Customer Reviews

The Nature of Paleolithic Art

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

The book description says:"With more than 3,000 images, The Nature of Paleolithic Art offers the most comprehensive representation of Paleolithic art ever published and a radical (and controversial) new way of interpreting it... This wonderfully written work of natural history, of observation and evidence, tells the great story of our deepest past."

This sounded very promising. Nevertheless, as I went through the book, it appeared that it was not as "wonderful" as promised.

The book contains a lot of small, monochrome line drawings made by the author. So every item of the Palaeolithic art is depicted by the author of the book. Unfortunately, at least some of the depictions are unacceptably different from the originals. A good example is a finding from the Rytirska Cave, the Czech Republic. It is not obvious what the actual artefact represents. Most archaeologists believe that it is probably a representation of a woman (although very atypical of the Magdalenian, where it belongs). The author redrew the item in such a way that he emphasized the woman's features and, as a result, it looks strinkingly different from the original(page 340). The Venus of Dolni Vestonice is depicted frontally four times in the book (pp. 332, 340, 351 and 366) and, at the same time, only the figurines depicted on pp. 322 and 351 are quite similar. The figurines presented on pp. 340 and 366 differ from each other and from the depictions on pp. 322 and 351 as well. The back views of this piece of art are on pp. 322 and 351 and these two drawings do not depict the identical figurine, either. The question arises: To which extent can I trust the author's illustrations?
There are mistakes in captions, for example instead of Gagarino, Russia, there is Gargano, Italy (e.g. pp. 332), instead of Dolni Vestonice there is mistakenly Pekarna (pp. 353), etc. I believe these mistakes should also be avoided, especially when it is possible to verify such information using the Internet within several minutes in most cases.

To sum up, the representation of the Palaeolithic art in the book is disappointing.

Another thing is the interpretation of the Palaeolithic art. To be honest, my personal interpretations are pretty different from the author's, so I was very interested in his pieces of evidence and argumentation. On page 204 the author states: "Absolon concluded...that the early peoples had only two things on their minds: sex and hunger". I ordered the cited paper (Artibus Asiae, 12, 1949, 201-220) and found that there is no such statement or conclusion (explicit or implicit) in the article cited.
Besides this example of the author's way of thinking, the book contains many other statements and assumptions which I consider unfounded.
In short, the interpretation of the Palaeolithic art in this book can be expressed by the above statement, which the author attributed to Karel Absolon. It seems that the author was well aware of the fact that there is whole animal in the human being, but he forgot the second part of the idea of Konrad Lorenz, namely that there is not the whole human being in the animal.

In conclusion, I think that The Nature of Paleolithic Art by R. Dale Guthrie is a book that does not meet the standard criteria of seriousness and reliability.

Instead, I recommend the "Journey through the Ice Age" by Paul G.Bahn and Jean Vertut, which contains photographs (instead of drawings distorting the originals) and a valuable text. "The Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Evolution of Man" by Jan Jelinek is also a very good source of information (although published in 1975).

Since the first finds of ancient cave art in Spain at the end of the 19th Century, researchers have sought to understand what prompted them. Various theories, from "hunting magic" to links to spirits have been put forward. Dale Guthrie, with many years experience in the field to draw upon, argues a new idea. Searching for "hidden meaning", he contends, is a false trail. Instead, he wants the art viewed as a window into the life of the times. What's important, he argues, is that the artworks represent what was significant to people living in ancient times. He considers those fabulous images as representations of rather mundane depictions of daily encounters. In this exhaustive study, Guthrie re-draws the art of the caves and inscribed on bone and horns, the tools, and some of the methods used.

He reminds us that most of the portrayed animal life wasn't a major part of the Paleolithic diet. Lions, bears and horses weren't consumed by those early peoples. Reindeer, easier to hunt and comprising much of the meal debris found, are far less common on the cave rocks. Cave art, he says, exhibits an unexpected unity of subject and presentation. As "unrealistic" portrayals, cave images show frequent exaggerations, which are common across many sites. This point, coupled with the hidden locations of so many rock art sites, instead of giving the art "hidden" purpose as well, suggests to Guthrie that the artists were just as likely people staying out sight. From this, he surmises that young people not occupied in hunting or other specialised tasks, may have been "dabbling" in making the images. He cites the number of small hand prints found on the walls as an indication of this claim. As he, and others have recognised, people went into the caves to make images, not to live in them. Caves are fine places to shelter, particularly during extended cold seasons. Passing the time by engaging in making graffiti may be our species' oldest form of alleviating boredom.

The author's surmise about young men being a significant portion of the cave artists leads him into further speculations about Paleolithic society in general. From the premise that those ancient people were physiologically much like ourselves, he assumes their mental capacity and social relations were much like modern humans, if a bit more primitive in technological abilities. Family relations were probably monogamous, he assumes - which departs from the numerous polygamous cultures that still exist today. The harsh environment forced people into small, intimate bands: "tribes" remained an innovation of the future. Conservation or almost any form of game animal management was impossible. Habitat relocation would be forced by the paucity of vegetable foods due to cold or varying conditions.

Guthrie's background is zoology, not graphics. That foundation gives him the basis for his fresh outlook on the subject. Yet, instead of offering a "coffee-table" volume of photographs, he has created his own images, all in sepia, to explain his ideas. Nearly every page contains these miniatures with explanatory text accompanying them. We must trust his abilities in conveying the images, and in some cases, what they actually represent. The minimal size of these graphics limits the available detail, and are indicators of his points, not evidence. It's a daunting task to keep track of his themes and how the images support them in many instances. However, since the images are the basis for his thinking, fewer of them and larger renditions would grant his ideas more credibility. Although his chapters are short and direct in making their points, bringing all the information together isn't a task for a novice in the subject. It's not an introductory text. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

Suppose you were a student in an art appreciation class and your professor assigned a critique of Paleolithic art, that is, the art produced between about 40000 and 10000 years ago Where would you start? Perhaps by looking at some of the finest cave paintings, which, without a doubt, are the work of talented artists. This is the approach taken by many of the specialists on Paleolithic art. It is not R. Dale Guthrie's approach in his book "The Nature of Paleolithic Art".

Guthrie has looked at all of the art, the best and the worst, and comes to a startling new conclusion as to its origin. He is uniquely qualified for such a study.

First he has probably seen more Paleolithic art than any other specialist. And much of the art consists of images that would never appear in a coffee table book on Paleolithic art.

Guthrie is an artist himself. He shows that some of the Paleolithic artists lacked a sense of perspective or other talents that today separate a doodler from a true artist. Guthrie becomes almost wistful when he talks about the art that nobody has seen and will never see. What about clothing, women's art, story telling, tattooing, any art done at non-permanent sites using non-permanent materials? All gone. In other words, what remains is only a very small select sample, and as Guthrie concludes, most of it done by teenagers exploring caves and taking risks just as teenagers do today.

Guthrie is an avid hunter and as a hunter in Alaska he has studied in a very practical way the behavior of big game animals. He knows, for example, what it is like to return to a kill and find that a grizzly bear has claimed it - the same scenario illustrated in one of the Paleolithic drawings. Would anyone but a hunter have interpreted this image in this way? I suspect not.

As a student of mammalian behavior and vertebrate paleontology, Guthrie can speak with authority on the probable behavior of the extinct mammals that were subjects of much of the art. He shows that Paleolithic men (boys really) knew as much or more about the behavior of the large mammals they hunted as any modern expert.

Guthrie's conclusions are radical, yet at the same time refreshing because they paint a picture of human beings 30000 years ago that were in many ways like us, with similar urges, thoughts and behavioral characteristics that persist in us, despite our thick cultural patina, even to this day. Another reviewer (see review by Paul Matheus at Amazon.com) concludes that Guthrie's book is really "About Us". I could not agree more, but in some startling ways those people of 300 centuries ago were also different from us. For example, Guthrie finds no drawings that depict battles and war, scenes quite common in later art, down to the present. It's something to think about.

Read this book. It will become a classic. It is much more than a book about Paleolithic Art and yet it is a book that all artists should read. I recently heard of one artist who read the book and declared that it "was the most important book he had ever read."

I have never been convinced that cave art was purely for shamanistic ritual, yet this seemed to be the accepted dogma within the academic community. At least, it was until this book came along.

Guthrie writes in easy prose yet with a comprehensive knowledge, finally popping the bubble that cave paintings were all about magic and spirituality. Using his expertise in hunting, human evolution, forensics, and art, Guthrie gives a convincing overview of how we should look at cave paintings. When he starts analyzing the age and sex of an artist, for example, it is almost as fascinating to follow the logic of his evidence as it is to see the conclusions that he draws.

All the same, it is his conclusions that make this an important book for anyone interested in paleolithic art. At last, we can move on from the idea that this enormous period of creativity was dictated by supernatural tribal rituals. Instead Guthrie proves conclusively that prehistoric art was sometimes irreverant, sometimes experimental, and driven by the same creative spirit that drives artists of today.

This is a great book! It is beautifully illustrated and artfully written. It thoroughly examines life in the Paleolithic using one of the main windows available to us, the surviving cave and stone art. Guthrie brings to it a common sense approach, weilding Occam's razor, to provide what seems to me, to be a landmark work on the subject. He covers the previous illfounded attempts to understand these images symbolically. His sample of 3000 images, most of which are not available in poplular books, is remarkable by itself.

I would have to take issue with the one negative review, posted here, which I have ever seen for this work. The reviewer complains of a typo in a caption heading and an inconsistency in one illustration. With a work of this size and scope, these are almost beside the point. I was puzzled by this review and took a moment to google his name and address, you may wish to also. I doubt that he is providing an agenda-free review?

It is a beatiful book with an overwhelming number of new ideas and insights, all found through a common sense approach to what life was really like for these folks living in the distant past. It is a page-turner. I loved it.

EMJ

This is one of the best reads I have had in a very long time! Finally, a book on hunting by someone who actually knowns how to hunt.I recall that when I interviewed George Frison a number of years ago as part of my Ph.D.project, I mentioned my concern that most archaeologists-anthropologists knew very little about hunting because just about none of them hunt. George got a grin from ear to ear and reached over and gave me a copy of a paper he had just read at an AAA ---American Anthopological Association----meeting giving the profession hell on that very subject. We never did sort out which one of us had killed the most elk! Also do not be put off by the title, as the book actually deals with human evolution and hunting, two research topics dear to my heart.Paleolithic art is only a means to an end. In fact, this is the first work I have ever read on that subject, though, I have been interested in western North American rock art for many years.The book is also based on science, not fanciful interpretations of Paleolithic cave paintings,and as such ,I suspect it will offend many people, especially those who do not suscribe to the scientific method or human evolution.There is little question that this book will change the entire debate over why people 35,000 years ago drew what they did and why that tradition eventually died out.

Every once in a while, a book comes along with the potential to change the way we fundamentally view ourselves as humans and our place in the natural world. Guthrie has written just such a book. Drawing upon forty-plus years as a biologist, observer, and synthesizer of patterns in nature and in human culture, Guthrie weaves a profound thesis about the latter stages of human evolution, starting about 40,000 years ago (the upper Paleolithic). Don't be misled by the title--while Paleolithic art is the thread that binds this work, it spins a story about who we are and where we came from, behaviorally and culturally. It is our natural history. It is the story of Us (especially if your ancestry stems from Europe).

The scholarly study of Paleolithic art has a passionate history, and Guthrie has dared to enter hallowed ground. Indeed, almost all previous opuses on the subject have invoked spiritual and supernatural (Guthrie uses the term "magico-religious") explanation for why humans painted figures on rocks, engraved images of animals on their hunting tools, or carved figurines depicting voluptuous women. Most people, even most specialized scholars, have argued that these Paleolithic creations reflect supernatural belief systems, and are the works of shamans and the like. For the most part, as Guthrie points out, these scholars were prehistorians with little or no grounding in natural history, the biological sciences or hunting culture. So, it is not hard to see why they interpreted the images in a spiritual, supernatural context.

Guthrie de-mystifies and de-mythifyies the art. But while he shows that Paleolithic people were keen and spirited (that's "spirited" not "spiritual") observers of nature, to say he sees the art simply as good recordings of ancient natural history would be to sell him short. Our evolution is shaped in large part by selective pressures incurred as hunters of large and often dangerous game. But that part of the story isn't new. What Guthrie does is show how this hunting legacy manifests itself in human culture and art, both prehistoric and modern. In this light, Paleolithic art takes on a completely different meaning, one not based on magico-religious spiritualism, but rather one that reflects an affirmation of our hunting legacy--ranging from fear of dangerous animals to the glory that is integral to hunting them (whether one likes that truth or not, politically).

The art reflects people--mostly young males--at different stages of artistic development, hunting experience, and sexual prowess. Stories are told in the art, but they hark more to eager guys telling tall tales around the fire than to shaman performing ritual and ceremony. Critics are already pooh-poohing this read of the art as missing the bigger (e.g. deeper and spiritual) picture. In actuality, Guthrie's thesis is the deeper and more profound take on the arts' meaning--because it is grounded in something real and testable. Just because modern society and many academicians shun the values associated with lust and the thrill of the hunt does not deny the power of these emotions in our evolution.

Again, the story is about Us at a different time when we interfaced with the world in a different way. It is the time before "human domestication" and extreme division of labor in human societies, which began at the end of the Paleolithic (~10,000 years ago). Much of our belief in supernatural rather than natural explanations of the world stems from this domestication, as we lost touch with aspects of ecology that were not part of our task in the labor force. Indeed, a large part of Guthrie's effort goes into helping the reader understand the Paleolithic world--to see it with eyes less encumbered by our modern take on nature and humans. That said, this book is anything but a post-modern, back-to-nature sermon on our place in the natural world. Guthrie is grounded in solid data and scientific hypothesis testing, salted with creative and artistic reasoning. He has no hidden agendas. He is an artist and hunter himself. A simple glance at the table of contents is a nice introduction to Guthrie's approach.

Anyone who routinely browses the science section at bookstores knows that about a dozen new books are published each year with a jingly new take on this or that aspect of evolution or natural history--typically by the same familiar suite of authors pitching a somewhat different twist to an old story. This is not one of those books. It should be heavily-used in university curricula, in both the biological and social sciences. But any person-- academic or otherwise-- will feel a clearer, and I dare say prouder, conviction of who they are and where they came from after reading this book.

A few months ago I came face-to-face with some beautiful drawings in a cave in France (Font de Gaume) which were made by people very like me, but they were made 40,000 years ago. This experience was riveting, especially when I learned that such drawings were to be found in hundreds of caves from Portugal to Russia, that they were mostly all of the same realistic type, and mostly of animals that were to be found in that area at that time. I was puzzled that the drawings over such large distances could be so similar, because communication over such distances was clearly impossible at that time.

This and other questions are answered by The Nature of Paleolithic Art, by R. Dale Guthrie. This is one of the best books I have ever read! It should perhaps be retitled something like The Nature of Mankind and its relationship to Paleolithic art, to better indicate the breadth of the author's concerns. There are many things to love about this book, including the obvious such as the drawings, and his unabashedly scholarly vocabulary combined with really graceful prose. But I also loved the author's gleeful unapologetic male heterosexuality; the deep-rooted optimism he has for our species; his conclusion that our species' amazing creativity stems from our playfulness; his straightforward explanation of evolution, not as a grand scheme, but as merely the result of the creatures who survive; and finally his sheer joy in participating with all other creatures in the glorious experience called life. Everybody should read this book.

Dale Guthrie has given us a scientifically based and exhaustive interpretation of the significance of Cro-Magnon rock art of western Europe. With his unique background as a paleo-biologist, scholar,and hunter of caribou, moose, elk and deer,(survivors of the mammalian guild from the Pleistocene), he provides insight about the mind, body, and consciousness of Cro-Magnon life strategies. His insight compliments the work that Alex Marshak gave to us in "The Roots of Civilization" first written in 1972 and updated with the most recent edition of 1991.

Also, I recommend another book that provides an excellent overview and the contextual relationship to the above two books. Brian Fagen's newest book (2010)is titled Cro-Magnon:How the Ice Age gave birth to the first Modern Humans.

The review title seems to basically sum up the book. The author makes the quite reasonable assumption that only a tiny fraction of paleolithic art has survived the tens of thousands of years of time between then and now. Furthermore, it's not even a representative sample. Only certain types of art could have survived, and generally only in specific places. So he argues that while the art does tell us something about the people and their time, we need to use our understanding of anthropology and natural history and human nature to put it into proper context.

I do wish he would have included at least a few photographs. The book is full of his drawings, but it would be nice to be working from more direct sources. The author explains this lack by stating that line drawings and etchings don't photograph well, and that is true. But regardless, some photos would have been nice.

However, the real interest in the book is not the art itself, but what the art might be able to teach us about how these people lived and what their environment was like. The author assumes that they were people, very much like us, and that what we see is not the works of their great masters, but more the casual doodling and carving of everyday people (mostly young men).

Where I went to college, we had a tradition of exploring the odd nooks and crannies of the buildings, going into the tunnels and above the false ceilings and such. And when you found a place like that, well you "tagged" it. You maybe made a little drawing or wrote your name and date. These people didn't have written languages or dates, but they could and did make drawings. I find his thesis claiming that most cave art was made by casual explorers to be very compelling.