The enigmatic prehistoric paintings found in caves have always represented a headache for specialists What do they actually represent? What was their function, if any? These are the oldest artistic manifestations that we have left, but, unfortunately, we still don’t know much about parietal or rock art.
In today’s article we bring you various theories that have been considered over the last few decades that seek to explain why our ancestors dedicated themselves to decorating the walls of the caves where they lived. From the theory of art for art’s sake, practically discarded today, to the hypothesis that relates the expression of pictorial motifs as an affirmation of identity by its inhabitants. Let’s discover them.
In 1868 there were what would be the first known samples of prehistoric art. It was in Altamira (Spain), and the fortuitous discovery was made by a local, Modesto Cubillas. The discovery went around the world. Since then, Evidence of rock art began to be found all over the world, reliable testimony that prehistoric human beings carried out artistic creation
Indeed, the creative capacity of our ancestors was demonstrated. However, what was the reason that drove them to create? Why had they dedicated themselves to capturing, often in astonishing detail, those silhouettes of animals, humans and geometric volumes on the walls of the caves? What was all that about?
The question is especially complex, since these ancestors of ours did not leave anything in writing (writing would still take a long time to appear). Nor do we know anything about their culture, so it is not possible for us to draw a parallel between the parietal representations with their ideology, religion and customs. This is why the interpretation of prehistoric painting entails many enigmas, which scientists have tried to clarify for decades.
Various theories for a mysterious art
The scarcity of information has led to the emergence of numerous theories that aim to shed some light on the mystery of Paleolithic art. The first of them, that of “art for art’s sake” (appeared at the beginning of the 20th century, almost parallel to the discovery of the first paintings), is today practically obsolete. The others have occurred over the years, and have had defenders and detractors alike. Let’s see them.
Defended by E. Lartet, H. Christy and E. Piette at the beginning of the 20th century, This theory contemplated the parietal art of Prehistory as a creation in which only the pleasure of creating prevailed That is, according to these scholars, the men and women of the Paleolithic dedicated their leisure moments to decorating the walls of the caves where they lived for pure aesthetic enjoyment.
Although it may seem plausible, the truth is that this theory does not quite fit with the reality of primitive communities. The advance of comparative ethnology has made it possible to thoroughly study current primitive groups (that is, people who continue to be hunter-gatherers and therefore live very similar to prehistoric humans), which has shed light on certain issues.. First, these groups give artistic representation a communicative character; That is to say, they give it a meaning, a message, which is why it makes no sense to attribute an exclusively aesthetic origin to prehistoric parietal painting.
On the other hand, the theory of “art for art’s sake” It is too linked to a specific reality, that of the late 19th century (let us remember the artistic currents that appeared associated with this concept). In the history of humanity, we find few moments in which only aesthetic pleasure has prevailed, above the communicative intention of artistic creation.
2. Sympathetic magic
Another theory suggests that the representations of animals that we can find in prehistoric caves have a lot to do with “sympathetic magic”, a phenomenon that we can still trace in many primitive peoples today. Salomon Reinach was the first to launch this theory, in 1903; Currently, although it continues to have some consideration, it has many detractors, who maintain that it does not quite fit with the representations of Paleolithic art.
Sympathetic magic consists of giving plastic representation a force for the future ; That is, if we paint a bison on the wall, it means that in tomorrow’s hunt we will obtain a huge and succulent bison that will feed the entire group for days. It’s more; I can even paint the bison without legs, or with a wound, because this will mean that the animal will be unable to flee and, therefore, much easier to hunt.
In his magnificent conference Why and for what? The meaning of rock art (see bibliography), Marcos García-Díez clearly explains why the theory of “sympathetic magic” does not quite correspond to the reality of the Paleolithic. And it is that There are examples of paintings where animals have been represented for which there is little archaeological evidence in the area, so it is somewhat absurd to think that those men and women represented animals that were scarce in their territory. The most normal thing, of course, was that they tried to attract, through sympathetic magic, the pieces that were most abundant.
3. Totemism
Also a result of comparative ethnology, the totemic theory emerged to explain why prehistoric humans painted in caves. This hypothesis is based on the study of current primitive groups that live in an intimate relationship with nature, from which they extract their totem or sacred animal. This totem bathes the tribe with its strength and protects it from all threats, so attacking the animal in question is considered taboo.
In this sense, the theory of totemism would explain the parietal painting as a representation of the sacred animal of the clan, to invoke its protection. However, this does not fit with some representations, which show animals injured or attacked by humans.
4. Shamanism
Jean Clottes and David Lewis-William presented their shamanic theory for rock art from the point of view that Every town has some percentage of shamanism in its culture Thus, in relation to parietal art, we would be faced with the plastic representation of the various stages of alteration of consciousness that the shaman of the group would go through; The perfectly outlined figures would correspond to the first stage, while, as the shaman enters a trance, the representations become much more schematic and chaotic.
This theory is founded if we consider that, indeed, in all cultures we find a certain type of shamanism, nor that it is latent. Marcos García-Díez, in the aforementioned conference, speaks of the ancient Christian ascetics who retired to the desert and practiced starvation, the result of which came the different “heavenly visions” that they later claimed to have perceived.
The alteration of consciousness or shamanic vision is a neurological process that can be triggered through different pathways ; It may well be through the consumption of certain substances, or due to extreme states such as excessive fatigue or severe starvation. In any case, it is plausible to consider the existence of shamans and religious rites in the caves, and that the parietal paintings are their plastic manifestation.
5. Structuralism
The precursor of this theory was André Leroi-Gourham, who applied it to the study of art in the Paleolithic. Gourham proposed understanding prehistoric representations as a symbolic language, in which each painted element would be located in its corresponding place and, in addition, would be accompanied by its complementary element.
So, After numerous and detailed studies of hundreds of European prehistoric sites, Gourham condensed the basic precepts of this symbolic system, which was summarized in a sexual duality: on the one hand, there would be the female animal symbols; on the other, the male symbol animals.
6. Sense of belonging and identification
Finally, it is interesting to highlight a fairly recent theory that has been generating great interest: the theory of the sense of belonging and identification. This hypothesis suggests that prehistoric parietal art would, in reality, be an expression of group identity, to differentiate itself from other tribes and cultural realities. This would be given by the enormous demographic growth and the consequent overpopulation, which would make it necessary to identify with a specific group.
As we see, there is still too much to be specified. There are many theories that anthropologists and ethnographers have left us about the true intention of prehistoric art, and all of them have their pros and cons, their defenders and their detractors. We may never know the answer.
