{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017826825127334467, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003395585738539898, 'mean_word_length': 5.140625, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Paleolithic Art Studies at the Beginning of the Twenty-First Century: A Loss of Innocence

In the past two decades, several scholars have suggested that Paleolithic art studies have been undergoing a revolution. This disciplinary transformation is generally related to the discovery of new sites, such as Chauvet or Blombos Cave; the development of new methodologies, such as AMS radiocarbon and thermoluminescence dating; and the rise of new theories concerning human cognitive evolution. These firsts are not only revolutionizing the chronology and technical study of the oldest forms of art, they are also modifying the ways Paleolithic art is conceptualized. In this article we analyze some of these recent variations in how we view, think about, and define such art. Borrowing David Clarke's terminology, we interpret the current change in our understanding of Paleolithic art as a "loss of innocence" stemming from an increasing criticism of the main axioms that defined the study of Paleolithic art until the 1980s. In this context, the loss of disciplinary innocence can be defined as the process by which most specialists become conscious of the complexity of this art.