Cave paintings and colours
Maria Langsén
saw the colour red as holy/magic and the proof off this is that they did all
their cave paintings in reddish colours (and painted some of their deads
bones with red ocra.)
I wanted to ask you if anyone knows if they used any other colours at all?
I´ve never seen anything mentioned about it.
Regards
/Maria
Dave Dodson
art was done with materials that the painters knew about, red ochre (iron
compound), yellow ( aluminum compound), black or dark purple (manganese),
and perhaps some blue or green (copper)... I would venture that all of these
colours were available but used in amounts relative to the compounds
frequency of occurrence... The cultural reasons (religious, magic, etc)
although definitely an influencing factor would be quite difficult to
support with information in the archaeological record....
Dave Dodson
Maria Langsén <ma...@inceptummedia.se> wrote in message
news:0BQY3.2559$RG1....@newsc.telia.net...
Aidan J Meehan
that makes red clay. Black, from soot or charcoal is also as readily
available as a pigment, and many paintings in the caves also use black as
an outline. Another readily avalable colour is yellow ochre, which is common
in some places and not in others. White is fairly common also, such as
chalk, ot limestone. Copper oxide is a green that was sometimes used, but it
is not so common. Which colours were used in a given cave would depend on
what was available. If there was nothing but red available, it would seem
reasonable to expect that all the paintings in that place would be red,
without necessarily indicating a magico-religious significance. The
speculation about the beliefs of the people regarding the use of red would
be invalid, if red was the only choice they had at the time, in that region.
However, if it were shown that many other colours were available, but only
red was used, then there might be a basis for the conclusion that red must
have been significant. Does your book go into any of this sort of research?
As for painting the bones red, again, this would depend on whether there
were other colours available, for the theory to hold. The cave people might
also have seen the colour red as cosmetic/decorative, in perhaps a more
meaningful way than we use it today, as a colour applied to lips and cheeks,
signifying health and beauty. It is possible that the bones of dearly
departed, loved in them selves as relics, might have been painted as an
expression of love, to make them look more beautiful, in the same way that
people paint their living bodies with colour. Any such act of decoration is
an enhancement, and seems to be a universal and very human expression of
love and remembrance, just as we decorate graves of relatives with flowers,
or paint tombstones, in some parts. I don't think that a person necessarily
thinks of leaving flowers on a grave as a holy/magical act. It seems a much
simpler, more natural, less ritual activity than that category suggests. It
is possible that painting bones with ochre was, to the people who did that,
their equivalent of laying a bouquet of flowers on a bier. It is also
possible that they painted themselves, and perhaps the unpainted bone would
look undressed. After all, painting ourselves distinguishes us from animals.
Painting the bones of our ancestors would distinguish them from other bones,
identify them as human, perhaps. Not to say any of this can't be a
considered a sacred ritual, but so can putting on makeup, and red ochre is
used most often as a cosmetic, not as a potion.
Doug Weller
>
> As for painting the bones red, again, this would depend on whether there
> were other colours available, for the theory to hold.
>
smell.
Doug
--
Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
Maria Langsén
Your input in the matter has cleared up a few of the questions I asked
myself while reading this book. The examples the book shows me are from the
Cro-Magnon caves in Lascaux and Altamira. I don´t know if any other pigments
than red and black was available there at the time. Do you know?
Regards
/Maria
J.R. Pelmont
> Red ochre is a very common pigment, readily available, it is the pigment
> that makes red clay. Black, from soot or charcoal is also as readily
> available as a pigment, and many paintings in the caves also use black as
> an outline. Another readily avalable colour is yellow ochre, which is common
> in some places and not in others. White is fairly common also, such as
> chalk, ot limestone. Copper oxide is a green that was sometimes used, but it
> is not so common. Which colours were used in a given cave would depend on
> what was available. If there was nothing but red available, it would seem
> reasonable to expect that all the paintings in that place would be red,
> without necessarily indicating a magico-religious significance. The
> speculation about the beliefs of the people regarding the use of red would
> be invalid, if red was the only choice they had at the time, in that region.
> However, if it were shown that many other colours were available, but only
> red was used, then there might be a basis for the conclusion that red must
> have been significant. Does your book go into any of this sort of research?
I think it is a good and realistic proposal. However we cannot dismiss
the case of using other colo(u)rs, for instance from plants, but they
were not stable enough with time, and if any would have all disapeared.
Quite a few paintings can be seen here and ther in the south of France.
Especially a small painted tock I saw a few months ago in Vallée de la
Maurienne, Alpes. The most common paint is read, as you said. The
paintings you can see in Sahara desert along rock shelters are also
mostly red, not surprising because the sand is often red (Hoggar,
Tassilis d'Adjer, ..)
>
> As for painting the bones red, again, this would depend on whether there
> were other colours available, for the theory to hold.
>
(follows an interesting list of ideas and rational proposals)
> ....
In some caves hand prints can be seen. Magic ? Fun ? Some of these
prints are small, suggesting they were made by kids. When negative, it
is explained that they could have been made by paint projection from
mouth, just blowing the paint mixture mineral powder in animal grease,
burk !) at the hand laying flat on the wall (?).
These remains of the past are very precious, great care must be taken
for preservation. The most beautiful caves in France are Lascaux,
Chauvet and Cosquer . None can be visited by tourists, only a replica of
Lascaux (I visited the genuine Lascaux in the sixties fifteen days
before it was closed, a real luck). There are about 25 other painted
caves in France and Spain, not that large or in good shape; a well-known
and beautiful site in Spain is Altamira.
For those interested there is a good site for Lascaux, with german,
english and french versions. Unfortunately it cannot restore the
fantastic sight you can get from real :
http://www.culture.fr/culture/arcnat/lascaux/fr/index.html
These caves have still vivid colours in some places. After Lascaux was
discovered in 1940 by three teen-agers by chance (their dog had slipped
into a hole, or something like that), there was a controversy, some
people saying it looked too new and was a fake. The cave was studied at
the beginning by Breuil and others. Breuil was a priest doing research
in neolitic history. Still some people, especially those denying
evolution, are denying antiquity and see the cave as a fake (wonder why
!).
Painted caves as they are presently known may represent 1 p.cent or less
of all painted caves that have existed in remote times, because others
were destroyed or were sealed and remained undiscovered. The caves have
to be protected from rock erosion and dissolution by circulating water
in limestone cracks and faults. Some mountains and cliffs are like a
Gruyere cheese,with cavities that have not yet been discovered (although
many people from here and abroad are practising speleology all around).
You can see how strange the location of the Cosquer cave is, the
entrance being about 30 meters under the surface of the Mediterranean
sea. Doing a Google search on the Net, you will find about 90 hits for
"Cosquer cave" (with quotes).
Using new tridimensional computorized methods, there are projects to
make replicas of Chauvet and Cosquer caves as it was done for
Lascaux.There are political issues also, and a trial between the owner
of the land, the discoverers and the state for Chauvet (you know also
this kind of conflict in North America !). Of course it will cost quite
a few millions of $ (or euros) for this, but our descent will take the
benefit of it !
Regards
--
jean.p...@wanadoo.fr
J.R. Pelmont
There is a lot of brown color, heard some is from powdered manganese
dioxide (common in various areas, pyrolusite). Manganese carbonate
(rhodocrosite) is pink.
Aidan J Meehan
J.R. Pelmont <Jean.P...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1999111921...@grenoble-11-73.abo.wanadoo.fr...
I believe this is true, and generally accepted. The hands have been
suggested to have been "signatures" by the artists. But I rather think that
they could be a demonstration of the technique. Chewing the pigment to
liquify it, and mixing with fish eggs, was a method used in West Coast
native american art, applied to totem poels, which also use primarily red
and black, these being universally available, natural pigments.
> These remains of the past are very precious, great care must be taken
> for preservation. The most beautiful caves in France are Lascaux,
> Chauvet and Cosquer . None can be visited by tourists, only a replica of
> Lascaux (I visited the genuine Lascaux in the sixties fifteen days
> before it was closed, a real luck). There are about 25 other painted
> caves in France and Spain, not that large or in good shape; a well-known
> and beautiful site in Spain is Altamira.
>
> For those interested there is a good site for Lascaux, with german,
> english and french versions. Unfortunately it cannot restore the
> fantastic sight you can get from real :
>
> http://www.culture.fr/culture/arcnat/lascaux/fr/index.html
>
> These caves have still vivid colours in some places. After Lascaux was
> discovered in 1940 by three teen-agers by chance (their dog had slipped
> into a hole, or something like that), there was a controversy, some
> people saying it looked too new and was a fake. The cave was studied at
> the beginning by Breuil and others. Breuil was a priest doing research
> in neolitic history. Still some people, especially those denying
> evolution, are denying antiquity and see the cave as a fake (wonder why
> !).
The artwork is superlative, Cromagnon, if that's who did it, was
extraoridnarily artistically endowed. Many of the animals, first perceived
as galloping, living creatures have since, on careful reexamination been
determined to be realistic portrayals of animals laid out, after having been
brought back by the hunters.
Dave Timpe
news:5LvZ3.7965$LX2.5...@brie.direct.ca...
| Many of the animals, first perceived
| as galloping, living creatures have since, on careful reexamination been
| determined to be realistic portrayals of animals laid out, after having
been
| brought back by the hunters.
Really? Modern hunter-gatherers usually dismember large animals and bring
back only the large meat-bearing bones (or just dried meat). Of course it
still could be an image of the carcass before butchering, but it has also
been noted that many of the animals portrayed aren't the ones whose remains
are found in contemporary middens.
--
Dave Timpe
davetimpe at cybrzn dot com
Aidan J Meehan
http://www.culture.fr/culture/arcnat/lascaux/fr/index.html
In The Shaft of the Dead Man, the bison is shown with entrails spilled
between its hind legs.
Quote from site: "There are several other secondary elements in this
composition, in particular, the hook sign, which perhaps represents a
spear-thrower, as well as a long , drawn obliquely and situated level with
what has been identified as the entrails of the disembowelled bison..." .
The thing is, it has the same stiff-legged posture of many of the other
animals represented, and but for the fact that this one explicitly shows the
evidence of the kill, it might have been interpreted as living, head
lowered, in the act of charging the Bird-headed Man. Likely, then, many of
the other animals with splayed legs are depicted as laid out, without
specifying the evidence of the kill.
Dave Timpe <dave...@NOSPAMcybrzn.com> wrote in message
news:8198v0$23hq$5...@news.inc.net...
> Aidan J Meehan <ame...@direct.ca> wrote in message
> news:5LvZ3.7965$LX2.5...@brie.direct.ca...
>
> | Many of the animals, first perceived
> | as galloping, living creatures have since, on careful reexamination been
> | determined to be realistic portrayals of animals laid out, after having
> been
> | brought back by the hunters.
>
Aidan J Meehan
Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.129f01504...@news.btinternet.com...
> In article <J65Z3.7833$LX2.5...@brie.direct.ca>, ame...@direct.ca
says...
> >
> > As for painting the bones red, again, this would depend on whether there
> > were other colours available, for the theory to hold.
> >
Aidan J Meehan
http://www.culture.fr/culture/arcnat/lascaux/fr/index.html
In the Main Gallery there are polychromatic quadrangular signs, rectangles
divided into parts, coloured terracotta red ochre, a burgundy purple, a
yellow, possibly a dark indigo, and a black. Elsewhere, e.g. the Painted
Gallery, there is orange, yellow ochre, and browns. These colours are used
together in combinations and blends, to cover a wide range of earthtones.
There is one wall in which red predominates, but overall, red and black are
not the main colours used. On the contrary, they are used sparingly, on the
tips of the horns and the muzzle of the Hieratic Figure in the Main gallery,
for instance, the rest of whose body is a dark purple. The purple could be
red-ochre and black mixed, the oranges could be red mixed with yellow. The
red ochre is a brownish, rust red, by the way. There is also a bright red,
but whether this is a different pigment, or a variety of ochre, or a blend
of red and yello ochre, I cannot tell from the photographs.
I too would be interested to know what actual pigments were used, if you
come across such information.
Maria Langsén <ma...@inceptummedia.se> wrote in message
news:%B9Z3.439$CL9.13...@newsa.telia.net...
> First I want to thank you all for your kind help in the matter. THANKS!!
=C)
>
> Your input in the matter has cleared up a few of the questions I asked
> myself while reading this book. The examples the book shows me are from
the
> Cro-Magnon caves in Lascaux and Altamira. I don´t know if any other
pigments
> than red and black was available there at the time. Do you know?
>
> Regards
> /Maria
woo...@ecn.ab.ca
: But bones do not smell.
When I was growing up in the country in England, I lived near a butcher's
shop, where the butcher killed his own meat and left the remains in a
midden in his back-yard. I can assure you, unless the bones are
*completely* stripped of flesh, it putrefies and they smell - and smell
quite strongly, and for some time.
Peter Wood
Dave Timpe
| But bones do not smell.
Just because a skeleton is found covered with red ochre doesn't necessarily
meat it was put there after the flesh decomposed. I suppose it might, and
perhaps there are ways to tell, but I've always assumed the body was painted
at burial, perhaps to give it a more lifelike look.
Dave Timpe
Aidan J Meehan <ame...@direct.ca> wrote in message
news:6NA_3.8478$LX2.6...@brie.direct.ca...
| Please visit the Lasceaux website
| http://www.culture.fr/culture/arcnat/lascaux/fr/index.html
| In The Shaft of the Dead Man, the bison is shown with entrails spilled
| between its hind legs.
I've seen it before, without waiting for a web image to download.
| Quote from site: "There are several other secondary elements in this
| composition, in particular, the hook sign, which perhaps represents a
| spear-thrower, as well as a long , drawn obliquely and situated level with
| what has been identified as the entrails of the disembowelled bison..." .
|
| The thing is, it has the same stiff-legged posture of many of the other
| animals represented, and but for the fact that this one explicitly shows
the
| evidence of the kill, it might have been interpreted as living, head
| lowered, in the act of charging the Bird-headed Man. Likely, then, many of
| the other animals with splayed legs are depicted as laid out, without
| specifying the evidence of the kill.
Yes, it's all open to interpretation, and tens of thousands of years later
there's no way to be sure. Even disemboweled, it could still be on its feet
(and quite dangerous). It's also not absolutely clear the "bird-headed man"
is on his feet, either, or that he's even bird-headed, or a man. The best
we can do is look for examples of how known people have used rock art, and
in most cases it turns out to have a religious or shamanistic meaning of
some sort. It may represent some out of body shamanistic experience, or it
might be sympathetic magic to bring about a real kill. Many suggestions are
made, but without a key to the cultural symbolism involved, there's no good
way to choose among them.
Not all rock art is the same, either. Lasceaux is only one example.
J.R. Pelmont
>
> Yes, it's all open to interpretation, and tens of thousands of years later
> there's no way to be sure. Even disemboweled, it could still be on its feet
> (and quite dangerous). It's also not absolutely clear the "bird-headed man"
> is on his feet, either, or that he's even bird-headed, or a man. The best
> we can do is look for examples of how known people have used rock art, and
> in most cases it turns out to have a religious or shamanistic meaning of
> some sort. It may represent some out of body shamanistic experience, or it
> might be sympathetic magic to bring about a real kill. Many suggestions are
> made, but without a key to the cultural symbolism involved, there's no good
> way to choose among them.
>
> Not all rock art is the same, either. Lasceaux is only one example.
>
Right. I am reading presently a book "La Grotte Chauvet" *, with superb
photographs, published by the discoverers, Jean-Marie Chauvet, Eliette
Brunel Deschamps and Christian Hillaire. These people tell howthey found
the place after crawing through a small hole, some wind coming through.
The cave is 490 meters long.
The point is the drawings are different from those at Lascaux. Not
surprising, because it is so much older. Maybe we will never know the
reason why these pictures were made, but the artistic skill is such that
the people who made them certainly displayed a very developed esthetic
feeling. A variety of animals are depicted : bears, reindeer, leopards,
lions, rhinos, possibly a hyena,ibex, mammoth and horses. A strange
mixture of species, living now in very different areas. Some kind of a
zoo ! As we know the climate has changed quite a bit along millenaries.
My question is about horses. Probably wild horses. There is no picture
of riding human beings. There is no drawing of people either, contrary
to Sahara paintings or aborigenous art in Australia (and other parts).
At what time do we think horses were domesticated ?
Horse heads pictures are almost perfect in the cave, and considered as
the best pieces of art. On the flat top of a rock a bear skull has been
laid (a religious totem ?). Also strange in the Chauvet cave are many
red dots, no explanation is standing for.
As I said in an earlier post, these caves are probably the very few that
have been so well preserved. The three people I gave the names of are
speleos (one is growing wine, another one is a technician at the nuclear
plant of Cadarache). They have already found several interesting spots,
with different paintings and carvings. They said they had to proceed
very carefully, not to disturb anything, not to step on bones and to rub
out possible foot prints. The district around the Ardčche River ** seems
to be very rich in caves. Certainly other sites will be discovered using
more sophisticated methods. In the Charaix cave, camp sites, poteries
and other remains from the Bronze age and before (so recent indeed !)
have been found, and are now examined by CNRS scientists. Of course
there is a great excitement about all that. I do not know if pollen
analysis (if any carried inside !) or other methods are presently used.
It seems that specialists on these spots fear the rise of too much fuss
from journals, tv or tourists, and they keep silent as much as possible.
Therefore it is important that more and more remains are found, in the
search of better clues for the significance of these drawing, because as
shown by this discussion, various explanations given are still a matter
of pure speculation or dream.
Regards
___________________
* (1995) Editions du Seuil, 27 rue Jacob, 75006 Paris
** flowing to the west bank of Rhone, about half-way between Lyon and
the sea. It comes down through a canyon and limestone cliffs, a known
resort in this area.
--
jean.p...@wanadoo.fr
Jiri Mruzek
>
> Dave Timpe <dave...@NOSPAMcybrzn.com> wrote (écrivait) :
>
> >
> > Yes, it's all open to interpretation, and tens of thousands of years later
> > there's no way to be sure. Even disemboweled, it could still be on its feet
> > (and quite dangerous). It's also not absolutely clear the "bird-headed man"
> > is on his feet, either, or that he's even bird-headed, or a man. The best
> > we can do is look for examples of how known people have used rock art, and
> > in most cases it turns out to have a religious or shamanistic meaning of
> > some sort.
Many cases might involve unrecognized scenes. Modern theory
perceives cave art as agglomerations of objects created without
much thought about their mutual arrangement.
> > It may represent some out of body shamanistic experience, or it
> > might be sympathetic magic to bring about a real kill. Many suggestions are
> > made, but without a key to the cultural symbolism involved, there's no good
> > way to choose among them.
Whenever the subjects are quite unique, why should we think
that they pertain to the routine.
> > Not all rock art is the same, either. Lasceaux is only one example.
> Right. I am reading presently a book "La Grotte Chauvet" *, with superb
> photographs, published by the discoverers, Jean-Marie Chauvet, Eliette
> Brunel Deschamps and Christian Hillaire. These people tell howthey found
> the place after crawing through a small hole, some wind coming through.
> The cave is 490 meters long.
>
> The point is the drawings are different from those at Lascaux. Not
> surprising, because it is so much older. Maybe we will never know the
> reason why these pictures were made, but the artistic skill is such that
> the people who made them certainly displayed a very developed esthetic
> feeling.
Evidently, only artists had permission to decorate sacred
places, such as Lascaux, or Altamira. Let's remember that
world's greatest authorities had proclaimed Altamira to be
a forgery by a certain acamic painter, who had soujourned
at the nearby castle of don F. Sautuola for a whole year.
It was obvious to them that an untrained artist could never
attain such levels of expression. Therefore, the paintings
had to be contemporary. But, there are no reasons to reject
ideas of stone age art academies, especially since we do not
reject the idea that there was stone age division of labor.
> A variety of animals are depicted : bears, reindeer, leopards,
> lions, rhinos, possibly a hyena,ibex, mammoth and horses. A strange
> mixture of species, living now in very different areas. Some kind of a
> zoo !
Sounds like Atlantis in the countryside, save for lack of
bloodsucking nocturnal hummingbirds. :)
> As we know the climate has changed quite a bit along millenaries.
>
> My question is about horses. Probably wild horses. There is no picture
> of riding human beings. There is no drawing of people either, contrary
> to Sahara paintings or aborigenous art in Australia (and other parts).
> At what time do we think horses were domesticated ?
Those are two separate questions, perhaps..
I must differ with your statement that there are no stone
age pictures of horsemen. I found one such picture, I think,
in a panel from Les Trois Freres. By cutting along dotted,
oops, I mean engraved lines, I isolated a part of the panel,
and it looks most definitely like a rider on a horse, and
everybody knows what it is immediately. Afterwards, people
are able to pick it out of the panel with ease.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5586/xrayride.htm
> Horse heads pictures are almost perfect in the cave, and considered as
> the best pieces of art. On the flat top of a rock a bear skull has been
> laid (a religious totem ?). Also strange in the Chauvet cave are many
> red dots, no explanation is standing for.
>
> As I said in an earlier post, these caves are probably the very few that
> have been so well preserved. The three people I gave the names of are
> speleos (one is growing wine, another one is a technician at the nuclear
> plant of Cadarache). They have already found several interesting spots,
> with different paintings and carvings. They said they had to proceed
> very carefully, not to disturb anything, not to step on bones and to rub
> out possible foot prints. The district around the Ardčche River ** seems
> to be very rich in caves. Certainly other sites will be discovered using
> more sophisticated methods. In the Charaix cave, camp sites, poteries
> and other remains from the Bronze age and before (so recent indeed !)
> have been found, and are now examined by CNRS scientists. Of course
> there is a great excitement about all that. I do not know if pollen
> analysis (if any carried inside !) or other methods are presently used.
> It seems that specialists on these spots fear the rise of too much fuss
> from journals, tv or tourists, and they keep silent as much as possible.
Indeed, when I had suggested that the Sphinx dating contro-
versy could be easily ended by collecting and dating pollen
from fissures in the floor of the Sphinx's enclosure, there
was very little reaction. For pointers on the method's use-
fulness, just consider that the site of La Marche had been
definitely dated by the pollen analysis to at least 14,000 BP.
Jiri Mruzek
Aidan J Meehan
Jiri Mruzek <jirim...@lynx.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:3840FA27...@lynx.bc.ca...
> "J.R. Pelmont" wrote:
> >
> > Dave Timpe <dave...@NOSPAMcybrzn.com> wrote (écrivait) :
> > My question is about horses. Probably wild horses. There is no picture
> > of riding human beings. There is no drawing of people either, contrary
> > to Sahara paintings or aborigenous art in Australia (and other parts).
> > At what time do we think horses were domesticated ?
>
> Those are two separate questions, perhaps..
> I must differ with your statement that there are no stone
> age pictures of horsemen. I found one such picture, I think,
> in a panel from Les Trois Freres. By cutting along dotted,
> oops, I mean engraved lines, I isolated a part of the panel,
> and it looks most definitely like a rider on a horse, and
> everybody knows what it is immediately. Afterwards, people
> are able to pick it out of the panel with ease.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5586/xrayride.htm
You are obviously dealing with an agglomeration of many superimposed images.
The part corresponding to the head of a horse, in your visualisation, bears
no relation to a horse's head. It looks, however, distinctly like the
hindquarters of a bull or cow. As for the John-Wayne-like cowboy in modern
dress, and all the rest of it, the agglomeration is just so detailed -so
many random engravings - that you might as well be deliberately scribbling,
and then pick out bits of scribble to draw out images from the picture, as
in Leonardo's inkblot. Could you point us to a photograph of the area that
you are representing based on Abbe Brieul's drawing. Much of this looks like
he may have been articulating the topology of the surface as well as the
engraved lines. But even if that were not the case, it is like a blackboard
that has retained all the marks that were ever made on its surface. To put
it plainly, anyone can see whatever they want in such a random sampling, and
any resemblance to anything in such a bird's nest as this is much too prone
to coincidence to determine what might once have been intended.
> Jiri Mruzek
>
> > jean.p...@wanadoo.fr
J.R. Pelmont
> You are obviously dealing with an agglomeration of many superimposed
> images. The part corresponding to the head of a horse, in your
> visualisation, bears no relation to a horse's head. It looks, however,
> distinctly like the hindquarters of a bull or cow. As for the
> John-Wayne-like cowboy in modern dress, and all the rest of it, the
> agglomeration is just so detailed -so many random engravings - that you
> might as well be deliberately scribbling, and then pick out bits of
> scribble to draw out images from the picture, as in Leonardo's inkblot.
> Could you point us to a photograph of the area that you are representing
> based on Abbe Brieul's drawing. Much of this looks like he may have been
> articulating the topology of the surface as well as the engraved lines.
> But even if that were not the case, it is like a blackboard that has
> retained all the marks that were ever made on its surface. To put it
> plainly, anyone can see whatever they want in such a random sampling, and
> any resemblance to anything in such a bird's nest as this is much too
> prone to coincidence to determine what might once have been intended.
>
Dear Aidan Meehan,
Just visited the Jiri Mruzek's site for curiosity : a horseman looking
as Don Quichotte (or as a riding former American Indian as represented
on popular cartoons). Besides this I cannot see much (poor imagination
?). Yet looking at the left part of the drawing, I can see a bear head
looking backward instead of the horse head. I would prefer to see the
genuine area exactly reproduced, not interpretated in any way. And what
about the colors ? Thus I agree your point. Imagination can go surfing
at random along these lines, eventually recognizing aliens, helicopters
...(just kidding)
Now suppose there is a horseman, anyway. I still ask the question why
drawings showing human beings are so scarce or even lacking along these
caves. Just the hand marks, dots and mysterious lines together with
hundreds of animals. Perhaps there was a taboo or some superstition
against that in the population, as it is still the case in many parts of
the world. For instance around the meditarrenean basin many people are
still very careful againt any opportunity for bad charms (ne pas jeter
le mauvais oeil !). Also the rule in islamic art against any portrait or
human outline. But I am also speculating on no data ! :-)
Have you seen the horse heads from the Grotte Chauvet ? They have really
nothing to do with Les Trois Frères in Pyrénées : very clear and
splendid, no true scribbling (thanks for teaching me this word) !
Regards
Aidan J Meehan
Dave Timpe <dave...@NOSPAMcybrzn.com> wrote in message
> Aidan J Meehan <ame...@direct.ca> wrote in message
> news:NXA_3.8479$LX2.6...@brie.direct.ca...
> | But bones do not smell.
>
> Just because a skeleton is found covered with red ochre doesn't
necessarily
> meat it was put there after the flesh decomposed. I suppose it might, and
> perhaps there are ways to tell, but I've always assumed the body was
painted
> at burial, perhaps to give it a more lifelike look.
>
> Dave Timpe
>
> davetimpe at cybrzn dot com
>
could be painted with ochre and placed in a special place, the ochre being a
decoration applied to the bone itself. And, if the body were covered in
ochre, and then left to decompose, there might be a flake or two remaining
on the bone, more likely it would slough away from the bone along with the
flesh, I would imagine.
Aidan J Meehan
> > images. The part corresponding to the head of a horse, in your
> > visualisation, bears no relation to a horse's head. It looks, however,
> > distinctly like the hindquarters of a bull or cow. As for the
> > John-Wayne-like cowboy in modern dress, and all the rest of it, the
> > agglomeration is just so detailed -so many random engravings - that you
> > might as well be deliberately scribbling, and then pick out bits of
> > scribble to draw out images from the picture, as in Leonardo's inkblot.
> Just visited the Jiri Mruzek's site for curiosity : a horseman looking
> as Don Quichotte (or as a riding former American Indian as represented
> on popular cartoons). Besides this I cannot see much (poor imagination
> ?). Yet looking at the left part of the drawing, I can see a bear head
> looking backward instead of the horse head. I would prefer to see the
> genuine area exactly reproduced, not interpretated in any way. And what
> about the colors ? Thus I agree your point. Imagination can go surfing
> at random along these lines, eventually recognizing aliens, helicopters
> ...(just kidding)
An upside down horse man, remember, with a forest of hoofed feet behind his
head, built up out of superimposed cattle - a cowboy, indeed! I don't
believe for a moment that the original artists intended us to see that.
Yes, what about the colours? Good point. It would be interesting to know if
there were any colours there originally. Why would there be so many etched
lines, otherwise, unless the etchings were painted, and later, painted over,
and new images etched, hiding the old ones. Then, the paintings disappeared,
leaving only the agglomeration of thousands of years of superimposed
drawings of animals.
>
> Now suppose there is a horseman, anyway. I still ask the question why
> drawings showing human beings are so scarce or even lacking along these
> caves. Just the hand marks, dots and mysterious lines together with
> hundreds of animals. Perhaps there was a taboo or some superstition
> against that in the population, as it is still the case in many parts of
> the world. For instance around the meditarrenean basin many people are
> still very careful againt any opportunity for bad charms (ne pas jeter
> le mauvais oeil !). Also the rule in islamic art against any portrait or
> human outline. But I am also speculating on no data ! :-)
There does seem to be a conspicuous absence of human figures: mostly just
animals, except for the bird-headed stick man in the Cave of the Dead Man.
As David Timpe pointed out, there is no reason to interpret this as a dead
man, or even as a man, although I find it hard to see it otherwise than as a
bird-headed figure. The animals are all so exactly depicted - the falling
cow, for instance, or the horse on its back, nostrils flares in fright,
these seem to be scenes from actual hunts. Obviously, they had the skill to
depict naturalistic human figures, but chose not to. I would speculate that
the depiction of the animals was part of the ceremonial of hunting, the
focus of which was the animals, and not the hunters. You could be right
about the superstition that to represent a person would be some how to
capture the essence of that person. Perhaps the hunters thought they could
capture the essence of the animals by drawing them realistically, either
before the hunt, to invoke a successful kill, or after a hunt, to give their
essence back to the spirit world so that the slain animals could return at
some future time. But it is futile to speculate what went on there, I don't
see how even comparisons with hunting rites observed among modern hunting
people could be much use, given the time span. There is a great figure of a
human figure dancing, with animal attributes, at Trois Freres, is there not?
But other than that, no realistically portrayed human figures, and certainly
no portrayals of people on horseback, in modern costume.
>
> Have you seen the horse heads from the Grotte Chauvet ? They have really
> nothing to do with Les Trois Frères in Pyrénées : very clear and
> splendid, no true scribbling (thanks for teaching me this word) !
I am not sure that I have. Thank you for posting that link to Lasceaux
caves, by the way,
http://www.culture.fr/culture/arcnat/lascaux/fr/index.html
I would like to visit a similar site dedicated to Chauvet, if you have one.
Or perhaps someone else can post one.
There don't seem to be any depictions of horsemen in any of the early caves,
in Europe at least. I know of some in the Alps, Val Camonica, where there
are a lot of depictions of tribal activities, farming, and so on, but that
is late Neolithic to Bronze age, I believe. So the taboo against
representing people must have not applied then, or the Alpine figures were
all so stylized that the taboo did not apply.
The only humanoid figure that I can recognise in the Lasceaux caves is very
stylized, in contrast to the animals, which, though stylised to a certain
extent, are much more naturalistically drawn, enough to distinguish types of
animals, and tell a lot about them. There is one, spotted with long,
straight horns, that looks so unnatural it seems to be perhaps a
supernatural creature, perhaps the leader of the heavenly herd responsible
for sending the animals back to the hunters year after year. It might be
related to the "shaman" animal dancer of Trois Freres, but who knows.
But the animals are all shown in profile, unless there is a good reason to
depart from the convention. There is also three-dimensional treatment, two
animals with the rump of one superimposed on another, and the legs to the
front separated by a strip of reserved space from the legs to the rear, a
very nice treatment. But still, mainly profile, and very naturalistically
proportioned. Nowhere do we see any examples of "photographic" distortion,
such as one hoof drawn much largeer than the rest to suggest perspective, or
a head turned back upon itself and enlarged to suggest that it is coming
towards the viewer, so that the interpretation of the "horseman" that
depends on such cinematic tricks of the eye must be rejected, this seems
only reasonable. This would be an extraordinary incongruity of style, in a
context where stylisation of animals is so consistent, and stylisation of
humanoid figures, if there are any such, is so severe as to preclude details
such as clothing or naturalism of any sort. That kind of perspective was
quite unknown until relatively recently.
>
> Regards
>
> --
> jean.p...@wanadoo.fr
J.R. Pelmont
> An upside down horse man, remember, with a forest of hoofed feet behind his
> head, built up out of superimposed cattle - a cowboy, indeed! I don't
> believe for a moment that the original artists intended us to see that.
>
> (snip)
Thank you for detailed comments
>
> I would like to visit a similar site dedicated to Chauvet, if you have one.
> Or perhaps someone else can post one.
For Chauvet they are several, maybe not all good. I got them with a
search engine. You can try :
http://www.culture.fr/culture/arcnat/chauvet/en/planche1.htm
(There are extra galleries of pictures (planche2, planche3) accessed by
clicking on the lower right)
Also :
http://www.culture.fr/rhone-alpes/chauvet/
http://www.culture.fr/culture/arcnat/chauvet/en/album.htm
http://www.culture.fr/culture/arcnat/chauvet/fr/gvpda-d.htm
http://www.dotdash.org/homework/chauvet.htm
The following is mostly explanatory :
http://www.france.diplomatie.fr/label_france/ENGLISH/SCIENCES/CHAUVET/ch
a.html
It is described somewhere they have discovered foot prints from a child,
about 8 years old (??). I do not remember where.
Greetings
>
> (snip)
Aidan J Meehan
>
> Also :
> http://www.culture.fr/rhone-alpes/chauvet/
thanks, Jean,
I really appreciate it, these are very helpful.
This link didn't work on my browser. Try this one instead:
http://www.culture.fr/rhone-alpes/chauvet/anglais/lettre2/album2.htm
Aidan
Aidan J Meehan
your excellent links turn up this tid-bit of information on actual colours,
from the following page:
http://web.culture.fr/culture/arcnat/chauvet/en/aussi.htm
Quote:
"Studies of prehistoric paints carried out at the Centre de recherche et de
restauration des musées de France (Michel Menu andPhilippe Walter), in
alliance with some archaeologists. The initial phase in the team's
investigation focused on the paint on portable objects. After that, samples
taken from prehistoric sites in the Pyrenees, followed by the Ardèche, the
Périgord, and abroad (Australia, Brazil, etc.) will be examined.
The detailed study of the mineral components of the paint is mainly
conducted with an electron microscope, and in some cases the accelerator
particles of Research and Restoration Centre of the Museums of France
(AGLAE). The analysis has revealed that in the Ariège region, the paint
consisted of a mixture of pigments (black pigment: manganese oxides, ground
charcoal; red pigment: hematite), ground up with large amounts of a mineral
that acts as a buffer (potassium feldspar used alone or mixed with biotite).
These examinations also advance our knowledge of the chronology of the
works. "
thanks,
Aidan
J.R. Pelmont <Jean.P...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1999112919...@grenoble-10-113.abo.wanadoo.fr...
> Aidan J Meehan <ame...@direct.ca> wrote (écrivait) :
>
>
> > An upside down horse man, remember, with a forest of hoofed feet behind
his
> > head, built up out of superimposed cattle - a cowboy, indeed! I don't
> > believe for a moment that the original artists intended us to see that.
> >
> > (snip)
>
> Thank you for detailed comments
> >
> > I would like to visit a similar site dedicated to Chauvet, if you have
one.
> > Or perhaps someone else can post one.
>
Aidan J Meehan
http://web.culture.fr/culture/arcnat/chauvet/en/rechapp3.htm
this in reference to the cave at Arcy-sur-Cure (Yonne)
Quote: "The archeological stratum is sealed under the present-day floor,
which is made up of chalky silt deposits on which stalagmites grow.
Following test excavations, it surrendered a number of remnants that attest
to activities of Paleolithic human beings. These include a hearth for
lighting, burnt particles, piles of red ochre, blocks of yellow ochre,
pieces of bone and minerals for the preparation of pigments, drops of paint,
and remains of reindeer, horses, and bears".
And also, Florence Raynal says there is only one instance of yellow
colouring (in Chauvet, I take it. It looks like there is yellow in Lasceaux,
if the web photos are to be depended on), as quoted from
http://www.france.diplomatie.fr/label_france/ENGLISH/SCIENCES/CHAUVET/cha.ht
ml
Quote: "Rhinoceros, hitherto unknown in the Ardèche, are by far the dominant
animal. Next come the lions, mammoths and horses (two of which are yellow,
the only instance of this colouring), bison, bears, reindeer, aurochs, ibex,
stags and, at the tail end, a red panther and an engraved owl, unknown in
the Palaeolithic age. No human images have been found, apart from various
limbs, a composite being, half-man, half-bison, positive and negative
stencilled images of hands (obtained by blowing paint onto the hand placed
up against the wall). Red and black are separated into two main areas; the
proportions and position of the bodies have all the precision of naturalist
art and, with the exception of certain rare indeterminate animals, scores of
anatomical details make it possible to guess the species and even the gender
of most of them. "
Hmm. Half-man, half-bison in Chauvet, eh? Reminiscent of Bird-head hominoid
figure in Lasceaux, and part-man, part-several-animals at Trois freres (?),
if I recall. Other than that, no human figures as such, until the end of the
Paleolithic, in the cave of Angles-sur-l'Anglin (Vienne):
http://web.culture.fr/culture/arcnat/chauvet/en/rechapp4.htm
"Since 1947, excavations have been conducted at a rock shelter of the
Roc-aux-Sorciers, which is situated on the right bank of the Anglin river.
There, an exceptional collection of low-relief sculptures of unique
proportions has been unearthed. The figures depicted include horses, bison,
ibex, and a group of three truncated women's bodies. They are dated to the
Magdalenian, the last subdivision of the Upper Paleolithic".
Aidan
Aidan J Meehan <ame...@direct.ca> wrote in message
news:0%C04.9969$LX2.7...@brie.direct.ca...
> J.R. Pelmont <Jean.P...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> news:1999112919...@grenoble-10-113.abo.wanadoo.fr...
> > Aidan J Meehan <ame...@direct.ca> wrote (écrivait) :
> > > (snip)
> > It is described somewhere they have discovered foot prints from a child,
> > about 8 years old (??). I do not remember where.
> >
> > Greetings
> >
> > >
> > > (snip)
> >
Didn't see any foot prints from a child. Just a cave bear print.
> >
> > --
> > jean.p...@wanadoo.fr
>
>
J.R. Pelmont
> Here is also a mention of yellow:
> http://web.culture.fr/culture/arcnat/chauvet/en/rechapp3.htm
>
> this in reference to the cave at Arcy-sur-Cure (Yonne)
>
> (snip, see the preceeding posts)
Dear Aidan, Thank you for collecting so much information !
Many caves are carefully investigated now. Most of them have no
paintings, maybe because they never existed or have been washed away.
But most of the caves have dense sets of stalactites and calcium
carbonate curtains, often with different colors, that are always so
magic to see in torch light. It is thought that these natural
constructions have a record (dust, pollen and other things) of climate
changes and human activities in the nearby. A cave like this is
Choranche (in Vercors, 45 mn from my home), visited by bus full loads of
tourists in summer. A team of scientists are investigating there.
The point is that caves have a memory we still don't know completely.
But unfortunately since the Chauvet discovery and before, there is a
rush for finding new sites, with the possibility to get a lot of money
(tv, articles, photographs ...). Hence the need for protection and
methodological search. Will they be successful enough ? Recently 7
persons were caught for ten days or so, far away underground, because of
rising water after calamitous rainfalls. Tremendous efforts and huge
technical work by more than 150 persons have been necessary to take them
safely out. Because of the risks and huge costs engaged by rescue teams,
there are some roaring polemics in the country for some better control.
The Goufre Berger, a very deep site (one kilometer or so in depth
underground!), also in our nearby, has just been closed for somewhile.
This seems away from the special topic of painted walls by our
ancestors, but still it is a practical problem as a whole. And I believe
it is very important to archaeologists.
Best regards
--
jean.p...@wanadoo.fr
Erik A. Mattila
down). Thanks for the great effort you and others have made.
It really did spark a few ideas in my mind, from my perspective and background
in visual arts -- studio, art history, and theory. If you'll indulge me...
I am very attracted to the idea that the motivation for making this art, at
least in part, was secular. For a few reasons.
I've seen a few documentaries, and have read a few ethnographs, which show that
people whose economy is tied in with hunting regularly develop their
experineces of the hunt into narratives, and recount these to their peers. I
saw a documentary recently that showed an Amazon tribe doing this, with
subtitles of the narration of the hunter. It was remarkably detailed, and
described a lot about strategy and tactics. I've read accounts about such a
practice which demonstrated some very profound information regarding animal
behavior and strategy became important parts of the narrative. I think this is
a wonderful way to pass knowledge on, and certainly has a statigic advantage in
maintaining a healthy economy.
So I thought about how, today, lecturers regularly use visual material to
illustrate their talks. It's not hard to imagine that the paintings and
drawings cited in this thread would be valuable in this regard. A picture is
worth ten thousand words, after all.
But to the drawing itself.
In teaching art, I've always liked teaching drawing the best. It is very
straight-forward, and doesn't have to deal with the many ambiguities of art.
As I look at these cave paintings, it isn't difficult for me to imagine that
this was a common skill than many possessed, as opposed to the idea that there
was a specialized 'artist class' in these ancient societies. We see common
skills employed in many societies today, and much of it is quite impressive
from an aesthetic point of view. I'm not saying that some individuals may not
have been better illustrators than others, or that there were others who
couldn't draw a straight line, but rather that this art, collectively, looks to
me to be very teachable, and developing expertise in making it can be achieved
by practice and repitition. In other words, I feel I could take a classroom of
randomly selected pupils and train them how to make drawings which are similar
to these cave drawings. I've actually witnessed this -- a particular good
instructor teaching a class room of people who had no art making experience to
produce very acceptable paintings in four or five months (to many of the
student's complete surprise).
We learn to draw by a series of exercises that strengthen hand/eye coordination
and by using various schematic devices. I've always been amazed to watch
protraitists who work at carnivals who can draw a remarkable likeness of
his/her customer in 15 or 20 minutes. But if you watch, you will see the
artists drawing first a circle, dividing it into parts, blocking in the
relative positions of the eyes, nose etc. The aesthetic similarity of many of
the cave paintings, the 'look,' if you will, suggest to me a very schematic
approach, coupled with a very expert knowledge of animal anatomy by the
artist. This is even amplified when you consider that at least some of the
stylistic conventions spanned long periods of time. Today, there are few of us
who have any direct experience with butchering animals. I've had some
experience in this, and anatomical knowledge is very important. When
butchering a deer, for example, you have to know exactly where to cut to avoid
cutting the bladder or certain glands that will taint the meat with a very bad
taste if you miss. But my point is that the visual component of the experience
of butchering is certainly transferable to an artistic rendering of an animal.
So I found the argument about the 'models' for these paintings being hunting
results to be very interesting. But I would argue that the carcasses themselve
were not models in any direct sense, but rather the experience of butchering
itself was the source of a great deal of visual anatomical knowledge of the
artist. What is interesting to note, I think, is that a member of these
societies wouldn't have had the same opportunity tp draw on such a specific and
detailed body of visual knowledge if they were attempting to represent a horse
and rider, since in the course of day to day life one does not have the
opportunity to 'study' this subject as intimately as butchering provides. As a
matter of fact, as late as early Greek pottery, when the Horse Rider was a very
popular motif, the rendering was very crude and ideaized in comparison with
other popular subjects which would have been easier for the artists to observe
and study.
Another thing that is suggested to me by reading this thread is that there were
two major art practices, one which looks to me to be secular, and the other
religious. It seems that the images that many are feeling are religious in
nature are drawn in a very different way than the animals. What I have
observed in many ethnic arts is that religious art is less aesthetically
pleasing than other decorative arts. I think that this is because it doesn't
need to be. In shamanism what is important is that the elements, which are
symbolic compents, of a particular religious idea need to be there, so it is a
sort of assemblage. It's a quantitative concern, rather than qualitative. So
let's say the mysterious 'bird man' is a religious icon -- it wouldn't be
important if its parts are faithful representations, as it is only important
that each is accounted for. But often this distintion is difficult to make, as
the use-value of art gets blurred - i.e. it is undoubted that many of the very
beautiful African masks were used ceremonially before the tourist industry, but
on the other hand the 'beauty' of these masks might reflect other concerns of
society, such as style and fashion, which have little to do with the religious
content of the ceremony.
By contrast, however, I would say it was very important that the representation
of an animal be accurate if it was used in augmenting the transfer of hunting
technology and skill via the hunter's narratives. This possibly could explain
the two different approaches.
Erik Mattila
Dave Timpe
news:Yzi04.9709$LX2.7...@brie.direct.ca...
| Was a skeleton found? Only bones were mentioned. An individual bone,
clean,
| could be painted with ochre and placed in a special place, the ochre being
a
| decoration applied to the bone itself. And, if the body were covered in
| ochre, and then left to decompose, there might be a flake or two remaining
| on the bone, more likely it would slough away from the bone along with the
| flesh, I would imagine.
Certainly skeletons have been found covered with ochre on more than one
continent (possibly all but Antarctica) from many different times.
Individual bones too, some possibly prepared as you describe. I wasn't
aware we were discussing any particular burial. Even if we're just talking
about Europe here, the period in which cave art was produced covers over ten
thousand years and many different cultures.
Dave Timpe
| It is described somewhere they have discovered foot prints from a child,
| about 8 years old (??). I do not remember where.
There may be another footprint or two somewhere, but in Chauvet, they can
follow the trail of a child. Archaeological work is proceeding slowly,
since
it's been decades since the earlier finds and they want to maximize the
information gain using the best methods currently available. I presume
they're also leaving parts for later work with techniques yet to be
developed. No doubt that's on those web sites somewhere. I'll check them
when I get back on line.
Aidan J Meehan
Dave Timpe <dave...@NOSPAMcybrzn.com> wrote in message
> Aidan J Meehan <ame...@direct.ca> wrote in message
> news:Yzi04.9709$LX2.7...@brie.direct.ca...
>
> | Was a skeleton found? Only bones were mentioned. An individual bone,
> clean,
> | could be painted with ochre and placed in a special place, the ochre
being
> a
> | decoration applied to the bone itself. And, if the body were covered in
> | ochre, and then left to decompose, there might be a flake or two
remaining
> | on the bone, more likely it would slough away from the bone along with
the
> | flesh, I would imagine.
>
> Certainly skeletons have been found covered with ochre on more than one
> continent (possibly all but Antarctica) from many different times.
I didn't know that. Do you have an idea as to why it should be so
widespread?
> Individual bones too, some possibly prepared as you describe.
Be patient with me. I am confused as to whether we are talking about painted
bones, or remains of bodies that were covered in ochre and then buried. If
the latter, I can't imagine the result would look like painted bones. Or are
you saying that in all these cases, the evidence suggests the corpse was
painted, and not the bones?
>I wasn't
> aware we were discussing any particular burial. Even if we're just
talking
> about Europe here, the period in which cave art was produced covers over
ten
> thousand years and many different cultures.
>