As I mentioned in the previous section, I will refer to cognitive archaeology in this project to make inferences about the cognitive processes used by Palaeolithic people in
141 the creation, use, and development of non-figurative conventional motifs. This project does not have the ambition to establish and attribute novel cognitive processes embedded within Palaeolithic culture. Instead, I seek to determine what well-established cognitive processes may be attributed to the non-figurative conventional forms. In particular, I focus on a number of cognitive processes that may be of particular interest for understanding Paleolithic images, including structure, symbolic thought, and design.
The concept of ‘structure’ has been successfully applied to the analysis of
different aspects of the organization of hunter-gatherer societies (see, for instance, Clottes 2009; Leroi-Gourhan 1965; Sauvet & Wlodarczyk 1995; Strauss 1987). This project will attempt to identify if such an idea may be used to promote a better understanding of non-figurative images. Following the conditional approach of cognitive processualism (see above), this project will inquire about the so-called structural analysis of prehistoric art.
Structuralism was applied to the analysis of cave images in order to look for particular systematic communication elements or symbolism in an image or a canvas that is
consistent in a variety of contexts (Laming-Emperaire 1962; Leroi-Gourhan 1958, 1965:
111, 1993: 372-298) because such symbols only have meaning within their contextual relationships (Conkey 1989; Ucko & Rosenfeld 1967: 139-149). Important insights in structuralism have been gained by the statistical analysis of the figurative cave images by Georges Sauvet and André Wlodarczyk (Sauvet & Wlodarczyk 1992, 1995, 2000-2001, 2009). Their analysis looked to document changes in society based on changes in the structured scheme of the artwork. Their work suggests a formal grammar in the artwork and a variety of structured themes (Sauvet & Wlodarczyk 1995). This project will look for structural relationships that may be inferred from the analysis of non-figurative
142 images. There will be two key elements to explore. The first is the location of the images in the cave. If a particular representation often occurs in the same section of different caves we can infer that location of this representation within the cave is relevant.
The second element to inspect is the associations with different kinds of images. If a particular non-figurative form systematically appears with other specific forms then we can infer that there is a particular and significant relationship between these two images.
Few scholars would argue that the cultures of the Upper Palaeolithic, and even their predecessors in Africa, were capable and utilized symbolic thought as a cultural means of life. There is evidence suggesting that a number of hominins before Homo sapiens probably used some kind of symbolic thought in a number of different ways
(Bahn & Vertut 1997: 23-24; Bordes 1952, 2961, 1972; Freeman 1983; Hayden 1993:
124; Moro Abadía & González Morales 2010: 232; Schmandt-Besserat 1980: 127-128).
This project will look to identify which particular non-figurative images may express significant symbolic thought. It will do so by delving into the area of semiotics. Semiotics is the study of meaning making through anything that can be considered a sign (Bal &
Bryson 1991: 174; Danesi & Santeramo 1999; Eco 1976: 7; Jamani 2011: 93, 2014: 802;
Lawson 2012: 206). In semiotic literature signs have been assumed to have three primary factors. The first factor is the signifier. The signifier is simply the element that signifies an object, event, concept, or being (Danesi & Santeramo 1999: 5-6; Pierce 1999; Saussure 1999). Possible signifiers include words, gestures, physical objects, or pictures (Danesi &
Santeramo 1999: 5-6; Jamani 2011: 193). In our case the signifier is, of course, the non-figurative image. The second primary factor is the signified. The signified refers to the process in which a concept or idea is organized or coded in some way by the signifier
143 (Danesi & Santeramo 1999: 6; Jamani 2011: 193). In our case the exact meaning of the non-figurative image cannot be determined. The third primary factor is the interpretation of the signifier. It has been suggested that signs do not encode exact meanings but instead they suggest meanings (Danesi & Santeramo 1999: 6; Danesi 2007: 73). When an
individual sees a sign they will interpret it in a way that may not be related to the creator’s original intention (Pierce 1999). Thus the internal representational content, such as ideas, emotions, and feelings (Jamani 2011: 193), provoked by an external reality (Malafouris 2007: 289; Frith 1966: 13) may not reflect the original intent of the signifier (Pierce 1999). This factor is of particular relevance because the meaning of an image is not static throughout time or between people (Conkey 1983, 1985; Holman 1997) and the motifs of the Upper Palaeolithic were not confined to one culture but many cultures spread across space and time. In this setting, it is important to stress that the conditional approach will allow us to detect evidence of symbolic thought but not what the symbols actually meant (Abramiuk 2012: 145). Following the ideas of semiotics it would be possible to infer what kind of symbols meet the requirements of a semiotic signifier. Detecting repetitive, formalized, and culturally standardized symbols will help us to determine evidence for symbolic thought and conventionality (Conkey 1978, 1984, 1988: 308-312). Repeated images can be assumed to represent a form of symbolic communicative text and can be therefore considered conventional images (Conkey 2009: 184; Jamani 2014: 802).
Designing is a cognitive capacity that involves having a mental template of an object before actually producing the object or representation (Abramiuk 2012: 145; Harris 1989: 61-62; Hodgson 2008; Malafouris 2007; Renfrew 1994: 6-7; for discussion on the formation and format of mental images, please see Anderson & Bower 1973; Kosslyn
144 1980, 1994; Pylyshyn 1973, 2002; Thompson, Kosslyn, Hoffman & Van Der Kooij 2008). The semiotic approach will stimulate the search of conventional images. Similar representations that appear in the same cave will be less significant with this mental capacity than similar images that appear in a variety of caves separated geographically. If a group of similar images are repeated in one cave context a possible explanation is that the cave painters were either mimicking each other or that one painter had continued to make a similar design. However, if we see the same painting in a variety of caves then we can suppose some important information about the cultural and social value of this image.
Although it is possible for similar images with no relation to appear across spatial contexts, the presence of comparable motifs separated by significant geographical space suggests wide spread cultural significance (Conkey 1985). Similar images in different contexts will allow us to infer that the painters knew what they were going to paint and had a template of the image in their minds before executing it on the rock canvas.