Centro Asociado UNED Cantabria, National Distance Education University

This paper explores the origins of the symbolic–religious interpretation of Palaeolithic art. We analyse the relationship between the explanations that were given of the ‘primitive’ mentality in the second half of the nineteenth century and the birth of the religious interpretations of Palaeolithic art and we try to show how this union does not express a direct cause effect relationship. In order for the union to take place, an intellectual change that would generate a new way of understanding the origins and the nature of art was necessary.

This paper explores the origin and theoretical roots of the concept of ‘Palaeolithic art’ in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (1895–1906). It identifies three main sources for this concept: the Western category of ‘art’, the idea of evolution and the notion of primitive. This article shows how the traditional conception of ‘Palaeolithic art’ is a particular case of the wider idea of ‘primitive art’, a category that was born as an attempt to harmonise the notion of ‘primitive society’ and the nineteenth-century bourgeois concept of ‘art’. Additionally, I discuss this traditional conception as the source of a number of ideas that have persisted in our way of interpreting Palaeolithic images until recently, including the understanding of prehistoric images through the lens of the modern notion of ‘art’, their interpretation in symbolic-religious terms and their formal definition based on the idea of naturalism.

This article examines the impact of ‘naturalism’ upon the understanding of Paleolithic cave art during the last 150 years. In art history, the term ‘naturalism’ is commonly used to define the mode of representation seeking to imitate nature as faithfully and truthfully as possible. This ‘naturalistic’ ideal influenced traditional interpretations of cave images in a number of fundamental ways. In particular, during the greater part of the twentieth century, archaeologists, anthropologists and art historians focused on ‘realistic’ representations and overlooked ‘non-naturalistic’ images. This ‘naturalistic’ interpretation of cave images remained unchallenged until the last 30 years, when the favored position of realistic images has been questioned by a number of theoretical and empirical developments.

The study of prehistory established itself as a scientific discipline during the second half of the nineteenth century. The main issues discussed by this new science centered on the origins of humankind, society, technology, art and religion; this intellectual process of the creation of ideas, concepts and categories was projected on the archaeological finds. When archaeological evidence was found that could be interpreted as proof of the existence of religious beliefs in Paleolithic times, there were various reactions and interpretations among prehistorians. The clash between evolutionism and the Judeo-Christian religious tradition was a key element in the development of these different discourses; these two viewpoints implied opposite ways of thinking about human nature. This paper discusses this diversity of narratives, specifically in the context of France, through the contributions of four authors, each with different ideologies and sociopolitical circumstances: Gabriel de Mortillet, Émile Cartailhac, Salomon Reinach and Henri Breuil.

Les historiens de l’archéologie ont souvent considéré André Leroi-Gourhan comme l’auteur qui a introduit la démarche « structuraliste » dans l’analyse de l’art paléolithique. Dans ce contexte, ils ont souligné le caractère innovateur de certaines de ses idées ainsi que la rupture que sa pensée a effectuée par rapport à l’interprétation de l’abbé Breuil. Néanmoins, certaines continuités peuvent s’établir entre les idées d’André Leroi-Gourhan et celles des auteurs précédents. En particulier, nous allons montrer comment il a fondé son analyse de l’art paléolithique sur un appareil conceptuel qu’il a emprunté à l’histoire formaliste de l’art (comme l’idée de progrès artistique) ainsi que sur quelques idées à propos de l’homme primitif qui ont été formulées par des anthropologues dès la fin du XIXe siècle. En effet, la pensée de Leroi-Gourhan sur l’art paléolithique émerge de la rencontre des conceptions traditionnelles et des idées nouvelles sur cette matière. La rencontre de l’ancien et du nouveau se fait évidente dans ses idées sur l’esthétique et l’art, la religion et l’évolution. Nous allons essayer de reconstituer la pensée d’André Leroi-Gourhan sur l’art paléolithique à travers une grille d’interprétation qui explore cette dialectique entre continuité et rupture.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Historians of archaeology have often considered André Leroi-Gourhan as the primary proponent of structuralism in Palaeolithic art research. They have often emphasized the innovative character of André Leroi-Gourhan’s ideas and the differences between his theory and that of Breuil. Nevertheless, important continuities may be established between André Leroi-Gourhan and his predecessors. In this paper we seek to demonstrate that his theoretical model was based on a number of concepts borrowed from the formalist history of art (e.g. the idea of ‘artistic progress’) as well as on several ideas first developed by anthropologists at the end of the 19th century. In fact, André Leroi-Gourhan’s theoretical framework concerning Palaeolithic art was based both on traditional and innovative notions about this subject.

El 14 de diciembre de 2012 falleció el arqueólogo norteamericano Leslie Gordon Freeman. Tan sólo unos tres meses más tarde, el 22 de marzo de 2013, moriría su colega y amigo Joaquín González Echegaray. No es frecuente hacer un obituario conjunto, quizá porque no hay acto más unilateral que morir, pero en el caso de estos dos colosos de la arqueología cabe la excepción. Esta salvedad puede deberse a que una parte importante de su trayectoria investigadora fue compartida, pero, sobre todo, se justifica porque ambos fueron protagonistas del primer impulso renovador que benefició a la arqueología española en la segunda mitad del siglo XX. En efecto, su colaboración, desde que se conocieron en 1962, es un símbolo de la ruptura del aislamiento de la arqueología peninsular y su apertura, tímida en un principio, a las técnicas y teorías más innovadoras que por entonces se estaban desarrollando en Norteamérica. Pero además de esta dimensión conjunta, sobre la que volveremos más tarde, es oportuno precisar por separado algunos rasgos esenciales de sus biografías y carreras investigadoras.

André Leroi-Gourhan’s work is usually considered a paradigmatic example of the application of structuralist ideas to the study of Palaeolithic art. The association between Leroi-Gourhan and structuralism is, however, problematic. Leroi-Gourhan explicitly distinguished his approach from that of Lévi-Strauss. Furthermore, he developed an explanatory model for the analysis of cave and portable art based on a number of postulates that were not necessarily connected to structuralism. We examine Leroi-Gourhan’s understanding of Palaeolithic
art in order to determine the influence of structuralism upon his work. This examination will help us to consider some alternative perspectives on the so-called structural analysis of Palaeolithic art. Moreover, Leroi-Gourhan’s case will allow us to reflect on how archaeologists appropriate theory from other disciplines and how intellectual production in archaeology works.

Entrevista realizada a Lawrence Straus por Eduardo Palacio Pérez el 27 de junio de 2013 en el marco del Proyecto "Una arqueología sin fronteras. Los contactos internacionales de la Arqueología española en el siglo XX". Proyecto de investigación MINECO-Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad, Plan Nacional I+D+i, nº ref. HAR2012-334033

In this article I would like to focus on a particular episode in the history of archaeology: the change in the concept of Palaeolithic art between the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. At this time a notion of art based on innocent realism and the decorative nature of the representations was transformed into one founded on an evolutionist explanation of the artistic form and the symbolic-religious meaning of the different motifs. This change was determined by the introduction of ideas developed by British evolutionists to the field of French prehistory. This took place within a complex scenario marked by the tension between each country’s own archaeological tradition and a clear trend towards the international transmission of ideas. The French researchers Salomon Reinach (1858-1932) and Henri Breuil (1877-1961) played a vital role in this process.

La historia del descubrimiento, estudio e interpretación del arte paleolítico por parte del pensamiento contemporáneo de los siglos XIX y XX resulta apasionante. Pero ésta no se compone sólo de las expediciones y hallazgos de los prehistoriadores, sino también de los debates suscitados al tratar de ordenar e interpretar esas nuevas revelaciones del pasado. De hecho, la génesis y transformación de la idea de “arte paleolítico” pueden ser interpretadas como una respuesta a todos estos debates. Este libro es una reflexión crítica sobre la manera en que se han conceptuado las imágenes y representaciones paleolíticas desde su descubrimiento a finales del siglo XIX hasta las décadas finales del siglo XX. Desde el punto de vista de la historia de las ideas y de la historia de las mentalidades, el autor profundiza en cómo ciertas concepciones del pensamiento occidental establecieron el marco de interpretación general que sirvió para explicar los grabados, pinturas y esculturas del Paleolítico durante más de un siglo. Las categorías en las que se expresó esa explicación fueron las de “arte”, “sociedad primitiva” y “evolución”.