IT STILL ISN'T POINTILLISM - DAMMIT!

Aurochs, Abri Cellier, France. Internet photograph, public domain.

Reproduction of the Aurochs, Abri Cellier, France. Internet photograph, public domain.

Drawing of the Aurochs, Abri Cellier, France. Cupules and lines separated. Internet photograph, public domain.

Back on 18 March 2017 I posted a column on RockArtBlog titled "Pointillism in Rock Art - A Misapplied Definition" in an attempt to correct reports of engraved stone blocks from the Aurignacian site of Abri Cellier in France that referred to images created by rows and areas of cupules and dots as examples of the artistic movement known as pointillism.

Model in profile, Georges Seurat, 1886. Internet Photograph, public domain.

Pointillism was a term used by art critics in the 1880s and 1890s to denigrate a painting technique developed by French painters Geoerges Seurat and Paul Signac, who developed their images with small dots of primary colors, relying on the eye of the viewer to mix the colors visually, which they believed resulted in brighter, more shimmering colors, the whole point of pointillism was not the dots, it was the optical mixing of the colors.

Mammoth on limestone block. Abri Cellier, France. Illustration from Quaternary International.

Drawing of mammoth on limestone block. Abri Cellier, France. Illustration from Quaternary International.

The Aurignacian is an Upper Paleolithic period associated with early modern humans in Europe, which lasted from 43,000 to 26,000 years ago, corresponding to the first stages of the expansion of Homo sapiens out of Africa. "An early Aurignacian, or proto-Aurignacian stage is dated between about 43,000 and 37,000 years ago. The Aurignacian proper lasts from about 37,000 to 33,000 years ago. A Late Aurignacian phase transitional with the Gravettian dates to about 33,000 to 26,000 years ago." (Wikipedia)

Unknown quadruped on limestone block. Abri Cellier, France. Illustration from Quaternary International.

Drawing of unknown quadruped on limestone block. Abri Cellier, France. Illustration from Quaternary International.

Back in 2017 a new group of limestone blocks were discovered at Abri Cellier in France which showed images made from groupings of pecked cupules and dots, some with lines for detail, and some primarily made from the massing of pecked cupules. Some of the lines could be seen to have been created by pecking a row of cupules and then pecking out the spaces between to connect them. This was, at that time, trumpeted in the press as Aurignacian pointillism. Some of these blocks came also from Abri Blanchard. I recently acquired the original paper by White et al. (2017) which has prompted me to revisit this subject.

Rhinoceros, Chauvet cave, France. Internet photograph, public domain.

First, I wish to state clearly that I could find only one mention of pointillism at all in this original paper (White et al. 2017) and that was in reference to a possible comparison to an image at another site that had been called (mistakenly) an example of pointillism. "The use of aligned cupules to define a form has been seen elsewhere in the region and we wonder if the cupules are not the equivalent of the painted dots uned, for example, to for a pointillist rhinoceros at Chauvet. There is indeed one example in the 2014 sample that consists of painted dots on a large bloc of red sandstone." (White et al. 2017:21) This misuse of that term pointillism seems to have been picked up and applied to the images by overzealous reporters to sensationalize their stories. The paper is primarily concerned with limestone blocks, most of which were ignored or discarded by the original excavator in 1905 but which proved upon careful examination by the 2017 team to have various signs of cultural modifications.

In her article about this study (see references) Boissoneault (2017) admitted that calling these examples pointillism may well be innaccurate. "But don't go too dotty about this instance of prehistoric pointillism, art experts caution. Using the term 'pointillist' to describe the engravings and paintings might be stretching the definition of the French post-impressionist artistic technique, says Gloria Groom, the director of European painting and sculpture at the Art Institute of Chicago." (Boissoneault 2017)  What does disappoint me, however, is that the article with its sensational title was printed on Smithsonian Magazine online. I would have hoped for higher standards from them.

The paper by White et al. is essentially a very detailed study of cultural modifications made to a number of blocks of limestone from Aurignacian sites. "It is sobering to observe that when we add the modified blocks from our work to the known sample, it radically alters the proportions of themes, subjects and graphic forms observable by researchers over the past century. The case of Abri Cellier is especially telling: the traditionally known vulva-horse-ibex profile is substantially changed by the addition of 3 mammoths, now the dominant animal represented at Abri Cellier." (White et al. 2017:24)

"Most Late Aurignacian layers were excavated long ago, were often thin, poorly preserved, or even in secondary position (the case at Abri Castanet). The Abri Cellier archives suggested that a portion of this important Later Aurignacian layer might be preserved, allowing us to fill in some details, but our return to the site showed this not to be the case. The association of this new in situ discovery with Layer 104 indicates a radiocarbon age of 33,600 ± 550 BP with the base of overlying US 102 yielding a slightly more recent date of 32,450 ± 450 BP. There is every reason to believe that the date for US 104 applies to all of the blocks excavated in 1927. These dates are also coherent with those recently obtained for in situ blick discoveries at Abri Blanchard and Abri Castanet just 5 km distant. In sum, the 2014 field operation contributes substantial new data to our understanding of the recovery biases, context and chronology of Aurignacian modified limestone blocks, including some ot the earliest known graphic representations." (White et al. 2017:24-25)

This is obviously a short presentation of the long and complicated paper which led to the trumpeting in the press of Aurignacian pointillism, a claim that White et al. did not make. I recommend their paper to anyone interested in the details of their study. And this presentation is meant in no way to decry any of their statements and findings, only the hysteria in the press about Aurignacian pointillism. As I stated above, the whole point of pointillism was not the creation of the image with dots, it was the optical mixing of the primary colors in the viewer's eye. The cupules or dots on blocks of limestone have absolutely nothing in common with any example of pointillism. 

NOTE 1: Some images in this posting were retrieved from the internet with a search for public domain photographs. If any of these images are not intended to be public domain, I apologize, and will happily provide the picture credits of the owner will contact me with them. For further information on this you should read the original reports at the sites listed below.

NOTE 2: According to Merriam-Webster Online dammit is an acceptable contraction commonly used for damn-it.

REFERENCES:

Boissoneault, Lorraine, 2017, Prehistoric Pointillism? Long Before Surat Ancient Artists Chiseled Mammoths Out of Dots, 27 February 2017, Smithsonian Magazine online, https://www.smithsonianmag.com. Accessed 2 December 2022.

Faris, Peter, 2017, Pointillism in Rock Art - A Misapplied Definition, 18 March 2017, https://rockartblog.blogspot.com/search/label/pointillism

White, Randall et al., 2017, Newly Discovered Aurignacian Engraved Blocks From Abri Cellier: History, Context and Dating, Quaternary International (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.02.001. Accessed 4 December 2022.

Wikipedia, Aurignacian, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurignacian. Accessed 2 December 2022.