The deep structure of Pleistocene rock art

The “Artification Hypothesis”

Bibliographic Data

ID11743333
AuthorsEllen Dissanayake (0000-0003-2473-4685, University of Washington, corresponding author)
Year2013
Volume5
Publication date2013-01-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenuePalethnologie (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 2108-6532 • E-ISSN: 2108-6532
PublisherOpenEdition (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.4000/palethnologie.5177
OpenAlexW2283071452
LanguageEN
References cited20

Most researchers of early rock art view their subject with an unexamined assumption about its origin. Stated simply, they believe that at a certain point in human evolution (say 50kya, perhaps earlier), our genus developed the ability to symbolize, thereby making possible the appearance and development of speech, religion, and art (Wade 2006: 164-165). In this paper I question the assumption that “art” is necessarily symbolic. Instead, I propose that in Homo spp. there is an evolved capacity –artification (described below)– that is earlier and more fundamental than symbolization, that it deserves recognition, and that it can be used to identify artistic products of our ancestors. Rather than art being a subset of a larger class, symbolization, I suggest that symbolic art is a subset of artification. Many non-art things are symbolic. We need a concept that adequately describes and gives importance to the earliest human examples of art and their antecedents

Archaeology · Geography · Pleistocene · Rock art · Language and cultural evolution · Pleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology · Primate Behavior and Ecology · Geology · Paleontology

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access