The earliest known explicit and unambiguous employment of representation in external media is in the form of figurative depictions of large mammals during the Upper Palaeolithic. These images, though often created with evident technical skill and intimate knowledge of the subject matter, are frequently characterised by curious and pronounced distortions. We provide evidence, based on quantitative analysis of parietal graphic images of two commonly depicted species, for the hypothesis that certain of these distortions are neither errors nor idiosyncratic variations, but systematic deviations from veridicality in the form of caricatures consistent with cognitive principles of graded typicality and contrast in categorisation. Our analysis provides evidence that the first apparent conventions of representational art by humans were informed by basic cognitive-perceptual principles of categorisation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmeelEStormsG, 2006“From prototypes to caricatures: Geometric models for concept typicality”Journal of Memory and Language55402–421
2.
AujoulatN, 2004The Splendour of Lascaux (London: Thames & Hudson)
3.
AujoulatN, 2005Lascaux: Movement, Space, and Time (New York: Abrams)
4.
BiedermanI, 1987“Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding”Psychological Review94115–147
5.
BiedermanIKimJ G, 2008“17000 years of depicting the junction of two smooth shapes”Perception37161–164
6.
BensonP JPerrettD I, 1991“Perception and recognition of photographic quality facial caricatures: Implications for the recognition of natural images”European Journal of Cognitive Psychology3105–135
7.
BensonP JPerrettD I, 1993“Extracting prototypical facial images from exemplars”Perception22257–262
8.
BreuilH, 1952Four Hundred Centuries of Cave Art (Montignac, France: Centre d'Études et de Documentation Préhistorique)
ClottesJ, 2005“Foreward”, in Aesthetics and Rock Art Eds HeydTCleggJ (Aldershot: Ashgate) pp xix–xxv
11.
ConkeyM W, 1996“A history of the interpretation of European ‘palaeolithic art’: magic, mythogram, and metaphors of modernity”, in Handbook of Symbolic Evolution Eds LockAPetersC R (Oxford: Clarendon Press) pp 288–350
12.
CoolidgeFWynnT, 2005“Working memory, its executive functions, and the emergence of modern thinking”Cambridge Archaeological Journal155–26
13.
DavisW, 1986“The origins of image making”Current Anthropology27193–215
14.
DeregowskiJ B, 1995“Perception–depiction–perception, and communication”Rock Art Research123–22
15.
EasthamM, 2005“The archaeology, anthropology, and aesthetics of understanding parietal rock images at La Grèze, Cosquer, and Wangewangen”, in Aesthetics and Rock Art Eds HeydTCleggJ (Aldershot: Ashgate) pp 89–115
16.
GibsonJ J, 1951“What is form?”Psychological Review58403–412
17.
GombrichE H, 1977Art and Illusion: A Study of the Psychology of Pictorial Representation5th edition (London: Phaidon)
18.
HalversonJ, 1992“The first pictures: perceptual foundations of Paleolithic art”Perception21389–404
19.
HodgsonD, 2003a“The biological basis of Upper Palaeolithic art: Stimulus, percept and representational imperative”Rock Art Research203–22
20.
HodgsonD, 2003b“Seeing the ‘unseen’: Fragmented cue and the implicit in Palaeolithic art”Cambridge Archaeological Journal1397–106
21.
HodgsonDHelvensonP A, 2006“Hunting disguises, ritual and animals in Palaeolithic art: A response to critics”Rock Art Research233–40
22.
KennedyJ M, 1974A Psychology of Picture Perception (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass)
23.
KennedyJ M, 1976“Drawings were discovered, not invented”New Scientist67523–527
24.
KennedyJ MSilverJ, 1974“The surrogate functions of lines in visual perception: Evidence from antipodal rock and cave artwork sources”Perception3313–322
25.
LamarqueP, 2005“Palaeolithic cave painting: A test case for transcultural aesthetics”, in Aesthetics and Rock Art Eds HeydTCleggJ (Aldershot: Ashgate) pp 21–35
26.
Leroi-GourhanA, 1967Préhistoire de l'Art Occidental2nd edition (Paris: Mazenod)
27.
Lewis-WilliamsD, 2002The Mind in the Cave (London: Thames & Hudson)
28.
LorblanchetM, 1977“From naturalism to abstraction in European prehistoric rock art”, in Form in Indigenous Art Ed. UckoP (London: Duckworth) pp 44–56
29.
MarrD, 1980Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information (San Francisco, CA: W H Freeman)
30.
MarrDNishidaH K, 1978“Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three-dimensional shapes”Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B200269–294
31.
MelcherDWadeN J, 2006“Cave art interpretation II”Perception35719–722
32.
MithenS, 1996The Prehistory of the Mind (London: Thames & Hudson)
33.
OgawaM, 2005“Integration in Franco-Cantabrian art: A case study of Font-de-Gaume Cave, France”, in Aesthetics and Rock Art Eds HeydTCleggJ (Aldershot: Ashgate) pp 117–129
34.
PeissigJ JTarrM J, 2007“Visual object recognition: Do we know more now than we did 20 years ago?”Annual Review of Psychology5875–96
RenfrewCZubrowE B W, 1994The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
37.
RhodesG, 1996Superportraits: Caricatures and Recognition (Hove: Psychology Press)
38.
RhodesGTremewanT, 1996“Averageness, exaggeration, and facial attractiveness”Psychological Science7105–110
39.
StevenageS V, 1995a“Expertise and caricatures advantage”, in Cognitive and Computational Aspects of Face Recognition: Explorations in Face Space Ed. ValentineT (London: Routledge) pp 24–46
40.
StevenageS V, 1995b“Can caricatures really produce distinctiveness effects?”British Journal of Psychology86127–146
41.
TinbergenN, 1951The Study of Instinct (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
42.
TreismanAGeladeG, 1980“A feature-integration theory of attention”Cognitive Psychology1297–136
43.
WadeN JMelcherD, 2006“Cave art interpretation I”Perception35577–580
