‘Out of Franco-Cantabria’: The Globalization of Pleistocene Rock Art

Abstract

Since the second half of the twentieth century, globalization has transformed archaeology into a ‘geoculture’ (using Wallerstein’s words) defined by the increasing circulation of ideas within a worldwide scientific community. This change has not only affected the ways in which new paradigms and methods are transmitted, but it has also significantly broadened the geographical boundaries of archaeological research. The example of Palaeolithic rock art can be used to illustrate the various dimensions of this transformation. In Europe, Pleistocene cave art was considered a phenomenon with a ‘core’ firmly embedded in the Franco-Cantabrian region and a ‘periphery’ which included some neighbouring areas, such as Southern Spain and Italy. Despite some discoveries in Russia (1957) and Bosnia and Herzegovina (1973), this reductionist view remained unchallenged until the beginning of the twenty-first century. Non-European sites were often disregarded and reduced to the status of ‘outliers’ in relation to the central core area, resulting in the limitation, rather than invigoration, of research in these regions. However, the new millennium has witnessed a significant increase in the number of European countries with well-dated Paleolithic cave art sites, including the United Kingdom and Romania, among others. Nevertheless, the greatest shifts in the field of rock art studies globally have emerged during the last decade with: (1) the discovery of Paleolithic rock art in locations very distant from the traditional European ‘core’ (e.g., Australia and Indonesia), and (2) the development of systematic archaeological rock art surveys in areas outside of the ‘periphery’ (e.g., Southeast Europe). Today, it is evident that Paleolithic rock art is a widespread global phenomenon. Despite this, a vast majority of teams and specialists are still focused on the Franco-Cantabrian region, and they seldomly develop research in ‘new’ territories. Hence, globalization has led to an increasing awareness of the ‘Franco-Cantabrian bias,’ but has archaeological research changed accordingly?