NEANDERTAL ART – A CARVED DEER TOE BONE:

 

Carved deer phalange, Neandertal. Einhornhőehle, Germany. Photograph ancient-origins.net.

On the interesting question of the ability of Neandertals to make art we have a new piece of evidence to consider. A carved deer toe bone or phalange, very purposely carved with a pattern of chevrons and dated to 51,000 years BP and found in a cave named Einhornhőehle, in northern Germany testifies to Neandertal ability and desire for symbolic creativity.

Einhornhőehle, Germany. Photograph ancient-origins.net.

Einhornhőehle translates as “Unicorn Cave,” and “it was first mentioned in the records in 1541. In 1686 Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz visited the cave and wrote a report about it mentioning the local trade with unicorn artefacts. In those days fossilized bones supposed to be from unicorns were ground and used for making medicine. In the 17^th century Otto Von Guericke, the mayor of Magdeburg, wrote a newspaper article about the finding of some ancient animal bones in the Zeunickenberg, a Harz mountain near Quedlinburg, in which he held the opinion that the bones were the remains of a unicorn. Based on Guerickes writings Leibniz drew a fictional reconstruction of the unicorn’s skeleton using the bones that had been found in the cave and published the drawing in his book Protagaea. In 1872 Rudolph Virchow carried out an excavation there and determined that the unknown bones actually stem from extinct animals like mammoths and cave bears. Over 70 species of animal have been identified from the many bones that have been found, including 60 species of mammal; amongst them the cave lion and the wolf.” (Wikipedia)

           Carved deer phalange, Neandertal.                       Photograph inverse.com.

“It was in the 1980s that scientists first found evidence of an Ice Age Neanderthal settlement at Einhornhoehle and the new bone is from a dig under a collapsed entrance to the cave where artifacts were discovered in 2917. The bone, from the foot of a rare extinct giant deer, is about half the size of a deck of playing cards (about 5.5 centimetres long, 4 centimetres wide) and three centimetres thick. Six diagonal intersecting lines intentionally carved into it form a kind of chevron design that covers much of one surface.” (phys.org 2021)

The important point is that this object seemingly serves no practical purpose. It is not a recognizable tool. It was apparently created for intellectual or emotional reasons. It symbolized a thought process. This is creativity.

NOTE: Some images in this posting were retrieved from the internet with a search for public domain photographs. If any of these images are not intended to be public domain, I apologize, and will happily provide the picture credits if the owner will contact me with them. For further information on these reports you should read the original reports at the sites listed below.

REFERENCES:

Leder, D., Hermann, R., Hüls, M. et al., 2021, A 51,000-year-old engraved bone reveals Neanderthals’ capacity for symbolic behaviour. Nature Ecology and Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01487-z

Anonymous, 2021, Ancient Bone Carving Could Change The Way We Think About Neanderthals, 5 July 2021, Phys.org, https://phys.org/news/2021-07-ancient-bone-neanderthals.html

Wikipedia, Unicorn Cave, https:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn_Cave, accessed 20 July 2021.

BATS AS VANDALS - HOW THEY DAMAGE ROCK ART:

 

Common Pipistrel, European cave bat. Online photograph, public domain.

Another threat to rock art has recently been scientifically recognized. The effects that occupation by bats can have on a cave is recognized now to go much farther than just the accumulation of guano on the cave floor. Occupation by bats of a cave with parietal art presents a very real threat to that art. This was illustrated by a team of French researchers who performed in-depth scientific analysis in a cave that had been prehistorically divided into separate sections by prehistoric flowstone deposits. This blockage enabled to researchers to analyze and compare the sections of the cave where bat occupation had been prevented to the portion of the cave that bats had inhabited. 

Grotte de Azé cave, France. Online photograph, public domain.

“The Prehistoric Cave at Azé (France) was divided into two parts by calcite flowstone. This isolated the innermost parts of the cave from the entrance, which remained connected to the surface. Since the closure, bats have not been able to access the cave beyond the flowstone blockage. They have been present only in the cave entrance. The byproducts released by bats had a considerable effect on this entrance part. Gaseous exhalations have changed the composition of the surrounding atmosphere, leading to the development of dome-shaped cupolas and other wall weathering features. Guano deposits built up causing the formation of aerosols and acidic leachates. The resulting corrosion of the limestone has led to the formation of phosphate deposits and biogenic karst. The rate of retreat of the cave walls has been estimated at 5 to 7 mm/ka. Corrosion has also affected archaeological artefacts, as well as any traces left on the walls by humans or animals. Bioglyphs linked to bears as well as anthropic graffiti have completely disappeared from the part of the cave used by bats.” (Barriquand et al. 2021:1)

The bats exhale CO₂  which can combine with the moisture in the air to create a weak solution of carbonic acid. Bat droppings and urine also contribute to the damage as described above.

“The presence of apatite in the flowstone at Aze Cave shows that bats were present there before the end of MIS 4 (57 ka), and most probably also during MIS 5, which would have been climatically even more favorable for bats. At least 22 ka ago, calcite flowstone isolated the inner part of the cave. It completely blocked any access and prevented the entry of bats. Since this blockage, the cave walls beyond it have hardly altered, as confirmed by the preservation of bear claw marks on the walls. In contrast, all of the front part of the cave between the entrance and this barrier remained open to the surface and has undergone considerable morphological changes.” (Barriquand et al. 2021:9)

MIS refers to marine isotope stages, cores from ocean sediment are analyzed for variation in isotopic oxygen.

“Marine oxygen-isotope stages or oxygen isotope stages, are alternating warm and cool periods in Earth’s paleoclimate, deduced from oxygen isotope data reflecting changes in temperature.” (Wikipedia) MIS 4 corresponds to an age range from 71 to ca. 84 thousand years ago, and MIS 5 ranges from ca 85 to 139 thousand years BP. (Wikipedia)

With the knowledge gained from their analysis of the effects that bat populations have on a cave environment, the team could then look at other caves where cave art is found.

Bison panel, Mas d'Azil cave, France. Image from donsmaps.com.

Megaloceros panel, Chauvet cave, France. Photograph from Bradshaw Foundation.

“Spatial analysis of the position of the art works in the Mas d’Azil Cave, Ariege, France, also shows that these are found only in confined areas not used by bats. In the Gorges d’Amange Cave, Jura, France, the Aurignacian engravings which have been exposed to phosphates are still visible, but have been deeply weathered. In the Chauvet Cave, the art work on the Megaloceros Panel is inscribed into deposits of hydroxylapatite indicating the occupation of this part of Chauvet Cave by bats is older than the artwork. Closure of the cave entrance after the art work was made preserved it from latter biogenic weathering.” (Barriquand et al. 2021:10)

Mas d'Azil cave, France. Photograph from prehistour.eu.

In the example of Mas d’Azil bat residence in portions of the cave is known, but the art is found in locations that the bats do not occupy. In other art caves some damage caused by bats can be seen on existing art as described above. The knowledge gained through this study might someday allow preservation of endangered cave art, this magnificent and important prehistoric treasure.

NOTE: Some images in this posting were retrieved from the internet with a search for public domain photographs. If any of these images are not intended to be public domain, I apologize, and will happily provide the picture credits if the owner will contact me with them. For further information on these reports you should read the original reports at the sites listed below.

REFERENCES:

Barriquand, Lionel, Jean-Yves Bigot, Philippe Audra, Didier Caihol, Christophe Gauchon, Vasile Heresanu, Stephane Jaillet, and Nathalie Vanara, 2021, Caves and bats: Morphological impacts and archaeological implications. The Aze Prehistoric Cave (Saone-et-Loire, France), 21 May 2021, Geomorphology, www.elsevier.com/locate/geomorph

Wikipedia, Marine Isotope Stages (MIS), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_isotope_stages

A BOOK REVIEW – “NO BEAR: VISIONS THROUGH TIME.”

Keyser, James D., Carl M. Davis, David A. Kaiser, Mark D. Willis, Stephen J. Lycett, 2021, No Bear: Visions Through Time, Oregon Archaeological Society (OAS) Press, Publication Number 27, Portland, OR.

The 27^th volume published by the Oregon Archaeological Society is about a Montana rock art site named the No Bear site. Titled No Bear: Visions Through Time, this volume relates another example of cutting edge recording techniques and analysis of rock art. This site was found on the Blackfeet Reservation in northern Montana, in a nowadays inaccessible location high on a cliff.

View of No Bear petroglyph site, Montana.

No Bear is a small, but complicated site, multi-component in that a number of styles and techniques are represented. “No Bear is located on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation in north-central Montana just east of the Rocky Mountains. The site consists of an extensive and unusual array of red pictographs painted across three adjacent faces on the lower portion of a massive sandstone cliff situated at the confluence of a deep coulee draining into a major stream valley. Petroglyphs are also scratched and abraded across two of the rock faces where they are both superimposed on and superimposed by various pictographs.” (Keyser et al. 2021:2)

           

    Drawing of panels 1 and 2, No Bear                  petroglyph site, Montana.

Due to the inaccessible location of the rock art the team had to utilize innovative techniques to photograph it in depth. “We initially debated using either a drone or pole-assisted aerial photography (PAP), and after consultation with Mark Willis we brought both types of equipment to the site. Although we used both methods, after examining the site Willis and Keyser decided to rely primarily on PAP photography because of its time-efficiency and accuracy given the site access and weather conditions.” (Keyser et al. 2021:3)

     Detailed drawing of Panel 3, No Bear                petroglyph site, Montana.

The images on these panels were quite difficult to see because of fading and erosion. “In addition to the collapse of a large part of panel 2, significant erosion is evident on the right half of Panel 3, in this area, the painted images are significantly fainter than most others painted on the panel’s left half, making them less visible in ambient light photographs. Some of this is clearly due to age, since several of the fainter images, which are older and thus exposed to more weathering, are scattered among fresher ones. But we also note that photographs show distinctive patterns of abrasion across the right half of the panel and on the extreme lower margin of the panel’s left side.” (Keyser et al. 2021:2-3)

Composite of panels 1, 2, and 3 as photographed, and then DStretched to bring out the pictographs. No Bear petroglyph site, Montana.

“Given the soft slope and weather conditions, we photographed the panels from a range of about 30 cm to 3 meters (1 to 10 feet) and at an elevation of approximately 4 to 6 meters (13 to 19 feet) above stable ground. Willis controlled placement of the camera to take more than 750 photographs while Keyser triggered the shutter at Willis’s direction. – The more than 750 photographs taken by PAP from multiple vantage points in front of the panels allowed Willis to process the photographic data in a commercial Structure from Motion (SfM) photogrammetry package called MetaShape (Version 1.5.3). This software takes a set of overlapping photographs, analyzes the location of visually similar objects in them., and then creates a three-dimensional point cloud (Figures 7, 8) based on the relationship between the objects. The point cloud is a highly accurate 3D representation of the rock art panel surface.” (Keyser et al. 2021:5)

To make the images visible the team processed the resulting 3D model with D-stretch. “During and ofter preparing the composite photograph, DStretch enhancements of many individual photographs were used to emphasize the painted imagery for purposes of photo-tracing. This also helped highlight the scratched petroglyphs.” (Keyser et al. 2021:7)

 All in all approximately eight pages are used to explain their recording methods in detail, highly educational for others seeking a recording model.  The subsequent sixty pages are devoted to the in-depth analysis we would expect from this team. Every detail of every panel is studied, identified, and compared with other examples from the region to try to find its significance.

From the shape of feathers on a headdress to the weapon, or dance wand, displayed in a figure’s hand, this analysis happens, comprehensive and in-depth, and it has allowed the team to make a number of important conclusions. "All three panels have pictographs, and differences in weathering combined with superimpositions indicate that artists painted images in at least four different episodes on Panel 3. Other artists using Panel 3 also scratched and/or abraded a series of petroglyphs in at least three different episodes occurring between the two major painting episodes. One artist also drew a small scratched oval scrawl on the large anthropomorph in Panel 1. In all, we have identified at least seven different episodes of rock art production at the site." (Keyser et al. 2021:11)

The final product is not only an in-depth analysis of a fascinating and unique rock art site, but also is an example of detailed thoroughness and excellence for future rock art researchers and recorders.

For more information about this, and their other publications go to www.oregonarcheological.org/publications or inquire at Oregon Archaeological Society, PO Box 13293, Portland, Oregon, 97213.

TRACKING THE CAVE ARTISTS:

Lion Panel, Chauvet Cave, France. Online photograph, public domain.

Bison Panel, Chauvet Cave, France. Online photograph, public domain.

Now that we have looked at questions of lighting/illumination in the painted caves of Europe it might be a good time to ask who actually it was holding those torches and lamps, or building those fires?

The discovery of footprints in the painted cave locations of ancient rock art, although relatively common, is always exciting because it provides a link to the ancient people who painted and/or experienced the rock art. Analysis of the footprints and trackways might provide some illumination toward their uses and intentions for this cave art.

Tuc D’Audoubert

Bison sculptures, Tuc D'Audoubert Cave, France. Internet photograph, public domain.

Footprints in clay, Tuc D'Audoubert Cave, France. Internet photograph, public domain.

Footprints in clay, Tuc D'Audoubert Cave, France. Internet photograph, public domain.

One well known example are the famous clay bison of Tuc D’Audoubert. They had apparently been the site of prehistoric visitation 14,000-years-ago. John Robinson described the discovery of footprints there. “We turned to the sunken cave floor behind us. We slid down to it and stood beside a flat clay floor. A few footprints of adults can be seen in the clay, but mainly the footprints of young children. Towards the rear wall of the cave, cut out of the floor is a hole in the four-inch-thick clay where a slab has been removed, the shape and size of one of the bison. Surely this was where the clay used to model the Bison had come from.” (Robinson)

Chauvet

Rhinoceros Panel, Chauvet Cave, France. Internet photograph, public domain.

      Footprint, Chauvet Cave, France.     Internet photograph, public domain.

Another well-known French painted cave with footprints is Chauvet. “Recent exploration of the Chauvet Cave near Vallon-Pont-d’Arc in southern France has yielded the oldest footprints of Homo sapiens sapiens and a cavern with a dozen new animal figures. The footprints appear to be those of an eight-year-old boy, according to prehistorian Michel-Alain Garcia of the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Nanterre. They are between 20,000 and 30,000 years old, perhaps twice as old as those discovered previously at Aldene, Montespan, Niaux, Pech Merle, and other Upper Palaeolithic sites.” (Harrington 1999)

“Garcia estimates that the boy was about four-and-a-half feet tall, his feet more than eight inches long and three-and-a-half inches wide. First spotted in 1994 by Jean-Marie Chauvet, the cave’s discoverer, the footsteps stretch perhaps 150 feet and at times cross those of bears and wolves. The steps lead to the so-called room of skulls, where a number of bear skulls have been found. In a few places there is evidence that the boy slipped on the soft clay floor, though Garcia says the prints show the boy was not running, but walking normally. The boy appears at one point to have stopped to clean his torch, the charcoal from which has been dated to ca. 26,000 years ago. The prints from Chauvet Cave, like nearly all the footprints this far discovered in Palaeolithic caves, are from bare feet.” (Harrington 1999)

Ojo Guareña Cave

Charcoal drawings, Ojo Guareña Cave, Spain. Photograph M.A. Martín, Grupo Espeleológico Edelweiss.

Footprints in clay, Ojo Guareña Cave, Spain. Photograph M.A. Martín, Grupo Espeleológico Edelweiss.

Footprints in clay, Ojo Guareña Cave, Spain. Photograph M.A. Martín, Grupo Espeleológico Edelweiss.

“In 1969, members of Grupo Espeleologico Edelweiss discovered the Sala and Galerias de las Huallas in Ojo Guareña Cave system (Burgos, Spain). These contained hundreds of ancient human footprints, preserved in the soft sediment on the floor. These footprints represent the tracks of a small group of people who walked barefoot through these complex passages in the cave. Since 2012 optical laser scanning and digital photogrammetry have been used in Galerias dellas Huellas, in combination with GIS techniques, to obtain a model of the cave floor, where the footprints and their internal morphology can be observed in detail. We have identified over 1000 prehistoric human footprints and at least 18 individual distinct trackways through the passages, which could have been left by around 8-10 individuals.” (Ortega et al.) These trackways have been measured and analyzed and have all been attributed to adults.

“In the case of the tracks in Ojo Guareña, their singularity lies in the fact that they are a long way from the possible entrance point and without a direct relationship with symbolic spaces (rock art, burials, etc.), although these exist in other parts of the cave system. The large number of traces is unique, with over 1200 footprints of a minimum of 6 individuals but probably of between 9 and 11, according to the trackways that have been counted.” (Ortega et al.)

In these examples we see a group of people in Tuc d’Adoubert, many of whom were children, in a situation that implies a relationship to the cave art found there. A single young person’s footprints were found in Chauvet Cave. And, in the Ojo Guareña Cave system the tracks of 8 – 10 individuals, apparently totally unrelated to the cave art. These ancient footprints are not as rare as we might have thought because of the preservation afforded by the isolation of their locations.

Footprints of children in the caves may imply that they were being taken to some special, secret location for initiation rituals. In ethnographic literature we find that many cultures have traditional rituals initiating their children into adulthood, coming-of-age ceremonies. These are often secretive, and often held in special places, and for participants in early adolescence. This appears to be almost universal for tribal groups. What better place for such a ritual than a magnificently painted cave wall, dimly lit by flickering torches or the light of fat lamps?

The footprint of an isolated individual, thought to be a child would not seem to imply such a ritual. This could be an example of sight-seeing, of curiosity, wandering through the cave looking at the imagery, but it might also imply a situation somewhat like the ancestral Native American vision quest. A young person sent to experience something very daunting in search of a mystical experience.

Finally, in the case of Ojo Guareña there is no apparent connection between the cave art and the footprints. Whatever their motive for being in the cave it did not involve imagery. It could have still been for some sort of ritual, but if so, this was apparently by a group of people unrelated to the cave art, and also apparently uninterested in it.

Taking these examples in whole, it indicates to me that footprints found in the painted caves of Europe were made by people, pursuing their own ends, and for their own reasons, reasons which we may never share or understand. I feel it is enough that we appreciate the art however we understand it. I do not find it diminished in any way by not knowing what all of those people were there for.

NOTE: Some images in this posting were retrieved from the internet with a search for public domain photographs. If any of these images are not intended to be public domain, I apologize, and will happily provide the picture credits if the owner will contact me with them. For further information on these reports you should read the original reports at the sites listed below.

REFERENCES:

Harrington, Spencer P. M., 1999, Human Footprints at Chauvet Cave, Archaeology, Volume 52, Number 5, September/October 1999, https://archive.archaeology.org/8898/newsbriefs/chauvet.html

Ortega, Ana I, Francisco Ruiz, Miguel A. Martin, Alfonso Benito-Calvo, Marco Vidal, Lucia Bermejo, and Theodoros Karampaglidis, Prehistoric Human Tracks in Ojo Guarena Cave System (Burgos, Spain): The Sala and Galeerias de las Huellas, Open Access, e Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), accessed 6/25/2021.

Robinson, John, Cave Art: Bison of Tuc D’Audoubert – 14,000 Year Old Bull and Cow Bison, http://www.bradshawfoundation.com, Internet source, accessed 16 June 2021

CAVE ILLUMINATION - WHAT LIGHT SOURCES DID THE ARTISTS USE?

Chauvet Cave, France. Online resource, www.donsmaps.com, Public Domain.

Although in general we know that deep cave illumination had to have been done with fire, the details have been more assumed than scientifically verified – until now. A team of researchers led by M^a Angeles Medina-Alcaide from the University of Cantabria, Spain, and her colleagues have not only gone back to the archaeological data about light sources, they have conducted experiments to generate data about the effectiveness of the different options.

Lascaux Cave, France. Online photograph, Public Domain.

Archaeologists have found remaining traces of three different lighting systems in deep caves in Europe’s cave art regions. The first is open fire, the second is wood torches, and the third is represented by varieties of stone lamps burning animal fats. These artificial light sources allowed utilization of the dark zone deeper in the caves.

“Artificial lighting was a crucial physical resource for expanding complex social and economic behavior in Paleolithic groups. Furthermore, the control of fire allowed the development of the first symbolic behavior in deep caves, around 176 ky BP. These activities would increase during the Upper Paleolithic, when lighting residues proliferated at these sites.” (Medina-Alcaide et al. 2021)

“The luminous intensity, radius of action, type of radiation, and color temperature of the light determine the perception of the environment and the human use inside (such as the execution of art, funerary activities, and cave exploration). The light duration restricts the time spent inside the cave and defines whether the visit will be a long stay or a short exploration. Moreover, the optimal management of some of the produced gases (i.e., the smoke of lighting tools) is essential to carry out prolonged subterranean frequentation.” (Medina-Alcaide et al. 2021)

In other words, the factors that affect choice of light sources in the painted caves are; the intensity of the light desired, and the ease or difficulty of transporting material.

Remains of paleolithic fire in a cave. Photograph Mariángeles Medina-Alcaide et al., 2021.

Experimental open fire in a cave. Photograph Mariángeles Medina-Alcaide et al., 2021.

OPEN FIRE:  An open fire would provide a great deal of light in such a dark cave, but to carry enough fuel to make it useful for any length of time would be a real challenge. Also, it would use up oxygen at a greater rate than a torch or a fat lamp. In Chauvet cave, “at least 10 fires were made by Paleolithic societies, using a total of 179 kg of fuel. The smoke dispersion would allow the fires to be replaced given the thermal stratification of the gases, and the hearths would be arranged in a tepee shape nearby but slightly away from the wall to accomplish this. These fires’ high radiation would be the main problem for human occupation when they were alight.” (Medina-Alcaide et al. 2021)

Although the remains of a number of fires have been found in deep caves this was not the most commonly used method of lighting.

Paleolithic torch remnants in a cave. Photograph Mariángeles Medina-Alcaide et al., 2021.

     Experimental torch illumination inside a          cave. Photograph Mariángeles Medina-                   Alcaide et al., 2021.

TORCHES: In terms of ease and convenience for the amount of light produced the torch would probably have been the primary choice.

“Three peculiarities characterize the residues of torches: a) their dispersal location on the ground in caves, created by the intermittent fall of combustion residues (usually wood charcoals) along paths due to their use (such as the breadcrumbs in the story of Hansel and Gretel). b) Their location in the deep parts of the caves where the artificial lighting is indispensable. We can be sure that the fire resources were used for artificial lighting in these places without discarding other additional activities (such as space markers, refueling sites, or with more cultural or symbolic meaning ones). c) The confirmation of its location in primary position (discarding those combustion remains coming from other contexts outside of the cave). The residues of torches of Paleolithic age found in caves inner parts are usually limited to scattered charcoals above different surfaces, and black marks on the walls and ceilings.” (Medina-Alcaide et al. 2021) For any short duration purpose a torch would probably have been the optimum choice.

In construction, remains of torches were found to consist mostly of various pines and juniper. In addition, “Overall, green ivy and dry birch bark have been used to make the torches. These materials have not been identified at the moment in the examined contexts, perhaps due to preservation issues, but their availability has been characterized in other sites with Paleolithic chronology. In any case, they are useful materials for making torches, as evidenced by the remains found in favorable contexts for preservation but with more recent chronologies. Specifically, ivy has been used as a cord to unite the different elements that make up torches, and any other string-like element could replace this. Birch bark has been used to light fires due to its high flammability and rapid combustion.” (Medina-Alcaide et al. 2021)

Lighting experiment with an animal-fat-burning stone lamp. Photograph Mariángeles Medina-Alcaide et al., 2021.

FAT LAMPS: The optimum choice for long duration lighting would have been the fat lamp, although the amount of light provided would have been the least compared to the other available choices, and, in some contexts, transporting the lighted fat lamp could have been a real challenge.

Lighting experiments with animal-fat-burning stone lamps. Photograph Mariángeles Medina-Alcaide et al., 2021.

“The animal fat lamps produced stable lighting for over an hour. Their luminous intensity was limited compared with torches and fireplaces, although for some functions (e.g., prolonged occupancy of the same place in a cave). Their radiation is not multidirectional. They emit a kind of semicircular halo; hence the light projected downwards is significantly less than that projected upwards and towards both sides. This is related to the small flame height relative to the lamp base’s size: the narrower the base and the higher the flame, the more light will be projected onto the floor. This lighting system does not produce smoke that could cloud and contaminate enclosed spaces. However, when pine resin was burning (and only when this fuel burned), the smoke added more pollution and blackening.” (Medina-Alcaide et al. 2021)

Types of stone lamps from Painted Caves. Photograph www.donsmap.com, Public Domain.

Studies of residues on actual stone lamps suggested that the fats were usually bovine or deer, often provided by lumps of bone marrow, and the wicks were often juniper, although examples of the use of porous bone wicks have been found. All in all the light of a stone lamp might be equated to a candle for each wick used in the lamp. For their scientific measurements and analysis I will refer readers to the paper listed below. There, you will find the team’s experimental results and data.

NOTE: Some images in this posting were retrieved from the internet with a search for public domain photographs. If any of these images are not intended to be public domain, I apologize, and will happily provide the picture credits if the owner will contact me with them.

REFERENCE:

M^a Angeles Medina-Alcaide, Diego Garate, Inaka Intxaurbe, Jose L. Sanchidrian, Olivia Rivero, Catherine Ferrier, M^a Dolores Mesa, Jaime Perena, and Inaki Libano, 2021, The Conquest of the Dark Spaces: An Experimental Approach to Lighting Systems in Paleolithic Caves, 16 June 2021, PLOS, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250497