I'm into this interactive migratory site, "Journey of Mankind", but was a little disturbed by the implications in this statement on "when did art begin?"
"...One could argue that the patterned and etched red ochre stone found in the Blombos Cave in South Africa, dated at 77,000 years old, is the earliest form of art yet known. However, for the sake of clarity and at the risk of brevity, we are going to focus on the Palaeolithic rock art of the period 40,000 to 25,000 years ago, for three fundamental reasons: its striking appearance; its proven radio-carbon dating; and its abundance."
-from Journey of Mankind
While the Chauvet Cave is absolutely amazing, and it's just a little interactive chart about human migration, and I actually have no qualms with focusing on it because of the reasons given... there's no argument that the Blombos Cave shows the earliest art. That's where the earliest art is. Seriously, "the first art has been found to be in Africa dating from 77,000 years ago, but we're just going to skip that and start with Europe 37,000 to 52,000 years later for 'clarity's' sake?" That's some bullshit.
Also, I am very into the term "prehistoric" and the idea of "prehistoric." There's no "before history," it's all history.
The Pre History of Television.