Abstract
The endokarst landscape is the result of long erosion and sedimentation processes that have modelled an environment in which capricious forms abound. Despite being a hostile environment for human life, these caves must have attracted the attention of human groups from as early as the Palaeolithic. It is striking that many examples of rock art appear to be closely symbiotic with their natural support; nevertheless, it is difficult to confirm any relationship in the distribution of the decorated spaces, based on their morphology. Moreover, if we start from the hypothesis—widely accepted, but not demonstrated—that Palaeolithic cave art is a system of visual communication, the visibility of the art or the number of people who could be accommodated in the decorated sectors should be determining factors. In order to avoid making subjective appraisals when analysing these factors, we have designed a Python script with a workflow to work directly with 3D models of caverns using GISs, which can be easily replicated and edited by other researchers. Application of this script in the Magdalenian caves of Atxurra, Santimamiñe and Altxerri (Northern Spain) has allowed us to compare them accurately based on their visibility features. This has shown that in some cases, there may have been prior planning to enhance the visibility of some figures. In all cases, the groups of figures are located in deep and hidden parts of the caves, usually in sectors with limited capacity to accommodate people, which would be consistent with a system of restricted communication.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction: the Role of the Cave in the Spatial Organization of Palaeolithic Rock Art
Despite the difficulties in ascertaining the cultural and/or religious motivations behind Palaeolithic rock art (Bahn, 2011; Conkey, 1996; Sauvet et al., 2009), there are numerous examples that enable us to determine the place of graphic production in the socio-economic behaviour of these populations (Fritz, 1999; Rivero, 2010; 2017; Fritz et al., 2016a). We can assert that a form of organization existed in relation to artistic production, in relation to learning and transmission inside and between social groups (e.g. Rivero, 2016; Rivero & Garate, 2020). The homogenous motifs, techniques and stylistic features of Upper Palaeolithic art offer enormous potential information on networks of exchange of cultural knowledge (Sauvet, 1990, 2019; Jaubert & Barbaza, 2005; Bicho et al., 2007; González-Sainz, 2007a; Utrilla & Martínez-Bea, 2008; Sauvet et al., 2008a, 2008b, 2018; Rivero & Sauvet, 2014; Rivero et al., 2014; Villaverde, 2015; Sauvet & Rivero, 2016; Petrognani & Robert, 2019; Domingo & Roman, 2020) that did not necessarily operate at the same time as the networks of technological exchange. If one accepts the social function of rock art as a visual communication system (Dobrez, 2016; Domingo et al., 2016; Porr, 2010), it could have functioned either as an open (public, accessible) or closed (private, restricted) system. Thus, these social groups could use the natural resources (i.e. the morphology of the caves) either to increase the prominence of the figures or, by contrast, to conceal them. A formal analysis of these possible spatial patterns in rock art would enable a more profound understanding of the degree of complexity derived from symbolic actions in past societies (e.g. Baptista et al., 2008; Domingo et al., 2008; Baptista & Santos, 2010), in addition to other factors (economic, technological or cognitive, etc.) (e.g. Fiore, 2020).
Caves attracted human populations from at least the Middle Palaeolithic (Jaubert et al., 2016), and particularly during the phases of the Upper Palaeolithic, when the archaeological record increases considerably. They often show a contextual relationship with rock art (Clottes, 1993; Medina-Alcaide et al., 2018). These peculiar sites are usually found in karstifiable chemical sedimentary rocks and are often the result of long and varied processes of erosion and sedimentation that can form different features throughout the cave (Ford & Williams, 2007). Additionally, the rock in which the cave is located can have specific characteristics (e.g. nodules, stratification, fractures) that tend to favour the presence of particular forms and shapes (prominent areas, flat surfaces, etc.) (Palmer, 2007). Since the mid-twentieth century, some authors (e.g. Laming-Emperaire, 1962) have insisted on the role of the cave in the structure and composition of Palaeolithic art, especially A. Leroi-Gourhan (1965) who coined the term la caverne participante to describe this phenomenon. Other authors disagree somewhat in their interpretation, arguing that the cave had a greater role as an organisatrice than a participante entity (Lorblanchet, 1994; Pigeaud, 2013). Nonetheless, there is general consensus that the distribution of cave art is usually strongly influenced and conditioned by the prevailing topography and morphology of the cave (e.g. Lejeune, 1985; Sanchidrián, 1990; Lorblanchet, 1995, 2010; Sieveking, 1997; Sauvet & Tosello, 1998; González-García, 2001; Bahn, 2003; Vialou, 2004; Villeneuve & Hayden, 2007, Garate, 2010; Ruiz-Redondo, 2014; González-Sainz, 2007a, 2007b; Robert, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2017; Sauvet & González-Pumariega, 2017; Ochoa & García-Diez, 2018; Jouteau et al., 2019a; Sakamoto et al., 2020).
This does not mean that all cave decorations of the Upper Palaeolithic follow a single universal pattern, as proposed by A. Leroi-Gourhan (1965). However, one must assume that a single cultural group might leave a non-random artistic organization in different caves, which might perhaps be determined from the archaeological and artistic record (Laming-Emperaire, 1962; Leroi-Gourhan, 1965; Vialou, 1986; Sanchidrián, 1992; 1994; Sauvet & Wlodarczyk, 1995; 2000-2001) and/or from the placement patterns of the decoration. There are also alternative theories, according to which rather than a graphic tradition there was a “bricoleur”, and similarities (or stable iconography) are explained more by contiguous than continuous practices (Conkey & Fisher, 2020). We must wonder whether such theories would suggest an infinite number of possibilities for the topographic decoration of caves or whether, on the contrary, there might have been certain specific patterns for this purpose (perhaps taken from contiguous practices).
At the same time, caves are natural environments, and therefore, unlike other archaeological elements—such as spear throwers or bone disks—there is a randomness in the arrangement of the “decorative” spaces they contain. That is to say, no two caves are identical, because each has had its own erosive and sedimentation processes, and characteristics of the bedrock are mostly different. Furthermore, the same sedimentary and erosive processes can completely alter the topography of a cave over a short (Van Gundy & White, 2009) or long period (Laureano et al., 2016). To these issues, one might add the taphonomic problems of biological (Audra et al., 2019; Bruxelles et al., 2016) and human origin, including prehistoric morphological changes (e.g. Geneste, 2001; Balbín-Behrmann et al, 2003; Arias et al., 2004). This makes it necessary to perform different types of geoarchaeological study as a means of supporting archaeological interpretations (e.g. Canti & Huisman, 2015; Delannoy et al., 2020).
Formerly, one of the main problems involved in this type of research was the subjectivity resulting from the necessary use of qualitative terms, which could make the opinions generated by each author very different. In recent years, these problems have been solved with the emerging use of digital methods that have made spatial analyses more accurate (e.g. Jouteau et al., 2020; Intxaurbe et al., 2021). Geographic Information Systems (GISs) have been widely used in “sensorial” archaeology and interactive documentation, due to their precision and ability to interpret the terrain (Wheatley & Gillings, 2000; 2002; Wheatley, 2004; Llobera, 2007; Gillings, 2015; Díaz-Andreu et al., 2017; Wernke et al., 2017; Wienhold & Robinson, 2017; Lesvignes et al., 2019), with all their strengths and limitations, as previously identified (Boche et al., 2012, 2014; Frieman & Gillings, 2007; Gillings, 2017; Llobera, 2012; Ogburn, 2006; Van Leusen, 1999). These techniques are usually employed in open-air studies, but there are some specific precedents in closed and three-dimensionally complex sites (Landeschi, 2019; Polig et al., 2020), including caves (Ortega, 2012, 2014) and rock shelters (Bourdier et al., 2017a). An analysis of the study using GISs of the viewshed of each graphic unit (GU) in Atxurra cave has previously been presented (Intxaurbe et al., 2020), confirming a strong correlation between the location of certain GUs inside the cavern and their visibility. One of the most successful analytical platforms directly uses the 3D mesh for Line of Sight (LOS) analyses in these types of enclosed environments (Dell'Unto et al., 2016; Landeschi et al., 2016, 2019; Landeschi, 2019).
Materials: Middle/Upper Magdalenian Cave Art on the Eastern Cantabrian Seaboard
Given the large number of decorated Palaeolithic caves in SW Europe (at least 450 caves or rock shelters, not counting open-air sites), with a wide variety of chronologies, technical and thematic resources and topographic layout, we have decided to limit our research geographically and chrono-culturally. For this reason, we have searched for synchronic decorated caves on the Eastern Cantabrian seaboard (Northern Spain), in an area with an abundance of archaeologic sites of Middle/Upper Magdalenian chronology (Arribas, 2005; González-Sainz, 1989). The fact that they belong to the same geographical context also means that they may have been influenced by the same environmental changes; while this does not necessarily imply that the geological evolution of the caves was the same, it does serve to reduce their casuistry.
Magdalenian culture developed widely across SW Europe (e.g. Breuil, 1912; Utrilla, 1981; González-Sainz, 1989; Angevin, 2012; Bicho & Haws, 2012; Román & Villaverde, 2012; Pétillon, 2013; Bourdier et al., 2017b; Ivanovaitė et al., 2020; Maier et al., 2020), with inter-regionally shared traditions (including possible similar behaviours regarding subterranean appropriation). However, differences—both thematic (e.g. M. García-Bustos, 2019a), stylistic and technological—can be seen between regions, owing to the fact that there would have been three tiers of exchange network (Fitzhugh et al., 2011; Fuentes et al., 2019a; Sauvet, 2019): “local networks” comprising a few members of a community; “regional networks” made up of several local networks; and finally “supra-regional networks”, allowing communication between distant groups. As a result, for example, on the Cantabrian seaboard, Magdalenian artists tended not to overlap figures on the same walls, while in other European areas (e.g. the Pyrenees, Aquitaine), this arrangement is more common (González-Sainz & Ruiz-Redondo, 2010).
In chronological terms, it is accepted that the more recent (Middle and Upper) phases of Magdalenian culture in the region developed between c. 17,733 and 13,500 cal yr BP (Arribas, 2005; González-Sainz & Utrilla, 2005). There are several examples of portable art in this region (Garate et al., 2015; Rivero, 2010), including at least ten caves with rock art (Garate, 2017; 2018). In addition, the sea level was 60–70 m lower than at present, and the coastline would have been 2.5–4.7 km further out (Lambeck et al., 2014) (Fig. 1), and there is evidence of some carbonated lithologies in this submerged area of the coastline on the Eastern Cantabrian seaboard (Vanara et al., 2007). Therefore, there might also be submerged sites that may have contained archaeological deposits or rock art. In general terms, the stratigraphical data makes it possible to assign certain stylistic conventions of some figurative representations to a specific phase. For example, the convention of the frontal view in the ibex is typical of Upper Magdalenian phases (Rivero et al., 2014). In other conventions, however, it is more difficult to distinguish between the middle and upper phases (González-Sainz, 2007b; Sauvet & Rivero, 2016). Briefly, it may be noted that during the recent Magdalenian, there is a tendency in this region to seek realism and to increase the level of detail in the figures (Ruiz-Redondo, 2016). Examples of this include the perspective in different planes (especially in extremities and horn-like appendages) and the marking of different volumes of pelage (Fig. 2). However, there are great differences (primarily in the themes) between the graphic elements on portable and parietal supports. For example, during the recent Magdalenian, there is a near absence of bison figures in portable art in the region—they are found practically only on the portable supports from the Middle Magdalenian phases in Las Caldas (West Cantabrian) and Isturitz (on the western border of the Pyrenees)—whereas they are among the most numerous themes on parietal supports (including those studied in this work) (Sauvet & Rivero, 2016) and are found both in the middle (e.g. La Garma, Alkerdi, Aitzbitarte V) and upper phases, with an example directly dated in Urdiales cave at 12,750 ± 110 uncal yr BP (15,901–14,545 cal yr BP) (Valladas et al., 2013). As for the locations of the rock art inside the caverns, the Eastern Cantabrian coast (in addition to the Western Pyrenees) contains several sites with recent Magdalenian art in locations that are paradigmatic in terms of their difficulty of access, such as Aitzbitarte IV (Garate et al., 2020b) or Etxeberriko Karbia (Garate & Bourrillon, 2019).
Studied cave sites. A Their location in SW Europe (left) and in Eastern Cantabrian seaboard. The coastline has been moved to its position during the Upper Magdalenian (60–70 m below the current one), showed by the cream/green colour in bathymetries (sources: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/, https://www.gmrt.org/GMRTMapTool/, https://www.geo.euskadi.eus/). This position could vary slightly due to sedimentary bodies near each river mouths (Jouanneau et al., 2008; Galparsoro et al., 2010). Plans of studied caves, showing their supposed entrances during the recent Magdalenian, and the location of the known rock art. B Santimamiñe cave (I. Latasa, K. Zuloaga and A.D.E.S.). C Atxurra cave (Gim-Geomatics and A.D.E.S.). D Altxerri cave (L.C. Teyra over CRN surveying data)
Tracings of analysed cave art (right), showing its locations inside the caverns (left). A Santimamiñe cave. “Chamber” of paintings and the main panel. B Santimamiñe cave. “New hall” of paintings and horse San.5.2.1. C Atxurra cave. “Ledge of the horses” (author: X. Gezuraga) and horse Atr.J.II.65 (O. Rivero, J.F. Ruiz-López and D. Garate). D Altxerri cave. “Frieze” of sector II.4 and panel Alt.A.II.4
In addition, we have also selected caves that were three-dimensionally scanned (indispensable for the purpose), numerically representative (containing more than 50 figurative GUs, including animals and complex signs) and for which documentation has recently been published (presumably containing the most updated catalogue of rock art).
Using these criteria, we selected three caves (Fig. 1): Santimamiñe (Aranzadi et al., 1925, 1935; Barandiarán, 1976; González-Sainz, 2009; González-Sainz & Ruiz-Idarraga, 2010; A.D.E.S., 2010; López-Quintana, 2011), Atxurra (Barandiarán, 1961; Fernández-Eraso, 1985; Garate et al., 2016, 2020a; Rios-Garaizar et al., 2019; 2020) and Altxerri (Barandiarán, 1964; González-Sainz et al., 2013; Ruiz-Redondo, 2014; Ruiz-Redondo et al., 2017), all of which were decorated during the recent period of the Magdalenian chrono-culture (a more detailed explanation of the caves can be found in Supplementary Materials).
These caves contain technically and stylistically synchronous sets, but it is more difficult to ascertain whether they were executed in a single event, or over a longer period (e.g. a decoration created over a number of generations versus an activity performed in a few hours or days). This could be solved with a traceological study of the figures (Semenov, 1964; D’Errico, 1994; Fritz, 1999; Rivero, 2007; P. García-Bustos, 2019b), which could show the use of certain tools to execute the GUs, or help determine the presence of specific artists, despite the difficulty such an approach entails (Apellániz, 1987; Groenen & Martens, 2004). This would be important, given that even if we could confirm whether or not there was prior planning (Gittins & Pettitt, 2017), we do not know whether there was a single previous exploration of the natural cave (Rouzaud, 1990), with all the complexity that would have involved in terms of memorizing the topographic and morphological structure of the cave, or whether the current decoration was the result of small, successive additions over time.
Methodology: Use of GIS for Visibility and Potential Audience Analyses
We have adapted the visibility analysis proposed by Landeschi et al. (2016), adding several points for use in endokarst environments based on the data obtained from experimentation with Palaeolithic lighting systems (Medina-Alcaide, 2020; Medina-Alcaide et al., 2021), and updating it with an estimation of the human capacity (number of persons who could be accommodated) based on the measures proposed by Pastoors and Weniger (2011). Our ultimate purpose is to define a method that allows researchers to analyse certain features of the spatial distribution of cave art, in order to confirm whether there was really a predisposition to organize certain panels (or groups of panels) with Palaeolithic rock art based on the visual prominence of the natural supports or the capacity of the decorated areas. Our method consists of using three-dimensional models of the caves (previously modified to reflect their condition when they were decorated), and entering them in ArcMap™ by ArcGIS® as a.wrl file, to create different raster files (Scott & Janikas, 2010), following a defined procedure (Opitz & Nowlin, 2012). These are analysed using the Lines of Sight technique, obtaining frequency maps for potential observers, and target points (parts of the surface that contain rock art, or the GUs themselves). In addition, we will determine the maximum capacity for each space from which the different figures are visible, based on different levels of visibility. We have summarized this workflow in a Python script for ArcGIS® (see https://github.com/inakiintxaurbe/lineof-sight-and-potential-audience-analysis-to-cave-art), including the parameters we used in our analysis. In any case, this script is easily editable and can therefore be adapted for other different cases, including new variables and parameters that could have an effect on the visual perception itself, such as reflectance (de Beaune, 1987; Delluc & Delluc, 1979a; Jouteau et al., 2019b, 2020) and psychological perception (Opitz, 2017).
Recreating the Geomorphology of the Caves
The caves were first scanned using a terrestrial laser scanner, from CRN, Virtualware and Gim-Geomatics. The use of 3D technology is now relatively common in underground Palaeolithic art research (e.g. Fritz & Tosello, 2007; Lerma et al., 2010; Domingo et al., 2013; Hoblea et al., 2014; Bourdier et al., 2015; Fritz et al., 2016b; Jaillet et al., 2018; Ruiz-López et al., 2018; Fuentes et al., 2019b; Rivero et al., 2019). However, it is very important to remember that karsts systems have also been undergoing continuous changes since their prehistoric occupation. Bearing this in mind, and taking advantage of the possibilities of this technology, we can perform different studies (accessibility, capacity, visibility, etc.) with a model as close as possible to the site that the prehistoric societies would have found at that time (Arriolabengoa et al., 2020; Delannoy et al., 2010, 2020; Genuite et al., 2021; Sadier, 2013).
In short, the artwork in the sanctuaries of these three caves can be assigned—by stylistic comparisons and/or contextual dating—to the final of MIS 2 (c. 17,700–13,500 cal yr BP). Since these caves were decorated, there have been erosive events—usual in the area in interglacial-glacial transitions (Aranburu et al., 2015; Arriolabengoa et al., 2018, 2020; Stoll et al., 2013)—such as those observed in the vestibule of Santimamiñe, where the episode of Almp’s stratigraphic alteration might have occurred within the Alleröd oscillation (c. 14,000–13,500 cal yr BP) and/or Preboreal (c. 11,270–11,210 cal yr BP) (López-Quintana, 2011). In any case, further regional paleo-climatic studies are required to confirm these propositions (e.g. Bernal-Wormull et al., 2021). Lithochemical sedimentation events also occurred during the Holocene, obstructing formerly wider passages, such as those observed in Atxurra (Arriolabengoa et al., 2020). In Altxerri, one should mention certain specific collapses that occurred in the cave due to the particular lithology of the karst, such as those that sealed the entrances, caused the enlargement of the first hall or detached the piece of wall/roof that contained the group of figures Alt.A.1.11 (Barandiarán, 1964; Ruiz-Redondo, 2014). On the other hand, all three caves have suffered anthropic alterations in recent times, sometimes related to their adaptation for tourist use, widening passages and building walkways and ladders (Santimamiñe); facilitating access for researchers, carving footholds (Altxerri); or vandalism and uncontrolled visits (visible in all three caves, but especially dramatic in Atxurra). In any case, we should note that in this approach, we have taken into account alterations at a macro-taphonomic level. We are currently carrying out micro-morphological studies in the caves that will enable us to determine any alterations in each decorated surface (e.g. Le Fillâtre et al., 2021). The results of these studies will make it possible to establish whether the current graphic ensemble differs from any that may have existed before.
Our 3D models have subsequently been modified, on the basis of morphological data obtained from geological studies (e.g. Arriolabengoa et al., 2020) and comparing older and more recent graphic documents, taken from the data of early explorers (e.g. Aranzadi et al., 1925; Barandiarán, 1964), using Meshlab® (to cut and work independently in areas of interest) and Blender®. We used the “Sculpting mode” to reduce and cut out Holocene formations or recent anthropic modifications; relocated the fallen rock containing the Alt.A.I.11 group in Altxerri, separating it from the 3D model and then merging it in its original location; and added currently missing surfaces (e.g. to reconstruct the original sedimentary and lithochemical fillings in Santimamiñe), thus creating new plans and then sculpting them (Fig. 3).
Modification of the 3D model of Santimamiñe cave, to restore its original state. A Point cloud of the “Chamber” and “Antechamber”, with the presence of anthropic alterations (doors, artificial floors, handrails, fillings, etc.). B Upper view of the 3D model showing the current state of the “Chamber” and “Antechamber”. C Topography of 1925, showing the state of the cave in that year, prior to the works for the tourist visits. D 3D reconstruction of the “Chamber” and the “Antechamber”, to show the original state of it (main changes have been enhanced with an X). E Entrance to the first “Hall” of the main gallery, where recent modifications can be seen to facilitate tourist visits: A big flowstone (prior to Magdalenian) was sculpted to made stairs, and the floor was flattened with gravel. F 3D model of the current state of the cave. G 3D model modified to show its original state during the Magdalenian
Line of Sight Analysis
Line of Sight (LOS) analysis is based on the construction of segments starting from an observation point (OP) (e.g. a potential Palaeolithic visitor) and ending in the observed target point (TP) (i.e. a GU). If any object (i.e. the modified 3D model of the cave) intersects the line, it is considered an obstacle, and the line of sight is null (Fig. 4). In establishing possible observation points of the panels, we discarded sites with steep topography. By experimenting with cavers and other people accustomed to working in caves (biologists, archaeologists and geologists) to assess the difficulty of prehistoric cave transit, we estimate that a person can transit upright or in a crouched position on surfaces with angles of up to 45° (Intxaurbe et al., 2021). However, we reduced this maximum inclination of 30° using the “set null” tool, in order to exclude extremely uncomfortable cases. Exceptionally, these flat surfaces might be extended with the use of scaffolding (e.g. Delluc & Delluc, 1979b); however, we have not located any remains attributable to such elements in the caves studied.
Brief summary showing the steps of LOS analysis (see Supplementary Materials). A LOS analyses are based on establishing target points (TP), which can be the decorated surfaces, or the GUs itself, and observation points (OPs), which would be the position of potential Palaeolithic audience. B a Line of Sight (LOS) is traced between each TP and OP. C Some corrections are made, to ensure that the valid LOS are only going to be those which are not intersected by a shape of the cave, and are covered by the radius of action of selected Palaeolithic lighting tools. D Frequency values are established, counting how many OPs can see a TP (frequency value TP), or how many TPs can be seen from an OP (frequency value OP)
The script subsequently uses the average human stature during the European Late Upper Palaeolithic (c. 1.66 m) (Holt, 2003) to establish a fixed position for each observation point. Although such inferences should be treated with caution, given the absence and low representativeness of anthropological remains from these chronologies (LUP), we believe that they serve to establish valid criteria, as shown by recent comparisons with ancient DNA (Cox et al., 2019). We then established two possibilities, depending on the height of the passages, one when the passages are greater than 1.66 m in height (upright position), and another when the passage height is between 0.71 and 1.66 m (corresponding to a squatting position). The script can be modified to add a third measure (e.g. reclining positions), given that other caves with Magdalenian art, such as Alkerdi 1 (Garate & Rivero, 2015), are known to contain very narrow areas with high concentrations of figurative GUs. Once the positions of the potential observers have been obtained, a mesh is created with cells of 0.25 × 0.25 m, from which the OPs are extracted automatically (in the estimated position of the potential Palaeolithic observers’ eyes) (Fig. 4).
Once the OPs have been obtained, the script delimits the area of analysis creating a buffer (using the “Buffer” tool) from the GUs based on the radius of action of a selected lighting tool (see Supplementary Materials). This is used to determine from what distance the walls on which the GUs are executed would begin to be visible. The lighting systems taken into account are torches, tallow lamps and hearths at the foot of the panels (de Beaune, 1987, 2000; Galant et al., 2007; Medina-Alcaide, 2020; Medina-Alcaide et al., 2015, 2021; Pastoors & Weniger, 2011). If the last option us employed (fixed fires), their position needs to be added, based on archaeological data.
TPs then need to be established to perform the LOS analysis (Fig. 4). To analyse the entire surface containing rock art (regardless of whether a GU has been located), we recommend adding points manually. This can be done in ArcScene™, by creating a new shapefile and adding points to the 3D feature every 25 cm2 (see Supplementary Materials). If we want to analyse the visibility of the GUs directly, we can rename a shapefile with the position of each GU as “TP.shp”.
Frequency Values
The script uses the “Construct Sight Lines” and “Intervisibility” tools to perform the LOS analyses. The first of these establishes all possible sight lines from the observers (OPs) to the targets (TPs). The second directly uses the 3D model of the cave, to determine which LOSs are obstructed by any feature in the cave (stalagmite, cave-wall, column, etc.). If there is direct contact between two points, a value of 1 will be assigned to that LOS. By contrast, if there is an obstacle between the two that prevents direct vision, it will be assigned a value of 0 (Fig. 4). The script will also discard any lines that exceed the maximum radius of action of the mobile lighting tools (Fig. 4). Using the “Select”, “Summary Statistics” and “Count” tools, the script counts all possible interactions between OPs and TPs, thus determining the frequencies of each OP (how many nodes on the canvases—surfaces with rock art—are visible from that point) and each TP (from how many observation points that part of a decorated surface can be seen) (Fig. 4).
The frequencies are used to elaborate a frequency map (using the “From points to raster” tool), with a grid of 0.25 × 0.25 m cells. Prior to this, the values are normalized to obtain the percentages. Thus, a value of 100% corresponds to observation points from which there is total visibility of the target points (and vice versa). At these points, there is no visual obstacle preventing sightlines to the analysed canvases (Fig. 4). The script also elaborates Kernel Density maps, to observe where the concentrations of highest values are located (i.e. the zones with greatest visibility range).
In our case, we previously geolocated the GUs directly on the geo-referenced point cloud (using the free visor of the laser scanner) or in situ (in the cave) using a DistoX2 device (Intxaurbe et al., 2020; Trimmis, 2018). To obtain frequencies maps of the GUs, we took into account the entire graphic ensemble as a reference for calculating percentages (to determine the most visible GU in the cave), but also the composite units (or grouping of figures). In order to use the same criteria (thus avoiding any subjective approaches), we defined groups as those sets that contain figures interspersed at a maximum distance of 2.99 m from one another. This roughly coincides with the radius of action of a prehistoric torch (Medina-Alcaide et al., 2021). Usually, the panels or compositional units are defined by previously morphologically delimited supports. However, we have tried to extend the analysis to larger sets, since we hypothesise that two independent groupings might belong to the same “narration”, if they could be seen at the same time from the same point.
Capacity Analysis
According to Pastoors and Weniger (2011), architect Neufert (1951) estimated that a person occupies an area of 0.77 m2 when standing and 1.75 m2 when lying down. Ruiz-Redondo (2014) proposed an additional measurement of 0.90 m2 square meters for people sitting or squatting. The script takes the first and the last measurements as a reference (the second measurement can be also added in the script). Having done this, it readjusts the frequency maps, based on their area and the aforementioned measurements, to obtain the capacities (number of people accommodated). These capacities have been classified according to the level of visibility of the potential observers (OPs): low, for a visibility of between 0.01 and 33.33 percent of the GUs; medium, for values of between 33.33 and 66.66 percent; and high, for values of between 66.66 and 100 percent of the decorated surfaces in a sector.
The script will estimate the capacity of the areas from which the GUs selected for the analysis would be visible. At this point, we recommend following the same criteria as in the previous step. Instead of establishing the sector based on subjective appraisals (e.g. topographical features), we have defined groups as sets that contain figures interspersed at a maximum distance of 2.99 m from one another, coinciding with the estimated radius of illumination of a prehistoric torch (Medina-Alcaide et al., 2021). In any case, we can perform different measurements and subsequently compare the results.
Results
As previously indicated, the results of this work are conditioned by our specific selection of cases—caves decorated during a specific chronological period (recent Magdalenian) in a specific geographic region (Eastern Cantabrian seaboard). These analyses should therefore be interpreted as minimal descriptive results, used to validate a quantitative methodology for a general understanding of these rock art sets.
Visibility
After analysing all the GUs in the caves (with some exceptions which proved impossible to locate due to their state of conservation, or because the 3D models did not cover those sectors), we can state that the LOS analyses appear to support the hypothesis that the morphology of the cave was used by members of a Palaeolithic culture (in this case from the recent Magdalenian in the Eastern Cantabrian region) to enhance some of their artworks (see Supplementary Materials) (Fig. 5). This behaviour has already been noted by other authors (e.g. Lorblanchet, 1993; Ferrier et al., 2017).
An example of some selected LOS in Atxurra cave. A Photography of sectors F’-VI, G’, G’floor and I floor. The first two are placed in the high parts of the walls, being necessary a ladder to reach them. The last two are placed on the both walls of the lower part of the passage, where the natural thoroughfare towards the back of the gallery goes. B Image extracted from ArcScene™, showing the selected LOSs. A potential Palaeolithic visitor has been put in the image to show the potential location of their eyes. With the light of a torch, he might see all decorated surfaces from the lower part of the passage
All three caves score a majority of medium–high visibility values for the emplacement of their GUs (Figs. 6 and 7). In Santimamiñe, 58% registers high visibility (can be seen by more than 66.66% of potential visitors of a sector), since the main group of figures in the cave (the so-called Chamber of Paintings) are visible from all points in this chamber. The arrangement in Atxurra is similar, but with a higher number of medium (33.33–66.66%) values, because almost all sectors contain narrow sites into which only small groups could enter. In Altxerri, the values are also high, but there is a majority of medium values, because in the main ensemble of figures in the cave (known as “I”), most GUs are located in a side passage and are only visible to small groups entering there. In any case, it is important to bear in mind that we are only analysing the visual prominence of the artistic supports. Other factors would also have influenced visibility, such as the size of the figures, the technique (or combinations used) (Fig. 7), etc. 8.
Comparison of the GUs analysed in Atxurra, Santimamiñe and Altxerri, according to their visibility values (bar graphic made with R, see Supplementary Materials)
Several examples of frequency maps for the decorated canvases. Atxurra cave: A GUs Atr.C.I.1–5 were emplaced in sites with very high visibility (O. Rivero and S. Salazar). B GUs Atr.D.V.I-6 are emplaced in an prominent site of the wall, in the corner produced between the wall and ceiling (O. Rivero and M. Cobo). Altxerri cave: C GUs Alt.A.I.3.15–16 were engraved in a site with high rates, with two planes, and where the support evokes the shape of a reindeer (GFA—J. Latova). D GUs Alt.A.II.4.8–10 are placed in a site with medium values of visibility, but conditioned by the morphology of the canvas (GFA—J. Latova)
Comparison of the analysed sectors, according to the level of visibility of the potential observers (OPs): low, for a visibility of between 0.01 and 33.33% of GUs (in yellow); medium, for values of between 33.33 and 66.66% (in magenta); and high, for values of between 66.66 and 100% (in blue). A Santimamiñe cave (with a detail of the “Chamber of Paintings”. B Atxurra cave (with a detail of Sectors C and D or “Alcove of Claw Marks and “Hall of the Bison” and J or the “Ledge of the Horses”. C Altxerri cave. The maps have been made in ArcMap™
Previous works have suggested that “hidden” figures tended to be smaller in size, or more “simplistic” (unfinished, monotechnic, schematic, etc.) (Villeneuve & Hayden, 2007; Ruiz-Redondo, 2014; González-Sainz, 2017; Intxaurbe et al., 2020). However, we have detected some striking cases of complex figures (in terms of combination of techniques or degree of finish) in sites with low/medium visibility values (less than 66.66%, and even some below 33.33%) (Fig. 7), for example, in some GUs at Altxerri, where despite not being the parts of the supports with the highest rates of visibility, the special nature of the lithology (stratified bedrock) conditions the space available for engraving and painting (Aranburu et al., 2017).
In this regard, we have identified cases in which the opposite appears to be true (small or unfinished figures placed on prominent surfaces). For example, in Sector J at Atxurra, there is a group of a dozen ibex that appears to have been positioned because of the high visibility (more than 66.66%) of the support. This contrasts with the small size of the figures, which would prevent them from being viewed from a distance.
Finally, we have compared the results using different lighting systems in our LOS analysis, to establish whether there is any major effect on the size of the illuminated space and, therefore, on the distance from which the decorated supports were visible. For example, in the paradigmatic case of the shelf in Sector J of Atxurra, the location of the hearths at the foot of the panel (radiocarbon dated to the same period as the artworks themselves) seems to have been determined to provide visibility, since the halo of light from the fire would have illuminated almost the entire panel (Garate et al., 2020a, 2020b; Medina-Alcaide et al., 2021), increasing the visibility rates of the figures on the right-hand side (see Supplementary Materials). This is even more outstanding because of the combination of techniques of two horses Atr.J.II.65 and 74. In any case, it is also necessary to take into account factors such as the smoke from the lighting tools (specifically in spaces with poor ventilation), which might alter the visibility rates (e.g. Kedar et al., 2020; Salmon et al., 2021). By contrast, reflectance would have further increase that viewshed (more or less 40%) but would not significantly change the visibility percentages of the panels. These insights should be confirmed or dismissed through further analysis (e.g. Jouteau et al., 2020).
Capacity
With regard to the results of the potential audience, we can confirm that in the caves analysed, the decorated places generally allowed for small capacities (with values of around 7–8 people, and in almost all cases less than 20) (Table 1). In any case, it should be noted that these are the maximum values, taking into account all the available space. It is important to bear in mind that if there were too many people in a space, one person would block the line of sight of other. Therefore, if they were to remain as comfortably as the depth of a cave allows and operate with relative flexibility of movement, we should consider sufficiently reduced capacity figures (at least half the maximum value obtained).
To allow comparisons between the different sectors, we have applied a single measure (the estimated radius of action of the prehistoric torches), and the results are therefore influenced by this selection. Nevertheless, in the large spaces (such as the large passages detected in the decorated Sector II.1 in Altxerri or J in Atxurra) the illuminated space (and therefore their capacity) would have been increased by employing diverse lighting systems. This would not have occurred in areas with limited or reduced spaces, in which more powerful lighting would not have extended the space from which the GUs were visible, as is the case with the “Antechamber” and the “Chamber” of Santimamiñe.
Having classified the usable space according to visibility, we can establish that in most cases, a large portion of the target audience would have high visibility values (between 66.66 and 100 percent of the GUs of the analysed sector) (Table 1). By contrast, there are other sites, such as Sector J in Atxurra, where potential observers would never have an overview of the panel, due to its large size (more than 14 m), and the partial concealment of some GUs because they are positioned on a ledge. This might prove that the intention was to highlight certain figures to be viewed from a greater distance and a larger audience, but limiting the potential capacity to the bulk of the ensemble.
Discussion
If we consider Palaeolithic graphic activity as a (public or restricted) visual communication system, the location of the figures (especially in sets with a large number of GUs) should follow specific patterns that facilitate (or restrict) their visibility, or at least they should not be arranged chaotically in the caves. Of course, it is impossible to either determine or measure other psychosocial constraints (such as cultural proscriptions), which would greatly affect their final function and interpretation (Domingo et al., 2020; Llobera, 2000). Furthermore, it is evident that some figures have been positioned in specific sites because the natural forms of the supports (volumes, reliefs, fissures) evoke animal shapes (e.g. Sauvet & Tosello, 1998; Sauvet & González-Pumariega, 2017; Sakamoto et al., 2020).
Comparing the results obtained by the LOS and capacity analyses with other spatial factors (such as accessibility), we can see that in the cases studied (and chiefly in Santimamiñe and Atxurra), many of the sectors are located in hard-to-reach places. Others are easier to accessed, but in all cases, they are located in the deeper areas of the caves and tend to be of low capacity. In Atxurra, for example, almost all sectors are located out of the main transit route of the gallery, which runs through the low and flat area of the passage (Intxaurbe et al., 2021). It is worth highlighting the paradigmatic case of Sector C, which can only be reached by a dangerous climb. Furthermore, an estimation of their viewsheds (confirmed by the LOS analysis) showed that these GUs were not visible from the main access path (Intxaurbe et al., 2020). To these cases in Atxurra, one might add the “Antechamber” and “Chamber” of Santimamiñe and Sectors II.4 and II.5 of Altxerri. That is, there appears to be an intention to hide—or at least physically restrict access to—some of these Magdalenian rock art ensembles, once again taking advantage of the morphology of the cave, as happens in other open-air contexts (e.g. Gillings, 2015). This intention would be confirmed by the reduced capacity of these places.
On the other hand, there appear to be other less compromised areas of access (albeit in deep and remote parts of the caves), where there does seem to be an intention to highlight some of the GUs from the main access routes. This is the case of a part of the GUs in Sector J in Atxurra and Panel II.1 in Altxerri, located on the same natural thoroughfare towards the back of the gallery. Other authors (González-Sainz, 2017) have mentioned similar cases nearby from these chronologies (e.g. the main panel of Ekain, located in an area of transit), whose morphology (in a narrow place between the wall and the ground) prevents it from being seen immediately, something similar to what would happen with large decorated walls, such as Sector J in Atxurra (with very few observation points affording a full view of the panel, all located in hazardous spaces with limited available space).
Finally, as previous authors have pointed out (Sieveking, 1997), it is remarkable how Magdalenian societies were encouraged to make figures in certain elevated places, despite the difficult access posed for artists, through without any additional risk for potential viewers, who could view them from a convenient location. For example, the small ibex in Sector J of Atxurra were visible from the main path through the gallery, but the Palaeolithic authors who drew them were fully exposed to falling. This also appears to be the case in other Magdalenian decorated caves, both nearby—e.g. the main panel of Armintxe, visible when accessed from a lower cave level (González-Sainz, 2017)—and more distant, such as the “Camarín” in Peña Candamo (Corchón et al., 2017), the polychrome horse in Labastide (Simmonet, 1999) and the “sorcier” of Trois-Frères (Bégouën et al., 2014), but also in older chronologies (e.g. Chauvet, El Castillo, Pech-Merle, Lascaux or Cussac) (Delluc & Delluc, 1979b; Groenen & Groenen, 2019; Jouteau et al., 2019a; Le Guillou, 2005; Lorblanchet, 1992).
Our initial observations suggest that different decoration patterns might exist within the same cave, but without following a random distribution (Breuil, 1952): (1) outstanding figures in high and dangerous areas but visible from the main paths through the caves; (2) figures placed in visible surfaces but only reachable after some accessibility difficulties; (3) hidden figures in narrow (and sometimes dangerous) places only visible to a few people at a time; and (4) GUs position on visible surfaces with no accessibility difficulties (this would be the case with some non-figurative motifs in the habitat site in Santimamiñe). This does not necessarily imply that the art has different meanings or functions according to its spatial organization; there could have been other cultural reasons that prevented or allowed its viewing (Llobera, 2000), confirmed by ethnoarchaeological approaches (Domingo et al., 2020). However, these studies also seem to support the idea that the morphology of the rock shelter or cave can be used to prevent certain figures from being seen (e.g. as in Drupni site’s Malinji depiction) (Domingo et al., 2020). In short, these analysed rock art sets appear to be organized depending on spatial features, by selecting certain natural canvases in these caves, based on their different levels of visibility, capacity and accessibility. This would mean that were underground exploration activities in the caves prior to the graphic activity, which might have left some evidence in the archaeological record (Medina-Alcaide, 2020). In any case, even in the visually most enhanced examples (GUs located in the most prominent canvases), these ensembles appear to be targeted at a small and restricted audience (given the low/medium capacity of the decorated areas and the difficult access), who would only be able to view these figures by knowing their location in the deeper parts of the cave.
Conclusions
The use of resources that compute spatial information is necessary in the study of Palaeolithic rock art in order to avoid subjective or biased perceptions, especially in the case of caves. This study describes a methodology capable of analysing the visibility of the canvases in decorated caves, as well as their capacity, through direct analysis of 3D models in GIS. Three caves with recent Magdalenian rock art (Atxurra, Santimamiñe and Altxerri) have been studied to assess their visual impact on a set of hypothetical observers inside the cave. For this purpose, we have taken into account the morphology of the three caves, selecting the places available (with flat surfaces) and measuring the height of the ceiling, in order to establish the hypothetical posture of artists and observers. Prior to the analysis, geomorphologic studies must be used to determine the changes that have occurred in the cave since the Magdalenian. The workflow has been summarised in a Python script for ArcGIS® to make it more accessible to other researchers and can therefore be easily replicated in other caves or edited to include new variables and values (e.g. psychological perceptibility, reflectance).
The results of our research show that in the three caves studied, some of the figures were executed in those parts of the natural supports that afford the greatest visibility. That is, these Palaeolithic societies arranged some of their graphic work in places where the possibility of being seen was greater, even if this involved risks for the artists due to difficulties of access. On the contrary, there are also other examples where there seems to have been an intention to conceal and physically limit their visibility, taking advantage of the particular morphology of some sites, such as niches or cornices. To this, we must add that the sites analysed are located in the deeper reaches of the caves (many of them in places of mostly complicated and dangerous access) and small maximum capacity (with only few exceptions). Other cultural factors, such as prohibitions, might condition these remarks, but they are difficult to determine. Even so, further objective analysis (e.g. statistics) is needed to determine whether there might be some form of correlation between the features of the GUs, such as their complexity (presence of details like eyes or pelage, degree of finish and combination of techniques) and dimension and spatial parameters such as visibility, capacity and accessibility.
In conclusion, the spatial organization appears to indicate that in the cases analysed—three caves with recent Magdalenian rock art in Northern Spain—we see a visual communication system with restricted and controlled access, albeit there may be other unknown cultural factors that we have failed to take into account. The GUs would be visible, making use of morphology to enhance them in some cases, only to those who knew their exact location inside the caves, and in any case, they could not generally accommodate large audiences. Nevertheless, it has been demonstrated that these caves were submitted to an exhaustive underground exploration before a complex iconographical display was planned. The technical challenges such as the complete darkness, the long distances and the hostile orography were not sufficient to deter the symbolic motivations of Magdalenian societies.
Availability of Data and Material
References
A.D.E.S. (2010). Urdaibai. Leizeen eta koben katalogoa / Catálogo de cuevas y simas. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Servicio Central de Publicaciones del Gobierno Vasco. Departamento de Medio Ambiente, Planificación Territorial, Agricultura y Pesca. Gobierno Vasco.
Angevin, R. (2012). Magdalenian societies in the Massif Central (France): Paleohistorical perspectives on the long-term (16.5–11.5 ka BP). Quaternary International, 272, 166–175.
Apellániz, J. M. (1987). Aplicación de técnicas estadísticas al análisis iconográfico y al método de determinación del autor. Munibe. Sociedad De Ciencias Naturales Aranzadi (san Sebastian), 39, 39–60.
Aranburu, A., Arriolabegoa, M., Iriarte, E., Giralt, S., Yusta, I., Martínez-Pillado, V., Del Val, M., Moreno, J., & Jiménez-Sánchez, M. (2015). Karst lanscape evolution in the littoral area of the Bay of Biscay (north Iberian Peninsula). Quaternary International, 364, 217–230.
Aranburu, A., & Iriarte, E. (2017). El soporte rocoso del arte parietal paleolítico. In Garate, D., & Unzueta, M. (Eds.), Redescubriendo el arte parietal paleolítico. Últimas novedades sobre los métodos y las técnicas de investigación (Bilbao 2016), Kobie (serie Anejos), 16 (pp. 9–26). Bilbao: Diputación Foral de Bizkaia.
Aranzadi, T., Barandiarán, J.M., & Eguren, E. (1925). Exploración de la caverna de Santimamiñe (Basondo, Cortezubi). 1ª memoria: Figuras Rupestres. Bilbao: Artes Gráficas Grijelmo.
Aranzadi, T., Barandiarán, J.M., & Eguren, E. (1935). Exploraciones de la caverna de Santimamiñe (Basondo, Cortezubi). 3ª memoria: Yacimientos aziliense y paleolíticos. Exploraciones en la cueva de Lumentxa (Lequeitio). Imprenta de la Excma. Diputación de Bilbao.
Arias, P., González-Sainz, C., Moure, A., & Ontañón, R. (2004). La Galerie Inférieure de La Garma (Cantabria, Espagne): Recherche et conservation d’un complexe archéologique exceptionnel. Nouvelles De L’archéologie, 95, 41–45.
Arribas, J. L. (2005). El Magdaleniense Superior-final: Espacio y tiempo en el territorio vasco. Munibe, Antropologia-Arkeologia, 57, 239–247.
Arriolabengoa, M., Iriarte, E., Aranburu, A., Yusta, I., Arnold, L. J., Demuro, M., & Arrizabalaga, A. (2018). Reconstructing the sedimentary history of Lezetxiki II cave (Basque Country, Northern Iberian Peninsula) using micromorphological analysis. Sedimentary Geology, 372, 96–111.
Arriolabengoa, M., Intxaurbe, I., Medina-Alcaide, M. A., Rivero, O., Rios-Garaizar, J., Líbano, I., Bilbao, P., Aranburu, A., Cheng, H., Edwards, R. L., & Garate, D. (2020). From cave geomorphology to Palaeolithic human behaviour: Speleogenesis, palaeoenvironmental changes and archaeological insight in the Atxurra-Armiña cave (northern Iberian Peninsula). Journal of Quaternary Science, 35(6), 841–853.
Audra, P., De Waele, J., Bentaleb, I., Chroňáková, A., Krištůfek, V., D’Angeli, I. M., Carbone, C., Madonia, G., Vattano, M., Scopelliti, G., Cailhol, D., Vanara, N., Temovski, M., Bigot, J. Y., Nobécourt, J. C., Galli, E., Rull, F., & Sanz-Arranz, A. (2019). Guano-related phosphate-rich minerals in European caves. International Journal of Speleology, 48(1), 75–105.
Bahn, P. G. (2003). Location, location: What can the positioning of cave and rock art reveal about Ice Age motivations? In A. Pastoors & G. C. Weniger (Eds.), Höhlenkunst und Raum: Archaölogische und architektonische Perspektiven (pp. 11–20). Jan van der Most.
Bahn, P. G. (2011). Religion and ritual in the Upper Palaeolithic. In T. Insoll (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the archaeology of ritual and religion (pp. 344–357). Oxford University Press.
Balbín-Behrmann, R. de, Alcolea, J.J., González, M.A. (2003). El macizo de Ardines, un lugar mayor del arte paleolìtico europeo. In Bueno, P.; Balbín-Behrmann, R. de (Coords.), El Arte Prehistorico desde los inicios del siglo XXI, Primer Symposium Internacional de Arte Prehistórico de Ribadesella, (pp. 91–151). Ribadesella: Associación Cultural Amigos de Ribadesella.
Baptista, A.M., & Santos, A.T. (2010). Confronting two sceneries on the same stage: From Gravettian–Solutrean to Magdalenian in Penascosa/Quinta da Barca (Vila Nova de Foz Côa, Portugal). In: Bettencourt, A.M.S., Sanches, M.J., Alves, L.B., & Fábregas Valcarce, R. (Eds.), Conceptualising space and place. On the role of agency, memory and identity in the construction of space from the upper palaeolithic to the iron age in Europe Archaeopress (BAR International Series 2058) (pp. 61–69). Oxford: Archaeopress.
Baptista, A.M., Santos, A.T., & Correia, D. (2008). Estruturação simbólica da arte Gravetto-Solutrense em torno do monte do Fariseu (Vale do Côa). In. Santos, A.T., Sampaio, J.D., & Muralha, J. (coord.), III Congresso de arqueologia, Trás-os-Montes, alto Douro e beira interior, Actas da sessão, Pré-história, gestos intemporais (pp. 38–61). Porto.
Barandiarán, J. M. (1961). Excavaciones arqueológicas en Vizcaya: Silibranka, Atxurra, Goikolau. Revista De La Excelentísima Diputación De Vizcaya, No, 17, 199–219.
Barandiarán, J. M. (1964). La cueva de Altxerri y sus figuras rupestres. Munibe. Sociedad De Ciencias Naturales Aranzadi (san Sebastian), XVI(3/4), 91–141.
Barandiarán, J.M. (1976). La Cueva de Santimamiñe (ojeada sumaría a sus figuras), In Barandiarán, J.M. (Ed.), Obras Completas de José Miguel de Barandiarán IX (pp. 477–504). Bilbao: La Gran Enciclopedia Vasca.
de Beaune, S. A. (1987). Lampes et godets au Paléolithique, Supplément à Gallia Préhistoire, 23. Editions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique.
Bégouën, R., Clottes, J., Feruglio, V., Pastoors, A., Lacombe, S., Hansen, J., Hubert, B., van Kolfschoten, T., Kehl, M., Eastham, A., Plisson, H., Bourges, F., Lescat, M. P., David, R., Bégouën, E., & Bégouën, M. B. (Eds.). (2014). La caverne des Trois-Frères. Somogy éditions d’art.
Bernal-Wormull, J. L., Moreno, A., Pérez-Mejías, C., Bartolomé, M., Aranburu, A., Arriolabengoa, M., Iriarte, E., Cacho, I., Spötl, C., Edwards, R. L., & Cheng, H. (2021). Immediate temperature response in northern Iberia to last deglacial changes in the North Atlantic. Geology, 49, 999–1003. https://doi.org/10.1130/G48660.1
Bicho, N., & Haws, J. (2012). The Magdalenian in central and southern Portugal: Human ecology at the end of the Pleistocene. Quaternary International, 272, 6–16.
Bicho, N., Carvalho, A. F., González-Sainz, C., Sanchidrián, J. L., Villaverde, V., & Straus, L. G. (2007). The upper Paleolithic rock art of Iberia. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 14(1), 81–151.
Boche, E., Monney, J., Ployon, E., Sadier, B., Delannoy, J.-J., Geneste, J.-M., & Jaillet, S. (2012). Le SIG comme outil fédérateur de la comme outil fédérateur de la recherche interdisciplinaire : application à la grotte Chauvet-Pont d’Arc. Actes du colloque des Journées Informatique et Archéologie de Paris (JIAP 2010). Archeologia e Calcolatori, All’insegna Del Giglio, 2010(3), 97–112. Sesto Fiorentino.
Boche, E., Jaillet, S., Sadier, B., Cretin, C., Ployon, E., Robert, E., Delannoy, J.J., &Geneste, J.M. (2014). De l'art pariétal à ses contextes: bilan des applications pour l'enregistrement, l'intégration et l'analyse des informations spatiales. In: Paillet, P., dir (Eds.), Les arts de la Préhistoire : micro-analyses, mises en contextes et conservation, Actes du colloque MADAPCA, Paris, 16–18 novembre 2011. PALEO Revue d'Archéologie Préhistorique, nº Extra, 2014 (pp. 145–152).
Bourdier, C., Fuentes, O., & Pinçon, G. (2015). Contribution of 3D technologies to the analysis of form in Late Palaeolithic rock carvings: The case of the Roc-aux-Sorciers rock-shelter (Angles-sur-l’Anglin, France). Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, 2(2–3), 140–154.
Bourdier, C., Fuentes, O., Pinçon, G., & Baleux, F. (2017a). Methodological contribution to the integrated study of European Palaeolithic rock art: The issue of the audience and the perceptibility of Roc-aux-Sorciers rock art (Angles-sur-l’Anglin, France). Quaternary International, 430, 114–129.
Bourdier, C., Chehmana, L., Malgarini, R., & Połtowicz-Bobak, M. (2017b). L’Essor du Magdalénien. Aspects culturels, symboliques et techniques des faciès à navettes et à Lussac-Angles. Actes de la séance de la Société préhistorique française Besançon 17–19 octobre 2013. Paris: Société préhistorique française.
Breuil, H. (1912). Les subdivisions du paléolithique supérieur et leur signification. In Congrès International d’Anthropologie et d’Archéologie préhistorique, XIV session, I (pp. 165–238).
Breuil, H. (1952). Quatre cents siècles d'art pariétal: les cavernes ornées de l'âge du renne. Montignac: Centre d'études de la documentation préhistorique.
Bruxelles, L., Jarry, M., Bigot, J. Y., Bon, F., Cailhol, D., Dandurand, G., & Pallier, C. (2016). La biocorrosion, un nouveau paramètre à prendre en compte pour interpréter la répartition des œuvres pariétales: l’exemple de la grotte du Mas d’Azil en Ariège. Karstologia, 68, 21–30.
Canti, M., & Huisman, D. J. (2015). Scientific advances in geoarchaeology during the last twenty years. Journal of Archaeological Science, 56, 96–108.
Clottes, J. (1993). Contexte archéologique interne. In Groupe de réflexion sur l'art pariétal paléolithique (GRAPP) (Ed.), L’art pariétal Paléolithique. Techniques et méthodes d’étude (pp. 49–58). Comité des Travaux Historiques et Scientifiques.
Conkey, M. (1996). A history of the interpretation of European “Palaeolithic art”: Magic, mythogram, and metaphors for modernity. In A. Lock & C. R. Peters (Eds.), Handbook of Human Symbolic Evolution (pp. 288–350). Clarendon Press.
Conkey, M. W., & Fisher, R. A. (2020). The return of the Bricoleur? Emplotment, intentionality, and tradition in Paleolithic art. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 27, 511–525.
Corchón, M. S., Garate, D., & Rivero, O. (Eds.). (2017). La Caverna de la Peña de Candamo (Asturias): 100 años después de su descubrimiento. Ediciones Universidad Salamanca.
Cox, S. L., Ruff, C. B., Maier, R. M., & Mathieson, I. (2019). Genetic contributions to variation in human stature in prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(43), 21484–21492.
D’Errico, F. (1994). L’art gravé azilien. De la technique à la signification. Gallia-Préhistoire (suppl.) XXXI. CNRS éditions.
de Beaune, S. A. (2000). Les techniques d’éclairage paléolithiques: Un bilan. Paleo, 12, 19–27.
Delannoy, J. J., Sadier, B., Jaillet, S., Ployon, E., & Geneste, J. M. (2010). Reconstitution de l’entrée préhistorique de la grotte Chauvet-Pont d’Arc (Ardèche, France): Les apports de l’analyse géomorphologique et de la modélisation 3D. Karstologia, 56(1), 17–34.
Delannoy, J. J., David, B., Genuite, K., Gunn, R., Finch, D., Ouzman, S., Green, H., Veth, P., Harper, S., Corporation, B. A., & Skelly, R. J. (2020). Investigating the anthropic construction of rock art sites through archaeomorphology: The case of Borologa, Kimberley, Australia. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 27(3), 631–669.
Delluc, B. & Delluc, G. (1979a). L´éclairage. In A. Leroi-Gourhan y J. Allain (Eds.), Lascaux inconnu. Supplément à Gallia Préhistoire, 12 (pp. 121–142)Editions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique.
Delluc, B., & Delluc, G. (1979b). L´accès aux parois. In A. Leroi-Gourhan y J. Allain (Eds.), Lascaux Inconnu. Supplément à Gallia Préhistoire, 12 (pp. 175–184). Paris: Editions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique.
Dell’Unto, N., Landeschi, G., Touati, A. M. L., Dellepiane, M., Callieri, M., & Ferdani, D. (2016). Experiencing ancient buildings from a 3D GIS perspective: A case drawn from the Swedish Pompeii Project. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 23(1), 73–94.
Díaz-Andreu, M., García-Atiénzar, G., García-Benito, C., & Mattioli, T. (2017). Do you hear what I see? Analyzing visibility and audibility in the rock art landscape of the Alicante Mountains of Spain. Journal of Anthropological Research, 73(2), 181–213.
Dobrez, L. (2016). Theoretical approaches to rock art studies. Rock Art Research, 33(2), 143–166.
Domingo, I., & Roman, D. (2020). Beyond the Palaeolithic: Figurative final Palaeolithic art in Mediterranean Iberia. Quaternary International, 564, 100–112.
Domingo, I., Villaverde, V., López-Montalvo, E., Lerma, J. L., & Cabrelles, M. (2013). Latest developments in rock art recording: Towards an integral documentation of Levantine rock art sites combining 2D and 3D recording techniques. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40(4), 1879–1889.
Domingo, I., Smith, C., Jackson, G., & Roman, D. (2020). Hidden sites, hidden images, hidden meanings: Does the location and visibility of Motifsand sites correlate to restricted or open access? Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 27, 699–722.
Domingo, I., Fiore, D. & May, S.K. (2008). The archaeologies of art: time, place and identity in rock art, portable art and body art, in Sanz, I. Domingo, Fiore, D. & May, S.K. (ed.) Archaeologies of art (pp. 15–28). Left Coast.
Domingo, I., May, S. K., & Smith, C. (2016). Communicating through rock art: an ethnoarchaeological perspective. In Buchsenschutz, O., Jeunesse, C., Mordant, C., & Vialou, D. (Eds.), Signes et communications dans les civilisations de la parole. Actes des Congres des Sociétés Historiques et Scientifiques (pp. 9–26). Edition electronique du CTHS.
Fernández-Eraso, J. (1985). Las culturas del Tardiglaciar en Vizcaya. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea (UPV-EHU).
Ferrier, C., Konik, S., Ballade, M., Bourdier, C., Chapoulie, R., Feruglio, V., Queffelec, A., & Jaubert, J. (2017). Cussac Cave (Dordogne, France): The role of the rock support in the parietal art distribution, technical choices, and intentional and unintentional marks on the cave walls. Quaternary International, 430, 30–41.
Fiore, D. (2020). The art of making images: Technological affordance, design variability and labour organization in the production of engraved artefacts and body paintings in tierra del fuego (Southern South America). Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 27(3), 481–510.
Fitzhugh, B., Phillips, S. C., & Gjesfjeld, E. (2011). Modelling hunter-gatherer information networks: An archaeological case study from the Kuril islands. In R. Whallon, W. Lovis, & R. Hitchcock (Eds.), The Role of Information in Hunter-Gatherer (Vol. Adaptations, pp. 85–11). Cotsen Institute of Archaeology. University of California.
Ford, D., & William, P. (2007). Karst hydrogeology and geomorphology (pp. 562). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Frieman, C., & Gillings, M. (2007). Seeing is perceiving? World Archaeology, 39(1), 4–16.
Fritz, C., & Tosello, G. (2007). The hidden meaning of forms: Methods of recording Palaeolithic parietal art. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 14(1), 48–80.
Fritz, C., Tosello, G., & Conkey, M. W. (2016a). Reflections on the identities and roles of the artists in European Palaeolithic societies. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 23(4), 1307–1332.
Fritz, C., Willis, M. D., & Tosello, G. (2016b). Reconstructing Palaeolithic cave art: The example of Marsoulas cave (France). Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 10, 910–916.
Fritz, C., (1999). La gravure dans l’art mobilier magdalénien, du geste à la représentation. Documents d’Archéologie Française (p. 75). Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme.
Fuentes, O., Lucas, C., & Robert, E. (2019a). An approach to Palaeolithic networks: The question of symbolic territories and their interpretation through Magdalenian art. Quaternary International, 503, 233–247.
Fuentes, O., Lepelé, J., & Pinçon, G. (2019b). Transferts méthodologiques 3D appliqués à l’étude de l’art paléolithique: une nouvelle dimension pour les relevés d’art préhistorique. In Situ. Revue des patrimoines, (39). Ministère de la culture et de la communication. https://journals.openedition.org/insitu/21510.
Galant, P., Ambert, P., Colomer, A., & Guendon, J. L. (2007). Les vestiges d’éclairages préhistoriques de la galerie des Pas de la grotte d’Aldène (Cesseras, Hérault). Bulletin Du Musée D’anthropologie Préhistorique De Monaco, 47, 37–80.
Galparsoro, I., Borja, A., Legorburu, I., Hernández, C., Chust, G., Liria, P., & Uriarte, A. (2010). Morphological characteristics of the Basque continental shelf (Bay of Biscay, northern Spain); their implications for Integrated Coastal Zone Management. Geomorphology, 118, 314–329.
Garate, D. (2018). New insights into the study of Palaeolithic rock art: Dismantling the ‘Basque Country Void. Journal of Anthropological Research, 74(2), 168–200.
Garate, D., & Rivero, O. (2015). La ‘Galería de los Bisontes’: Un nuevo sector decorado en la Cueva de Alkerdi (Urdazubi/Urdax, Navarra). Zephyrus, 75, 17–39.
Garate, D., Rivero, O., Ruiz-Redondo, A., & Rios-Garaizar, J. (2015). At the crossroad: A new approach to the Upper Paleolithic art in the Western Pyrenees. Quaternary International, 364, 283–293.
Garate, D., Rivero, O., Ríos-Garaizar, J., & Intxaurbe, I. (2016). Atxurra cave: A major new Magdalenian sanctuary in the Basque Country. International Newsletter on Rock Art, 76, 1–4.
Garate, D., Rivero, O., Ríos-Garaizar, J., Arriolabengoa, M., Medina-Alcaide, M. Á., Ruiz-López, J. F., Intxaurbe, I., Salazar, S., & Libano, I. (2020a). The cave of Atxurra: A new major Magdalenian rock art sanctuary in Northern Spain. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 29, 102120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2019.102120
Garate, D., Rivero, O., Rios-Garaizar, J., Intxaurbe, I., & Salazar, S. (2020b). Modelled clay animals in Aitzbitarte IV Cave: A unique Palaeolithic rock art site in the Cantabrian Region. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 31, 102270.
Garate, D., & Bourrillon, R. (Eds.) (2019). Les grottes ornées du massif d'Arbailles (Soule, Pyrénées-Atlantiques) Etxeberri, Sinhikole et Sasiziloaga. Préhistoire du Sud-Ouest, 25–2017–2, Cabrerets: Association Préhistoire du Sud-Ouest, Direction Régionale des Affaires Culturelles Occitanie et Nouvelle Aquitaine et du Conseil General du Lot.
Garate, D. (2010). Las ciervas punteadas en las cuevas del Paleolítico. Una expresión pictórica propia de la cornisa cantábrica. Munibe (Suplemento), 33. Aranzadi Zientzia Elkartea.
Garate, D. (2017). Los primeros artistas de Bizkaia. Las cuevas decoradas durante el Paleolítico. Kobie (serie Anejos), 15. Diputación Foral de Bizkaia.
García-Bustos, M. (2019). Análisis de la composición en arte paleolítico mediante herramientas estadísticas. In García-Atienzar, G. & Barciela-González, Virginia (Eds.), Sociedades prehistóricas y manifestaciones artísticas: Imágenes, nuevas propuestas e interpretaciones (pp. 79–86). Alicante: Instituto Universitario de Investigación en Arqueología y Patrimonio Histórico (INAPH). Universitat d’Alacant.
García-Bustos, P. (2019). Aplicación de la microfotogrametría para el estudio de la traceología del grabado. El caso de la Cueva de Atxurra (Vizcaya). In García-Atienzar, G. & Barciela-González, Virginia (Eds.), Sociedades prehistóricas y manifestaciones artísticas: Imágenes, nuevas propuestas e interpretaciones (pp. 271–274). Alicante: Instituto Universitario de Investigación en Arqueología y Patrimonio Histórico (INAPH). Universitat d’Alacant.
Geneste, J.M. (2001). La fréquentation et les activités humaines. In Clottes, J. (Dir.), La grotte Chauvet, l’art des origines (pp. 44–50). Le Seuil.
Genuite, K., Delannoy, J. J., Bahain, J. J., Gresse, M., Jaillet, S., Philippe, A., Pons-Branchu, E., Revil, A., & Voinchet, P. (2021). Dating the landscape evolution around the Chauvet-Pont d’Arc cave. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 1–11.
Gillings, M. (2015). Mapping invisibility: GIS approaches to the analysis of hiding and seclusion. Journal of Archaeological Science, 62, 1–14.
Gillings, M. (2017). Mapping liminality: Critical frameworks for the GIS-based modelling of visibility. Journal of Archaeological Science, 84, 121–128.
Gittins, R., & Pettitt, P. (2017). Is Palaeolithic cave art consistent with costly signalling theory? Lascaux as a test case. World Archaeology, 49(4), 466–490.
González-Sainz, C., & Utrilla, P. (2005). Problemas actuales en la organización y datación del Magunsdaleniense de la Región Cantábrica. In N. Bicho (Ed.), O Paleolítico, Actas do IV Congresso de Arqueología Peninsular, Promontoria Monográfica 2 (pp. 39-47). Faro.
González-García, R. (2001). Art et space dans les grottes paléolithiques cantabriques. Jérôme Millon.
González-Sainz, C. (1989). El Magdaleniense Superior-Final de la región cantábrica. Tantín-Universidad de Cantabria.
González-Sainz, C. (2007a). Quelques particularités des centres pariétaux paléolithiques dans la région cantabrique. Bulletin De La Société Préhistorique Ariège-Pyrénées, 62, 19–35.
González-Sainz, C. (2007b). Dating Magdalenian art in north Spain: The current situation. In P. Pettitt, P. Bahn, & S. Ripoll (Eds.), Palaeolithic Cave Art at Creswell Crags in European Context (pp. 247–262). Oxford University Press.
González-Sainz, C. (2009). Des peintures et des gravures pariétales sur une formation stalagmitique de la Cámara de Santimamiñe (Biscaye). De l’étude au comportement graphique magdalénien. L’anthropologie, 113(5), 795–819.
González-Sainz, C., & Ruiz-Redondo, A. (2010). La superposición entre figuras en el arte parietal paleolítico. Cambios temporales en la región cantábrica. Cuadernos De Arqueología De Navarra, 18(1), 41–61.
González-Sainz, C., Ruiz-Redondo, A., Garate-Maidagan, D., & Iriarte-Avilés, E. (2013). Not only Chauvet: Dating Aurignacian rock art in Altxerri B Cave (northern Spain). Journal of Human Evolution, 65(4), 457–464.
González-Sainz, C., & Ruiz-Idarraga, R. (2010). Una nueva visita a Santimamiñe: Precisiones en el conocimiento del conjunto parietal paleolítico. Kobie (serie Anejos), 11. Foral de Bizkaia.
González-Sainz, C. (2017). Sobre la organización de las decoraciones parietales paleolíticas. Impresiones a partir de Santimamiñe, Armintxe y otros conjuntos rupestres de Bizkaia. In: Garate, D., & Unzueta, M. (Eds.), Redescubriendo el arte parietal paleolítico. Últimas novedades sobre los métodos y las técnicas de investigación (Bilbao 2016), Kobie (serie Anejos), 16 (pp. 135–147). Bilbao: Diputación Foral de Bizkaia.
Groenen, M., & Martens, D. (2004). Peut-on attribuer des œuvres du Paléolithique supérieur?. In Lejeune, M. (Dir.), L’art du Paléolithique supérieur. Actes du colloque 8.2, Congrès de l’UISPP (Liège, 2–8 septembre 2001). ÉRAUL, 107 (pp. 127–138). Université de Liège.
Groenen, M., & Groenen, M. C. (2019). Modes of space appropriation in the decorated caves of El Castillo and La Pasiega (Puente Viesgo, Cantabria, Spain). Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 28, 102055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2019.102055
Hoblea, F., Delannoy, J. J., Jaillet, S., Ployon, E., & Sadier, B. (2014). Digital tools for managing and promoting karst geosites in Southeast France. Geoheritage, 6, 113–127.
Holt, B. M. (2003). Mobility in Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Europe: Evidence 656 from the lower limb. American Journal of Physical Anthropology: the Official Publication of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, 122(3), 200–215.
Intxaurbe, I., Rivero, O., Medina-Alcaide, M. A., Arriolabengoa, M., Rios-Garaizar, J., Salazar, S., Ruiz-López, J. F., Ortega-Martínez, P., & Garate, D. (2020). Hidden images in Atxurra Cave (Northern Spain): A new proposal for visibility analyses of Palaeolithic rock art in subterranean environments. Quaternary International, 566–567, 163–170.
Intxaurbe, I., Arriolabengoa, M., Medina-Alcaide, M. A., Rivero, O., Rios-Garaizar, J., Salazar, S., Libano, I., & Garate, D. (2021). Quantifying accessibility to Palaeolithic rock art: Methodological proposal for the study of human transit in Atxurra Cave (Northern Spain). Journal of Archaeological Science, 125, 105271.
Ivanovaitė, L., Serwatka, K., Hoggard, C. S., Sauer, F., & Riede, F. (2020). All these fantastic cultures? Research history and regionalization in the late Palaeolithic tanged point cultures of Eastern Europe. European Journal of Archaeology, 23(2), 162–185.
Jaillet, S., Delannoy, J.-J., Monney, J., & Sadier, B. (2018). 3-D modelling in rock art research: Terrestrial laser scanning, photogrammetry and the time factor. In B. David & I. J. McNiven (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the archaeology and anthropology of rock art (pp. 811–831). Oxford University Press.
Jaubert, J., Verheyden, S., Genty, D., Soulier, M., Cheng, H., Blamart, D., Burlet, C., Camus, H., Delaby, S., Deldicque, D., Edwards, R. L., Ferrier, C., Lacrampe-Cuyaubère, F., Lévêque, F., Maksud, F., Mora, P., Muth, X., Régnier, E., Rouzaud, J. N., & Santos, F. (2016). Early Neanderthal constructions deep in Bruniquel Cave in southwestern France. Nature, 534(7605), 111–114.
Jaubert, J., & Barbaza, M. (Dir.) (2005). Territoires, déplacements, mobilité, échanges durant la Préhistoire. Terres et hommes du Sud, Actes du 126e congrès national des Sociétés historiques et scientifiques, Toulouse, 2001. Éd. du CTHS.
Jouanneau, J. M., Weber, O., Champilou, N., Cirac, P., Muxika, I., Borja, A., Pascual, A., Rodríguez-Lázaro, J., & Donard, O. (2008). Recent sedimentary study of the shelf of the Basque country. Journal of Marine System, 72, 397–406.
Jouteau, A., Feruglio, V., Bourdier, C., Camus, H., Ferrier, C., Santos, F., & Jaubert, J. (2019a). Choosing rock art locations: Geological parameters and social behaviours. The example of Cussac Cave (Dordogne, France). Journal of Archaeological Science, 105, 81–96.
Jouteau, A., Feruglio, V., Lacanette, D., Carre, S., Noe, N., & Jaubert, J. (2020). Understanding the perception and appropriation of space in Palaeolithic decorated caves: New methods and tools, with the examples of Cussac and Lascaux caves. Rock Art Research: THe Journal of the Australian Rock Art Research Association (AURA), 37(2), 137–154.
Jouteau, A., Feruglio, V., Lacanette, D., & Jaubert, J. (2019b). Approach of the decorated space by the sound and lighting simulations in the 3D model of Cussac cave (Dordogne, France). In García-Atienzar, G. & Barciela-González, Virginia (Eds.), Sociedades prehistóricas y manifestaciones artísticas: Imágenes, nuevas propuestas e interpretaciones (pp. 317–320). Instituto Universitario de Investigación en Arqueología y Patrimonio Histórico (INAPH). Universitat d’Alacant.
Kedar, Y., Kedar, G., & Barkai, R. (2020). Setting fire in a Paleolithic Cave: The influence of cave dimensions on smoke dispersal. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 29, 102112.
Lambeck, K., Rouby, H., Purcell, A., Sun, Y., & Sambridge, M. (2014). Sea level and global ice volumes from the Last Glacial Maximum to the Holocene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(43), 15296–15303.
Laming-Emperaire, A. (1962). La signification de l’art rupestre paléolithique. Méthodes et applications. Picard.
Landeschi, G. (2019). Rethinking GIS, three-dimensionality and space perception in archaeology. World Archaeology, 51(1), 17–32.
Landeschi, G., Dell’Unto, N., Lundqvist, K., Ferdani, D., Campanaro, D. M., & Touati, A. M. L. (2016). 3D-GIS as a platform for visual analysis: Investigating a Pompeian house. Journal Archaeological Science, 65, 103–113.
Landeschi, G., Apel, J., Lundström, V., Storå, J., Lindgren, S., & Dell’Unto, N. (2019). Re-enacting the sequence: Combined digital methods to study a prehistoric cave. Archaeological and Anthropological Science, 11(6), 2805–2819.
Laureano, F. V., Karmann, I., Granger, D. E., Aulerd, A. S., Almeida, R. P., Cruzb, F. W., Stríckse, N. M., & Novello, V. F. (2016). Two million years of river and cave aggradation in NE Brazil: Implications for speleogenesis and landscape evolution. Geomorphology, 273, 63–77.
Le Guillou, Y. (2005). Circulations humaines et occupation de l´espace souterrain à la grotte Chauvet-Pont-d’Arc Fréquentation humaines et art pariétal. Bulletin De La Société Préhistorique Française, 2005, 117–134.
Le Fillâtre, V., Robert, E., Petrognani, S., Lesvignes, E., Cretin, C., & Muth, X. (2021). Mapping the walls: High-resolution cartography applied to the analysis of prehistoric cave art in the Grotte du Mammouth (Domme, Dordogne, France). Journal of Archaeological Science, 127, 105332.
Lejeune, M. (1985). La paroi des grottes, premier « mur » support artistique et document archéologique. Art & Fact, 4, 15–24.
Lerma, J. L., Navarro, S., Cabrelles, M., & Villaverde, V. (2010). Terrestrial laser scanning and close-range photogrammetry for 3D archaeological documentation: The Upper Palaeolithic Cave of Parpalló as a case study. Journal of Archaeological Science, 37(3), 499–507.
Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1965). Préhistorie de l´Art Occidental. Mazenod.
Lesvignes, E., Robert, E., Valentin, B., Ballinger, M., Bénard, A., Bellanger, F., & Zotkina, L. (2019). Using digital techniques to document prehistoric rock art: first approaches on the engraved panels of the Paris Basin shelters. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, 15, e00122.
Van Leusen, M. (1999). Viewshed and cost surface analysis using GIS (cartographic modelling in a cell-based GIS II), In Barceló, J.A., I. Briz, & A. Vila (Eds.), New Techniques for Old Times. CAA98. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. Proceedings of the 26th Conference, Barcelona, March 1998 (BAR International Series 757) (pp. 215–224). Archaeopress.
Llobera, M. (2000). Understanding movement: A pilot model towards the sociology of movement. NATO ASI Series a: Life Sciences, 321, 65–84.
Llobera, M. (2007). Reconstructing visual landscapes. World Archaeology, 39(1), 51–69.
Llobera, M. (2012). Life on a pixel: Challenges in the development of digital methods within an “interpretive” landscape archaeology framework. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 19(4), 495–509.
López-Quintana, J.C. (Dir.). (2011). Cueva de Santimamiñe: Revisión y actualización (2004–2006). Kobie (Bizkaiko Arkeologi Indusketak), 1. Diputación Foral de Bizkaia.
Lorblanchet, M. (1995). Les grottes ornées de la préhistoire: Nouveaux regards. Editions Errance.
Lorblanchet, M. (2010). Art pariétal: Grottes ornées du Quercy. Rouergue.
Lorblanchet, M. (1992). Finger markings in Pech-Merle and their place in prehistoric art. In Lorblanchet, M. (Ed.) Rock art in the old world (pp. 451–490). Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts.
Lorblanchet, M. (1993). Le support. In Groupe de réflexion sur l'art pariétal paléolithique (GRAPP) (Ed.), L’art pariétal paléolithique, techniques et méthodes d’étude (pp. 69–80). Comité des Travaux Historiques et Scientifiques.
Lorblanchet, M. (1994). Le mode d’utilisation des sanctuaires paléolithiques. In Lasheras, J.A. (Ed.) Homenaje al Dr. Joaquín González Echegaray (Monografías n° 17) (pp. 235–251). Ministerio de Cultura, Museo y Centro de Investigación de Altamira.
Maier, A., Liebermann, C., & Pfeifer, S. J. (2020). Beyond the Alps and Tatra Mountains—the 20–14 ka Repopulation of the Northern Mid-latitudes as Inferred from Palimpsests Deciphered with Keys from Western and Central Europe. Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology, 3(3), 398–452.
Medina-Alcaide, M. Á., Torti, J. L. S., & Peña, L. Z. (2015). Lighting the dark: Wood charcoal analysis from Cueva de Nerja (Málaga, Spain) as a tool to explore the context of Palaeolithic rock art. Comptes Rendus Palevol, 14(5), 411–422.
Medina-Alcaide, M. Á., Garate-Maidagan, D., Ruiz-Redondo, A., & Sanchidrián-Torti, J. L. (2018). Beyond art: The internal archaeological context in Palaeolithic decorated caves. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 49, 114–128.
Medina-Alcaide, M. Á., Garate, D., Intxaurbe, I., Sanchidrián, J. L., Rivero, O., Ferrier, C., Mesa, M. D., Pereña, J., & Líbano, I. (2021). The conquest of the dark spaces: An experimental approach to lighting systems in Paleolithic caves. PLoS ONE, 16(6), e0250497.
Medina-Alcaide, M.A. (2020). Lighting the darkness of the caves with Paleolithic art: AniIntegral and interdisciplinary vision of the internal archaeological context and the wood charcoals. PhD Thesis. Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea.
Neufert, E. (1951). Bauentwurfslehre. Grundlagen, Normen und Vorschriften über Anlage, Bau, Gestaltung, Raumbedarf und Raumbeziehungen: Maße für Gebaüude, Raüume, Einrichtungen und Geräte mit dem Menschen als Maß und Ziel.
Ochoa, B., & García-Diez, M. (2018). The use of cave art through graphic space, visibility and cave transit: A new methodology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 49, 129–145.
Ogburn, D. E. (2006). Assessing the level of visibility of cultural objects in past landscapes. Journal of Archaeological Science, 33(3), 405–413.
Opitz, R. (2017). An experiment in using visual attention metrics to think about experience and design choices in past places. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 24(4), 1203–1226.
Opitz, R., & Nowlin, J. (2012). Photogrammetric Modeling þ GIS. Better Methods for Working with Mesh Data. ArcUser. http://www.esri.com/news/arcuser/0312/files/archaeology-inventory.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2020.
Ortega, P. (2012). Ensayo metodológico de las aplicaciones de visibi-lidad que los SIG aportan al estudio del arte paleolítico. In Cascalheira, J., & Gonçalves, C. (Eds.) Actas das IV Jornadas de Jovens em Investigação Arqueológica, JIA 2011. Promontoria Monográfica, vol. 16 (pp. 67–73). Universidade do Algarve.
Ortega, P. (2014). Visibility: a new outlook to the study of Palaeolithic art. Preliminary research. In García, A., García, J., Maximiano, A., & Rios-Garaizar, J. (Eds.), Debating spatial archaeology: Proceedings of the international workshop on landscape and spatial analysis in archaeology (Santander, June 8–9th, 2012) (pp. 259–266). Publicaciones IIIPC.
Palmer, A. N. (2007). Cave geology (p. 454). Cave Books.
Pastoors, A., & Weniger, G. C. (2011). Cave art in context: Methods for the analysis of the spatial organization of cave sites. Journal of Archaeological Research, 19(4), 377–400.
Pétillon, J. M. (2013). Circulation of whale-bone artifacts in the northern Pyrenees during the late Upper Paleolithic. Journal of Human Evolution, 65(5), 525–543.
Petrognani, S., & Robert, E. (2019). Symbolic territories in pre-Magdalenian art? Quaternary International, 503, 210–220.
Pigeaud, R. (2013). Derrière la paroi. Portrait robot de l'artiste paléolithique. In Groenen, M. (Dir.), Expressions esthétiques et comportements techniques au Paléolithique, Actes du colloque du 16e congrès de l'UISPP, 4–10 septembre 2011 (BAR International Series 2496) (pp. 87–93). Archaeopress.
Polig, M., Papacharalambous, D. G., Bakirtzis, N., & Hermon, S. (2020). Assessing visual perception in heritage sites with visual acuity: case study of the Cathedral of St. John the Theologian in Nicosia, Cyprus. Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage, 141, 1–18.
Porr, M. (2010). Palaeolithic art as cultural memory: A case study of the Aurignacian art of Southwest Germany. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 20(1), 87–108.
Rios-Garaizar, J., San Emeterio, A., Larrea, M., Marín-Arroyo, A. B., Agudo, L., Cubas, M., & Garate, D. (2019). La secuencia prehistórica de la cueva de Atxurra (Berriatua, Bizkaia): Evaluación de las excavaciones de JM Barandiarán Ayerbe (1934–1935). Munibe, Antropologia-Arkeologia, 70, 21–34.
Rios-Garaizar, J., San Emeterio, A., Arriolabengoa, M., Aranbarri, J., Rofes, J., Marin-Arroyo, A. B., Rivero, O., Intxaurbe, I., Arranz-Otaegi, A., Salazar, S., Medina Alcaide, M. A., & Garate, D. (2020). Sporadic occupation in Armiña cave (Northern Spain) during the Upper Magdalenian: What for? Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 30, 102271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102271
Rivero, O. (2007). Aproximación al estudio de las cadenas operativas del grabado sobre soporte pétreo: Análisis tecnológico de una representación de équido del Magdaleniense Medio de la cueva de Las Caldas (Asturias, España). Zephyrvs, 60, 99–113.
Rivero, O. (2016). Master and apprentice: Evidence for learning in Palaeolithic portable art. Journal of Archaeological Science, 75, 89–100.
Rivero, O., & Garate, D. (2020). Motion and Gesture: Analysing Artistic Skills in Palaeolithic Art. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 27(3), 561–584.
Rivero, O., & Sauvet, G. (2014). Defining Magdalenian cultural groups in Franco-Cantabria by the formal analysis of portable artworks. Antiquity, 88(339), 64–80.
Rivero, O., Ruiz-López, J. F., Intxaurbe, I., Salazar, S., & Garate, D. (2019). On the limits of 3D capture: A new method to approach the photogrammetric recording of palaeolithic thin incised engravings in Atxurra Cave (northern Spain). Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, 14, e00106.
Rivero, O., Fano, M. Á., & Garate, D. (2014). Relationships between recent Magdalenian societies in Cantabrian Spain, through the technical and formal analysis of frontal representations of Ibex. In Otte, M. & Le Brun, F. (Eds.), Modes de contacts et de déplacements au Paléolithique eurasiatique. ÉRAUL, 140 (pp. 589–599). Université de Liège.
Rivero, O. (2010). La movilidad de los grupos humanos del Magdaleniense en la región cantábrica y los Pirineos: una visión a través del arte. PhD Thesis. Universidad de Salamanca.
Rivero, O. (2017). Más allá de la imagen: el arte parietal paleolítico en su contexto arqueológico. In: Garate, D., & Unzueta, M. (Eds.), Redescubriendo el arte parietal paleolítico. Últimas novedades sobre los métodos y las técnicas de investigación (Bilbao 2016), Kobie (serie Anejos), 16 (pp. 85–100). Diputación Foral de Bizkaia.
Robert, E. (2007). L’utilisation des reliefs pariétaux dans la réalisation des signes au Paléolithique supérieur. L’anthropologie, 104(4/5), 467–500.
Robert, E. (2009). L’exploitation de l’architecture naturelle des grottes au Paléolithique supérieur européen: l’exemple des signes. Préhistoire, Art Et Sociétés, LXIV, 39–50.
Robert, E. (2011). L’exploitation de l’architecture naturelle des grottes au Paléolithique supérieur européen: l’exemple des signes. Préhistoire, Arts Et Société. Bulletin De La Société Préhistorique Ariège-Pyrénées, 64, 39–50.
Robert, E. (2017). The role of the cave in the expression of prehistoric societies. Quaternary International, 432, 59–65.
Román, D., & Villaverde, V. (2012). The Magdalenian harpoons from the Iberian Mediterranean, based on pieces from Cova de les Cendres (Teulada-Moraira, Valencian region). Quaternary International, 272, 33–41.
Rouzaud, F. (1990). Fréquentation humaine dans le monde souterrain durant la Prehistoire. In Actes du II Colloque sur le patrimoine troglodytique. Avril 1988, Les Cahiers de Commarque (pp. 14–16). CPIE. de Sireuil.
Ruiz-López, J.F., Salmerón, J., Quesada, E., Pereira, J.M., Lomba, J., Martín, I., 2018. El arte paleolítico de la Cueva de las Cabras. In Lomba, J. (Ed.), Arte Rupestre y Arqueología en Los Almadenes (Cieza, Murcia). Intervención integral tras el incendio en un paraje protegido y patrimonio de la Humanidad (pp. 343–366). Murcia: Monografías Centro de Estudios de Prehistoria y Arte Rupestre. Ayuntamiento de Cieza. Dirección General de Bellas Artes y Bienes Culturales.
Ruiz-Redondo, A. (2016). Le comportement symbolique des derniers chasseurs cueilleurs paléolithiques: Regard sur l’art rupestre du Magdalénien cantabrique. L’anthropologie, 120(5), 568–587.
Ruiz-Redondo, A., González-Sainz, C., & Garate-Maidagan, D. (2017). Back to the past: Symbolism and archaeology in Altxerri B (Gipuzkoa, Northern Spain). Quaternary International, 432, 66–76.
Ruiz-Redondo, A. (2014). Entre el Cantábrico y los Pirineos: El conjunto de Altxerri en el contexto de la actividad gráfica magdaleniense. PhD Thesis, Universidad de Cantabria.
Sadier, B. (2013). 3D et géomorphologie karstique: La grotte Chauvet et les cavités des Gorges de l'Ardèche. PhD Thesis, Université de Grenoble.
Sakamoto, T., Pettitt, P., & Ontañon-Peredo, R. (2020). Upper Palaeolithic installation art: Topography, distortion, animation and participation in the production and experience of Cantabrian cave art. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 1–24.
Salmon, F., Ferrier, C., Lacanette, D., Mindeguia, J. C., Leblanc, J. C., Fritz, C., & Sirieix, C. (2021). Numerical reconstruction of paleolithic fires in the Chauvet-Pont d’Arc Cave (Ardèche, France). Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 28(2), 604–616.
Sanchidrián, J. L. (1992). Códigos gráficos en algunos santuarios solutrenses de Andalucía. Zephyrus, XLIV–XLV, 497–510.
Sanchidrían, J. L. (1994). Arte paleolítico de la zona meridional de la península ibérica. Complutum, 5, 163–195.
Sanchidrián, J.L. (1990). Arte Paleolítico en Andalucía. Corpus y análisis estilístico, topográfico y secuencial. PhD Thesis. Universidad de Málaga.
Sauvet, G. (1990). Les signes dans l’art mobilier. L’art Des Objets Au Paléolithique, 2(1987), 83–101.
Sauvet, G. (2019). The lifeworld of hunter-gatherers and the concepts of territory. Quaternary International, 503, 191–199.
Sauvet, G., & González-Pumariega, M. (2017). Sobre la pregnancia en la utilización del relieve en las cuevas de Bédeilhac (Ariège, Francia) y de El Pindal (Asturias, España). Zephyrus, 79, 221–231.
Sauvet, G., & Tosello, G. (1998). Le mythe paléolithique de la caverne. In F. Sacco & G. Sauvet (Eds.), Le propre de l’homme, Psychanalyse et préhistoire (pp. 55–90). Delachaux et Niestlé, coll. Champs psychanalytiques.
Sauvet, G., & Wlodarczyk, A. (1995). Eléments d’une grammaire formelle de l’art pariétal paléolithique. L’anthropologie, 99(2–3), 193–211.
Sauvet, G., & Wlodarczyk, A. (2000-2001). L’art pariétal, miroir des sociétés paléolithiques. Zephyrus, 53(54), 217–240.
Sauvet, G., Fortea, F. J., Fritz, C., & Tosello, G. (2008a). Crónica de los intercambios entre los grupos humanos paleolíticos: La contribución del arte para el período 20000–12000 años BP. Zephyrus, 61, 35–59.
Sauvet, G., Fritz, C., & Tosello, G. (2008b). Emergence et expansion de l’art aurignacien. Bulletin De La Société Préhistorique, Ariège-Pyrénées, 63(3), 33–46.
Sauvet, G., Layton, R., Lenssen-Erz, T., Taçon, P., & Wlodarczyk, A. (2009). Thinking with animals in Upper Palaeolithic rock art. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 19, 319–336.
Sauvet, G., Bourrillon, R., Garate, D., Petrognani, S., Rivero, O., Robert, E., & Tosello, G. (2018). The function of graphic signs in prehistoric societies: The case of Cantabrian quadrilateral signs. Quaternary International, 491, 99–109.
Sauvet, G., & Rivero, O. (2016). D’un support à l’autre : l’art pariétal à la lumière de l’art mobilier. Paléo, numéro spécial: 133–147.
Scott, L. M., & Janikas, M. V. (2010). Spatial statistics in ArcGIS. In M. M. Fischer & A. Getis (Eds.), Handbook of applied spatial analysis (pp. 27–41). Berlin.
Semenov, S. A. (1964). Prehistoric technology. An experimental study of the oldest tools and artefacts from traces of manufacture and wear. Cory, Adams & Mackay.
Sieveking, A. (1997). Cave as context in palaeolithic art. In Bonsall, C., & Tolan-Smith, C. (Eds.), The Human Use of Caves (BAR International Series 667) (pp. 25-34). Archaeopress.
Simmonet, R. (1999). Les magdaléniens dans les Pyrénées. La grotte de Labastide (Hautes-Pyrénées). Espace réel et espace imaginaire. Archéologie Des Pyrénées Occidentales Et Des Landes, 18, 183–209.
Stoll, H. M., Opitzo, A., Méndez-Vicente, A., González-Lemos, S., Jiménez-Sánchez, M., Domínguez-Cuesta, M. J., Edwars, R. L., Cheng, H., & Wang, X. (2013). Paleoclimate and growth rates of speleothems in the northwestern Iberian Peninsula over the last two glacial cycles. Quaternary Research, 80(2), 284–290.
Trimmis, K. P. (2018). Paperless mapping and cave archaeology: A review on the application of DistoX survey method in archaeological cave sites. Journal of Archaeological Science-Reports, 18, 399–407.
Utrilla, P., & Martínez-Bea, M. (2008). Sanctuaires rupestres comme marqueurs d’identité territoriale: Sites d’agrégation et animaux «sacrés». Préhistoire, art et sociétés. Bulletin De La Société Préhistorique De L’ariège, 63, 100–133.
Utrilla, P. (1981). El Magdaleniense Inferior y Medio en la Costa Cantábrica. Monograficos del Centro de Investigaciones y Museo de Altamira, 4, Ministerio de Cultura.
Valladas, H., Kaltnecker, E., Quiles, A., Tisnérat-Laborde, N., Genty, D., Arnold, M., Delqué-Kolic, E., Moreau, C., Baffier, D., Cleyet Merle, J. J., Clottes, J., Girard, M., Monney, J., Montes, R., González-Sainz, C., Sanchidrian, J. L., & Simonnet, R. (2013). Dating French and Spanish prehistoric decorated caves in their archaeological contexts. Radiocarbon, 55(3), 1422–1431.
Van Gundy, J. J., & White, W. B. (2009). Sediment flushing in Mystic Cave, West Virginia, USA, in response to the 1985 Potomac Valley flood. International Journal of Speleology, 38(2), 103–109.
Vanara, N., Perre, A., Pernet, M., Latapie, S., Jaillet, S., & Martine, O. (2007). Aroca (domaine marin côtier, Pays basque, France): Un karst continental ennoyé par les transgressions maritimes quaternaires. Karstologia, 49(1), 43–55.
Vialou, D. (1986). L’art des grottes en Ariège magdalénienne. Éditions du CNRS.
Vialou, D. (2004). Architecture de l’art paléolithique. In Lejeune, M. (Dir.), L’art du Paléolithique supérieur. Actes du colloque 8.2, Congrès de l’UISPP (Liège, 2–8 septembre 2001). ÉRAUL, 107 (pp. 7–14). Université de Liège
Villaverde, V. (2015). Palaeolithic art in the Iberian Mediterranean region. Characteristics and territorial variation. In Bueno-Ramírez, P., & Bahn, P.G. (Eds.), Prehistoric Art as Prehistoric Culture. Studies in Honour of Professor Rodrigo de Balbín-Behrmann (pp. 145–155). Archaeopress Archaeology.
Villeneuve, S., & Hayden, B. (2007). Nouvelle approche de l’analyse du contexte des figurations pariétales. In S. A. de Beaune & de, (Eds.), Chasseurs-cueilleurs: Comment vivaient nos ancêtres du Paléolithique supérieur (pp. 151–160). Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.
Wernke, S. A., Kohut, L. E., & Traslaviña, A. (2017). A GIS of affordances: Movement and visibility at a planned colonial town in highland Peru. Journal of Archaeological Science, 84, 22–39.
Wheatley, D., & Gilling, M. (2002). Spatial technology and archaeology. The Archaeological Applications of GIS. Taylor & Francis.
Wheatley, D., & Gillings, M. (2000). Vision, perception and GIS: Developing enriched approaches to the study of archaeological visibility. Nato Asi Series a Life Sciences, 321, 1–27.
Wheatley, D. (2004). Making space for an archaeology of place. Internet archaeology, 15. https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/28800/. Accessed 12 May 2020.
Wienhold, M., & Robinson, D. W. (2017). GIS in rock art studies. In B. David & I. J. McNiven (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology and Anthropology of Rock Art (pp. 787–810). Oxford University Press.
Acknowledgements
We would also like to thank CRN, Virtualware and Gim-Geomatics for the 3D models and scans of the caves. We are also grateful to the Basque Government, Provincial Council of Bizkaia and the Provincial Council of Gipuzkoa for allowing us to carry out the studies of these caves.
Funding
Open Access funding provided thanks to the CRUE-CSIC agreement with Springer Nature. This research was made within the project PID2019-107262GB-100 “Before art: social investment in symbolic expressions during the Upper Palaeolithic in the Iberian Peninsula” (PI Diego Garate) funded by MCIN/ AEI /10.13039/501100011033 (Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities); the four-year multidisciplinary study project (2016–2020) “Study of rock art in Atxurra cave” led by Dr Diego Garate and funded by the Cultural Heritage Service of the Diputación Foral de Bizkaia; the two-year research project 021-KOI-2020 “Kobabes: kobazuloen dinamika eta labar artearen babesa” (PI Diego Garate), funded by Department of Culture and Linguist Politics of the Basque Government and the project “Ilunpetako sekretuak argiztatzen” (PI Iñaki Intxaurbe) funded with the grant “Barandiaran 2022” by the Jose Miguel de Barandiaran Foundation. I. Intxaurbe’s PhD research is funded by the grant PIF 19/196 (2019) at the University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU). M.A. Medina-Alcaide has a Fyssen Foundation postdoctoral fellowship.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Intxaurbe, I., Garate, D., Arriolabengoa, M. et al. Application of Line of Sight and Potential Audience Analysis to Unravel the Spatial Organization of Palaeolithic Cave Art. J Archaeol Method Theory 29, 1158–1189 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-022-09552-y
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-022-09552-y