Table of Contents
Journal of Archaeology
Volume 2013, Article ID 342801, 6 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/342801
Review Article

The Visual Brain, Perception, and Depiction of Animals in Rock Art

Department of Archaeology, University of York, Kings Manor, York Y01 7EP, UK

Received 17 May 2013; Accepted 7 July 2013

Academic Editor: Ravi Korisettar

Copyright © 2013 Derek Hodgson. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. J. Halverson, “The first pictures: perceptual foundations of Paleolithic art,” Perception, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 389–404, 1992. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. D. Hodgson, “The biological foundations of upper Palaeolithic art. Stimulus: percept and representational imperatives,” Rock Art Research, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 3–22, 2003. View at Google Scholar
  3. D. Hodgson and P. A. Helvenston, “The emergence of the representation of animals in Palaeoart: insights from evolution and the cognitive, limbic and visual systems of the human brain,” Rock Art Research, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 3–40, 2006. View at Google Scholar
  4. M. Pruvost, R. Bellone, N. Benecke et al., “Genotypes of predomestic horses match phenotypes painted in Paleolithic works of cave art,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 108, no. 46, pp. 18626–18630, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. G. Bar-Oz and S. Lev-Yadun, “Lev-Yadun, Paleolithic cave rock art, animal coloration, and specific animal habitats,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 109, no. 20, Article ID E1213, 2012. View at Google Scholar
  6. J. A. Cheyne, L. Meschino, and D. Smilek, “Caricature and contrast in the upper palaeolithic: morphometric evidence from cave art,” Perception, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 100–108, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. R. D. Guthrie, “Ethologicial observations from Palaeolithic art,” in La contribution de la zoologie et de l’ethologie à l’interpretation de l’art des peuples chasseurs préhistoriqùes, H. Bandi, W. Huber, M. R. Sauter, and S. Bitter, Eds., 3e Colloque de la Société Suisse des Sciences Humaines, pp. 35–74, Éditions Universitaires Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland, 1974. View at Google Scholar
  8. S. C. Hudson, “The hunter’s eye: visual perception and Palaeolithic art,” Archaeological Review from Cambridge, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 95–109, 1998. View at Google Scholar
  9. D. Hodgson, “Seeing the “unseen”: fragmented cues and the implicit in palaeolithic art,” Cambridge Archaeological Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 97–106, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. P. S. C. Taçon, L. Gang, Y. Decong et al., “Naturalism, nature and questions of style in Jinsha River Rock Art, Northwest Yunnan, China,” Cambridge Archaeological Journal, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 67–86, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. T. Troscianko, C. P. Benton, P. G. Lovell, D. J. Tolhurst, and Z. Pizlo, “Camouflage and visual perception,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, vol. 364, no. 1516, pp. 449–461, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. Z. Pizlo, 3D Shape: Its Unique Place in Visual Perception, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA, 2008.
  13. A. Caramazza and J. R. Shelton, “Domain-specific knowledge systems in the brain: the animate-inanimate distinction,” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1–34, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. A. Caramazza and B. Z. Mahon, “The organization of conceptual knowledge: the evidence from category-specific semantic deficits,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, vol. 7, no. 8, pp. 354–361, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. B. Z. Mahon and A. Caramazza, “Concepts and categories: a cognitive neuropsychological perspective,” Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 60, pp. 27–51, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. P. A. Chouinard and M. A. Goodale, “Category-specific neural processing for naming pictures of animals and naming pictures of tools: an ALE meta-analysis,” Neuropsychologia, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 409–418, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. J. New, L. Cosmides, and J. Tooby, “Category-specific attention for animals reflects ancestral priorities, not expertise,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 104, no. 42, pp. 16598–16603, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. B. A. Purdy, K. S. Jones, J. J. Mecholsky et al., “Earliest art in the Americas: incised image of a proboscidean on a mineralized extinct animal bone from Vero Beach, Florida,” Journal of Archaeological Science, vol. 38, no. 11, pp. 2908–2913, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  19. D. Huyge, M. Aubert, H. Barnard et al., “Lascaux along the Nile: late pleistocene rock art in Egypt,” Antiquity, vol. 81, no. 313, 2007, http://antiquity.ac.uk/ProjGall/huyge/index.html. View at Google Scholar
  20. S. J. Mithen, “Looking and learning: upper Palaeolithic art and information gathering,” World Archaeology, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 297–327, 1988. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. J. H. Elder and L. Velisavljević, “Cue dynamics underlying rapid detection of animals in natural scenes,” Journal of Vision, vol. 9, no. 7, article 7, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. M. J. M. Macé, A. Delorme, G. Richard, and M. Fabre-Thorpe, “Spotting animals in natural scenes: efficiency of humans and monkeys at very low contrasts,” Animal Cognition, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 405–418, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. S. E. Palmer, E. Rosch, and P. Chase, “Canonical perspective and the perception of objects,” in Attention and Performance IX, J. Long and A. Baddeley, Eds., pp. 135–151, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1981. View at Google Scholar
  24. V. Blanz, M. J. Tarr, and H. H. Bülthoff, “What object attributes determine canonical views?” Perception, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 575–599, 1999. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. A. Delorme, G. Richard, and M. Fabre-Thorpe, “Key visual features for rapid categorization of animals in natural scenes,” Frontiers of Psychology, vol. 1, no. 21, pp. 1–13, 2010. View at Google Scholar
  26. J. Pearson, C. W. G. Clifford, and F. Tong, “The functional impact of mental imagery on conscious perception,” Current Biology, vol. 18, no. 13, pp. 982–986, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. J. M. Kennedy and J. Silver, “The surrogate functions of lines in visual perception: evidence from antipodal rock and cave artwork sources,” Perception, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 313–322, 1974. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. D. B. Walther, B. Chai, E. Caddigan, D. M. Beck, and L. Fei-Fei, “Simple line drawings suffice for functional MRI decoding of natural scene categories,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 108, no. 23, pp. 9661–9666, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. C. S. Peirce, Collected Writings, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA, 1974.
  30. T. A. Sebeok, “Indexicality,” in Peirce and Contemporary Thought: Philosophical Inquirie, K. L. Ketner, Ed., pp. 222–242, Fordham University Press, New York, NY, USA, 1995. View at Google Scholar
  31. K. Kull, “The architect of biosemiotics: Thomas A. Sebeok and biology,” in Semiotics Continues To Astonish: Thomas A. Sebeok and the Doctrine of Signs, P. Cobley, J. Deely, K. Kull, and S. Petrilli, Eds., pp. 233–250, De Grutyer Mouton, Berlin, Germany, 2011. View at Google Scholar
  32. W. Nöth, “Semiotic foundations of iconicity in language and literature,” in The Motivated Sign: Iconicity in Language and Literature 2, O. Fischer and M. Nänny, Eds., pp. 17–28, Benjamins, Philadelphia, Pa, USA, 2001. View at Google Scholar
  33. J. A. Cheyne, “Signs of Consciousness: Speculation on the Psychology of Palaeolithic Graphics (Part ll),” 1993, http://watarts.uwaterloo.ca/~acheyne/signcon2.html.
  34. W. Nöth, “Semiotics for Biologists,” in Biosemiotics: Information, Codes and Signs in Living Systems, M. Barbieri, Ed., pp. 141–153, Nova Science, New York, NY, USA, 2007. View at Google Scholar
  35. J. J. Yang, M. Francis, P. S. F. Bellgowan, and A. Martin, “Object concepts and the human amygdala: enhanced activity for identifying animals independent of in-put modality and stimulus format,” in Proceedings of the 12th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Neuroscience Society, New York, NY, USA, 2005.
  36. A. S. Heberlein and R. Adolphs, “Impaired spontaneous anthropomorphizing despite intact perception and social knowledge,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 101, no. 19, pp. 7487–7491, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  37. D. Hodgson, “Altered States of consciousness and palaeoart: an alternative neurovisual explanation,” Cambridge Archaeological Journal, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 27–37, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. L. S. Barham, “Systematic pigment use in the middle pleistocene of South-Central Africa,” Current Anthropology, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 181–190, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  39. J. Clottes, “Return to Chauvet cave,” in Excavating the Birthplace of Art: the First Full Report, Thames and Hudson, London, UK, 2003. View at Google Scholar