some trials with that concept:
- animal painings as targets for practice shooting (I think
this is a laugh, and it doesn't explain the plants, the hands,
the symbols, etc.);
- paintings as a shool book to teach children to recognize
animals and plants (another laugh...);
- paintigs as book keeping ("me big hunter: me kill all those
animals");
- tag mania ("I was here - me too - stop the crap, this is
illegal now, didn't you know?");
- history book ("we want our children to remember that dreadfull
winter of 15645 BP");
- "l'art pour l'art" ("visit our galery - souvenir hides with
perfect copies are sold by the entrance").
To consider cave-paintings as decorative is unlikely as well. Even in
well preserved caves, traces of dwelling are never to be found *that* deep
into the caves: they didn't decorate their walls... What's more,
decorative art is usually found on artefacts (pots, houses, tools, weapons,
etc.) and these caves are natural. Of course, we'll probably never know
whether the Cro-Magnon tents or clothes had similar paintings on them :-)
The only remaining known form of art is the kind that belongs to some
other (religious, magical, initiatic, etc.) social phenomenon. This is
by far the most probable scheme, but even then: what phenomenon?
The ideas of magical paintings to bring luck for the hunt has found it's
way into many shoolbooks, but is totally unsuported by evidence. At best,
it's an oversimplyfied explanation, because it doesn't cover the non-animal
drawings. As a side note, some animals are clearly "alive" (i.e. running,
for example), while the hoofs of some others seem to indicate dead animals.
A tempting explanation would have the caves used for a inititation (?),
I mean a passage ritual after which children become accepted as adult
members of the community. The psychiatic association cave/birth - i.e.
rebirth - does help that interpretation... The paintings would then
be involved in something like a first ritual hunt, a vision of afterlife,
a by-product of a naming ritual, a helper for hallucinations under the
influence of illegal substances :-) etc. Again, there is of course no
supporting evidence.
From an archaeological point of view, one attempt has been made by
Leroi-Gourhan to classify drawings in male/female categories. The base
for this is that our (dirty?) minds easily see male/female genital organs
in even very simple symbols (the letter "Y" for example). The distinction
between male/female animals is also known from the Eskimo, relating to
a summer/winter distinction as well. L.-G. was thus able to distinguish
different types of associations (male genital symbols with thus "male"
animals and female genital symbols with thus "female" animals), probably
reflecting different "rituals" (or simply "activities"), but which?...
Finally, I read (sorry, no reference) a study about the acoustic potentials
of caves, in relation to paleolithic drawings. It seems that drawings
occur much more frequently in places allowing acoustic special effects!
From an archaeological point of view, we can say that cave-paintings
imply artistic capabilities and a technology for lamps. They are probably
related to some ritual involving a particular mythology posessing possibly
a male/female dichotomy, possibliy also involving sound (chants, percussions,
music?). The rest is up to you...
Cheers, and sorry for the long posting,
Markus Fischer Dept of Anthropology, Geneva CH fis...@sc2a.unige.ch
James Roger Black
|>
|> There is a common misconception that primitive man
|> lived in caves. Spend one night in a cave and you can understand how
|> silly this idea is.
|>
|> Sleeping in a cave is, at best, barely tolerable. The floors are
|> uneven and rarely level, and are usually boulders instead of soil.
|> The non-rock floors are made of clay, which is either too hard or too
|> icky to lie comfortably on. In addition, caves are usually either
|> very humid or very dusty (ever seen orange-brown snot?) and are pretty
|> chilly outside the tropics. Almost any cave floor soaks out body heat
|> like a sponge, which can literally kill you in a few hours.
|> Artificial lighting is required, and the limited ventilation means
|> that you can't maintain a wood fire in a cave for any length of time.
|> And I think we'll just leave the sanitary facilities to your
|> imagination. But in summary, it's far more practical to build a
|> simple roof outdoors than to live in an underground room.
Living in a cave really is not all that bad--if you find the right
cave. About twenty years ago I spent five days and four nights in a
cave in southern Missouri with five other people during the middle of
winter. Because we were several hundred feet back in the cave, the
room temperature remained at a constant 53 degrees--hardly comfy, but
tolerable. We even bathed in the ice-cold stream from time to time
without freezing to death. We slept on a gravel bank next to the
stream, lit the place with plumber's candles, and had a wonderful
time.
Our experience was that your body will compensate for the heat loss as
long as you consume enough calories. Of course, we had sleeping bags
to keep us warm while we slept, but presumably our primitive ancestors
had animal skins and piles of straw to help out, too.
(Incidentally, we all had watches on, but we forgot to keep track of AM
and PM. When it came time to leave, we knew it was three o'clock--but
we had no idea whether it was the middle of the night or the middle of
the afternoon!)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Black roger...@uiowa.edu
Disclaimer: My employer doesn't even know I have any opinions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------