VISUAL ESCAPEMENTS IN ROCK ART:

Back in 1979 I described what I call Visual Escapements to describe the clues that artists use to give the illusion of depth in paintings. As we know much of human creative history was accomplished before the creation of perspective in Renaissance Europe, and a whole lot of other creativity ignores the rules of perspective. One example would be the observation that things that are farther away look smaller than things that are closer. That can be explained by the rules of perspective, but one did not have to understand perspective to be aware of this phenomenon.

My phrase, visual escapements, was chosen on the similarity of the visual indications of distance provided by artists in paintings to the escapement mechanism in a mechanical clock  that divides up the time into segments of equal duration.

Ginevra de’ Benci by Leonardo da Vinci, 1474-1478. Internet image, public domain.

In Leonardo da Vinci’s Ginevra de’Benci these steps are comprised of various elements including the landscape behind her. First, her figure establishes the picture plane. The next is the tree behind her head and the left side of the picture. These are followed by hills with trees in intermediate and far ground, culminating in distant mountains blued by atmospheric distance. Each of these steps is definable as a visual escapement.

The Assumption of the Virgin or The Frari Assumption by Tiziano Vecelli (also known by Titian), 1516-1518. Internet image, public domain.

One can do the same sort of analysis for Titian’s Assumption of the Virgin, with figures in the foreground backed up by landscape features into the distance.

 

Both differentiation in size, and in vertical placement according to distance would be examples of my idea of Visual Escapements which I posited in 1979.

"Holy Ghost Panel," Horseshoe Canyon, Utah. Photograph by Peter Faris.

In 2019, Dr. James Farmer presented a webinar for the Colorado Rock Art Association in which he stated that he believes that the Holy Ghost panel in Horseshoe Canyon shows purposeful perspective with the smaller figures receding into the distance. I do not believe that the artists of Barrier Canyon Style panels knew the rules of single point visual perspective, but they would have observed that that are farther away look smaller than things that are closer. But, I would not call their use of this technique perspective, I would call the various sizes of figures apparently receding into the distance as an example of my concept of Visual Escapements. Another example, also illustrated in the Holy Ghost panel is that smaller figures are higher up than the bottoms of the larger figures. If the different figures are purposely sized in relation to the other figures in the panel, then one might indeed infer perspective and the use of visual escapements in the composition.

Horseshoe Canyon, Utah. Photograph by Don I. Campbell, May 16, 1984. 

On the other hand, if the figures were independently created and just scattered over the surface without relation to each other than this analysis may not be accurate. Did the artists know what they were doing, and were they doing it on purpose? And can we even know this?

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.

REFERENCE:

 

Farmer, James, Dr., 2019, Southwestern Rock Art and the Mesoamerican Connection, 18 April 2019, Colorado Rock Art Association online webinar.

A NEW CANDIDATE FOR THE OLDEST ROCK ART - A 67,000+ YEAR OLD HANDPRINT:

Researcher Maxime Aubert  in a limestone cave called Liang Metanduno on Muna. Photograph Ahdi Agus Oktaviana, 21 January 2026.

Almost a year ago I published a column on RockArtBlog on what was claimed to be the oldest rock art discovered so far, a 66,000+ year old hand print in Maltrivieso Cave in Spain (Faris 2025). Now, a new candidate has emerged from a cave on the Indonesian island of Muna, a handprint dated at 67,800+ years of age.

The islands in the Indonesian archipelago were on the transit route for the early humans who ended up in Australia. Some of these people would have settled locally in their tropical paradise, and this was very early indeed in the chronicles of human migration. “In an Indonesian cave system known for its prehistoric art, the oldest cave art yet found was hiding in plain sight. In a cave full of paintings that were well studied over the years, a faint hand stencil on the ceiling had been overlooked. – A nearby stencil dated to about 60,900 years ago.” (Callaway 2026)

Overlooked because of its location and being faded. It will be very interesting to see what future results of these studies will produce. There may be much more to learn there.

The faint handprint between two other images. Image from Griffith University.

Having found this overlooked handprint, their next step was to date it. “The oldest minimum-age constraint we obtained is for a hand stencil (sample LMET2) from Liang Metanduno in Muna Island. This motif is partly covered by ancient coralloid speleothems. This stencil is in a poor state of preservation, comprising only a 14 × 10 cm patch of faded pigment bearing a portion of the fingers and the adjoining palm area. The tip of one finger appears to have been artificially narrowed, either through the additional application of pigment or by moving the hand during pigment application, a distinct type of hand stencil art thus far identified only in Sulawesi. Dating results show that this stencil was produced at least 67.8  thousand years ago (ka) (71.6 ± 3.8 ka).” (Oktavian et al. 2026) This dating was apparently made with uranium/thorium dating of rock deposited over the surface of the handprint. This means that the higher figure of 71.6 thousand years could, in fact, be close to the accurate date.

Close-up of the handprint. Image from Griffith University.

In ages of lowered sea levels the Indonesian archipelago could have been transited on foot, and at times of higher sea level early rafts or boats would suffice for population movement. “It’s not yet clear whose hands made the prints. They could be from an ancient human group called Denisomans who lived in the area and may have interacted with our Homo sapiens ancestors before eventually going extinct. Or they may belong to modern humans venturing away from Africa, who could have wandered through the Middle East and Australia around this time. Fine details on the cave art, including the intentionally modified fingertips, point to a human hand.” (Ramakrishnan 2026) While we are pretty sure that early humans were here because of their early arrival in Australia, we cannot know for certain that Homo sapiens made these prints. As Ramakrishnan states it is possible that Denisovans also could have been in that area although there is not yet any corroborating data for that. We must remember that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” (although this quote is usually attributed to Carl Sagan its first uses can be traced back to the 1890s).

Additional examples of handprints with narrowed fingers. Image by Maxime Aubert.

This narrowing of the fingertip is very interesting. “Consistent with a style that has, so far, only been found on Sulawesi, the hand is depicted with pointy, clawlike fingers. Researchers believe the style might serve to emphasize the close connection between humans and animals, which is “something we already seem to see in the very early painted art of Sulawesi, with at least one instance of a scene portraying figures that we interpret as representations of part-human, part-animal beings,’ said study co-author Adam Brumm of Griffith University in a statement.” (Callaway 2026) I am assuming that this part-human, part-animal interpretation is seeing the narrowed fingertips as portrayals of hands with claws. This is something that I have to take with a grain of salt. While therianthropic figures mixing human and animal traits are common in rock art the world over a picture of a handprint with narrow fingers does not strike me as related.

 

REFERENCES:

Callaway, K.R., 2026, Oldest cave art ever found discovered in Indonesia, www.scientificamerican.com. Accessed online 21 January 2026.

Faris, Peter, 2025, A newer candidate for the oldest rock art – a 66,000+ year old hand print, 18 January 2025, RockArtBlog, https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/7760124847746733855/3761715241354171606

Oktavian ,Adhi Agus et al., 2026, Rock art from at least 67,800 years ago in Sulawesi, Nature online, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09968-y.

Ramakrishnan, Adithi, 2026, Indonesian handprints are the oldest cave art found yet, 21 January 2026, Associated Press. Accessed online 2 February 2026.

LEPIDOPTERA IN UPPER PALEOLITHIC CAVE ART AND ROCK ART:

Le Trois Freres Cave, France. Image from Nazari, p. 66.

A few months ago I received a very interesting paper from Canada by a researcher with the name of Vazrick Nazari. Nazari discussed the possibility of some Upper Paleolithic imagery representing Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths). Having written about other insects in RockArtBlog (bees, spiders, centipedes, earwigs – see cloud index below) I have found this a compelling subject and am now ready to tackle it.

Nazari set the scene in this way. “A succession of cultures in the Upper Paleolithic are recognized, mainly based on their stone tools. The earliest, the Aurignacian in Europe, lasted roughly from 45,000–28,000 BP (Wood 2011). The hunter-gatherer Aurignacian culture also included artists who created the magnificent decorations at Chauvet cave in the Ardéche Valley of France, one of the earliest known painted caves in Europe. Several Aurignacian sites with parietal art have been identified in France, Spain, Italy, and Eastern Europe. Subsequent Gravettian (30,000–22,000 BP), Solutrean (22,000–17,000 BP) and Magdalenian (17,000–12,000 BP) tool cultures followed the artistic traditions of Chauvet painters. Before the discovery of Chauvet in 1994, Lascaux (18,000 BP) was thought for a long time as the high point of artistic expression in the Paleolithic. Chauvet also upset the notion that representational effectiveness in art gradually improved over time from the early Paleolithic to the end of last Ice Age.” (Nazari 2021:66) The time span, and the range of cultures is immense by our historical standard of a few thousand years.

Nazari then described the tradition and nature of Paleolithic art. “For an art that lasted more than 20,000 years and over vast distances, it would be naive to expect a solid unity or a linear progression: No precise correlations exist between a culture’s technology and its art, and the age and style of Paleolithic art do not always coincide. Nevertheless, many characteristics are common through all Paleolithic cultures that produced cave art. Artists mostly represented animals and abstract geometric designs. Humans were seldom depicted and when they were, they appeared deliberately sketchy or caricatural, possibly because they did not play the same role as the animals in the myths and religious practices of the time.” (Nazari 2021:66) In this assumption, Nazari is assigning the motive of cave art images to their importance in spiritual beliefs of the culture that created the images. This would suggest that if they did not produce images of butterflies or moths, they must have not had any spiritual significance. It is hard to imagine that the beauty of some butterflies did not provoke some sort of spiritual connections though.

He then continued with some examples of insect portrayal in ancient art. “The oldest unambiguous depiction of a lepidopteran in rock art is Neolithic (~7,000 BP) (Schimitschek 1978) (Fig 3f). The conspicuous absence of Lepidoptera in Paleolithic art maybe explained by the difficulties associated with interpretation of the geometric symbols by which the Paleolithic people may have tried to represent butterflies or moths in their art. Among the many categories of geometric symbols in Paleolithic caves, some of the “aviforms” (motifs resembling birds) and “tectiforms” (motifs made up of straight lines, such as rectangular shapes) seem to resemble schematic insects with two or four wings, similar to moths Antenna in resting position. Züchner (2000) assigned several of these signs to “butterfly-or-bird-type” symbols.” (Nazari 2021: 67-69) Here, we find that Nazari is assuming that there are portrayals of Lepidoptera, we just have not recognized them.

Chauvet Cave, France. Image from Zuchner, 2000, fig. 4.

Nazari cited Zuchner (2000) who wrote about butterfly or birdlike signs in Chauvet “these signs of Grotte Chauvet have no exact parallel in other caves. But anyway they are unique. Most similar are the breastlike sign of Le Portel (Ariege), the reliefs in the Roc de Vezac Cave (Dordogne) and the ivory pendants of the Gravettian site of Dolni Vestonice (Moravia). At least one of Chauvet’s signs has much in common with the red drawings of La Pasiega in northern Spain. The ‘butterflies’ of Chauvet may be the realistic predecessors of the varied family of so-called ‘signes en accolade’ (bracket signs) or of ‘Le Placard type’. Excavations at Le Placard proved them to be Solutrean. But there are firm arguments to assume an earlier origin of the type. (Figure 4).” (Zuchner 2000). It seems hard here to tell if Zuchner is finding some relationship or connection between butterflies and women’s breasts, or just pointing out the similarity. In either case Zuchner is now beginning the process of noticing butterfly-like symbols.

Vezac, France. Image from Nazari, 2021, fig. 8, p. 71.

Nazari sees some of these as butterfly symbols as well. “The reniform symbols in Roc de Vezac may be interpreted as two butterflies in the midst of a mating dance. The tectiform sign in Bernifal may depict a mating pair of Amata moths. These moths and butterflies are still present in Dordogne today. The Paleolithic people would have observed these critters individually and in copula. These early humans, with the same cognitive capacity as us, would have known what the mating pair were doing. For them, this simple act would have represented fertility, generation of new life, and the magic of procreation.” (Nazari 2021:71) What sense does it make to portray a butterfly or moth underground in a cave? I have to wrestle with this question while I write on this subject. Of course, one reason is preservation. The caves are where the images are preserved the best. But then I ran across a paper about species of moths that live in caves in Korea (Kim et al. 2018) If some of them can live in caves, then it would make more sense to portray them there.

North American Plains culture butterfly symbol. Image from legendsofamerica.com.

North American First Nations peoples had symbols for butterflies and moths that were used in their art.

Possible moth image at Three Rivers Site, New Mexico. Photograph by Paul and Joy Foster.

And I have photographed one petroglyphs at the Three Rivers Petroglyph site in New Mexico that might represent a moth based upon the antenna.

Butterfly pictograph from Chhattisgarh, India. Image from Tandan et al., 2026.

Finally, I found a beautifully portrayed butterfly from India. “The first evidence of butterfly on rock painting is reported here from Central India  along with a total of 48 species of butterflies photographed in Putka Hills, Korba district of Chhattisgarh, India. General analysis, including consultation with experts and comparative studies with known butterfly taxa, indicates that the depicted butterfly corresponds to the family Papilionidae. The size and shape of the butterfly in the rock painting are extremely comparable to the Papilionidae butterflies that are still seen in the region today. We noticed that butterflies of family Papilionidae are abundant and most visible in the area. Their abundance and the remarkable beauty, combined with their ease of sight, most certainly drew the attention of ancient humans, motivating them to include these butterflies into their rock art as a form of artistic expression.” (Tandan et al. 2026)

So, are all of these actually meant to be butterflies and/or moths? Probably not, but some are apparently accurate purposeful renditions of lepidopterae.  And the whole subject adds a new area of interest in rock art altogether, and something new to look out for when in the field. See you out there.

NOTE: Some images in this column 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.

PRIMARY REFERENCES:

Kim, Do Sung, Soeng Joon Park, Sang Hoon Han, Don Won Choi, Young Gun Choi, Hyun Jung Kim, Dong Gun Kim, Hoonbok Yi, 2018, Ecological characteristics of a cave-dwelling moth species, Thiphosa dubitata (Lepidoptera: Geometridae), in Baram and Ssang caves in Gwanwon Province, Korea, https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-5967.12254. Accessed online 5 January 2026/

Nazari, Vazrick, 2021, Lepidoptera in Upper Paleolithic Art, pp. 66-72, Antenna 2021: 45 (2), pp. 66-72.

Tandan, Hit Narayan, Ashok Pradhan, Nidgi Singh, Dinesh Kumar, Avinash Yadav, Ravi Naidu and Swati Tandan, 2026, Lemru Elephant Reserve Found First Butterfly Depiction in Rock Painting: A Remarkable Discovery From Korba, Chhattisgarh, Indian Journal of Entomology 88:111-113. doi://10.55446/IJE.2025.2005. Accessed online 5 January 2026.

Züchner, C., 2000, Grotte Chauvet archaeologically dated. Accessed online at: Tracce Rock Art Bulletin, p. 12. http://www.rupestre.net/tracce/?p=2812.

SECONDARY REFERENCE:

Schimitschek, E., 1978, Ein Schmetterlingsidol im Val Camonica aus dem Neolithikum. Anzeiger für Schädlingskunde Pflanzenschutz Umweltschutz 51: 113–115.