The global implications of the early surviving rock art of greater Southeast Asia

Abstract

The rock art of Southeast Asia has been less thoroughly studied than that of Europe or Australia, and it has generally been considered to be more recent in origin. New dating evidence from Mainland and Island Southeast Asia, however, demonstrates that the earliest motifs (hand stencils and naturalistic animals) are of late Pleistocene age and as early as those of Europe. The similar form of the earliest painted motifs in Europe, Africa and Southeast Asia suggests that they are the product of a shared underlying behaviour, but the difference in context (rockshelters) indicates that experiences in deep caves cannot have been their inspiration.

Art and megafauna in the Top End of the Northern Territory, Australia: Illusion or reality?

“…The Sulawesi paintings mostly survive in rockshelters, rather than in deep caves as in Europe. Aubert et al's (2014) research thus signals that it is conceivable that similarly old art survives in northern Australia and that the early art of both Sulawesi and northern Australia may have resulted from a shared practice undertaken by modern humans as they spread across the region (Aubert et al 2014;Taçon et al 2014). …”

The visual brain and the early depiction of animals in Europe and Southeast Asia

“…Thus, where environmental signals are ambiguous, the visual system -through increased arousal -can approach a situation readily primed to deal with camouflage or any challenging visual predicament whereby the slightest suggestion of an animal would be interpreted as such; a scenario that also applies to situations where a rock surface might be replete with suggestive cues in compromised lighting conditions. Taçon et al (2014) misconstrue the role of the visual brain by stating that Hodgson regards the dark cave environment as the major factor that led to the representation of animals at an early date. In fact, as Hodgson (2008) stated, caves are a special case (note the Maros depictions also occur in a cave) in the sense that a number of diverse factors interact making these locations particularly amenable to what is termed 'seeing-in', i.e., misinterpreting a suggestive contour for a real animal.…”

“…The recent dating of animals depicted in the limestone caves near Maros in southern Sulawesi, Indonesia to a minimum of 40 ka (thousand years ago) using a uranium-thorium methodology (Aubert et al 2014) raises a number of questions relating to why these representations are so similar to depictions from European Upper Palaeolithic cave art, despite the great distance separating the two regions -an issue Taçon et al (2014) recently attempted to address (see below). Uranium-thorium dating should be viewed with caution (Pons-Branchu et al 2014), yet the dates from Maros are convincing.…”

Rock Art Research in Southeast Asia: A Synthesis

“…At least fifteen additional sites have since been identified from local archaeological efforts; such as Garanggung Cave, Salluka Cave and Cumi Lantang, which are to be found in southern Sulawesi and contain hand stencils and other zoomorphic figures [104]. While most work has been done in areas of easy access such as Maros and Muna Island, the recent find of hand stencils and the depiction of an anoa in Gua Batti in the Bone region suggest the potential for many more rock art sites to be found [126]. In addition to the painted sites, two engraving sites, Tinco and Lawo, are known from southern Sulawesi depicting geometric linear patterns and a horned deer [127].…”