Lots of interesting stuff, but the presentation is uneven. The authors are Paul G. Bahn, described as a “writer, translator, and broadcaster specializing in archaeology” and Jean Vertut, “the foremost photographer of European cave art.” Mr. Vertut died in 1985; the book was published in 1997. This combination leads to a large-format “coffee table” book, with a lot of photographs that seem to chosen for artistic effect rather than to illustrate points in the accompanying text.


The text is straightforward enough; Mr. Bahn goes through the history of the discovery of Pleistocene art (“portable” art – carved or engraved objects – was accepted as authentic immediately, while what Mr. Bahn calls “parietal” art – painted, carved or molded on cave walls – was dismissed as forgery for years; ironically one of the iconic examples of Pleistocene portable art, the “Venus of Brassempouy”, is now suspected to be a forgery).


Although there’s a chapter titled “A Worldwide Phenomena”, cave art is mostly confined to France, Spain, and Sicily despite the presence of apparently suitable caves in the rest of the world. Although some of the painted art was done with reed brushes or buffalo fur daubers, one of the most common methods required the artist to fill their mouth with paint and spit it on the wall (it’s noted Australian aborigines still use this method; modern archaeologists experimenting discovered they could paint a convincing bison this way in under an hour). I was interested in the amount of experimental archaeology Bahn discusses, for example – “is it possible to walk barefoot four kilometers into a cave using torches for illumination, paint a canvas, and walk back out again without running out of light” (yes). Bahn notes that the pigments used were mostly ocher and charcoal; they were often mixed with a binder (fish glue, for example) which didn’t work at all in the humid caves (but suggests there may once have been a lot of art painted on dry, outside surfaces that has been long lost).


Bahn’s discussion of the “reason” for cave art is quite interesting. With my casual acquaintance with the subject, I had assumed “hunting magic”, based on some cursory reading (the idea that drawing animals will make them easier to hunt); Bahn allows that as a possibility, noting that Australian aborigines still do that; that most of the animals displayed are game rather than predators; and that animals often seem to be depicted as if they were lying on their sides after being killed. However, he also notes that there’s often a discrepancy between the animals shown on cave walls and the bones found at surface sites in the same area. “Fertility magic” is also a possibility; drawing lots of animals in a cave will make them abundant outside (Australian aborigines still do that, too). Possibly relevant is the fact that animals are often drawn or carved overlapping, suggesting that the act of depiction was more important than the result. Recent (at least, as of the 1997 publication date) studies show some interesting things; certain animals (horses and deer) are much more likely to be drawn on convex surfaces, while others (bison and aurochs) are much more likely to appear on concave surfaces. Bahn devotes a lot of time to French investigators who decided that there was a definite pattern to art, with certain animals shown in certain parts of caves (entryway, left passages, right passages, deep inside, etc.) with the idea that the viewer was supposed to walk by in particular sequence; he’s understandable skeptical, as the caves are complicated enough that what constituted (for example) a “left passage” could be adjusted to fit the theory.


The caves also contain non-representative paintings – patterns of dots, dashes, squares, circles, etc. There’s limited speculation on what these might be – directional signs? The very beginning of writing? Trying out a new brush?


One major deficiency is the lack of a clear time scale. Bahn repeatedly refers to Pleistocene cultural periods – Aurignacian, Magdalenian, etc. – long before providing a time chart; then the chart he shows dates from 1976, and doesn’t even illustrate current thought at that time, but rather the history of the use of these names. Another possible deficiency is the lack of any cultural background information; there’s no discussion of lithics, paleoclimate, human fossils, or other information that might have some bearing on the makers of the art; however, this is already a pretty long book.


As mentioned, abundant color photographs; both large scale and detail maps of cave locations (although few plans of the caves themselves). A long bibliography, listing books in multiple languages; and adequate index. Probably now out of date, which explains why it was pretty cheap, but interesting enough to make me want to do more reading. ( )