Cave Paintings, the Parietal Art of the Ancient World

Cave art, also called parietal art or cave paintings, is a general term referring to the decoration of the walls of rock shelters and caves throughout the world. The best-known sites are in Upper Paleolithic Europe. There polychrome (multi-colored) paintings made of charcoal and ochre, and other natural pigments, were used to illustrate extinct animals, humans, and geometric shapes some 20,000-30,000 years ago. The purpose of cave art, particularly Upper Paleolithic cave art, is widely debated. Cave art is most often associated with the work of shamans—religious specialists who may have painted the walls in memory of past or support of future hunting trips. Cave art was once considered evidence of a creative explosion, when the minds of ancient humans became fully developed. Today, scholars believe that human progress towards behavioral modernity began in Africa and developed much more slowly. The Earliest and Oldest Cave Paintings The oldest yet dated cave art is from El Castillo Cave, in Spain. There, a collection of handprints and animal drawings decorated the ceiling of a cave about 40,000 years ago. Another early cave is Abri Castanet in France, about 37,000 years ago; again, its art is limited to handprints and animal drawings. The oldest of the lifelike paintings most familiar to fans of rock art is the truly spectacular Chauvet Cave in France, direct-dated to between 30,000-32,000 years ago. Art in rock shelters is known to have occurred within the past 500 years in many parts of the world, and there is some argument to be made that modern graffiti is a continuation of that tradition. Dating Upper Paleolithic Cave Sites One of the great controversies in rock art today is whether we have reliable dates for when the great cave paintings of Europe were completed. There are three current methods of dating cave paintings. Direct dating, in which conventional or AMS radiocarbon dates are taken on tiny fragments of charcoal or other organic paints in the painting itselfIndirect dating, in which radiocarbon dates are taken on charcoal from occupation layers within the cave that are somehow associated with the painting, such as pigment-making tools, portable art or collapsed painted roof or wall blocks are found in datable strataStylistic dating, in which scholars compare the images or techniques used in a particular painting to others which have already been dated in another manner Although direct dating is the most reliable, stylistic dating is the most often used, because direct dating destroys some part of the  painting and the other methods are only possible in rare occurrences. Stylistic changes in artifact types have been used as chronological markers in seriation since the late 19th century; stylistic changes in rock art are an outgrowth of that philosophical method. Until Chauvet, painting styles for the Upper Paleolithic were thought to reflect a long, slow growth to complexity, with certain themes, styles and techniques assigned to the Gravettian, Solutrean, and Magdalenian time segments of the UP. Direct-Dated Sites in France According to von Petzinger and Nowell (2011 cited below), there are 142 caves in France with wall paintings dated to the UP, but only 10 have been direct-dated. Aurignacian (~45,000-29,000 BP), 9 total: ChauvetGravettian (29,000-22,000 BP), 28 total: Pech-Merle, Grotte Cosquer, Courgnac, Mayennes-SciencesSolutrian (22,000-18,000 BP), 33 total: Grotte CosquerMagdalenian (17,000-11,000 BP), 87 total: Cougnac, Niaux, Le Portel The problem with that (30,000 years of art primarily identified by modern western perceptions of style changes) was recognized by Paul Bahn among others in the 1990s, but the issue was brought into sharp focus by the direct dating of Chauvet Cave. Chauvet, at 31,000 years old an Aurignacian period cave, has a complex style and themes that are usually associated with much later periods. Either Chauvets dates are wrong, or the accepted stylistic changes need to be modified. For the moment, archaeologists cannot move completely away from stylistic methods, but they can retool the process. Doing so will be difficult, although von Pettinger and Nowell have suggested a starting point: to focus on image details within the direct-dated caves and extrapolate outward. Determining which image details to select to identify stylistic differences may be a thorny task, but unless and until detailed direct-dating of cave art becomes possible, it may be the best way forward. Sources Bednarik RG. 2009. To be or not to be Palaeolithic, that is the question.  Rock Art Research  26(2):165-177. Chauvet J-M, Deschamps EB, and Hillaire C. 1996. Chauvet Cave: The worlds oldest paintings, dating from around 31,000 BC.  Minerva  7(4):17-22. Gonzà ¡lez JJA, and Behrmann RdB. 2007. C14 et style: La  chronologie  de  l’art  parià ©tal à  Ã‚  l’heure  actuelle.  LAnthropologie  111(4):435-466. doi:j.anthro.2007.07.001 Henry-Gambier D, Beauval C, Airvaux J, Aujoulat N, Baratin JF, and Buisson-Catil  J. 2007. New hominid remains associated with Gravettian parietal art (Les Garennes, Vilhonneur, France).  Journal of Human Evolution  53(6):747-750. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2007.07.003 Leroi-Gourhan A, and Champion S. 1982.  The dawn of European art: an introduction to Palaeolithic cave painting.  New York: Cambridge University Press. Mà ©lard N, Pigeaud R, Primault J, and  Rodet  J. 2010.  Gravettian painting and associated activity at Le Moulin de  .  Antiquity  84(325):666–680.Laguenay  (Lissac-sur-Couze, Corrà ¨ze) Moro Abadà ­a O. 2006.  Art, crafts and Paleolithic art.  Journal of Social Archaeology 6(1):119–141. Moro Abadà ­a O, and Morales MRG. 2007. Thinking about style in the post-stylistic era: reconstructing the stylistic context of Chauvet.  Oxford Journal of Archaeology  26(2):109-125. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0092.2007.00276.x Pettitt PB. 2008. Art and the Middle-to-Upper Paleolithic transition in Europe: Comments on the archaeological arguments for an early Upper Paleolithic antiquity of the Grotte Chauvet art.  Journal of Human Evolution  55(5):908-917. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2008.04.003 Pettitt, Paul. Dating European Palaeolithic Cave Art: Progress, Prospects, Problems. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, Alistair Pike, Volume 14, Issue 1, SpringerLink, February 10, 2007. Sauvet  G, Layton R, Lenssen-Erz T, Taà §on P, and Wlodarczyk A. 2009. Thinking with Animals in Upper Palaeolithic Rock Art.  Cambridge Archaeological Journal  19(03):319-336. doi:10.1017/S0959774309000511 von Petzinger G, and Nowell A. 2011.  A question of style: reconsidering the stylistic approach to dating Palaeolithic parietal art in France.  Antiquity  85(330):1165-1183.

Women Were Birds And Unspeakable Things By Laurie Penny

The novels When Women Were Birds and Unspeakable Things both champion feminist thought. Despite this commonality, the voice, stories, and themes are different and unique. Both touch on similar ideas, but the tone the authors take on are distinctive. Unspeakable Things, a novel by Laurie Penny, abrasively addresses the oppression of gender in society through the lens of girls, boys, sex, the Internet, and love and intimacy. This intersectional analysis has an overlay of the impact of neoliberalism, what Penny describes as the â€Å"attempt to reorganize society and the state on the basis of the ideal of ‘the market’† (2). She takes the stance that feminism has become corrupted by capitalism as she critiques the roots of the feminist movement†¦show more content†¦In fact, she writes of Hillary Rodham Clinton, saying, â€Å"she may have been Secretary of State, but she is still judged for her fuckability and ability to rock a pantsuit† (42). Upon further reflection, however, Penny is not surprised by these examples. She writes, â€Å"Although the technology is new, the language of shame and sin around women’s use of the Internet is very, very old† (164). The Internet’s infest ation of bullies and misogynists is simply a re-routing of social traffic to an easier platform. Additionally, Penny’s discussion on many feminist issues in the lens of neoliberalism is refreshing and thought-provoking. The way Penny explores what neoliberalism and market-driven society has done to sex, love, and intimacy is captivating. The way the market teaches young women to be sexual objects is not a new discussion, and Penny does address it alongside the Internet, but Penny has more nuanced thoughts; she writes, â€Å"the social cost of actually having sex, rather than merely appearing to want to have it, is what damages women; sexual control, not sex itself, is what harms all of us† (110). There is a defined line for women in society; women can want sex and appear sexually attractive, but once they take control and have sex, there is an issue because the control has been taken from the power-holder. The market is the instigator in sexual control. Further, Penny argues the cycle does not end there: â€Å"as all human affect collapses

Marbury vs Madison Free Essays

Marbury vs Madison †¢What Occurred in the case? oJudicial review is the power of the courts to annul the acts of the executive and/or the legislative power where it finds them incompatible with a higher norm. Judicial review is an example of the functioning of separation of powers in a modern governmental system (where the judiciary is one of several branches of government). This means that the Judicial Branch of the government can check and/or balance the Executive Branch and/or the Legislative Branch if the problem violates the Constitution. We will write a custom essay sample on Marbury vs Madison or any similar topic only for you Order Now That is one of the checks and balances set up in the Constitution. This way no one branch has all the power. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U. S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) is a landmark case in United States law. It formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. This case resulted from a petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury, who had been appointed as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia by President John Adams shortly before leaving office, but whose commission was not delivered as required by John Marshall, Adams’ Secretary of State. When Thomas Jefferson assumed office, he ordered the new Secretary of State, James Madison, to withhold Marbury’s and several other men’s commissions. Being unable to assume the appointed offices without the commission documents, Marbury and three others petitioned the Court to force Madison to deliver the commission to Marbury. The Supreme Court denied Marbury’s petition, holding that the statute upon which he based his claim was unconstitutional. oOn his last day in office, President John Adams named forty-two justices of the peace and sixteen new circuit court justices for the District of Columbia under the Organic Act. The Organic Act was an attempt by the Federalists to take control of the federal judiciary before Thomas Jefferson took office. oThe commissions were signed by President Adams and sealed by acting Secretary of State John Marshall (who later became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and author of this opinion), but they were not delivered before the expiration of Adams’s term as president. Thomas Jefferson refused to honor the commissions, claiming that they were invalid because they had not been delivered by the end of Adams’s term. William Marbury (P) was an intended recipient of an appointment as justice of the peace. Marbury applied directly to the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of mandamus to compel Jefferson’s Secretary of State, James Madison (D), to deliver the commissions. The Judiciary Act of 1789 had granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus â€Å"†¦to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States. † oIn November 1800, President John Adams, a Federalist, lost his bid for reelection to Thomas Jefferson, a Republican. The Federalists also lost control of Congress in the election. For the few months before the new President and Congress took office, however, Adams and his Federalist Party still had control. oDuring these months, Adams persuaded Congress to pass a new law, the Judiciary Act of 1801. This act gave Adams the power to appoint several new federal judges. The Federalists hoped to fill the nation’s courts with people who would be opposed to the policies of the incoming Republican administration. oAdams was generally successful in this effort, appointing some 39 new judges. Adams’s Secretary of State was to deliver the commissions, or official documents authorizing the appointments. The Secretary of State, though, failed to deliver the commissions to three new justices of the peace before Adams’s term of office ended. One of the commissions was to go to William Marbury. oWhen Thomas Jefferson became President in March 1801, he learned of Adams’s attempt to pack the court with Federalist judges. He also discovered the failure to deliver the remaining commissions. To prevent these Federalists from becoming justices of the peace, Jefferson instructed his Secretary of State, James Madison, to refuse the appointments. oMarbury went to the Supreme Court in an attempt to gain his post. He wanted the Court to issue an order forcing Madison to give Marbury his commission. The Judiciary Act of 1789 had given the Supreme Court the power to issue such an order. o †¢How it impacted Congressional power and the enactment of law in our country oThis historic court case established the concept of Judicial Review or the ability of the Judiciary Branch to declare a law unconstitutional. This case brought the Judicial Branch of the government on a more even power basis with the Legislative and Executive Branches. The Founding Fathers expected the branches of government to act as checks and balances on each other. The historic court case Marbury v. Madison accomplished this end thereby setting the precedent for numerous historic decisions in the future oWhile Marbury never became a justice of the peace, the Court’s ruling in Marbury v. Madison established a very important precedent. A precedent is a legal decision that serves as an example in later court cases. Chief Justice Marshall’s ruling interpreted the Constitution to mean that the Supreme Court had the power of judicial review. That is, the Court had the right to review acts of Congress and, by extension, actions of the President. If the Court found that a law was unconstitutional, it could overrule the law. Marshall argued that the Constitution is the â€Å"supreme law of the land† and that the Supreme Court has the final say over the meaning of the Constitution. Judicial review enabled the Court to check power of the Legislative and Executive branches by preventing them from imposing legislation that violated citizens’ constitutional rights. Prior to Marbury, the Supreme Court had failed to challenge Congress, and thus was the weakest branch of the The decision in this Supreme Court Case established the right of the courts to determine the constitutionality of the actions of the oth er two branches of government o oTwo recent cases in American history where the foundations of this case had an impact on the establishment of law in our society. oBrown vs Board of Edu oRoe vs Wade How to cite Marbury vs Madison, Papers