| Abstract: |
In the pages that follow, I seek not to provide a comprehensive review of explanations for the origins or art, but to accomplish three complementary tasks: First, I attempt to reorient, in a direction more satisfying to anthropology, research that seeks to understand of explain that phenomenon generally recognized as the first art. I propose a framework that focuses on material forms of representation and that seeks to understand them as metaphorically based, socially meaningful constructs. Second, I provide a broad, critical evaluation of the current record pertaining to the earliest material representations, echoing and elaborating upon Chase & Dibbles (23) skepticism about alleged symbolic objects dating to before the Middle/Upper Paleolithic transition. Third, I present an overview of Aurignacian material representation, the operational chain that produced it, and the patterning inherent in it. I conclude by reaffirming my previously stated view (123) that the invention of material forms of representation went hand in hand with a major social transformation across the Middle/Upper Paleolithic transition in Europe. In addition, I attempt to understand the advantages and cultural evolutionary consequences of metaphorically based material representations. This concern with metaphor and its relationship to the origins of art stems directly from Knechts (52, 53) probing and fresh analysis of the foundations of innovation in early Upper Paleolithic organic projectile technology. I have taken many of her insights, notably her emphasis on the role of nonverbal thought in technological innovation, and aimed them at the question of art in the Aurignacian.
|
