The hunting-related purpose of Aurignacian cave paintings

Why spend time painting a cave when finding food is already difficult? Maybe making art is enjoyable. Maybe it teaches people something or has a religious purpose. Those are possibilities to keep open, not conclusions we can draw from the first sentence. The question is why these early people made the images.

The Aurignacian paintings are among the earliest known examples of representational art. Known matters: finding the earliest examples we know about doesn't establish that no earlier art ever existed. And keep the people straight. The Aurignacians made these paintings; the Neanderthals are the group they supplanted in Europe.

Some anthropologists take the paintings as evidence of a more secure life. The first step is about time: if every available moment is needed to avoid starvation, painting becomes difficult to fit in. The next step is stronger. These aren't merely marks on a wall; the later paintings are exceptionally well executed. Developing that skill would have required practice.

That suggests a division of labor. Some people could spend much of their time practicing and teaching art because others supplied their needs. Think of the difference between occasionally drawing something and having the time to become a skilled painter. The argument infers specialized artists from the quality of the work. It doesn't prove that the artists never hunted or that every member of the society had one fixed occupation.

Now an odd detail: the paintings were in places that were hard to reach and received no natural light. If the only point was for people to enjoy looking at them, why put them there? The location makes that explanation less satisfying. It suggests we need something beyond aesthetic enjoyment, without proving that nobody ever appreciated their beauty.

The third paragraph connects the paintings to food. How would painting an animal help feed anyone? Perhaps through a belief about the picture's power, rather than through the picture physically supplying food. That's the anthropologists' explanation: depicting prey was thought to grant power over it and improve the hunters' chances.

Whether painting a mammoth actually gives someone power over it is a different question from whether the painters believed it did. We're trying to understand the proposed purpose of their work. My skepticism about magic shouldn't turn into a claim that the writer rejects this explanation.

The details now fit the hunting interpretation. Hearts outlined in red and lines leading toward vital organs suggest an interest in making prey vulnerable. Pregnant animals may reflect a wish for plentiful future prey. These details do more than tell us that the artists liked drawing animals; they help explain what they might have hoped the images would accomplish.

The footprints and images of costumed religious leaders add a ceremonial element. The paintings appear to have been part of activities performed before them, rather than isolated decorations. That supports a connection among images, ritual, and hunting.

My rough main-point prediction is about gaining power over hunted animals. To make it more accurate, keep the uncertainty and the broader question in view: this is a supported explanation of the paintings' purpose, not established proof of what every artist intended. Simply saying the paintings had spiritual significance would also be too vague. The proposed practical aim was a steady supply of food.