Upper Palaeolithic Installation Art: Topography, Distortion, Animation and Participation in the Production and Experience of Cantabrian Cave Art

Takashi Sakamoto , Paul Pettitt & Roberto Ontañon-Peredo

The physical nature of cave walls and its impact on Upper Palaeolithic image making and viewing has frequently been invoked in explanations about the function of cave art. The morphological features (convexities, concavities, cracks and ridges) are frequently incorporated into the representations of prey animals that dominate the art, and several studies have attempted to document the relationship between the cave wall and the art in a quantitative manner. One of the effects of such incorporation is that undulating walls will distort the appearance of images as viewers change their viewing position. Was this distortion deliberate or accidental? Until now, the phenomenon has not been investigated quantitatively. We address this here, analysing 54 Late Upper Palaeolithic animal images deriving from three Cantabrian caves, Covalanas, El Pendo and El Castillo. We introduce a novel use for photogrammetry and 3D modelling through documenting the morphology of these caves’ walls and establishing the speciﬁc relationship between the walls and the art created on them. Our observations suggest that Palaeolithic artists deliberately placed images on very speciﬁc topographies. The restricted nature of these choice decisions and the fact that the resulting distortions could have been avoided but were not suggest that the interaction between viewer, art and wall was integral to the way cave art functioned.

Introduction little evidence elsewhere for visual culture (see Aubert et al. 2018; Slimak et al. 2018: but also see European ‘cave art’ forms the most robust set of vis- replies from Hoffmann et al. 2018b,c; 2019,who ual culture for exploring the early evolution of point out the errors of such critiques). Figurative human visual systems. At present an apparently art in Europe—overwhelmingly dominated by prey non-figurative phase of body-extension art (hand animals such as horse, bovids and cervids—appears stencils, finger dots and lines) predates U-Th min- after ∼37000 cal. BP in our estimation, based on a par- imum ages of ∼64000 BP, at least in three Iberian simonious interpretation of the few existing dated caves, and maximum and minimum ages place a per- examples in western Europe and their associated pre- iod of similar art between 45,000 and 43,000 BP cision/errors (Hodgson & Pettitt 2018). Formally (Hoffmann et al. 2018a); we note that there are detrac- speaking, the latter relates to the Early, Mid and tors who have criticized the former minimum age, Late Upper Palaeolithic and to the visual culture of mainly due to perceived errors in sampling strategy Homo sapiens, persisting in fits and starts until and hence relevance of dated calcites to the under- near the end of the Upper Palaeolithic around the lying art, and an apparent incompatibility with the Pleistocene–Holocene transition (Bahn 2016; existing archaeological record which as yet presents Hodgson & Pettitt 2018; Pettitt 2014; 2016). Upper

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Athens, on 03 Oct 2021 at 22:05:53, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774320000153 Takashi Sakamoto, Paul Pettitt & Roberto Ontañon‐Peredo

Palaeolithic cave art—produced by spitting, finger cave walls often played an integral role in the cre- painting, brush painting, drawing and low-relief ation and, in particular, viewing of images, and sculpture—comprises a wide variety of themes, hence that ‘cave art’ was actually a system that inte- such as solitary and grouped herbivores and carni- grated the artist/viewer and their physical environ- vores, geometric signs, finger flutings (drawn lines ment in a two-way relationship that was constantly left by fingers on soft clay), hand stencils and prints changing (Lorblanchet 1995; Pleniér 1971; Sauvet & and, rarely, anthropomorphs (Bahn & Vertut 1997; Tosello 1998). This relationship corresponds to the Vialou 1998; White 2003). Here, however, we are con- principles of modern ‘installation art’ (Sakamoto cerned with its dominant element—naturalistic 2014.). drawings/paintings of quadrupedal mammals on ‘Viewpoint’ in cave art has been discussed fre- walls and ceilings of the Mid and Late Upper quently, from different perspectives, e.g. the plurality Palaeolithic (∼30,000–14,000 BP). These are most of horizontal axes (Criado Boado & Penedo Romero abundant in southern France and the Iberian penin- 1993); anamorphosis (Aujoulat 1985; Groenen 2000); sula (especially northern Spain), with other continen- and the shared gaze (Geneste et al. 2004). Selection tal European examples in Italy, Germany, the Czech of different viewing distances will also alter the view- Republic, the United Kingdom and Russia (Bahn er’s perception of specific images (Bourdier 2013; 2016), Croatia (Ruiz-Redondo et al. 2019) and, further Bourdier et al. 2017). Anamorphosis in particular is afield, in Egypt (Huyge et al. 2007) and Indonesia directly related to the issue of multiple viewpoints, (Aubert et al. 2014). Unlike Palaeolithic images in as it appears distorted in frontal view but resolves the open air (e.g. Portugal’s Côa Valley; Spain’s into proper proportions only from a specific view- Siega Verde; Germany’s Hunsrück (Bahn 1995; point. Anamorphosis has been identified in a num- Baptista 2009; Batarda Fernandes et al. 2017; Welker ber of caves in different European regions, e.g. 2016), where colouring might not necessarily have Lascaux (Aujoulat 1985; 2005; Surre 1992), Cougnac been an essential element as multiple carving techni- (Groenen 2000; Lorblanchet 1989), Tito Bustillo ques were employed to highlight images, probably to (Aujoulat 1985), the Réseau Clastres at Niaux achieve long-standing visibility in open landscape (Clottes & Simonnet 1990). Most famously, the red where pigments would otherwise fade (see Zilhão cow depicted on a corner of the ceiling of Lascaux’s et al. 1997), these images can be preserved remark- Axial Gallery appears to viewers in proper propor- ably well in the relatively stable microclimates of tion only when they look up at the cow from a frontal deep caves. viewing position, while this naturalistic harmony is It is well known that the natural features of cave gradually disturbed as the viewpoint elevates and walls (grooves, cracks, rock edges, concavities and approaches to the actual height at which the artist convexities) were frequently utilized as constituent worked (Surre 1992). An anamorphic herbivore in parts of animal representations, either to define Cognac was placed on a wall at the height of stand- parts of their outline, or to add volume to muscular ing viewers, but it appears deformed when viewed areas of their body (e.g. Alcalde del Río et al. 1911; from this height, only achieving naturalistic form Breuil 1952; Lemozi 1929; Leroi-Gourhan 1992). when the viewer crouches down and looks up This deliberate incorporation of cave topography (Groenen 2000). Thus, the presence of anamorphosis into early figurative image making—or rather the in cave art supports the notion that an ideal view- visual psychology underlying it—has featured point was actually shared between artists and viewers strongly in recent hypotheses about the origins and (Gittins & Pettitt 2017), and viewing such images nat- early development of art (e.g. Brot 2012; Groenen urally involved the awareness of different view- 2000; Hodgson 2000; 2003; 2008; Hodgson & Pettitt points. Accordingly, it seems safe to argue that 2018; Ogawa 2005). Additionally, the shadows cast Upper Palaeolithic artists were aware of the plurality by topographic features seem also to have been con- of viewpoints in cave art. stituent parts of images (Groenen 2000; Pettitt 2016; As noted above, the mutual relationship Pettitt et al. 2017). The physical nature of the cave between the artist’s/viewer’s and the cave’s environ- wall will obviously affect viewing activity. Unlike ment allows us to draw an analogy between some images on a flat surface, undulating cave walls will cave art and modern ‘installation art’. Installation distort images’ appearance whenever viewers change art is an expressional format in contemporary art their viewing position (e.g. Aujoulat 2005; Groenen which aims to provide us with different multisensory 2000; Leroi-Gourhan 1968), a distorting effect which experiences that complement those of quotidian life seems to have been deliberate in the ‘animation’ of (Bishop 2005; Reiss 1999). Its defining feature is to some images (Azéma 2008). It seems, therefore, that force viewers to interact with an artistically

666

constructed space; while conventional fine art Here, we undertake the quantification of the requires audiences to be a passive recipient of visual active role of cave walls in image-making and view- information transmitted from artworks such as ing by the installed participant, using 54 Late Upper paintings and sculptures, installation art rejects Palaeolithic (Solutrean and/or Magdalenian) images such a one-way relationship (Bishop 2005; Reiss from three Cantabrian caves (Covalanas, El Pendo 1999). In this sense, the novel environment of a and El Castillo). We introduce a novel use for photo- cave’s interior will enhance the viewers’ multisensor- grammetry and 3D modelling in order to document ial engagement with the space and the art created the morphology of these caves’ walls and the rela- therein. The novel constraints of caves, such as the tionship of specific examples of art with them. We morphology of their surface, and the play of dark- seek specifically to define terms such as ‘suggestive’ ness and shadows as participants throw light on features and concave and convex ‘surfaces’.Toan their surfaces, create certain types of image, fleet- extent these are relative, and we need to get to ingly and constantly in flux. Cave art can, therefore, grips with this in a quantification of distortion: if a be considered as an interactive device where the concavity abuts a convexity, we need to establish viewers themselves can directly influence their own exactly how each relates to an image created over perception of the art (Sakamoto 2014). We believe them, as well as their relationship to any adjacent that we can make sense of a number of Upper topographically ‘neutral’ areas. In order to do this, Palaeolithic cave art images by interpreting them in we need to establish how elevation levels differ this manner. across an image. In order to do this, we classify In order to function, the viewer (who may or each image’s topography into three levels (low = con- may not be the artist) will become physically installed cavity; medium = neutral/flat; high = convexity). We into the multi-sensorial environment (in this case a present this methodology first, before proceeding to cave), and hence will actively ‘participate’ in its ‘art’ a delineation of exactly how this creates distortion by moving around. Viewers could be solitary or in at different viewing angles which can be recon- groups; the physical constraints of the cave and the structed by rotating our 3D models. Defined distort- limitations of their light sources will have a direct ing features are then explored statistically using effect on their mobility and hence perception of the methodologically rigid criteria and any resulting art. Their relationship to the art will constantly be in trends outlined. Our conclusions suggest that distor- flux; images appear, grow, shrink, animate, change tion was an integral part of animating an image, the form and change their relationship with the viewer whole functioning as part of human installation. as the physical position is constantly redefined, essen- tially in similar manner to the behaviour of real ani- Fieldwork mals in the open landscape, although in this case in a way that the viewer controls (see the definition of Covalanas, El Pendo and El Castillo caves are close installation art: Bishop 2005; Reiss 1999). Add to this neighbours and share a number of culturally diag- the difficulty—even danger—of navigating complex nostic artistic characteristics, such as outlining by caves in low light and the result is a profound sensory red dots, and the predominance of a specific image experience (Arias 2009; Arias & Ontañon 2012). We (particularly red deer) which is widely found in the are concerned here with exploring how such an region’s caves. The similarities are in fact striking installed, interactive participation in art may have enough to have led Apellaniz (1978) and Straus occurred in the Upper Palaeolithic. Our hypotheses (1987) to suggest that they were produced by a lim- arise out of logical concerns (e.g. Hodgson 2000; ited number of artists of the ‘Ramales school’. Each 2003; 2008; Hodgson & Pettitt 2018) and both detailed cave differs in form, however: Covalanas is a narrow, qualitative observations (e.g. Brot 2012; Lorblanchet corridor-like hollow; El Pendo is mainly an enor- 2010;Ogawa2005) and quantitative analysis (e.g. mous chamber with a high ceiling, although there Bourdier et al. 2017; Jouteau et al. 2019; Lorblanchet is a narrow decorated area at its deepest point; and 2001; Pettitt et al. 2014; Pleniér 1971;Sauvet& El Castillo consists of multiple halls and connecting Tosello 1998). We especially emphasize the import- passages. We were interested in whether these differ- ance of the quantification of the subject as ‘the art ing internal structures had an impact on the artistic panels ...are packed with detailed quantitative infor- interactions with them. The archaeological content mation ... waiting to be unpacked’ (Pastoors & of each contrasts further. El Castillo was inhabited Weniger 2011, 19). With regard to distortion and alti- relatively continuously through the Upper metric information on the cave wall, the phenomenon Palaeolithic (and beforehand), probably serving in remains unstudied quantitatively. some periods at least as a seasonal aggregation

667

focus (Conkey 1987). El Pendo’s repeated occupation Table 1. The 54 images examined in this study. For the images seems to have occurred on a seasonal basis, particu- in Covalanas and El Pendo we refer to the classification system larly as a winter shelter (Pike-Tay et al. 1999). By used by Moure Romanillo et al. (1990) and Montes Barquin (2001) respectively. We employed our own system for El Castillo, contrast, Covalanas shows no evidence for human based on image location. occupation, suggesting that it was only used for artistic activity (Bahn 2007, 152). We are further inter- Image Depicted species Site ested as to whether such distinct uses affected the A1 Red Deer Covalanas caves’ art. A2 Red Deer Covalanas To an extent, our sample is therefore biased; A3 Red Deer Covalanas we use largely complete animal depictions from A5 Red Deer Covalanas three Cantabrian caves. We considered conditions of A6 Red Deer Covalanas accessibility and visibility; for the latter reason, engravings and severely weathered images were A7 Red Deer Covalanas excluded from the our sample list. We are not, there- A8 Red Deer Covalanas fore, suggesting that our conclusions apply to all A9 Red Deer Covalanas cave art in all periods. We do believe, however, that A10 Red Deer Covalanas fi the 54 gurative images we studied (Covalanas = 18; A11 Horse Covalanas El Pendo = 11; El Castillo = 25), deriving from major A13 Red Deer Covalanas Upper Palaeolithic decorated caves, demonstrate the A14 Red Deer Covalanas importance of installation at three important sites. Our selection was guided by accessibility, preserva- B1 Rein Deer Covalanas tion and visibility (ease of study). Cervids dominate B4 Red Deer Covalanas (27 Red deer, one Reindeer), followed by Bison (12), B5 Red Deer Covalanas Horse (6), unidentified Herbivore (4), Aurochs (1), C1 Red Deer Covalanas Caprid (1), Mammoth (1) and one Anthropomorph. C2 Red Deer Covalanas For the images in Covalanas and El Pendo cave, we D1 Red Deer Covalanas used the management system in the work of Moure N1 Red Deer El Pendo Romanillo et al. (1990) and Montes Barquin (2001), respectively (see Table 1). We employed our own sys- N2 Red Deer El Pendo tem for El Castillo, based on image location. Our 54 N4 Caprid El Pendo images do not form a chronologically coherent set. N5 Red Deer El Pendo Those in Covalanas and El Pendo are believed to be N7 Red Deer El Pendo effectively contemporaneous (Solutrean: Straus et al. N8 Horse El Pendo 2002). Our El Castillo samples are also chronologically N12 Unknown El Pendo diverse; although most are undated, some of the red pigment images have been attributed to the N13 Red Deer El Pendo Solutrean or earlier (García-Diez et al. 2015)and N14 Unknown El Pendo some of its black images to the Magdalenian N16 Red Deer El Pendo (Valladas et al. 2001). We recognize, therefore, that N17 Red Deer El Pendo our samples may represent dynamic change over PB1 Bison El Castillo (Polychrome Panel) time, but as our aim is simply to inspect elements of PB2 Bison El Castillo (Polychrome Panel) mutuality between the cave medium and art, we PB3 Bison El Castillo (Polychrome Panel) make no claims that could be adversely affected by chronological imprecision. PB4 Bison El Castillo (Polychrome Panel) PB5 Bison El Castillo (Polychrome Panel) Methodology PD1 Red Deer El Castillo (Polychrome Panel) PD2 Red Deer El Castillo (Polychrome Panel) First, a 3D digital photogrammetric model was cre- PD3 Red Deer El Castillo (Polychrome Panel) ated for each image. Photogrammetry allows us to PU1 Unknown El Castillo (Polychrome Panel) generate 3D models through the combination of a PH1 Horse El Castillo (Polychrome Panel) series of overlapping photographs taken of a subject from different angles, reproducing various informa- PH2 Horse El Castillo (Polychrome Panel) tion on their surface such as depth geometry, texture DA1 Aurochs El Castillo (Diverticulum) and colour (see Chodoronek 2015; Katz & Friess Continued

668

Table 1. Continued maximize the model’s accuracy (Chodoronek 2015). Next, dense point clouds are generated, using the Image Depicted species Site same high-quality settings for all models. For a lim- HH1 Horse El Castillo (Panel of Hands) ited number of images (the average number of HH2 Horse El Castillo (Panel of Hands) images used for generating a model is 58), we needed HD1 Red Deer El Castillo (Panel of Hands) to downsize quality to medium due to the amount of HB1 Bison El Castillo (Panel of Hands) data to be processed with existing computational HB2 Bison El Castillo (Panel of Hands) capacity (Chodoronek 2015), but to mitigate this we HB3 Bison El Castillo (Panel of Hands) increased the number of individual photographs con- tributing to these models as suggested by Westoby HB4 Bison El Castillo (Panel of Hands) et al. (2012). Metashape additionally contains a calibra- HB5 Bison El Castillo (Panel of Hands) tion programme for the camera lens which generates Anthropomorph BBM1 El Castillo (Room B) certain parameters that will equalize the distortion (Bison-Man) caused by the lens. By inputting such parameters BU1 Unknown El Castillo (Room B) into the settings of our Metashape models, we were BB1 Bison El Castillo (Room B) able to increase their accuracy. We then exported BB2 Bison El Castillo (Room B) our models to Photoshop CC (Version 17.0.1) for fur- GM1 Mammoth El Castillo (Gallery of Discs) ther analysis.

Analysis

2014; Robert et al. 2016; Westoby et al. 2012). Procedure Recent advances in photogrammetric ‘Structure- For each image, we express the topographic elevation from-Motion’ (SfM) techniques have revolutionized of 13 distinct body parts at three levels (High, the method, as it dispenses with having to input Medium, Low). These 13 sections are: head, neck- much information manually and instead simulates shoulder, mid-torso, thigh, front leg, rear leg and parameters such as 3D scene geometry and camera tail; the neck-shoulder, mid-torso and thigh parts position digitally (Westoby et al. 2012), and its accur- were further subdivided into three, along their dor- acy has been demonstrated by many researchers who sal, central and ventral areas (Fig. 1). The neck and focus on a number of varied objects possessing shoulders were treated as the same unit because unique surface features (e.g. human crania: Katz & the distinction of these parts is not conspicuous in Friess 2014; a Cycladic female figurine: Koutsoudis many animal species. Our division between parts et al. 2013). This method has also been used in the was determined on best estimation; body shapes study of Palaeolithic art, with demonstrable effi- are usually significantly diverse, despite possessing ciency and accuracy (e.g. Feruglio et al. 2015; Fritz a naturalistic and ‘life-like’ form, but some possess et al. 2016). a disproportionally large mid-torso and others a rela- We used a Canon 1200D digital camera with an tively small thigh. EFS 18–55mm lens secured on a tripod. Flashlights Following this, images were extracted from 3D were used in the caves where electric lights were models in terms of their outline contour and their not installed. We used Agisoft Metashape software topographic condition assessed for each body part. for 3D modelling. Metashape enables us to create A cross-section layer was set horizontally across highly accurate 3D models (for the application of the models in Photoshop so that the models passed Metashape to archaeology, see e.g. Kersten & through it, in order to assess the elevation of each Lindstaedt 2012; Koutsoudis et al. 2013). It has been part. The cross-sectional layer can be placed any- used to record various cultural heritage subjects where in the 3D digital space and the elevation of (e.g. rock art: Plisson & Zotkina 2015; artefacts: body parts relative to it expressed in different col- Nabil & Saleh 2014; and underwater structures: ours by applying a Normals filter (Fig. 2). We McCarthy & Benjamin 2014). In the first stage of employed a simple coding system to describe the ele- Metashape data processing (producing sparse clouds), vation of each body part. We expressed the eleva- users select quality settings from lowest, low, tions of each image in terms of its distinct body medium, high to ultrahigh. Higher quality requires parts figuratively. Our figures break down the spe- more processing time and more spec in a computer cific parts of each image into a set of cross-sectional to process the data, but such ‘high’ level quality is layers or sections (see numbers 1–12 in Figure 2), the always desirable for academic recording in order to precise number of which will differ for each image

669

Figure 1. The 13 body sections (head, neck-shoulder, mid-torso, thigh, front leg, rear leg and tail) used in the analysis. The neck-shoulder, mid-torso and thigh parts were further subdivided into three, along with their dorsal, central and ventral areas. (Basic image from https://commons.wikimedia.org/ wiki/File:Bison_(PSF).jpg)

Figure 2. Cross-sectional layers of image (BB1). Figures on the left (numbered 1–5) illustrate how the cross-sectional layer passes a model (seen vertically). By inputting parameters, the cross-sectional layer (the grey layer in the ﬁgures) gradually proceeds towards a model (1–2). Accordingly, the 3D model starts passing through the layer from its highest area in elevation (2–3) and its lowest at the end (4–5). Figures on the right (numbered 1–12) show different elevation levels. As body parts pass the layer, the dark area changes into a bright colour. Bright areas denote higher elevation than those which remain dark.

depending on the height of its elevations. Hence, a representation. In this phase the dorsal, central subtly differing image will have relatively few and ventral regions of an image were united in layers, whereas a profoundly differing image will order to simplify the data, i.e. component parts of have a high number. For the basic description, the the neck-shoulder, the middle and the thigh were elevation level of a body part was defined when treated as a single body part. To determine the ele- more than half of that part passed the cross-sectional vation level of these united parts, the average layer at a particular level (according to best estima- value of each component area (1–5) was used, tion) and was numerically expressed by coded rounding to the nearest level. The resulting data points of 1 to 5 (5 = Extra High: 4 = High: 3 = table (Table 2) was subsequently used to ascertain Medium: 2 = Low: 1 = Extra Low). The resulting whether a strong correlation exists between a spe- data table thus codes for the topographic compos- cificbodypartandaspecific topographic condition. ition of each image, complementing each figurative

670

Table 2. Elevation levels (5 = Extra high: 4 = High: 3 = Table 2. Continued Medium: 2 = Low: 1 = Extra low: 0 = N/A) and corresponding body parts (H = Head; Ns = Neck-shoulder; M = Mid-torso; T = Image H Ns M T FL HL Ta Thigh. FL = Front leg; HL = Hind Leg; Ta = Tail). HH1 3 2 2 3 2 4 3 Image H Ns M T FL HL Ta HH2 4 4 3 0 0 0 0 A1 5 3 2 5 0 0 0 HD1 2 4 2 0 0 0 0 A2 3 3 2 3 0 0 0 HB1 4 3 3 3 5 4 4 A3 5 3 2 3 1 3 0 HB2 3 4 3 2 0 0 0 A5 4 2 3 3 2 4 0 HB3 2 2 3 3 4 3 4 A6 4 3 2 2 0 0 0 HB4 4 3 2 3 3 4 4 A7 2 3 4 2 0 0 0 HB5 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 A8 3 4 2 3 0 2 0 BBM1 2 3 3 3 0 2 2 A9 5 4 2 2 4 3 0 BU1 0 3 3 5 0 5 5 A10 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 BB1 4 2 2 3 2 5 4 A11 2 3 4 3 0 4 2 BB2 2 3 4 2 0 2 0 A13 3 2 3 4 0 0 0 GM1 3 3 3 3 1 1 0 A14 2 3 2 4 0 0 0 B1 2 3 4 4 2 5 0 Distortion B4 4 3 3 2 5 4 0 To analyse distortion, images were divided into six B5 5 4 3 2 1 2 0 body parts (head, neck-shoulder, mid torso, thigh, C1 2 3 2 3 0 5 0 leg and tail: Fig. 3). Secondly, 3D models were viewed from different angles in Photoshop in order C2 3 3 3 5 0 2 0 to identify body sections which appeared remarkably D1 4 2 3 5 3 0 0 distorted. Once an obvious distortion was detected, it N1 4 4 4 3 0 2 0 was recorded to body part. Subsequently, we coded N2 4 3 2 3 3 3 0 and compared differences in the appearance of N4 2 3 3 2 3 1 0 images when they are viewed from multiple view- N5 2 4 2 3 3 2 2 points. We did this by horizontally rotating the 3D fl N7 4 3 3 4 2 2 3 models. One cannot forget the direct in uence that different lighting conditions will have on image’s N8 4 4 3 0 5 0 0 visibility, and how this in turn will affect the viewer’s N12 0 3 2 3 0 0 0 perception. We did not simulate this lighting–image N13 3 3 2 4 0 0 0 relationship because our primary concern here is to N14 0 3 3 3 2 5 0 observe the specific nature of the distortion. We N16 4 2 3 4 2 5 0 took into account the height of each image from the N17 4 3 3 4 1 4 0 original Pleistocene cave floor (negligible changes PB1 2 2 2 3 4 4 2 except in El Pendo, where we can reconstruct the cave’s original floor some 150–200 cm lower than PB2 2 3 3 3 2 1 0 today: Montes Barquin et al. 1998). 3D models of PB3 3 3 2 3 3 4 3 images at high levels were tilted in the X-axis PB4 3 2 2 4 3 5 0 based on their heights so as to simulate how those PB5 3 4 2 2 3 4 0 images appear when viewers must look up to view PD1 4 3 4 4 2 0 0 them. In the case of El Pendo, the models were fi PD2 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 xed as a preset in the position of X30°. We then PD3 2 2 2 4 0 0 0 compared the appearance of images viewed from the front and sides in order to detect any obvious dis- PU1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tortions. We confirmed deformations when the out- PH1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 line of body parts is apparently deformed (twisted, PH2 4 2 3 3 1 3 4 bent, contracted: Fig. 4, see A–B). Additionally, we DA1 2 2 3 4 3 5 4 performed similar experiments for images drawn Continued on a flat surface; we also rotated images fixed on

671

Figure 3. The seven main body sections (head, neck-shoulder, mid-torso, thigh, front leg, rear leg and tail).

Figure 4. 3D photogrammetric model of cervid A1 from frontal (direct) position (A), left oblique (B), and 2D model seen from the left (C). We identiﬁed images as being distorted when the outline of the body is twisted, bent, or contracted. By comparing the 3D to the 2D model, we were able to isolate the distortions caused by topographic intervention from those caused by simply by the viewer’s perspective.

2D surface in 3D computational space by the same body section (head, neck, mid-torso, thigh) by eleva- procedure as the above 3D simulation, and compared tion level. We also calculated the sum of the elevation the difference in appearance between the two (Fig. 4, point based on this distribution (5 = Extra High; 4 = B–C). By such a comparative analysis we were able to High; 3 = Medium; 2 = Low; 1 = Extra Low) for each isolate the distortions caused by topographic inter- section; the higher points correspond to higher eleva- vention from those caused simply by perspective. tion. Accordingly, it can be seen that the thigh (145 points) and head (144) are more frequently placed Results on an area of higher elevation than the neck-shoulder (127) and middle torso (121). Clear patterns also Topography and image appear even in the leg. Figure 6 demonstrates the dis- Forty-ﬁve of our sample of 54 images can be consid- tribution of extra and non-extra elevation levels by ered to be complete, i.e. possess every one of our body section (the data are derived from 54 images). body parts excepting the extremities of the legs/tail The leg (front and rear) tends to be located on extra which are often missing in cave art (Covalanas = 18; high or low levels much more frequently than the El Pendo = 8; El Castillo = 19). We were able to detect other body parts (n = 18, 47 per cent). six types of topographic relationships among these. We have also expressed the topography of each Interestingly, each of the three caves displayed the image as a line graph, showing the elevation levels of same trends. Figure 5 shows the distribution of each the head, neck-shoulder, mid-torso and thigh so that

672

Figure 5. Number of images by elevation levels and corresponding body parts (H = Head; Ns = Neck-shoulder; M = Mid-torso; T = Thigh. Data derived from 45 images). The head and thigh are frequently placed on areas of higher elevation levels, while the neck-shoulder and middle part tend to be found on lower levels.

Figure 6. Distribution of extra and non-extra elevation levels by body section (H = Head; Ns = Neck-shoulder; M = Mid-torso; T = Thigh; L = Leg; Ta = Tail. Data derived from 54 images). The legs tend to be located on Extra high or low levels much more frequently than the other body parts (18 images = 44 per cent).

the shape of the graph schematically represents the that of either head or thigh but at the same time topographic condition (Fig. 7). We detected six topo- higher or lower than either head or thigh. graphic patterns: P1 is the predominant topographic pattern (13 • Pattern 1 (P1): Overall concavity. The elevation of images = 29 per cent), followed by P5 (10 images = both neck-shoulder and mid-torso is lower than 22 per cent); P5 topography also contains a concave that of both head and thigh. feature. This number accounts for over half of the • Pattern 2 (P2): Overall slope. The elevation of both total, which is significantly higher than the rest of neck-shoulder and mid-torso is lower than either the types (P2: 7 = 16 per cent, P3: 5 = 11 per cent, head or thigh but higher than either head or P4: 5 = 11 per cent and P6: 5 = 11 per cent). We can thigh. At the same time, the elevation does not conclude from this that >50 per cent of images had fluctuate between these four body parts. their fronts and rears (i.e. heads and rumps) placed • Pattern 3 (P3): Overall convexity. The elevation of on locations with a higher elevation than the sur- both neck-shoulder and mid-torso is higher than rounding areas, irrespective of any other patterning that of both head and thigh. visible. It is important to note that this was not dic- • Pattern 4 (P4): Zigzag. The elevation constantly tated by the cave topography: if artists wanted to fluctuates between the four body parts. avoid this effect, they could simply have depicted • Pattern 5 (P5): Partial concavity. The elevation of the image at a smaller scale or used a flatter section either neck-shoulder or mid-torso is lower than of wall. The fact that they did not suggests this was that of both head and thigh. a deliberate fitting of the image to topography, and • Pattern 6 (P6): Partial slope. The elevation of both that the latter probably dictated the images scale. or either neck-shoulder or mid-torso is same as This observation may go some way to explaining

673

Figure 7. Line graphs representing the topography of specific images. Six patterns have been identified among the sample of 45 images. The most common pattern is Overall Concavity (13 images = 29 per cent). The next most common is Partial Concavity (10 = 22 per cent), then Overall Slope (7 = 16 per cent). Meanwhile, Overall Convexity, Zigzag and Partial Slope are represented by five images each (11 per cent).

why the scale of images in Palaeolithic cave art can and appear noticeably deformed. The ratio of distor- vary so much, even within the same cave. tion differs between the three caves: in El Pendo most images are deformed (10/11 images = 91 per cent); in Results Covalanas distortion occurs in 11/18 (61 per cent), and in El Castillo distortion is least visible at 12/25 Distortion of images (48 per cent). This difference may be accounted for We were able to conﬁrm distortion on 33 of our 54 by the way in which images are depicted in each images (61 per cent), which suggests they were rela- cave. In Covalanas and El Pendo, they are depicted tively frequent phenomena in Covalanas, El Pendo on a single panel, or at least adjacent areas whose and El Castillo (Fig. 8). Of these, 25 (nearly 50 per topography is homogenously undulating. If the sur- cent) have distortion on more than one body part, face within a particular area sustains undulation of

674

Figure 8. Number of images by frequency of distortion (Dis = Distortion. Data derived from 54 images). We conﬁrmed distortion on 33 images (61 per cent). 25 images (nearly 50 per cent) have distortion on more than one body section.

Figure 9. Number of distortions by body part (H = Head: Ns = Neck-shoulder: M = Mid-torso, T = Thigh, L = Limbs and Ta = Tail. Data derived from 54 images). Distortions dominantly occur on the head (20 = 23 per cent), neck-shoulder (22 = 25 per cent), and legs (18 = 21 per cent). The thigh (15 = 17 per cent) and mid-torso (12 = 14 per cent) were less frequently distorted. No distortion was found on tails.

a degree sufficient to cause distortion, all images dis- The three caves reveal a meaningful trend tributed in the area will also be distortable to the between the locations of distortion one ach image. same degree. In El Castillo, by contrast, our images As illustrated in Figure 9, distortions mostly occurred derive from several distinct areas, between which on the head (22/87 cases = 25 per cent), neck- the nature of the wall varies noticeably, including shoulder (23 per cent) and legs (21 per cent), whereas some walls which are significantly featureless. Such the thigh (17 per cent) and mid-torso (14 per cent) a lack of consistency in topography, therefore, is were less frequently deformed. No distortion was reflected in our results. Distortion is not observed found on the tail. Although our results suggest a gen- on 21 images (39 per cent), and presumably two fac- eral trend, the specific value for legs and neck- tors are in operation in these undistorted figures. shoulder varies cave by cave. In Covalanas we First, 12 of them are incomplete, missing a large were able to confirm only four cases of deformation part of the body: the ventral section is absent from on the legs, while in the other caves legs are far A2, A6, A7, A13, A14, PU1, CB2; the posterior side more likely to have been deformed. This is probably is not depicted in PB5; only the face is presented due to the fact that legs are absent in eight images in for N13, PD3, PH1, ED1. Therefore, the relatively Covalanas, however, and the ratio (distortions of limited body area available for observation reduces limbs/number of images = 4/10 = 40 per cent) is in the overall chance of distortion. Secondly, the depth fact the second highest among all body sections for these undistorted 21 images (average 4.7 cm) is (head: 39 per cent; neck-shoulder: 44 per cent; mid- noticeably lower than those with distortion (average torso: 22 per cent; thigh: 33 per cent; tail: 0 per 11.5 cm); they have been created on a surface that is cent). Therefore, it can be considered that the legs almost flat. In such cases, images presumably served are highly distortable here, as in Covalanas. ‘simpler’ visual functions rather than as cues for Additionally, the inconsistency for the neck-shoulder viewer interaction. is particularly noteworthy because the result

675

depends on the dominant motif in each cave; in El classified as P6 (Partial slope), the subtle undulation Castillo, where bison is the most frequent image, of its body (neck-shoulder, mid-torso, thigh) is rem- the frequency of distortion for the neck-shoulder iniscent of a real mammal once its topography is was the third lowest. By contrast, this section is the carefully examined. At the same time, the undulation most commonly distorted in Covalanas and El on the hind leg corresponds to the way that human Pendo, in both of which red deer is by far the dom- legs appear. Also, since the entire body of BBM1 is inant motif. Bison display much less of a clear located on a slight convexity whose elevation espe- boundary between the head and neck than deer, cially rises from the mid-torso to the thigh, for view- and the distortion on the neck-shoulder in bison is ers this ‘Bison-man’ no longer appears as a 2D image, not as clearly confirmable as in deer. For this reason, but in low relief. Such a sculptural effect can also be the unclear boundary between the head and neck seen in C2, N16, PB2 and BU1, which all possess makes the perception of distortion difficult, resulting large thigh convexities. This body part is noticeably in its low frequency in El Castillo. Overall, the head, elevated as a result of such an arrangement. neck (except in the case of bison), mid-torso and legs Accordingly, the elevation of the thigh appears to exhibit a certain level of consistency: while the head, represent the rise of a muscle. neck and legs are commonly distorted in the three But by elaborating further on this specific use of case studies, the mid-torso tends to be static. To topography, we can recognize its further uses. As for our understanding, distortions occur when a large the dominant use of the overall concavity, the bottom elevational gap (low or high) is found in a single (i.e. lowest part) of the concavity is relatively flat body section (thus, the part appears distorted) or compared to its outer edges or ‘rims’. This feature between two adjacent areas (e.g. higher head-neck is actually advantageous for viewing the images. in comparison with the central area of the body When a viewer sees an image on a flat surface from will be distorted). We note that the anatomical a frontal viewpoint, the image is inevitably distorted areas that are most likely to be distorted, therefore, to both sides, albeit often in limited extent. The are those that are most mobile on the real animal. imbalance in the distance between a viewpoint at Given this, it seems hard to assume that allocating the image’s centre and at its edges results in the cen- most distortion-causing topographic setting to these tre appearing to be relatively larger than its sides mobile sections was simply random. We note the (Ahn et al. 2014: see Fig. 10). By contrast, when view- fact that the tail of mammals is also highly mobile ers stand in front of an image on a moderately (see Azéma 2010), although we did not confirm concave surface, the imbalance is corrected. any distortions of the tail in our samples. One Consequently, the image will appear less distorted might initially think that this contradicts our inter- to a viewer in frontal position (Ahn et al. 2014). pretation, but it is probably due to the fact that This correction is particularly beneficial in a cave’s images including a tail are not particularly common dark environment, where image resolution may be among our target caves (n = 15, 28 per cent); the dis- difficult enough already. The light sources available tortion is invisible as the section is depicted much for cave exploration in the Upper Palaeolithic were smaller than the others in most figures; and the top- limited to hearths, torches and stone lamps (de ography of the tail is not conspicuously high/low in Beaune 2004; Pettitt 2016; Pettitt et al. 2017). The visi- comparison with surrounding areas. bility obtained by such sources would have been limited to within a range of 4 m diameter (Pastoors & Discussion Weniger 2011), that is, 2 m radius. In such a profoundly dark environment, viewers must necessarily Topography view images at very close range in order to capture We hypothesize that the frequent selection of areas of them in clear vision and to resolve their identity. concave topography for image making that we have With a flat surface, the closer the viewing-distance identified in El Castillo, El Pendo and Covalanas the more noticeable the distortion caused will be, reflects not a random association, but intentional as the inequality in the distance between the three selection by Palaeo-artists for the placement of spe- points (viewpoint, image edges and centre) grows cific body parts. The undulating surfaces of a cave larger than when it is viewed from a distance. wall can, of course, be used in a similar way to low- Depicting images on concave surfaces is, therefore, relief sculpture, i.e. to convey volume and thereby a simple way to mitigate distortion in the dark envir- naturalism to images (Bahn 2016; Leroi-Gourhan onments which exaggerate these effects. 1968). BBM1 (known as Bison-man) in El Castillo epi- To confirm whether or not this benefit is applic- tomizes such a ‘sculptural’ image: although BBM1 is able to our 13 images identified as being of P1 type,

676

Figure 10. The merit of using overall concave surfaces. Viewers experience less distorted images, as concavities equalize the imbalance in the distance between a viewpoint at the image’s centre and its edges.

Figure 11. Principal elements illustrating whether or not distortion on 13 images (P1) are to be mitigated. We set viewing points at three different distances from the frontal viewing position (200 cm, 100 cm and 50 cm).

we set viewing points at three different distances length results in a closer match between the viewing from the frontal viewing position (200 cm, 100 cm length to centre and edge, we can conclude that the and 50 cm), considering images as being on a flat sur- concavity is assisting image recognition by reducing face. We also calculated the distance from the viewer distortion (see Fig. 11). Tables 3–5 show the results. to each edge, based on the length of the image and When the viewing distance is set at 200 cm, distortion the resulting viewing distances. Thirdly, we modi- is mitigated on only two images (N7 and EH1: see fied the viewing distance for each scale to account Table 3); however, distortion is mitigated on a further for concavity. Finally, we compared the gaps in six images (A1, A10, D1, CB1, CB4, and BB1) if the distance between viewpoint–edge and viewpoint– viewing position is set at 100 cm (Table 4); distortion centre (flat) and between viewpoint–edge and view- is also mitigated on A3, A5, and N16 when their point–centre (concave). If the gap is closer to 0, the viewing position is set at 50 cm (Table 5). Thus, distance is reduced, and distortion is correspond- 11 images benefit from the distortion-mitigating ingly mitigated. If the additional viewing length cre- effects of concavity within the viewing range of ated by adding the depth of concavity to the viewing 200–50 cm. An active (i.e. mobile) viewer, therefore,

677

Table 3. Whether or not the concave surface mitigates the distortion when viewers see images from the distance of 200 cm. Only N7 and EH1 appear less distorted in this setting (A1, A5 and A10 are eliminated because the minimum viewing distance for them is around 1m due to environmental restriction).

If concave Distance to Distance to Distance gap Distance gap surface Size Depth Distance to ﬂat bottom concave (edge-ﬂat (edge-concave mitigates (cm) (cm) edges (cm) (cm) bottom (cm) bottom) (cm) bottom) (cm) distortion (Yes\Not) A1 A3 74 14.6 200 203 214.6 –3 11.6 N A5 A10 D1 64 7.8 200 203 207.8 –3 4.8 N N7 125 10.9 200 210 210.9 –10 0.9 Y N16 70 20.5 200 203 220.5 –3 17.5 N N17 68 23.7 200 203 223.7 –3 20.7 N PB4 60 28 200 202 228 –226N CB1 72 7.3 200 203 207.3 –3 4.3 N CB4 68 6.6 200 203 206.6 –3 3.6 N EH1 107 9.5 200 207 209.5 –7 –2.5 Y BB1 99 20.2 200 206 220.2 –6 14.2 N

Table 4. When viewers see images from the distance of 100 cm. In addition to N7 and EH1, six images (A1, A10, D1, CB1, CB4 and BB1) become less distorted.

If concave Distance to Distance to Distance gap Distance gap surface Size Depth Distance to ﬂat bottom concave (edge-ﬂat (edge-concave mitigates (cm) (cm) edges (cm) (cm) bottom (cm) bottom) (cm) bottom) (cm) distortion (Yes\Not) A1 106 20.3 100 113 120.3 –13 7.3 Y A3 74 14.6 100 107 114.6 –7 7.6 N A5 43 3.2 100 102 103.2 –212N A10 84 4.4 100 108 104.4 –8 –3.6 Y D1 64 7.8 100 105 107.8 –5 2.8 Y N7 125 10.9 100 118 110.9 –18 –7.1 Y N16 70 20.5 100 106 120.5 –6 14.5 N N17 68 23.7 100 106 123.7 –6 17.7 N PB4 60 28 100 104 128 –424N CB1 72 7.3 100 106 107.3 –6 1.3 Y CB4 68 6.6 100 106 106.6 –6 0.6 Y EH1 107 9.5 100 113 109.5 –13 –3.5 Y BB1 99 20.2 100 112 120.2 –12 7.8 Y

could self-mitigate the effects of distortion by simply distance; the size of the two topographies is assumed changing their perspective on each image. to be the same. Unlike the concavity which equalizes The signiﬁcance of this beneﬁt can be high- the distance of viewpoint–centre (A-c) and that of lighted by comparing the case of the overall convex- viewpoint–edges (A-a and A-b), the overall convexity ity. Figure 12.1 illustrates a difference in a viewer’s exaggerates the inequality in the distance between view- experience between viewing an image on both an point–centre (B-f) and viewpoint–edge (B-d and B-e) overall concavity and overall convexity at the same because the centre of the topography is located closer

678

Table 5. When viewers see images from the distance of 50 cm. Distortion is also eased on A3, A5, and N16. Thus, a total of 11 images is subjected to the beneﬁt of using overall concave within the viewing range of 200–50 cm. Accordingly, viewers can see images without distortion as they adjust the viewing distance within this range.

If concave Distance to Distance to Distance gap Distance gap surface Size Depth Distance to ﬂat bottom concave (edge-ﬂat (edge-concave mitigates (cm) (cm) edges (cm) (cm) bottom (cm) bottom) (cm) bottom) (cm) distortion (Yes\Not) A1 106 20.3 50 72.9 70.3 –22.9 –2.6 Y A3 74 14.6 50 62.2 64.6 –12.2 2.4 Y A5 43 3.2 50 54.4 53.2 –4.4 –1.2 Y A10 84 4.4 50 65.3 54.4 –15.3 –10.9 Y D1 64 7.8 50 59.4 57.8 –9.4 –1.6 Y N7 125 10.9 50 80 60.9 –30 –19.1 Y N16 70 20.5 50 61.6 70.5 –11.6 8.9 Y N17 68 23.7 50 60.5 73.7 –10.5 13.7 N PB4 60 28 50 58.3 78 –8.3 19.7 N CB1 72 7.3 50 61.6 57.3 –11.6 –4.3 Y CB4 68 6.6 50 60.5 56.6 –10.5 –3.9 Y EH1 107 9.5 50 73.2 59.5 –23.2 –13.7 Y BB1 99 20.2 50 70.4 70.2 –20.4 –0.2 Y

to the viewer. In the case of the convex wall, the convexities and flat surfaces as they provided view- image appears noticeably distorted as the central ers with wider choices of positioning and conse- area is perceived to be disproportionally large. quently clearer image resolution. Concavities and convexities may also function to In addition, we do not claim only an define (restrict or enlarge) the range of the image ‘audience-oriented’ explanation here. The use of the that is immediately visible. Figure 12.2 shows the concave-shaped medium is also advantageous for concave and convex surface and their viewing two reasons. First, artists must have been the prime range where viewers can see an image in its entirety audience if images were intended to be viewed. (i.e. lacking any unseen areas); both the viewing dis- The clearer image resolution is important for artists tance and the size of the topographies are same. With during their production as it would allow them to a convex surface, however, as soon as the viewer grasp better what they are depicting. Secondly, the moves to the left (to Viewpoint D), the right edge concave surface offers the artist an easier working of the image (d) becomes hidden by convex surface environment; for example, an artist standing in (d’), and therefore the viewer fails to see the entire close proximity to a large concavity should experi- image. Similarly, from Viewpoint F, the left edge of ence more of a sense of being ‘surrounded’ by the the image (c) is not visible because of the masking wall while depicting an image within/around it. In topography of (c’). A viewer can see a whole image such a case, the artist’s movement should be more within a concavity without topographic overlap limited than with working on overall convexities, from a wider viewing-range as no topographic fea- because they can only rotate their body along the tures obstacle the viewer’s sight. In short: in order curve of the wall in order to reach the concavity’s to be able to view a figure in its entirety on a concav- sides. At the same time, we must admit the limits ity, viewers can select from a broader range of view- of our interpretation: it does not seem to work for points, whereas viewers of images on convexities those images created in hidden areas. We assume have to remain in approximately frontal view in that this is because such examples of ‘private art’ order to do so. That said, images on a convex wall were not meant to be viewed (Bahn 2003; 2011) and always appear more deformed than those on concave were, therefore, produced for different purpose. surfaces. We suggest that these simple factors explain Additionally, a wide viewing range will poten- the dominance of concavities and rarity of convex- tially allow the accommodation of multiple viewers. ities as surfaces for image making in our sample If images on an overall concavity are more likely to caves. Concave walls were preferably selected over be viewed in their entirety from different angles,

679

Figure 12. (1) Viewing an image on an overall concavity (left) and an overall convexity (right) from the same distance. Viewers perceive an image as more distorted on the convexity as the imbalance in viewing distance between viewpoint, centre and edges is disproportionally large. (2) Comparison of the viewing range which allows viewers to see an image in its entirety between a concave (left) and convex surface (right). On concavities, viewers can select a broader range of viewpoints from which to view the complete image, whereas viewers of images on convexities have to remain in approximately frontal view to do so without distortion. (3) Another merit of using concavities. Elevating edges are more likely to face viewers when images are viewed from the sides, while ﬂat surfaces generate an acute angle between the surface and a viewer. The use of the overall concavity may have functioned to reduce the chance that images went unnoticed as the viewer passed by.

multiple viewers simultaneously standing in differ- images (e.g. Candamo & Cougnac caves: Bahn ent positions may perceive the same image in effect- 2011, 351), whereas a number of images have been ively the same shape. To put this another way, the assumed to have been ‘private’ due to their hidden condition provides multiple viewers with improved nature and the difficulty of access to their locations shared vision. Whether or not the creation of cave (e.g. extremely narrow corridors in Fronsac and La art was a more significant act than its subsequent Pasiega; high shafts in Bernifal; isolated chambers viewing has been one of the most debated issues in in Le Combarelles: Bahn 2011, 351). In El Castillo, its study (see Bahn 2003 and 2011). It has been El Pendo and Covalanas, however, the frequent use argued that some caves’ interiors were modified spe- of concavities and their demonstrable mitigating cifically in order to obtain a better visibility of their effects on image resolution suggests that in these

680

caves the art was meant to be viewed, and possibly While it seems sensible to confirm the plurality that the viewing involved more than one viewer at of viewpoints in our examples, the issue of deform- any one time. ation must be considered further. The examples of We would not expect to have found this pat- anamorphic images reported from both French and terning if the simple act of creation of an image Spanish caves show that the principles of anamor- was the most or only important element. Nor phosis were widely shared at least across the would we expect the systematic use of raised areas Franco-Cantabrian region. This principle requires a of cave walls for specific anatomical elements if the mutual agreement between artists and viewers nature of the ‘canvas’ was unimportant. But why about the natural (i.e. ‘proper’) proportion of animals was this aide to resolution necessary? We suggest and how these are affected by viewing position. As that it heightened the noticeability of images in the Groenen (2000, 104) noted, anamorphosis should cave environment and by so doing reduced the risk ‘allow us to find the ideal position for an observer’. that viewers passed by images without being aware The ‘ideal position’ is, in fact, crucial: if such an of their existence. Since the surface of P1 type ele- ‘ideal position’ was shared as a ‘community of vates from the centre to both sides, the elevated gazes’ (Geneste et al. 2004, 74), the opposite notion, edges are more likely to face viewers when these namely a ‘non-ideal position’ must also have been images are viewed either from the left or right recognized. Hence, establishing an ideal viewing (Fig. 12.3). Therefore, viewers passing by these position would require the establishment of a certain images at oblique angles may notice images more set of proportions for the image of concern. Ideal easily on walls of this type. This bilateralism is lost, views are, therefore, established on the basis of an or images appear more distorted, on walls that are interaction of proportion and viewing position, and flatter or convex, and in such cases viewers are confirming the use of the concept in the Palaeolithic more likely to miss the images. is dependent on demonstrating both. We believe that we can demonstrate the plural- Distortion of images ity of viewpoints here. B4 (Covalanas), EH1 and BB1 In order to interpret our observations, we will com- (El Castillo) are images where natural lines have been pare them with the actions of real animals. As unusually integrated into their outline. Despite their quadrupedal mammals move, their head, neck and normal proportions when viewed from the frontal legs are the most moving/dynamic body parts, and position, natural lines which exist around or on the the movement of the torso less conspicuous. images become part of their outline once the view- Quadrupeds regularly swing their head and neck point moves to one side (Fig. 13). With B4 and either vertically or horizontally as they move, eat EH1, in both cases ridges are located on a particular and survey their surroundings, and when they loco- position (B4 = face; EH1 = rump) at places where they mote their legs appear to be continuously in motion. could actually present an obstacle for viewing; their The movement of the main body (shoulder, mid- positioning could have been better and hence the torso, thigh) is relatively static, unless they are taking artists could have avoided this possible issue if they a significant action such as kicking or looking back- had created them to view only from a frontal per- wards, each of which involves the contraction of spective. These lines perfectly overlap on the ani- the thigh and the mid-torso. Our results, therefore mals’ outlines when seen from a specific position, seem compatible with what one might expect in the and it therefore seems reasonable to presume that real, animated animal. A process of deformation these compositions were deliberately positioned in can additionally be perceived on the real animal as this way. A cervid in Covalanas—not examined viewers move to within a certain range, with some here due to inaccessibility—also represents a plural- animals appearing to shake their head and neck (as ity of viewpoint: it is located in a narrow area behind with A1, B4, N4, N17, etc.) or to stretch and shrink the panel for B1 and B4–5, visible only when a viewer their neck (as with B5, N5, N7, N14, etc.). The orien- looks up from the main passage (Pizzato 2013). tation of legs can change noticeably, as again in With all of our examples, the animal’s proper many images (e.g. A9, B5, N4, CB1, BB1). We suggest proportions are only resolved when the image is that our results, therefore, further support the viewed from a frontal perspective. The degree of dis- hypothesis that animation was a fundamental char- tortion will increase as the viewpoint moves from acteristic of at least mid and late Upper Palaeolithic side to side; in this sense, the ‘ideal viewpoint’ for imagery both in caves (Azéma 2008; Azéma & all images is located to their front. Viewers were, of Rivère 2012) and open-air settings (Luís & course, not always introduced to the images from Fernandes 2010). frontal view; in most cases the navigation through

681

Figure 13. Examples of unusual integration (EH1 and B4). Despite their normal proportions when viewed from the frontal position, natural lines which exist around or on the images become part of their outline once the viewpoint moves to one side.

these caves would entail encountering them from not the case for El Pendo, in order to ‘read’ such a side view. In Covalanas, for example, images are wide visual space with limited illumination, viewers fixed on both walls of a narrow passage; all of its must have moved along the wall from one end to the images will, therefore, be viewed from their edge other to view its images in succession. With regard to except for B4 and A3 which are located at the corner El Castillo, viewing starts from a direct position more of a bending path. Viewers navigating their way often than in our other caves, due to the spatially through this cave would, therefore, first encounter diverse conditions in this cave. In its Polychrome an image in its distorted state; its appearance resolv- Panel, located at a corner of the cave wall on the ing into ‘proper’ shape only as the viewer proceeds. north side of Room A, perception begins directly in Finally, as they continue past, the image will once frontal view of its images, hence without distortion. again distort. This deformation process will be CB3 and EH1 also present a frontal view first, as repeated for each image except for B4 and A3; dis- they were positioned to face viewers who were mov- torted encounter–resolution–distorted separation. ing towards the interior of the cave. In some cases, The same applies at El Pendo, where all of the ana- however, viewers could begin to resolve images as lysed images are located on an 8 m wide panel. soon as they saw their edges. BB1 and BB2 are Although recent studies suggest that lighting sys- located on a side wall in a passage connecting tems (multiple spots for fixed lamps) could illumin- rooms B and C, and when first encountered they ate the entirety of this large panel at one time (see are perceived from the left side of their body. The Medina Alcaide et al. 2012; 2019), whether or not same is true for GM1: viewers who proceed into Palaeolithic people employed such a lighting system the Gallery of Discs will begin to resolve GM1 from to view ‘the frieze’ in El Pendo is unknown. If it was its edge. Hence, as for images in particular spatial

682

conditions, viewing must start from the side of the important as the physical art itself (for studies sug- images. In such cases, Palaeolithic viewers must gesting a participative/interactive nature of cave have experienced these images in deformed state. art, see e.g. Azéma & Rivère 2012; Criado Boado & Thus, Upper Palaeolithic viewers must have Penedo Romero 1993; Hodgson & Pettitt 2018; been aware of the plurality of viewpoints and con- Sakamoto 2014). We believe that these interactions, comitant distortion of images. It is, therefore, difficult demonstrated through the principles of volume and to maintain the view that they were unaware of the distortion, reflect the principles of installation art in deforming process in the head, neck and legs. This the contemporary world, and hence that at least the forms the premise of our hypothesis of viewing inter- examples we have selected from three Cantabrian action, and hence, installation. Remember that the caves can be regarded as elements in a wider, multi- issue is whether or not the nature of distortion is sensory installation art. In caves, explorers are con- intentionally embedded in the viewer–art relation- stantly stimulated with multisensorial elements, ship, and the selection of specific topographic condi- coming under strong psychological encouragement tions suggests the intention of Palaeolithic artists/ to interact with the environment. As a result, they viewers. become embodied in the cave environment, and We noted above that legs were far more likely to viewers of the art, therefore, stop being simply pas- be located at extra-elevation levels than other body sive receivers of visual information and instead parts; 18 images (33 per cent) contain the limbs either transform into active participants. Such active par- on extra-low or extra-high walls, much higher than ticipation is the core of the theory of cave-installation other elements. Four images additionally place the art. By focusing on the action–reaction relationship thighs on extra-elevation levels, and three place the between humans and their environmental context, head on the highly concave/convex surface. we have explored the background topographic con- Extra-elevations are not used for the neck-shoulder ditions of Upper Palaeolithic images and the manner and mid-torso, by contrast. We can understand this and effects of distortion on them and we propose correlation of limbs and extra-elevations once delib- here that they formed formal ways of creating an erate distortion is taken into account, simply as pla- active, animated art that required attention and inter- cing a body part on a remarkably convex/concave action from the integrated viewer or participant in surface is the ideal way to cause a distortion. Limbs whatever activities they formed part of. are the narrowest outlined area of the animal, and We analysed 54 animal depictions in the caves are therefore the element on which viewers are of Covalanas, El Pendo and El Castillo. Our analysis most likely to perceive a distortion. Once such a nar- of 3D photogrammetric models of these resulted in a row limb is depicted on a highly undulating topog- significant degree of consistency between them in raphy, the degree of distortion on it will become far most aspects of our resulting observations. This con- more conspicuous. We can see this in N14, N16, B5, sistency suggests that specific regulations regarding PB4, CB1 and BB1, where the elevational gap (i.e. both production and post-production phases of profundity) considerably changes the apparent direc- cave art were in existence here and at this time, tion of the legs. As viewers move from side to side reflecting shared notions between humans in the while viewing these images, the legs of the animals Upper Palaeolithic and therefore in terms of their appear to be constantly bending forwards and back- intentionality. The use of cave wall for image-making wards. Given the distortable nature of the leg, and was, therefore, not randomly practised; instead, the such high levels of distortion, the high rate of corres- artists must, at least to a degree, have followed pondence between the legs and extra-elevation levels rules aimed at optimizing the production/effect must, we suggest, reflect the specific intention of the and resolvability of cave art. Our main conclusions artists. are as follows.

Conclusions Topography and images We detect six types of basic topography; overall con- We believe that our results add further strength to cavity, overall slope, overall convexity, zigzag, partial hypotheses that Palaeolithic artists deliberately concavity and partial slope. The most common of placed images in certain places and on particular top- these is overall concavity (n = 13, 29 per cent), fol- ographies for a number of reasons relating to the con- lowed by partial concavity (10, 22 per cent). text of the use of the cave and its art; and that the Concavities are the most common wall morphologies movement, positioning and vision of those partici- integrated with art; convexities were clearly not pre- pants who were intended to view the art were as ferred (5, 11 per cent). This result is universally seen

683

among the three caves. Moreover, there is a clear rela- levels (extra high, extra low) because this allocation tionship between cave topography and specificparts effectively causes distortion to legs and therefore of images: elevation levels for heads and thighs tend enhances viewing-interaction. These most distortable to be higher than those for neck-shoulder and middle areas (head, neck and limbs) correspond to those sections. (The sum of the elevation point = heads 144; parts of real animals that are most often in motion. neck-shoulder 127; mid-torso 121; thighs 145). Based on this correspondence, at least among the As an explanation for the selective use of con- three caves we have studied, we may hypothesize cave media, we suggest that they a) maximize the that Palaeolithic artists deliberately embedded distor- visibility/resolution of images in a dark space, as tions into images, so that when viewers moved one elevated edge will constantly face viewers around, these static images could be transformed encountering the image from the side; b) offer an into moving figures as if they were alive. ideal viewing experience to viewers standing directly Needless to say, there are many elements of the in front of the image, by mitigating distortion; c) cave-art repertoire that remain to be studied. In order allow viewers to select viewpoints from a broader to enrich and develop the installational aspects of range, and d) potentially accommodate multiple cave art with further objective detail, we must also viewers. The compatibility of all four factors may look into the relationship between humans and be responsible for the predominant selection of over- other multisensory properties; the effect of light on all concave backgrounds for image making. interaction, for example, and its impact on both Additionally, topography was used to add 3D image making and image viewing. We will need to volume to images. Clearly convex surfaces were occa- develop specific methodologies in order to approach sionally used for the shoulders and thighs. In such these points, as well as criteria for their assessment cases, the artists probably aimed to express the vol- in an empirical way. By so doing, these will lead us ume of the muscles. Such figures achieve better real- to a more comprehensive understanding of the inter- ism and appear more ‘sculptural’ than 2D images. active, multisensorial and site-specific nature of cave art. Obviously one cannot generalize from the three Distortion of images case-studies discussed here that these are universal Remarkable distortions were identified in over half phenomena. How chronologically and geographically of the images examined (n = 33; 69 per cent). The fre- variable are they, for example? We have to admit that quency was exceptionally high in El Pendo (91 per there is still a very long way to go. We hope, though, cent) and Covalanas (61 per cent), where entire that this study has taken a step forward to under- images were located on a single panel or panels in standing the interactive nature of cave art. an adjacent area. Distortion processes appear to have been used as a form of animation by viewers, Acknowledgements and this animation was perceptively conspicuous. We do not claim, however, that all images are inter- This paper is based on the doctoral research of T. Sakamoto, active; we do find a number of images without any under the primary supervision of P. Pettitt and with the col- detectable distortion. In such cases, these images per- laboration of R. Ontañon-Peredo. Mark White is thanked haps functioned ‘only’ as visual information, or func- for his secondary supervision of the thesis. We are grateful tioned otherwise in an unknown way. to Alistair Pike and Peter Rowley-Conwy for acting as The most frequently deformed body parts are examiners for the thesis, and for their helpful suggestions fi the head (25 per cent), neck (23 per cent) and limbs towards its nal form. We are also grateful for the kind (21 per cent); by contrast, the thigh (17 per cent) help of Raúl Gutiérrez Rodríguez and Marcos García-Diez for supporting the fieldwork on which this is based. TS and mid-torso (14 per cent) are mainly static. was financially supported by a Durham University Sections where distortion occurs, however, differ Postgraduate Publication Bursary and by the Gilchrist slightly according to the anatomical characteristics Educational Trust. We are grateful to two anonymous refer- of the depicted animals. Those with a distinguishable ees for helping to improve the draft, and particularly for neck (e.g. cervids) are more likely to be deformed at their close engagement with it. their neck than those without a clear distinction between head and neck (e.g. bison). Given this, the Takashi Sakamoto narrower the outlined part of the image is, the more Via Monte Zovetto 28 distortion is noticeable. This principle explains the 12100 Cuneo unique topographic condition of the legs: the body Italy section is most likely allocated to extra-elevation Email: [email protected]

684

Paul Pettitt Azéma, M., 2010. L’art des cavernes en action [Cave art in Department of Archaeology motion]. Paris: Errance. Durham University Azéma, M. & F. Rivère, 2012. Animation in Palaeolithic art: – South Road a pre-echo of cinema. Antiquity 86, 316 24. Durham DH1 3LE Bahn, P.G., 1995. Cave art without the caves. Antiquity 69, 231–7. United Kingdom Bahn, P.G., 2003. Location, location: what can the position- Email: [email protected] ing of cave and rock art reveal about Ice Age motiva- tions?, in Höhlenkunst und Raum: Archäologische und Roberto Ontañon-Peredo architektonische Perspektiven [Cave art and space: MUPAC archaeologichal and architectural perspectives], eds C/ Ruiz de Alda 19 A. Pastoors & G.C. Weniger. Düsseldorf: Jan van 39009 Santander der Most, 11–20. Spain Bahn, P.G., 2007. Cave Art: A guide to the decorated Ice Age Email: [email protected] caves of Europe. London: Frances Lincoln. Bahn, P.G., 2011. Religion and ritual in the Upper Palaeolithic, in The Oxford Handbook of the References Archaeology of Ritual and Religion, ed. T. Insoll. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 344–57. Alcalde del Río, H., H. Breuil & L. Sierra, 1911. Les cavernes Bahn, P.G., 2016. Images of the Ice Age. Oxford: Oxford de la région cantabrique {Caves of the Cantabrian University Press. region]. Monaco: Impr. Vve A. Chêne. Bahn, P.G. & J. Vertut, 1997. Journey Through The Ice Age. Ahn, S.H., B. Jin, S. Kwon & M.H. Yun, 2014. A research on London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. curved display comparing to flat display regarding Baptista, A.M., 2009. O paradigma perdido: o Vale do Côa e a posture, tilt angle, focusing area and satisfaction. arte paleolítica de ar livre em Portugal [Paradigm lost: Journal of the Ergonomics Society of Korea 33(3), 191– the Côa valley and open-air Palaeolithic art in 202. Portugal]. Porto: Edições Afrontamento. Apellániz, J.M., 1978. Análisis e interpretación de Ekain Batarda Fernandes, A., M. Reis, C. Escudero Remirez & [Analysis and interpretation of Ekain]. Munibe 30, C. Vázquez Marcos, 2017. Integration of natural 110–50. stone features and conservation of the Upper Arias, P., 2009. Rites in the dark? An evaluation of the cur- Palaeolithic Côa Valley and Siega Verde open-air rent evidence for ritual areas at Magdalenian cave rock-art. Time and Mind 10(3), 293–319. sites. World Archaeology 41(2), 262–94. Bishop, C., 2005. Installation Art. London: Tate Publishing. Arias, P. & R. Ontañón, 2012. La Galma [Spain]: long term Bourdier, C., 2013. Rock art and social geography in the human activity in a karst system, in Cave in Context: Upper Paleolithic. Contribution to the socio-cultural The cultural significance of caves and rockshelters in function of the Roc-aux-Sorciers rock-shelter Europe, eds K.A. Bergsvik & R. Skeates. Oxford: (Angles-sur-l’Anglin, France) from the viewpoint of Oxbow, 101–17. its sculpted frieze. Journal of Anthropological Aubert, M., A. Brumm, M. Ramli, T. Sutikna, E. Archaeology 32(4), 368–82. W. Saptomo, B. Hakim & A. Dosseto, 2014. Bourdier, C., O. Fuentes, G. Pinçon & F. Baleux, 2017. Pleistocene cave art from Sulawesi, Indonesia. Methodological contribution to the integrated study Nature 514(7521), 223–7. of European Palaeolithic rock art: the issue of the Aubert, M., A. Brumm & J. Huntley, 2018. Early dates for audience and the perceptibility of Roc-aux-Sorciers ‘Neanderthal cave art’ may be wrong. Journal of rock art (Angles-sur-l’Anglin, France). Quaternary Human Evolution 125, 215–17. International 430, 114–29. Aujoulat, N., 1985. Analyse d’une oeuvre pariétale Breuil, H., 1952. Quatre cents siècles d’art pariétal: les cavernes paléolithique anamorphosée [Analysis of a ornées de l’âge du renne. Montignac: Centre d’études et Palaeolithic parietal anamorphic work]. Bulletin de de documentation préhistoriques. la Société Préhistorique de l’Ariège Tarascon-sur-Ariège Brot, J., 2012. L’utilisation des reliefs naturels dans l’art 40, 185–93. pariétal paléolithique, in Pleistocene Art of the World. Aujoulat, N., 2005. The Splendour of Lascaux: Rediscovering Actes du Congres IFRAO, Tarascon sur Ariège, sep- the greatest treasure of prehistoric art. London: tembre 2010, ed. J. Clottes. Préhistoire, Art et Sociétés: Thames & Hudson. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Ariège-Pyrénées Azéma, M., 2008. Representation of movement in the (Special number) 45–46 (2010–2011), CD-75–91. Upper Palaeolithic: an ethological approach to the in- Chodoronek, M., 2015. The Use and Application of terpretation of parietal art. Anthropozoologica 43(1), Photogrammetry for the In-field Documentation of 117–54. Archaeological Features: Three Case Studies from

685

the Great Plains and Southeastern Alaska. Hoffmann, D.L., C.D. Standish, M. García-Diez, et al., Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of 2018a. U-Th dating of carbonate crusts reveals Nebraska-Lincoln. Neandertal origin of Iberian cave art. Science 359 Clottes, J. & R. Simonnet, 1990. Retour au Réseau Clastres (6378), 912–15. (Niaux, Ariège). Préhistoire Ariégeoise 45, 51–139. Hoffmann, D.L., C.D. Standish, M. García-Diez, et al., Conkey, M.W., 1987. New approaches in the search for 2018b. Response to Comment on ‘U-Th dating of car- meaning? A review of research in Paleolithic art. bonate crusts reveals Neandertal origin of Iberian Journal of Field Archaeology 14(4), 413–30. cave art’. Science 362(6411), eaau1736. Criado Boado, F. & R. Penedo Romero, 1993. Art, time and Hoffmann, D.L., C.D. Standish, M. García-Diez, et al., thought: a formal study comparing palaeolithic and 2018c. Dates for Neanderthal art and symbolic postglacial art. World Archaeology 25(2), 187–203. behaviour are reliable. Nature Ecology & Evolution 2 de Beaune, S., 2004. Un atelier magdalénien de sculpture (7), 1044–5. de la stéatite au Rocher de la Caille (Loire) [A Hoffmann, D.L., C.D. Standish, M. García-Diez, et al., Magdalenian steatite sculpture workshop at Rocher Response to Aubert et al.’s reply ‘Early dates for de la Caille (Loire)], in L’art du paléolitique [Art of “Neanderthal cave art” may be wrong’ [J. Hum. the Palaeolithic], eds M. Lejeune & A.C. Welté. Evol. 125 (2018), 215–217]. Journal of Human Liège: ERAUL, 177–86. Evolution 135, 102644. Feruglio, V., B. Dutailly, M. Ballade, et al., 2015. Un outil de Huyge, D., M. Aubert, H. Barnard, W. Claes, J.C. Darnell, releve´s 3D partage´ en ligne: premie`res applications M. De Dapper & I. Therasse, 2007. ‘Lascaux along pour l’art et la taphonomie des parois orneés de la the Nile’: Late Pleistocene rock art in Egypt. grotte de Cussac (ArTaPOC/programme LaScArBx) Antiquity 81, 1–3. [A 3D modelling tool shared online: first applications Jouteau, A., V. Feruglio, C. Bourdier, H. Camus, C. Ferrier, for art and taphonomy of decorated panels in Cussac F. Santos & J. Jaubert, 2019. Choosing rock art loca- cave], in Virtual Retrospect 2013: Actes du colloque tions: geological parameters and social behaviours. Pessac (France), 27–28–29 novembre 2013, eds The example of Cussac Cave (Dordogne, France). R. Vergnieux & C. Delevoie. (Archéovision 6.) Journal of Archaeological Science 105, 81–96. Pessac: Ausonius, 49–56. Katz, D. & M. Friess, 2014. Technical note: 3D from stand- Fritz, C., M.D. Wills & G. Tosello, 2016. Reconstructing ard digital photography of human crania—a prelim- Paleolithic cave art: the example of Marsoulas cave inary assessment. American Journal of Physical (France). Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 10, Anthropology 154(1), 152–8. 910–16. Kersten, T.P. & M. Lindstaedt, 2012. Image-based low-cost García-Diez, M., D. Garrido, D.L. Hoffmann, P.B. Pettitt, A. systems for automatic 3D recording and modelling of W. Pike & J. Zilhão, 2015. The chronology of hand archaeological finds and objects, in Progress in stencils in European Palaeolithic rock art: implica- Cultural Heritage Preservation (EuroMed 2012), eds tions of new U-series results from El Castillo Cave M. Ioannides, D. Fritsch, J. Leissner, R. Davies, (Cantabria, Spain). Journal of Anthropological Sciences F. Remondino & R. Caffo. (Lecture Notes in 93, 135–52. Computer Science 7616.) Berlin/Heidelberg: Geneste, J.M., T. Hordé, C. Tanet & P. Dagen, 2004. Springer, 1–10. Lascaux, a Work of Memory. Périgueux: Fanlac. Koutsoudis, A., B. Vidmar & F. Arnaoutoglou, 2013. Gittins, R. & P. Pettitt, 2017. Is Palaeolithic cave art consist- Performance evaluation of a multi-image 3D recon- ent with costly signalling theory? Lascaux as a test struction software on a low-feature artefact. Journal case. World Archaeology 49(4), 466–90. of Archaeological Science 40(12), 4450–56. Groenen, M., 2000. Sombra y luz en el arte Paleolitico Lemozi, A., 1929. La grotte-temple du Pech-Merle, un nouveau [Darkness and light in Palaeolithic art]. Barcelona: sanctuaire préhistorique. Paris: A. Picard. Ariel. Leroi-Gourhan, A., 1968. The evolution of Paleolithic art. Hodgson, D., 2000. Shamanism, phosphenes, and early art: Scientific American 218, 58–70. an alternative synthesis. Current Anthropology 41(5), Leroi-Gourhan, A., 1992. L’art pariétal: Langage da la 866–73. préhistoire. Grenoble: Jérome Millon. Hodgson, D., 2003. The biological foundations of Upper Lorblanchet, M., 1989. Nouvelles découvertes d’art pariétal Palaeolithic art: stimulus, Percept and representa- paléolithique en Quercy [New discoveries of tional imperatives. Rock Art Research 20(1), 3–22. Palaeolithic parietal art in Quercy], in L’art pariétal Hodgson, D., 2008. The visual dynamics of Upper paléolithique. Actes des Colloques de la direction du Palaeolithic cave art. Cambridge Archaeological Patrimoine, Périgueux-Le Thot, novembre 1984. Paris: Journal 18(3), 341–53. Ministère de la Culture, de la Communication, des Hodgson, D. & P. Pettitt, 2018. The origins of iconic depic- Grands Travaux et du Bicentenaire, 79–105. tions: a falsifiable model derived from the visual sci- Lorblanchet, M., 1995. Les grottes ornées de la préhistoire: nou- ence of Palaeolithic cave art and world rock art. veaux regards [Decorated caves in prehistory: a fresh Cambridge Archaeological Journal 28(4), 591–612. approach]. Paris: Errance.

686

Lorblanchet, M., 2001. La grotte ornée de Pergouset Aesthetics and Rock Art, eds T. Heyd & J. Clegg. (Saint-Géry, Lot): un sanctuaire secret paléolithique Aldershot: Ashgate, 117–29. [The decorated cave of Pergouset (Saint-Géry, Lot): Pastoors, A. & G.C. Weniger, 2011. Cave art in context: a secret Palaeolithic sanctuary]. Documents methods for the analysis of the spatial organization d’archéologie française 85, 5–189. of cave sites. Journal of Archaeological Research 19(4), Lorblanchet, M., 2010. Art parietal: Grottes ornées du Quercy 377–400. [Parietal art: decorated caves of Quercy]. Paris: Pettitt, P., 2014. The European Upper Palaeolithic. The Rouergue. Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology and Anthropology Luís, L. & A.P.B. Fernandes, 2010. ‘On endless motion’: of Hunter-Gatherers, eds V. Cummings, P. Jordan & depiction of movement in the Upper Palaeolithic M. Zvelebil. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 279– Côa Valley rock art (Portugal), in Congresso 309. Internacional da IFRAO 2009, Piauí, Brasil. IFRAO, Pettitt, P.B., 2016. Darkness visible. Shadows, art and the 1303–18. ritual experience of caves in Upper Palaeolithic McCarthy, J. & J. Benjamin, 2014. Multi-image photogram- Europe, in The Archaeology of Darkness, eds metry for underwater archaeological site recording: M. Dowd & R. Hensey. Oxford: Oxbow, 11–23. an accessible, diver-based approach. Journal of Pettitt, P., A.M. Castillejo, P. Arias, R.O. Peredo & Maritime Archaeology 9(1), 95–114. R. Harrison, 2014. New views on old hands: the con- Medina-Alcaide, M.A., A. Cristo, A. Romero & J. text of stencils in El Castillo and La Garma caves L. Sanchidrián, 2012. Otro punto de luz. (Cantabria, Spain). Antiquity 88, 47–63. Iluminación estática en los ‘santuarios’ paleolíticos. Pettitt, P., T. Sakamoto & S. Lelushko, 2017. Light, human El ejemplo de la Cueva de Nerja (Málaga, España) evolution, and the Palaeolithic, in The Oxford [Points of ﬁxed lighting in Nerja Cave], in Handbook of the Archaeology of Light, eds Pleistocene Art of the World. Actes du Congres G. Papadopoulos & H. Moyes. (Oxford Handbooks IFRAO, Tarascon sur Ariège, septembre 2010, ed. Online.) Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: J. Clottes. Préhistoire, Art et Sociétés: Bulletin de la 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198788218.013.1 Société Préhistorique Ariège-Pyrénées (Special number) Pike-Tay, A., V. Cabrera Valdés & F. Bernaldo de Quirós, 45–46 (2010–2011), CD-105–121. 1999. Seasonal variations of the Middle–Upper Medina-Alcaide, M.Á., L.M. Cabalín, J. Laserna, J. Paleolithic transition at El Castillo, Cueva Morín L. Sanchidrián, A.J., Torres, I. Intxaurbe & and El Pendo (Cantabria, Spain). Journal of Human A. Romero, 2019. Multianalytical and multiproxy Evolution 36(3), 283–317. approach to the characterization of a Paleolithic Pizzato, M., 2013. Cave rituals and the brain’s theatre. lamp. An example in Nerja cave (Southern Iberian Theatre Symposium 21, 116–36. Peninsula). Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports Plénier, A., 1971. L’art de la grotte de Marsoulas. Toulouse: 28, 102021. l’Institut d’art préhistorique de Toulouse. Montes Barquin, R., J.S. Gonzalez, A.J.G. Laguna & C. Plisson, H. & L.V. Zotkina, 2015. From 2D to 3D at macro- G. Luque, 1998. New Palaeolithic cave art in cueva and microscopic scale in rock art studies. Digital de El Pendo, Cantabrian region, Spain. Rock Art Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 2(2), Research 15(2), 89–97. 102–19. Montes Barquin, R., 2001. Las manifestaciones rupestres Reiss, J. H., 1999. From Margin to Center: The spaces of instal- paleolíticas [Palaeolithic rock-art], in Las cuevas del lation art. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press. desﬁladero: Arte rupestre paleolítico en el valle del río Robert, E., S. Petrognani & E. Lesvignes, 2016. Applications Carranza (Cantabria-Vizcaya) [The caves of the gorge: of digital photography in the study of Paleolithic Paleolithic rock art in the valley of the river cave art. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 10, Carranza (Cantabria-Vizcaya)] eds C.G. Sainz & C. 847–58. S.M. Llamosas. Santander: Universidad de Ruiz-Redondo, A., D. Komšo, D.G., Maidagan, Cantabria, 175–203. O. Moro-Abadía, M.R., González-Morales, J. Jaubert Moure Romanillo, A., M.G. Morales & C.G. Sainz, 1990. & I. Karavanic,́ 2019. Expanding the horizons of Las pinturas rupestres paleolíticas de la cueva de Palaeolithic rock art: the site of Romualdova Covalanas (Ramales de la Victoria, Cantabria) Pecina.́ Antiquity 93, 297–312. [Palaeolithic rock paintings of Covalanas cave Sakamoto, T., 2014. Upper Palaeolithic Cave Art as (Ramales de la Victoria, Cantabria)]. Trabajos de Multisensory Interactive Installation Art: Analysis Prehistoria 47, 9–38. of Human-Art-Environment Triad. Unpublished Nabil, M. & F. Saleh, 2014. 3D reconstruction from images Master’s dissertation, Durham University. for museum artefacts: a comparative study, in Virtual Sauvet, G. & G. Tosello, 1998. Le mythe paléolithique de la Systems & Multimedia (VSMM) 2014, 257–60. caverne [The Palaeolithic cave myth], in Le propre de Ogawa, M., 2005. Integration in Franco-Cantabrian parietal l’homme: Psychanalyse et préhistoire [Uniquely art: a case study of Font-de-Gaume Cave, France, in human: Psychoanalysis and prehistory], eds

687

F. Sacco & G. Sauvet. Lausanne: Delachaux et Author biographies Niestlé, 55–90. Slimak, L., J. Fietzke, J.M. Geneste & R. Ontañón, 2018. Takashi Sakamoto is a member of the department of ‘ Comment on U-Th dating of carbonate crusts Archaeology at Durham University, UK. He was recently ’ reveals Neandertal origin of Iberian cave art . awarded his PhD for the thesis ‘Cave Art as Installation Science 361(6408), eaau1371. Art: Analysis of the Human-Art-Wall Triad in Three Straus, L.G., 1987. The paleolithic cave art of Cantabrian Caves and Embedded Interactivity in the Vasco-Cantabrian Spain. Oxford Journal of Image-Making and Image-Viewing process’ (Durham – Archaeology 6(2), 149 63. University). His main interest is to interpret Palaeolithic ı Straus, L.G., M.R.G. Morales, M.Á.F. Mart ńez & M. art from the perspective of contemporary art theory. P. Garcıá-Gelabert, 2002. Last glacial human settle- ment in eastern Cantabria (Northern Spain). Journal Paul Pettitt is Professor of Palaeolithic Archaeology at – of Archaeological Science 29(12), 1403 14. Durham University, UK. He was previously Senior ’ ’ Surre, Y., 1992. L anamorphose dans l art pariétal: mythe Archaeologist in the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator ou réalité? [Anamorphosis in parietal art: myth or Unit, Research Fellow and Tutor in Archaeology and – reality?]. Préhistoire Ariégeoise 47, 95 104. Anthropology at Keble College, Oxford, and Lecturer, Valladas, H., N. Tisnerat-Laborde, H. Cachier, et al., 2001. Senior Lecturer and Reader in Archaeology at Sheffield Radiocarbon AMS dates for Paleolithic cave paint- University. His research interests include the origins and – ings. Radiocarbon 43(2B), 977 86. development of art and mortuary activity. He is a Fellow Vialou, D., 1998. Our Prehistoric Past: Art and civilization. of the Society of Antiquaries. London: Thames & Hudson. Welker, W., 2016. First Palaeolithic rock art in Germany: Roberto Ontañón-Peredo is Director of the Prehistory and – engravings on Hunsrück slate. Antiquity 90, 32 47. Archaeology Museum – Prehistoric Caves of Cantabria Westoby, M.J., J. Brasington, N.F. Glasser, M.J. Hambrey & (Spain) and Researcher at the Cantabria International ‘ ’ J.M. Reynolds, 2012. Structure-from-motion photo- Institute for Prehistoric Research. PhD in Prehistory and grammetry: a low-cost, effective tool for geoscience Archaeology at the University of Cantabria (2000). – applications. Geomorphology 179, 300 314. Postdoctoral grant at the CNRS (Universités Paris I and X) White, R., 2003. Prehistoric Art: The symbolic journey of (2001–2003). Returned to Spain on the ‘Ramon y Cajal’ humankind. New York (NY): Harry N. Abrams. Programme: from 2003 to 2005, researcher and lecturer at Zilhão, J., T. Aubry, A.F. Carvalho, A.M. Baptista, M. the University of Cantabria. Since 2007, master classes and V. Gomes & J. Meireles, 1997. The rock art of the tutor of formative practices at the same university. Research Côa Valley (Portugal) and its archaeological context: interests: the transition to complex societies between the fi rst results of current research. Journal of European Neolithic and the Bronze Age; Late Glacial hunter-gatherers; – Archaeology 5, 7 49. Prehistoric art and conservation-oriented studies.

688