Paper short abstract:

The objects we call "prehistoric art" are heterogeneous, and many need not have had special aesthetic, material or representational qualities. Exploring what kind of objects we are dealing with is a necessary prior question; different objects work within different semiotic/ interpretive frameworks.

Paper long abstract:

Most archaeologists now generally acknowledge that applying a modern, Western definition of art to ancient objects does not work; indeed, it actively prevents us from understanding these objects. It imposes an inappropriate meaning-oriented framework, distorts interpretation, and biases how we create and publicise data about them. But we have paid much less attention to creating new ways for understanding them to take the place of "art", leaving the discussion stuck at the level of critique. This is in part because we have avoided the risky question of what ancient "art" was actually used for and what this implies about how to interpret it. In this paper, drawing upon a range of material culture theorists, I review the range of objects which archaeologists commonly consider "prehistoric art", focusing principally upon Holocene European examples. Using information from an object's contexts and design features to provide an idea of its social functionality, I suggest some ideas about how each kind was used and thence the semiotic framework we need to interpret it. Things we commonly consider "art" are mostly better understood as advertising, interior design, informational signs, ritual paraphernalia, and medical technologies. Only a few items, including some not normally considered "art" (such as axes) may have formed a category of special "powerful objects" which were innately potent and active - a category found in many societies, and the closest we are likely to get to "art" in prehistoric societies.