Symbolic cognition—the ability to produce and use symbols, including (but not limited to) linguistic symbols—has often been considered a hallmark of human achievement. Given its importance, symbolic cognition has been a major topic of interest in many academic disciplines including anthropology, archeology, and the cognitive sciences.1-6 Paleolithic rock art holds vast potential for understanding the early roots of symbolically mediated behavior. Specifically, geographic and temporal differences in parietal motifs across sites may provide important evidence about the sociocognitive processes that occurred in the deep past of our lineage, how they varied across groups, and how they changed over time. However, the fragmentary nature of the rock art record often makes direct inferences about past symbolic behaviors difficult to assert. Additionally, because scholars working within different disciplines may differ in their interests, theories, methodologies, epistemologies, and terminology, interdisciplinary dialog can be challenging. If we accept the challenge, however, we believe that interdisciplinary dialogs can increase our understanding of this important topic. Through interdisciplinary approaches we can, for instance, integrate information from dating and materials used, with insights into the particular conditions and sociocultural contexts in which the art could have been made and experienced. The workshop Understanding the Development of Symbolic Cognition through Rock Art: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue was held on 15 and 16 May 2023 at the new rock art center in Puente Viesgo (Cantabria, Spain)—home to the Upper Paleolithic cave art sites of Monte Castillo. It was organized by the ERC project eSYMb: The Evolution of Early Symbolic Behaviour, and intended to bring together perspectives from diverse disciplines to discuss the different theoretical and empirical approaches that can be used to understand what rock art might indicate about the evolution of symbolic cognition in the Upper Paleolithic. Eleven participants attended the workshop (Figure 1) that had expertise from diverse disciplinary backgrounds (archeology, anthropology, art, semiotics, psychology, and cognitive science) and represented six different academic institutions from Denmark, Spain, Norway, and the United Kingdom. The Monte Castillo caves were a focal point of the workshop, with their rich and extensive record of Paleolithic art stimulating ideas and discussion among the participants. The different perspectives offered by the participants productively generated new discussions about interdisciplinary approaches to Paleolithic art and have encouraged future collaborations between the different disciplines. The workshop featured three sessions across two days. The morning of the first workshop day consisted of a guided tour around the caves of El Castillo and Las Monedas, where participants had the opportunity to experience the Upper Paleolithic cave art of these sites first-hand. The site visits stimulated lively discussions about the importance of appreciating the spatial and material context of the art, and raised key questions surrounding authorship, spatially constrained versus open placements of motifs, visual perception, and the intentional association of more recent (i.e., Magdalenian) depictions with older motifs (e.g., Aurignacian hand-stencils). The themes emerging from discussions during the site visits continued into the afternoon session, which focused on recent methodological approaches in archeology towards Upper Paleolithic cave art. Eduardo Palacio-Pérez opened the session, discussing the preliminary results of a research project aimed at the study of new cave art sites in Cantabria using a systematic approach that integrated lasergrammetry, photogrammetry, microphotography, and multispectral imagery. This high-resolution methodology facilitated the identification of nonfigurative art within these caves, including red discs, pigment traces, signs, and hand stencils. Palacio-Pérez provoked consideration of why nonfigurative art appears to consistently predate the production of figurative depictions, and the potential of interdisciplinary approaches with the cognitive sciences for addressing this question. Blanca Ochoa then presented her work on the graphic spaces of caves, exploring the different modes of transit and how the placement of motifs in different spaces of the cave might constrain their visibility.7 Ochoa's methodology facilitated the quantification of graphic spaces within Cantabrian cave art sites, with intricate insights into the bodily positions of Paleolithic artists/viewers and the transit of Paleolithic people through caves. This analysis revealed chronological differences in the use of caves for artistic behaviors: in earlier periods, artists appeared to have had a preference for using more open and accessible areas of the caves; in later periods, more constrained and hidden areas were selected. Diego Garate similarly discussed the importance of appreciating the cave art context, particularly the spatial dimensions of different areas of the caves and the visual effects of firelight cast from different Paleolithic torch technologies. Garate's meticulous research in Atxurra cave (Basque Country) allowed for a virtual reality reconstruction of the cave, which integrated high-resolution three-dimensional models and recreated the lighting conditions, based on charcoals found within the cave and experimental archeology that produced torches using the same materials selected by Paleolithic people. Garate emphasized the importance of considering different contextual dimensions in Paleolithic art research, and this theme was continued into a general discussion with all participants. During the discussion, participants expressed the need to integrate a breadth of interdisciplinary evidence to facilitate a holistic appreciation of the context of making and experiencing cave art. In particular, participants explored how virtual reality or other emerging digital technologies can be an important method for achieving this in Paleolithic art research. The morning session of the second day was centered on understanding the social and cultural context surrounding the making of art. Larissa Mendoza-Straffon presented her work on the funerary practices that were entwined with many Paleolithic art types, from anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figurines buried with deceased individuals (often children) to the close spatial relationship between burials and cave art motifs.8 Mendoza-Straffon identified themes in the association between the buried individuals and portable or parietal art, demonstrating that the entwining of art and funerary practices defined identities in death. Mendoza-Straffon summarized by presenting two themes in Upper Paleolithic funerary practices and their relationship with artistic behaviors. The first concerned the ending of social relationships, where burial of the deceased alongside grave goods, such as beads or portable art, severed their association with the living. The second, reserved for a few unique individuals, maintained and redefined their social relationship through exhumation of remains and their circulation in society, occasionally with the remains themselves being modified into personal ornaments or portable art objects. Mendoza-Straffon's talk thus emphasized the need to appreciate how sociocultural behaviors may be intimately associated with the symbolic meaning being Paleolithic art. John Matthews continued this theme and discussed his insightful work on the development of drawing in children. His extensive research has revealed possible universal stages in how children learn to make marks through tactile and playful interactions with materials. These stages are intimately wedded with motor gestures, from "push-pull" marks to concentric circles, and as such appear to emerge at different stages of children's development. There is vast potential for using these kinds of perspectives to identify children's art among the Paleolithic art record, thus revealing nuanced insights into how art may have been embedded within cultural practices. The afternoon session focused on psychological and cognitive science approaches to understanding symbolic behavior in the Paleolithic record. Derek Hodgson opened the session with his perspectives on how neuroscience and perceptual psychology may be useful in understanding why the earliest marks took an abstract form, and the particular mechanisms that were behind the emergence of figurative representations. Hodgson described how the early visual system's preference for contours, edges, and intersections may provide an insight into the geometric form of the oldest art—the incidental production of intersecting marks (e.g., during ocher processing) may have stimulated aesthetic pleasure responses, in turn prompting the intentional production of such marks. Hodgson further suggested that psychological phenomena such as pareidolia and hyperimagery may have been the foundation for the production of figurative depictions, by virtue of early figurative depictions integrating natural features of cave walls and Upper Paleolithic people's visual expertise in recognizing animal forms. The insights afforded by perceptual psychology thus have significant implications for understanding how symbolic behavior may have emerged in the Paleolithic. Kristian Tylén then presented his work that used cognitive science methods to understand the psychophysical properties of the engraved, abstract marks from the sites of Blombos cave and Diepkloof rock shelter (South Africa). Rooted in a series of visual experiments, Tylén's research demonstrated that the properties of the engraved marks developed over time, becoming more memorable, salient, and easier to discriminate between the two sites.9 Tylén concluded that this suggests the abstract marks may have been used primarily for aesthetic purposes, and perhaps may have also represented group identities. Crucially, his results suggest that it is unlikely the marks from Blombos and Diepkloof were used for communication. Izzy Wisher ended the session by summarizing her fieldwork in the Monte Castillo caves (El Castillo, La Pasiega, Las Chimeneas, Las Monedas), conducted over 2 weeks preceding the workshop. She presented the three key research questions of her fieldwork, centered on understanding: (1) whether the presence of older depictions in a cave affected the production of newer depictions; (2) how the spatial context may have affected the perception and meaning of particular depictions; and (3) what properties of the depictions changed and developed across time. Although preliminary, Wisher discussed how the cave art record at Monte Castillo may represent different types of interactions occurring across time, with the production of newer depictions being affected in a multitude of ways by the presence of older depictions. Wisher also outlined directions for future research that integrates cognitive science methods to better understand the development of symbolic behavior in the Monte Castillo caves. The general discussion summarized the key themes of the day, with participants exploring tangible ways interdisciplinary methods might facilitate the investigation and interpretation of how symbolic behavior emerged and developed in the Paleolithic. Spatial context: How does the placement of depictions affect their meaning? Were certain motifs made to be seen or deliberately hidden from view? Sociocultural behaviors: Is the art embedded within wider sociocultural behaviors, such as funerary practices? Lighting: What technologies were used to illuminate the art in rock art sites? How did this affect the visual perception of depictions and the surfaces they were produced on? Authorship: Who made this art? Were children and/or novices involved? How does this affect understanding of how symbolic cognition emerged and developed temporally? Processes of making: What materials and techniques were involved in producing the art? Did these resonate with neurological mechanisms, such as the way visual information is processed? Cognitive implications: How does Paleolithic art and its development over time express and/or impact the human cognitive system? How can such investigations inform inferences about the potential function and context of rock art? The strength of interdisciplinary research of the kind encouraged by this workshop is facilitating tangible insights into the contextual dimensions of Paleolithic art, reconstructing behaviors that are otherwise invisible in the archeological record. Collaborations across different disciplines—archeology, anthropology, psychology, and cognitive science—have the potential to obtain deeper insights into the different processes engaged in the making of art, particularly understanding how aspects of cognition may have been harnessed within different practices of art-making. The core challenge of this interdisciplinary work moving forward is developing new, innovative experimental approaches for testing hypotheses related to the development of symbolic cognition, which are sensitive to the multifaceted context of Paleolithic art. The workshop was funded by the ERC project eSYMb: The Evolution of Early Symbolic Behaviour (grant number: 101044626). Not applicable.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 5 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.