Marcu 5, 1914] 
NATURE 2 
THE BEGINNING OF ART. 
ee subject of prehistoric art has never failed 
to engage the public interest. It not only ex- 
hibits to us the beginning of all that is now 
embraced under the comprehensive term of Art, 
but it furnishes us with a more clear and precise 
insight into the mind of prehistoric man than can 
be given by any other branch of archeology. The 
authenticity of the records again has never, and 
can never, be seriously questioned by the most 
sceptical or the least learned in these matters. 
For a long time the examples of prehistoric art 
were limited to carvings or gravures, the medium 
being bone, horn, or tooth, but since 1887, and 
particularly since 1901, attention has been more 
directly focussed upon the incised figures found on 
rocks, usually on the walls of caves, and not 
infrequently coloured with ochre. The caves so 
decorated are chiefly found in the Dordogne dis- 
trict of France, and along the Cantabrian coast 
of Spain. 
Although the honour of first appreciating the 
significance of these paintings 
belongs to the late M. Piette, it 
is to the enthusiasm, ability, and 
labours of Abbé Breuil that we 
are chiefly indebted for most of 
our knowledge regarding them. 
A good example of the peculiar 
ability of Abbé Breuil, amounting 
indeed to what might be justifi- 
ably regarded as genius, for see- 
ing things which are hidden from 
less acute observers, is given on 
pp. 146-8 of the volume on “La 
Caverne de _ Font-de-Gaume.”’ 
In May, 1906, Abbé Breuil on 
casually looking through Abbé 
Parat’s collection of ‘pierres 
utilisées,” found on one of them 
what he conceived to be the head 
and fore part of a rhinoceros. 
A further more minute examina- 
tion led him to the opinion that there were two 
silhouettes of a rhinoceros almost superimposed 
upon each other. M. Breuil showed the specimen 
to M. Salamon Reinach, who, however, was only 
able to decipher the two outlines when they were 
traced for him with a pencil. M. Boule was next 
shown the specimen, but expressed himself as 
sceptical on the matter. A few days afterwards 
a galvano-plastic impression was obtained at the 
Musée de Saint Germain, which removed all ques- 
tion of doubt as to the accuracy of the Abbé’s 
opinion, as M. Boule readily acknowledged. 
In the present publication Abbé Breuil has had 
the advantage of the cooperation of MM. Capitan 
et Peyrony for the French caves, and of MM. Rio 
Par le 
Pp. viiit+271+ 
US be Caverne de Font-de-Gaume aux Eyzies (Dordogne).” 
Docteur L. Capitan, l’Abbé Henri Breuil et D. Peyrony. 
Ixv plates, 
“Les Cavernes de la Région Cantabrique (Espagne).” Par H: Alcalde 
del Rio, l’'Abbé Henri Breuil et le R. Pére Lorenzo Sierra. Pp. viiit+265+ 
Ioo plates. : 
“La Pasiega a Puente-Viesgo (Santander).” Par l’Abbé Henri Breuil 
le Docteur H. Obermaier et H. Alcalde del Rio. Pp. 64+xxix plates. 
(Monaco: Imprimerie Artistique VY® A: Chene, 1910-13.) 
NO. 2314, VOL. 93] 
Fic. 1.—Hands, feet and: weapons printed in colour’ on a rockin Australia‘ (after Worsnop). 
“* Les Cavernes de la Région Cantabrique.” 
et Obermaier et Pére Lorenzo Sierra for the 
Spanish caves. Mention is also certainly due to 
M. Lasalle, for the very valuable and highly 
efficient services which he has rendered under 
very great difficulties in photographing the 
‘““paintings.”’ Last but not least, we are indebted 
to S.. A. S. le Prince de Monaco, who has shown 
his appreciation of the value of these records in 
the most practical way by undertaking their pub- 
lication, increasing materially thereby the great 
debt which all archeologists already owe him. 
Those who have seen the previous publications 
under the same auspices will be prepared for 
something as near perfection as anything can well 
be, nor will they be disappointed, for these books 
in matter and form, in text and illustration, leave 
nothing to be desired. 
The caves in which these wall paintings are 
found occur in Cretaceous Limestone, and are 
both very extensive and tortuous. The “pic- 
tures’ begin only after a certain distance has been 
traversed from the entrance, but this is to be ex 
plained, as the authors point out, on the ground 
From 
that those at or near the entrance have become 
blurred and effaced by atmospheric agencies. 
A large number of pieces of flint adapted for 
the purposes of drawing, and pieces of ochre suit- 
able for colouring the figures, have been recovered 
from the caves, and the presumption that they 
were the actual instruments and material used is 
very strong. The date of the “paintings” may 
be assigned to the Aurignacian, Solutrean, and 
Magdalenian periods, possibly even to the end of 
the Mousterian. The pictures themselves are 
nearly all concerned with the portrayal of the 
larger members of the fauna existent at the period, 
the mammoth, rhinoceros, bison, bear, horse, 
deer, goat, wolf, &c. The interest attached to 
them is manifold. There is their intrinsic interest 
as works of art produced at a very remote period, 
there is the interest arising out of the change 
which takes place in the technique, and 
permits of our identification of no fewer than five 
distinct periods. Then there is the zoological in- 
terest, for the animals are so carefully drawn, 
