Jose A. Lasheras and Carmen de las Heras

COALITIONNo. 12, July 2006capabilities of the so-called Cave Men.Together with these arguments, anotherreason why many scientists did not accept theantiquity of the paintings was their excellentstate of conservation and their freshness,which made them believe that they must havebeen painted quite recently.The interest in preserving Altamira had anearly beginning. Its discoverer, M. Sanz deSautuola, who was convinced of the age,importance and attraction of the paintings,had a gate fitted in the cave entrance evenbefore publishing his find, in order to impedeany irresponsible acts to the art. Santillana delMar Town Council established from the startthat all visitors should be accompanied by amunicipal guide. Nevertheless, the problemsof conservation had started even before thecave was discovered.Cueva de Altamira is formed in limestone karstin a stage of senility. Collapses in it must havebeen occurring for thousands of years, owingto the flat horizontal structure of thelimestone beds. These roof falls have beenrecorded during the human occupations in thePalaeolithic and also in modern times, in thefirst part of the 20 th Century. In fact, after thecave had remained hidden and undisturbed formillennia, its discovery could hardly have beenmore violent; quarrying the rock from abovethe cave with explosives must have openedthe hole which allowed entry to the caveagain. However, the explosions must alsohave fractured the rock strata in the roof ofthe cave, leading to the major collapses thathappened in the entrance hall around 1875and in 1925 (during the archaeological digs).The fear that a general collapse might affectthe Polychrome Ceiling meant that between1940 and 1965 large concrete supportingwalls were built (imitating natural strata) tostrengthen its stability. These walls created anew “chamber” where the Polychrome Ceilingwas enclosed and isolated from the rest of thecave. From this moment on, there was achange in the environmental factors –temperature, humidity, ventilation, etc. – sothat a short time later, the consequences forthe cave and the paintings became noticeable.In 1955 some prehistorians and art conserverssuggested reducing the number of visitors, butdespite the controversy being opened, thetourist use of the cave continued to bepromoted. In this way, the prehistoric cavebecame a great monument for the 20 thCentury, a tourist attraction of the first order.As well as being an artistic and culturallandmark, Altamira was important for itseconomic results and the image it gave to thepromotion and development of the region.Therefore, in the 1960s, the ceiling with thepolychrome bisons was enclosed in a space of300 cubic metres, isolated from the rest ofthe cave. This isolation, which was at firstconsidered favourable, reduced even more themargin for the delicate physical, chemical andmicrobiological balance needed to preserve thepaintings.The idea was that visitors would satisfy theircuriosity for seeing the underground world bybeing guided through the rest of the cave,where they might also see some engravings orpaintings. For this purpose, the naturalbouldery floor of the cave was transformedinto a wide and comfortable path (by diggingit out, filling it in, making steps…). At the endof their visit, they would then be happy with aquick view of the spectacular polychromepaintings. The cave was altered in an attemptto reduce the presence of the public in theHall of the Paintings and thus limit theirimpact on such a small volume of air. Thecave suffered from this decision, and a banalmulti-colour lighting system was installed,disguised behind rocks.The cave was the tourist pride of the region,and one of the most visited ancientmonuments in Spain; more than 100,000people a year after 1964, and over 175,000visitors in 1973. The effect of this multitudecould have been extremely serious. Thepaintings must have suffered sudden largeoscillations in the humidity and temperature,producing physical, chemical andmicrobiological risks that would increase atthe same rate as the visits, and which wouldhave caused their destruction.Preservation of a fragile heritageAlthough different reports had, since 1955,warned about altering the microclimate insidethe cave and the need to reduce the numberof visits, it was not until the risk of losing thepaintings became self-evident that theauthorities considered ending the system oftourist exploitation of the cave. Thepreservation of the cave became a politicaldispute between the local and regionaladministration on the one hand and the8

COALITIONNo. 12, July 2006national government on the other, andreceived a great deal of public attention. Inthis situation, in 1978 the SpanishGovernment took over the ownership of thecave and in 1979 founded Altamira NationalMuseum and Research Centre (AltamiraMuseum) as an efficient instrument forconservation, research and management ofthe cave. The cave was closed that sameyear. They decided against the artificial forcedair conditioning that had proved so disastrousat Lascaux Cave (Montignac, France). Instead,a team led by the Professor of Physics,Eugenio Villar was given the task of studyingthe environmental parameters andconservation of the paintings. The naturalmicroclimate of the cave was analysed in theabsence of visitors and finally, following amathematical model, the number of peoplewho could visit the cave daily withoutaffecting the interior climatic pattern wasfixed. Altamira was opened again in 1982 fora small daily limit of visitors: only 8,500 ayear, in groups of five accompanied by aguide, allowing them only ten minutes in thechamber with the Polychrome Ceiling (Villar1984).Figure 1. Some environmental parameters that affect theconservation of the polychrome paintings of Altamira.Figure 2. Repercussions of visitors under the Polychrome Ceiling(8 groups of five people –accompanied by a guide– for 10minutes).To summarise, the greatest importance wasgiven to controlling the temperature as thekey factor in the underground system(changes in temperature affect the ventilationby convection, the relative humidity, physicaland chemical reactions on the rock surface,and the microbiological community). Amathematical model was created, conjoininginterior and exterior climatic parameters andthe alterations caused by the presence ofpeople so that they would not lead toaccumulative changes inside the Hall of thePaintings. According to this mathematicalmodel, and with the proposed regime ofentries and visits, the temperature, humidityand CO2 level would return to their “natural”values each day, during the hours while thecave was closed, and the weak natural annualoscillations would be maintained. Withoutassessing its application, this regime of visitsproposed in 1982 continued in practice until2002, when it was decide to close the caveof Altamira again to make a new diagnosis ofthe conservation conditions.For several years, at the request of AltamiraMuseum, the Council for Scientific Research(CSIC) has been collaborating directly in theanalysis of Altamira’s conservation. A team,led initially by Dr M. Hoyos (deceased in1999) and at present by Dr S. Sanchez-Moral(Sanchez-Moral et al. 1999, 2002; HerasMartin et al. 2004), is carrying out a series ofstudies to assess the present situation, andhas noticed some differences from what wasbelieved previously. In 1999 they concluded aphase of the project in which they assessedthe environmental parameters with the9

COALITIONNo. 12, July 2006existing regime of visits. This is currentlybeing complemented with a study of theclosed cave, which started in 2004.Improvements in the instruments nowavailable (more accurate, reliable and easier tohandle and use), the possibility of monitoringdifferent parameters permanently, and somevariations in concepts and criteria, hasallowed them to see that the visits regimebeing applied produced a slight increase in thetemperature and this did not return to normaleach day. This is in contrast to what theprevious model predicted. Equally the CO2level in the air displays an annual cycle withsome differences from what was noted in theearlier study. However, where the presentresearch shows greatest difference is in theimportance given to the humidity (absoluteand relative), to its changes and to the impactmade by the entry and presence of people in ahumid environment, permanently abovesaturation point. This increases the totalvolume of condensed water in the Hall ofPaintings significantly. Furthermore, thiscondensation is produced mainly on theceiling, precisely where the paintings are,accelerating the processes of calcite formationand corrosion. Therefore, the physical andchemical properties of the water, both in liquidand vapour form, are fundamental to controlthe processes of mineral solution andprecipitation, and to define the dynamicbalances in the cave system (Figures 1 and 2).for the preservation of the paintings, becauseof the difficulties for their prevention, theseriousness and irreversibility of their possiblenegative effects, and the even greaterdifficulty for their correction and eradication.So far, only the bacteria that can be cultivatedin the laboratory had been identified, but theapplication of molecular techniques atAltamira (based on the sequence of theribosomic RNA gene 16S and 23S) hasenabled numerous previously-unknownmicroorganisms to be detected. These includeboth the metabolically active and others notactive at the time of sampling (more than70% of those identified so far). The intensecolonisation by bacteria produces a stratifiedbiofilm made up of Bacillus, Acidobacteria,Actinobacteria, Sphingomonas, etc., all ofwhich are sensitive to any alteration in theecosystem. At Altamira, the bacteria appearto neutralise the spread of fungi, but both arethe current main risk for the preservation ofthe prehistoric art in any cave, and this doesnot seem to be a matter which has beensufficiently analysed and considered in thecase of the caves with prehistoric art that areopen to the public.Figure 4. The topography of the first section of the cave ofAltamira during the Paleolithic occupations (20.000-13.000 B.P.).Topographic model created for the facsimile in the museum:known as Newcave of Altamira.Figure 3. Ground plan and profile of the first section of the cave ofAltamira in its current state.Together with this, the colonies of certainmicroorganisms are one of the greatest risksThe present closure of the cave, whichcommenced at the end of 2002, has theoverall aim of analysing the situation withoutthe disturbance of visits. When the study istaken into consideration together with theassessment made in 1999, it will produce anew diagnosis on the conservation of10

COALITIONNo. 12, July 2006Altamira. Among the conclusions orconsequences of this diagnosis, in referenceto the management of the cave, there must bea new regime for public access and visitscompatible with its preservation. This could bea new mathematical model which integratesthe natural variations and the disturbancescaused by the visits; a system for constantassessment and correction; a definition of thethresholds of risk and alarm for eachparameter, and the measures to take in eachcase; preventive proposals for the vegetationand soil cover above the cave, etc. Logically,also in this case, one of the aims is to makethe public access to this heritage sitecompatible with its preservation.Conservation, research, diffusion … AltamiraMuseum (Lasheras and Heras 1999; Lasheras etal. 2002)The studies carried out so far, as well as thenew Museum buildings, opened by their RoyalHighnesses the King and Queen of Spain in2001, form part of the same MuseologicalProject, started in 1993 and still in force. Thepermanent exhibition in the new museumincludes a copy of the cave: the Newcave ofAltamira. This has been conceived in anoriginal way, as it reproduces the entrance hall– the habitat area in Palaeolithic times – andthe area with the Polychrome Ceiling,recreating the appearance it had when thecave was occupied (Figures 3 and 4).collapses that occurred soon after that timeand which sealed the entrance until the 19 thCentury. The replica reconstructs the form ofthe cave, using archaeological and geologicalinformation, by interpolating this informationon a highly precise 3D topographical model.The Newcave is not an imitation of theoriginal, and its viewing cannot be a substitutefor this. Instead, it is a means of informingand educating about the original. Two mainreconstructions/restorations made in thereplica bring us nearer to understanding thePalaeolithic cave: the reconstruction of theoriginal large cave entrance (Photo 1), and theremoval of the modern walls built between theentrance and the Hall of the Paintings tosupport the roof (Photo 2). The replica makesit clear that everyday life was carried out inthe daylight zone, and not in the darkness ofthe cave. It also shows the absence ofphysical barriers – and the importance of theshade – to separate the living space from thearea for the Art, as if to separate the commonarea from that reserved for myths, rites, thetranscendent and the sacred.Photo 2. The Newcave of Altamira in the museum. Image facingthe back of the cave: rendition of the vestibule without themodern walls built at the entrance, the vestibule and the roomwith the polychrome paintings. Toward the left, the stratum of thePolychrome Ceiling is visible. (© Photo: Museum of Altamira/ P.Saura).Photo 1. The Newcave of Altamira in the museum. Image takenfacing the cave entrance: rendition of the vestibule, the originalmouth of the cave and, in the forefront of the archaeologicalexcavation. (© Photo: Museum of Altamira/ P. Saura).The cave has suffered great changes since itwas abandoned by its last inhabitants about13,000 years ago. These began with the roofThe reproduction of the paintings is a totallyfaithful copy of the original, even in thetechniques used and the pigments employed:ochre and charcoal. A few defects that haveoccurred since the art was done thousands ofyears ago have been corrected, improving thevisibility of some of the paintings andengravings, especially in the case of somefigures which went unnoticed by mostvisitors. A view of the maximum number offigures is necessary to understand all thesymbolic content accumulated over such along time in such a small area. This replica hasbeen based on the observations and studies11

COALITIONNo. 12, July 2006made on the original and the newphotographic record that has been obtained.This reproduction has been helped by theapplication of modern computerisedtechnology, in the topography and modellingas well as in the shaping and manufacture ofthe final copy (an accuracy of over 40,000exact points per square metre). This hasenabled the natural architecture of the cave tobe restored to exactly how it was 15,000years ago, according to the archaeological andgeological research carried out. In this way,both the natural roof falls and the modernalterations and building work suffered by thecave to make it visitable (walls, paths, steps)have been “restored and returned” to theiroriginal appearance.Figure 5. 1985. Museum of Altamira and the Cave of Altamira.1.Cave of Altamira (included on the World Heritage list). 2.Widening of the buffer zone with complete protection and control(by the Museum). 3. Building constructed in 1924 and renovatedfor the Museum in 1979. 4. Cave of Stalactites (no archaeologicalremains nor prehistoric art). 5. Building and footbridge constructedin 1970 for tourism and renovated for the Museum in 1979. 6.Parking area. 7. Present-day buffer zone for complete protection(Museum boundaries). 8. Three houses and a cattle barn built in1960 – 1980. 9. Water tank, electric transformer and electriclines over the Cave of Altamira.Photo 3. The Polychrome Ceiling in the Newcave of Altamira.It must be remembered that the Newcave isnot intended to contribute to the preservationof the original, and that is not its use – wehave already explained what affects thepreservation and what needs to be done forthat. It is a response to the great generalinterest in this masterpiece of Prehistoric art.The Newcave should be understood simply asa way to know Altamira, like a huge book thatexplains exactly what the cave was like duringthe Palaeolithic, and shows it in one amazing“three-dimensional illustration”. It isintellectually accessible and attractive toanyone, to all kinds of people with curiosity orinterest. The Newcave is not an instrument ofconservation, but a large book written withmuseological, educational, scientific,technological and aesthetic care.Figure 6. 2006. The Cave and Museum of Altamira. 1. Cave ofAltamira (included on the World Heritage list). 2. Present daybuffer zone for complete protection (Museum boundaries). 3.Museum property outside the museum precint. 4. Unused building.5. Building from 1970 renovated for temporary activitites of theMuseum. 6. Cave of Stalactites (no archaeological remains norprehistoric art). 7. Main buiding of the Museum -7a- and the newCave of Altamira -7b-. 8. Parking area. 9. Pedestrian paths: bufferzone for complete protection and control, open to visitors of themuseum as the Park of Altamira.During the development of the MuseologicalProject – of which the Newcave is the bestknown part – practically all the conservationmeasures to prevent anthropic risks have beensuccessfully achieved. The land directly abovethe cave has been acquired so that the areabelonging to the museum has increased from50,000 m 2 in 1985 to 160,000 m 2 in 2001.This means there is complete control over thevegetation cover above the cave, preventionof wastes being deposited in its impluvialarea, eradication of three houses and a farmfrom nearly above the cave, deviation oftraffic from the impluvial area (altering the12

COALITIONNo. 12, July 2006Back to indexexisting road layout and car park), removal ofa water tank and electricity power lines abovethe cave… The museum as an instrument forthe management of the cave, and thedevelopment of the Museological Project forconservation, research and diffusion ofAltamira, have made it possible to affirm thatthe preventive measures for the preservationof Altamira are now much better than theywere before 1993 (Figures 5 and 6)Conclusion or Continuation?We believe that we should preserve historicheritage to make use of it; that is, to know itand to see it, to enjoy it intellectually andculturally now and in the future. And a basiccriteria applied to the conservation and use ofAltamira is that it should be accessible to thegreatest possible number of people, as long asthe presence of this number of people is not initself a factor of appreciable deterioration, andas long as this number is determined as aresult of scientific studies on the conservationof the art. These are the studies currentlybeing carried out which, when they conclude,will allow us to establish a new regime forpublic access, suitable for the preservation ofAltamira, included in the list of World Heritagesince 1985.ReferencesHeras, C. (2002). El descubrimiento de la cueva de Altamira. In J.A.Lasheras (ed.) Redescubrir Altamira: 17-28. Madrid: TurnerLibros.Heras, C., Lasheras, J.A., Sanchez-Moral, S., Bedoya, J., Cañaveras,J.C., Soler, V. (2004). The preservation of the Cave of Altamira(1880-2002). In Actes du XIVème Congrès UISPP (Belgique2001): 33-42. Oxford: Archaeopress (BAR International Series1313).Lasheras, J.A., Heras, C. (1999). A new museum and a new settingfor the cave of Altamira. International Newsletter on Rock Art 22:25-30.Lasheras, J.A., Fatás, P., Albert, M.A. (2002). Un museo para elPaleolítico. In J.A. Lasheras (ed.) Redescubrir Altamira: 189-201.Madrid: Turner Libros.Sanchez-Moral, S., Cañaveras, J.C., Soler, V., Saiz-Jimenez, C.,Bedoya, J., Lario, J. (2002). La conservación del monumento. InJ.A. Lasheras (ed.) Redescubrir Altamira: 245-258. Madrid:Turner Libros.Sánchez.Moral, S., Cañaveras, J.C., Sanz-Rubio, E., Soler, V., VanGrieken, R., Gysels, K. (1999). Inorganic deterioration affectingAltamira Cave. Quantitative approach to wall corrosion (solutionetching) processes induced by visitors. Science of the TotalEnvironment 243: 67-84.Villar, E. (1984). Cueva de Altamira: estudios fisico-químicos de laSala de Polícromos. Influencia de la presencia humana y criteriosde conservación. Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura (Monografías delMuseo de Altamira 11).ROCK ART RESEARCH IN NORTHERNMEXICO, PAST AND PRESENTMª de la Luz Gutiérrez MartínezCentro INAH - Baja California Sur. La Paz, BCS- MexicoIntroductionThe archaeological research in northernMexico has been a complex and slow process.One of the major reasons for this situation isthe consistent and transcendental presence ofthe Mesoamerican cultures developed in thiscountry. Mesoamerica constituted a greatpart of the Mexican territory, fromapproximately the 28º parallel to the currentterritory of Central America. With thisinterminable source of study, Mexican andinternational archaeologists lead their interestalmost exclusively to the Mesoamericancultures, developing important research onthis marvelous and undeniable inheritance.Consequently, the advance reached onMesoamerica’s knowledge has beensubstantial, mainly during the second half ofthe Twentieth century.While this was happening, beyond thenorthern limits of what once was theextended and belligerent Mexica Empire, theregion called the “Gran Chichimeca” kept itssecrets under the protection of its vast, rusticand remote territory. In pre-Hispanic times,this distant and unknown region was muchfeared because it was deemed as ageographic space associated with death andwith all types of lacks and calamities:“They called that region the Chichimecatlalli -orland of the Chichimecas- and also the TeotlapanTlacochcalco Mictampla -or ‘spacious fields thatare towards the north- place of the death’“(Braniff et al. 2001)Although those distant and mysterious regionsdid not have the geographical and ecologicaladvantages that prevailed in Mesoamerica,which were so important for the developmentof notable civilizations; it did not mean thatsplendor and cultural complexity were notreached in such remote region, as will be seenlater in this article (Figure 1).13