Inora Newsletter #43
Divers

BREAKING DOWN MOVEMENT IN PALAEOLITHIC ART

Palaeolithic artists have tried to give life to the animals that they represented on cave walls or other supports at their disposal and which have survived until the present (plaques, stone blocks, objects from daily life). There are many examples of a graphic representation of animals in motion, mainly the large herbivores. Often simple and unobtrusive, sometimes spectacular, these illustrations very often show precise observation of behaviour observed in nature (Azéma 2004b).

Certain figures appear frozen at first glance. This, however, is sometimes changed when they are observed from different angles or by varying the lighting: the artists probably played with the natural volumes of the caves to give life to their works. Even better, they managed to graphically express the fourth dimension, to wit Time, in breaking down movement by superimposition or juxtaposition of successive images (Azéma 1992). Among the thousands of animal figures in Palaeolithic art, spread over twenty thousand years, a small number (a few dozens) reflect such a desire, highly sophisticated in conceptual terms. Below is given a selection of these astonishing images.

Breaking down movement by the superimposition of successive images

In the graphic process, the successive positions taken by the animal over time are superimposed. The splitting of movement concerns the whole body or just a part of it (head, legs, tail). Together these superimpositions should form a coherent whole, both in terms of technique and style, which should prove that the work was carried out on one occasion by one hand. Sometimes, “multiple contours” is the phrase used to describe this; one could also talk of “polygraphs”.

In France, 52 figures show these characteristics. They can be seen in 12 different caves. They are generally the animals most frequently represented, first of all horses, with 18 at Lascaux (Dordogne). The breakdown by superimposition firstly concerns the legs (30 cases), and in particular the rapid paces (trot, gallop), less often the movement of the head (22 cases) and more rarely the tail (8 cases). The action is generally localised; only 7 figures out of 52 have two parts of the body, i.e. their heads and legs, thus treated simultaneously. Graphically, the process is shown in two ways: either by the mere addition of (at least) a second version, more or less complete, of the part of the body concerned, or else by the multiplication of roughly-sketched contours (lines) around the head or legs, which generates a sort of “dynamic blur”.

In the first style, the multiple versions of the head, legs or tail correspond to opposed phases: legs extended or flexed, tail lowered or raised. Several horses from Lascaux trotting or galloping, in the Apse and the Nave, were given a third rear leg. As regards the head, the breakdown of movement results in up to three, or even four, supplementary versions. Three horses from the Passage fit this case. A horse from the Empreinte Panel (table 1) shakes its head about (in pain?); its body is riddled with arrows (not shown on this copy). In the Sanctuary of the Grotte des Trois-Frères (Ariège), the legs or tails of numerous animals are doubled.

This is particularly the case of an ibex driving forward, probably wounded and placed vertically (Bégouen & Breuil 1958, Fig. 57), and of a rather disturbed bison in the Hémione Panel (table 1). A representation from Chauvet (Ardèche) shows that the method of split movement by superimposition was used very soon in the Upper Palaeolithic, as early as the Aurignacian. This is a bison with eight legs in the Alcôve des Lions (table 1).

Split action movement by superimposition of successive images in French parietal art

Lascaux
Les Trois-Frères
Abri du Colombier
Foz Coa
Le Marche

Table 1. Split action movement by superimposition of successive images in French parietal art: Lascaux (after A. Glory in Leroi-Gourhan & Allain [eds], 1979); Les Trois-Frères (after H. Breuil in Bégouën & Breuil, 1958); Colombier Shelter (after P. Ayrolles). Comparison with Foz Côa open air art (after A. M. Baptista & Gomez in Baptista, 1999) and the mobiliary art of La Marche (after L. Pales in Pales & Tassin de Saint-Péreuse, 1981).

Much more recent, comparable characteristics can be noticed in one of the Magdalenian bison from the Great Ceiling at Altamira (Cantabria, Spain) (Freeeman & Gonzalez Echegaray 2001, n° 22). This clearly proves that this graphic phenomenon appears in other periods and other regions of parietal art, particularly in Spain and Portugal. In the latter country, at Foz Côa (table 1), three open air engraved rocks have similar figures (Baptista 1999): an ibex with two heads scenting a female (Rock 3 at Quinta de Barca), a horse with two heads lowering its head (Rock 4 at Canada do Inferno), a stallion with three heads covering a mare (Rock 4 at Penascosa).

The multiplication of contours, sometimes very sketchy, around the head or legs, generates a sort of graphic vibration, a “dynamic blur”, the lines getting fainter and fainter as they are distanced from the part of the body concerned. This is basically true for both parietal and portable “naturalistic” Magdalenian art. Thus we have two reindeer and a caprid in the Grotte de Sainte-Eulalie in the Lot (Lorblanchet et al. 1973, Fig. 16) and above all a small engraving from the shelter at Colombier (Ardèche): a billygoat, probably the leader of a small flock, is shown jogging along (from 2 to 6 versions of the legs) with his mouth open, bleating (table 1).

For mobiliary art, a relatively large number of cases are known. The most obvious are dated to the Middle Magdalenian (La Marche) and the Upper Magdalenian (Limeuil, La Madeleine, Les Harpons). At La Marche (Vienne), an astonishing horse, engraved on a slab, has 5 or 6 heads, 5 or 6 forelegs and 2 tails (table 1): it is lowering its head and advancing a foreleg as if grazing or showing curiosity about something. This is the most striking demonstration of the existence of a process of split movement in the Upper Palaeolithic. The engraved plaques of Limeuil and La Madeleine (Dordogne) show several animals, horses (Fig. 1), ibex and reindeer with their legs in multiple locomotion (Tosello 2003).

Split movement by juxtaposing successive images

In this second process, successive positions taken by the animal over time are juxtaposed and orientated in the same direction, according to a single file principle. The space between the positions should be constant, its magnitude being estimated on a case-by-case basis.

	As for the first process, the group of images should form a coherent whole. The rare cases observed in parietal art are very hypothetical, but a piece of portable art is enough to confirm its existence. One of the most debatable examples is the “panneau des Cerfs nageant” at Lascaux, showing a frieze of 5 cervid heads more or less upright, nose to the wind (table 3.1). It is impossible to certify that this is a split movement effect as the contours of the heads, the form of the eyes and the antlers vary from one individual to another. Perhaps it is better seen, as does André Leroi-Gourhan (in Leroi-Gourhan & Allain [eds.] 1979), as a herd of rutting males crossing a stream or passing behind a line of bushes.
			Fig 1. Limeuil horse, plaque n° 60. Copy G. Tosello (2003, Fig. 89). Dimension: around 5 cm.

One must be similarly cautious about the “Rotonde des Chevaux” in the Grotte de Villars (Dordogne) which, according to Marc Groenen (1997: 71), shows a galloping horse in four successive images. One could also question the “dovetailed” horses of the Panneau des Chevaux and the impressive troop of felines of the Grotte Chauvet: split movement? Pride of lions put in perspective? A change of mind? It is difficult to decide.

Things are very different for an object discovered in the Upper Magdalenian layers of the Grotte de la Vache (Ariège). This bovid rib shows, from left to right, three consecutive phases of a running lion (Table 2.1). Note the extraordinary similarity between these images and the split-action shots of a running cat and a leopard (Table 2.2, 2.3). This leads us to a suggested complete reconstruction of a real masterpiece of prehistoric art (Table 2.4).

Recompose the movement of these first images… by audiovisual techniques! In order to check the hypotheses suggested in this short article, it seemed useful to use cinematographic techniques, particularly those of animated cartoons. The operation was for each figure to individualise, by using infographic tools, the successive images (superimposed or juxtaposed). Next, they were placed one over the other in separate sheets or “onion skins” (in the lingo of the animation trade). Thanks to an animation software, the images could follow each other over time in a logical order corresponding to our observations; by trial and error, a rhythm of the procession of images was decided, on average 4 to 6 images per second. Once the rhythm was correctly adjusted, the sequence could be “played” (read) over and over again. At the end of the experiment, the results obtained on the various examples are spectacular: the movements of the La Vache lion, or of the La Marche horse, or of the Chauvet bison or of the Colombier ibex are recreated before our eyes as they originally were in the minds of the artists. These animations, “mental images” of the men of prehistory, can be seen on the internet site: http://passesimple.net/rockart_azema.htm.

Marc AZÉMA
http://www.passesimple.net/rockart_azema.htm
Docteur en Préhistoire, chercheur associé à l’Unité Mixte de Recherche 5608 de Toulouse

Bibliographie

L'Art des Cavernes : Atlas des grottes ornées paléolithiques françaises, 1984. — Paris, Ministère de la Culture, Imprimerie nationale, 673 p.
AZÉMA M., 1992. — La Décomposition du mouvement dans l'art animalier paléolithique des Pyrénées. Préhistoire et Anthropologie Méditerranéenne, t. 1, p. 17-31.
AZÉMA M., 2004a. — La Décomposition du mouvement dans l'art pariétal : et si les hommes préhistoriques avaient inventé le dessin animé et la bande dessinée ?. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Ariège-Pyrénées, LIV, p. 55-69.AZÉMA M., 2004b. — La Représentation du mouvement au Paléolithique supérieur. Apport du comparatisme éthographique à l’interprétation de l’art pariétal (à paraître).
BAPTISTA A.M., 1999. — No tempo sem tempo : a arte dos caçadores paleoliticos do Vale do Côa, Parque Archeològico Vale de Côa, Centre Nacional de Arte Rupestre, 186 p.
BÉGOUËN H. et BREUIL H. 1958. — Les Cavernes du Volp, Trois-Frères, Tuc d'Audoubert, à Montesquieu-Avantès (Ariège). Paris, Arts & Métiers graphiques, 124 p., 115 fig., 32 pl .
BUISSON D. & DELPORTE H. 1988. — Intérêt du raccord pour l’authentification d’une oeuvre d’art. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, 85, n° 1, p. 4-7.
CLOTTES J. (dir.), 2001. — La Grotte Chauvet : L’Art des Origines. Paris, Le Seuil, 226 p., 206 fig.
CLOTTES J. & AZÉMA M., 2005. — Les Félins de la grotte Chauvet. Paris, Le Seuil, 126 p., 80 fig.
FREEMAN L. G. et GONZALEZ ECHEGARAY J., 2001. — La Grotte d'Altamira, Paris, La Maison des Roches, 120 p. (Terres préhistoriques).
GROENEN M., 1997. — Ombre et lumière dans l'art des grottes. Bruxelles, Centre de Recherches et d'Études Technologiques des Arts Plastiques – Université Libre de Bruxelles, 111 p., 51 ill.
LEROI-GOURHAN Arl. & ALLAIN J., (dir.), 1979. — Lascaux inconnu. Paris, CNRS, 381 p., 387 fig., 30 pl. (Gallia Préhistoire, Supplément n° 12).
LIMA P., 2005. — Il y a 30 000 ans les premières… bandes dessinées, Sciences et Vie, n° 1049, p. 135-152.
LORBLANCHET M., DELPECH F., RENAULT Ph., ANDRIEUX C., 1973. — La Grotte de Sainte-Eulalie à Espagnac (Lot). Gallia Préhistoire, t. 16, p. 3-62 et p. 233-325.
PALES L. & TASSIN de SAINT-PEREUSE M., 1981. — Les Gravures de La Marche. III. Équidés et Bovidés. Paris, Orphys, 145 p., 52 fig., 124 pl.
PARISSE M., 1983. — La Tapisserie de Bayeux : Un documentaire du XIe siècle. Paris, Denoël, 141 p., 135 fig.
PINEL V., 1981. — Techniques du cinéma. Paris, PUF, 128 p., 23 fig. (Que sais-je ? n° 1873).
TOSELLO G., 2003. — Pierres gravées du Périgord magdalénien : Art, symboles, territoires. Paris, CNRS, 590 p., 392 fig., 45 tabl. (Gallia Préhistoire, Supplément n° 36).