More Interpreting

            Anyone reading my blog the last couple of weeks has already noticed that I have basically been toying around with the idea of interpreting the cave paintings and prehistoric art; so this post may seem a bit repetitive.  When discussing the study and interpretation of prehistoric art it undoubtedly revolves around two fields of study and analysis, ethological and archaeological.  It is necessary to make the statement however that these two fields of study should be highly interdependent on one another, especially regarding the potential interpretations of the artworks of an extinct culture.  In order to fully understand the culture producing these works of art, one must engage in all activities surrounding the methodological collection of data and the ethological interpretations of that data.  One cannot possibly “make sense” of all the potential interpretations of these artworks unless fully understanding all of the data surrounding that presuppose that analysis.  Ethological data referring the to composition, juxtaposition similarities, size of the works, choice of animals used, and the relationship of the works to unidentified markings all include the potential for ethological interpretation.  However, all of these activities involve the collection of data.  Archaeological data would include: the frequency of certain animals used, the artifacts/ecofacts present in the caves, and once again the general composition of the piece.  All of these aspects are just data until one tries to make sense out of them, which requires ethological interpretation.  One of the common interpretations of prehistoric art, particularly cave paintings, is often they served a spiritual purpose.

            Due to the lack of a written language, it is not out of the ordinary to speculate that these works of art were used in a spiritual, mythical capacity.  From my own armchair perspective, this interpretation seems legitimate.  You can almost picture a group of people ritualistically surrounding the artwork in the great hall of bulls while elders speak a great tale as torchlight flickers along the works, breathing life into them.  But, in this same analysis, there can also be totemic interpretation arising from this manner of thought.  A work of lions and rhinos juxtaposed together can be seen as a totemic relationship between groups identifying with the totem of the lion or the rhino.  Now, what exactly these totems represent is highly uncertain, and I won’t begin to insult the proponents of this theory with my simplistic analysis, but, through this example, it is easy to discern how similar theories can develop and how not one can ever be definitive due to the death of the culture that has produced them.  The one interpretation that we know is undoubtedly true is that the production of these artworks was highly important to the culture that created them.