“Seeing the art is one thing; reporting it is quite another, and no cave art, as far as we know, was ever mentioned in print before the nineteenth century. This is quite understandable, since prehistory did not “exist” until then, and so the pictures had no significance. However, once prehistoric studies got under way and portable art of the Ice Age had been discovered and authenticated, a few scholars at last began to notice what had been staring them in the face for so long.” (Bahn 16).

It is generally agreed upon that Palaeolithic people did not live in caves, at least not deep inside them. They lived in cave mouths and rock shelters for the most part, although there is some evidence that perhaps during bad climatic times, people moved deeper inside some caves seeking refuge from the cold. Many of the caves in the French Pyrenees were examples of deeper cave dwelling. Some exibit hearths that were clearly used for heat and light, wether they were occupied out of necessity is unknown, some have argued that perhaps they were temporary encampments occupied only during the decoration of the cave.

Many scholars and scientists have theorized why cave paintings where done, what they mean and what they tell us about the painters. From hunting magic rituals, to shamanistic induced visions, there are many theories about why the inhabitants painted these images. About the only thing most scholars agree upon is that no one really knows why. In this paper, I will first give a brief history of the first discoveries of parietal art, introducing the major characters, their discoveries, ideas and contributions. Then, the subject of dating the images will be discussed, and finally, some theories of meaning behind the cave paintings.

Figure 1 Portable art carving of Chaffaud from Prehistoric Art Virtual Museum.

Paleolithic Art is divided into two types, portable and parietal (wall). Portable art is anything decorated that is easily moved. Small carvings on stones, figurines and jewelry are some examples. The first piece of known Paleolithic Art unearthed was a reindeer antler that appeared to have been decorated. Found by Paul Tournal around 1827 in Grande Grotte de Bize. Shortly after this, in 1833 near France’s border with Switzerland, another antler carved to look like a budding plant was found by Dr. Francois Mayor. This was the first illustrated find. “The existence of Palaeolithic art was first established and accepted through the discovery, in the early 1860’s, of engraved and carved bones and stones in a number of caves and rock-shelters in south-west France, particularly by Edouard Lartet, a brilliant French scholar funded by Henry Christy . . .The depictions he encountered in his excavations came as a great surprise: their quality was astounding, since it had been assumed that prehistoric people were primitive savages with no leasure time and no asthetic sense” (Bahn 14). The next twenty years were marked with reports of parietal art finds that never got much attention. That changed in 1875 though.

Altamira was discovered in 1868, but not explored until 1875 by an amateur archeologist named Sanz de Sautuola who noticed some painted black signs on a wall, but didn’t think much of them. He did some of his own excavations in other caves and returned to Altamira in 1879. While digging for artifacts on the floor his little daughter Maria noticed images on the ceiling. She told her father “Mira, Papa, bueyes!” (Look, Papa, oxen).

Figure 2 Don M arcelino Sanz del Sautuola.

Figure 2.1 Ceiling Bison at Altamira..

Figure 2.2 Ceiling Bison at Altamira..

Sautuola knew that the paintings had not been done since the caves discovery in 1868 (since any visitors would have been seen). Realizing the images had been painted with a fatty paste, and baring a resemblance to some of the portable art found there, he must have deduced that the painting were very, very old. Though very enthusiastic he was rather conservative with his claims.

He presented his findings to the academic community by writing to Spain’s foremost paleontologist Professor Juan Vilanova y Piera.

Figure 3 Juan Vilanova y Piera.

Vilanova upon seeing the cave thought Sauluola was correct about his findings. In 1880 Sauluola published a book about his discoveries at Altamira. Later that year Vilanova presented the discovery at The International Congress of Anthropology and Prehistoric Archeology (many of them among Europe’s greatest Prehistorians). They apparently did not greet this presentation with much enthusiasm. This hit Sautuola hard, he died in 1888 under a cloud of suspicion. The rejection of his Altamira work occurred for several reasons according to Bahn, first, he was unknown in the scientific community. Second, this discovery was a first, nothing else like it had been found before. Finally, this discover had occurred in Spain, many of the prehistorians were French. In 1881 a French Engineer named Edouard Harle examined Altamira and determined that the paintings had been done in the 1870’s. He based these findings on a number of factors. First, the pictures were too well done to have been made by prehistoric “savages”, they were anatomically inaccurate, the paint looked too fresh and had been applied by a modern brush. Additionally he found that the cave was too humid to preserve art for so long and that some of the paintings were on top of stalagmites, while others only had a thin layer covering them. Harles remained skeptical.

Figure 4 Edouard Harle: Museum d’ Histoire.

Emile Cartailhac, an influencial French scholar published Harle’s findings which spurred on other anti-Altamira articles in scientific journals and newspapers in both France and Spain. One more attempt by Vilanova and Sautuola in 1881 at the French Congresses for the Advancement of Science in Algiers and La Rochelle to present their case for Altamira was made, the critics remained solidly against them, Harle and Cartailhac didn’t even attend.

Figure 5 Emile Cartailhac.

In 1882 they presented a booklet comparing the parietal art with portable art to the International Congress in Berlin but again, no discussion was held. At this point, Vilanova gave up and left Sautuola on his own. There were however some who did see possibilities at Altamira. Henri Martin and Edouard Piette both sided with Sautuota. Nevertheless, the majority of the scientific community ignored Altamira, de Mortillet’s book le Prehistorique (1883) and Cartailhac’s Les Ages Prehistorique de l’Espagne et du Portugal (1886) nor the International Congress in Paris in 1889 mention Altamira.

Though mention of Altamira seemed to be rare, other discoveries continued to surface. In 1895 a landowner while removing fill dirt from a cave entrance discovered an unknown gallery within the cave (La Mouthe). Gaston Berthoumeyrou and his father, a few days later visited the cave and found a bison engraving on a wall along with some other figures. It was determined that since Palaeolithic deposits were present in the fill material blocking the wall, the images behind the fill must be ancient. Excavations were then performed by French prehistorian Emile Riviere yielding more parietal pictures and in 1899, the unearthing of a Paleolithic lamp. (Bahn 125). This discovery proved both age and the existence of a lighting system (which was necessary to make cave art even possible). This was considered a turning point. During this time, other discoveries at Ardeche and Pair-non-Pair piled up.

Figure 6 Pair-non-Pair image.

By 1901 a digger named Pomarel found engravings in a cave at Les Combarelles (near Dordogne) prompting a visit from prehistorian Louis Capitan and Henry Breuil. This visit yielded many more pictures. It is thought that all these discoveries finally changed Cartailhac’s mind. In 1902 he went to Marsoulas and Altamira, finally coming away from those visits as an ardent supporter and scholar of cave art. Later in 1902, Cartailhac published “Mea Culpa d’un sceptique” in which he admitted making mistakes in recognizing cave art. (Clottes & Lewis-Williams)

In 1903 Harle did the same, though supposedly grudgingly. The acceptance of cave art by Cartailhac and the visit to decorated caves in the Les Eyzies area by the Montauban Congress of the French Association for the Advancement of Sciences marked the official recognition by the scientific community of the existence of Paleolithic Cave Art.

Until recently, dating wall paintings was done primarily by stylistic comparison to portable art (that was datable). The assumption was that the style of work would carry over from hand carvings to cave paintings. At best, this was a very subjective starting point to discuss the cave paintings in some time frame. Species depicted has also been a method of dating cave paintings. It was assumed that the species depicted where in fact roaming around. While this may tell us what animals the painter was familiar with, it does not tell us all the species they were familiar with, it can’t be assumed that the images are complete records of species present in other words. Formation of stalagmite or calcite has been used as an indicator of age. It was assumed that the buildup of the layer of stalagmite/calcite occurred at a constant rate. This has been seen as inaccurate from photographs taken in the Grotte du Cheval at Arcy-sur-Cure. Photos from 1946 were compared to some taken in the 1950’s revealing significant stalagmite and calcite growth on some portions of the cave while on other engraved walls, there appears to have been no change.

Several of the big players in attempts at dating parietal art were Henry Breuil and Leroi-Gourhan. Each had their own approach, both approaches had problems but during this time period, they were leading the field.

Figure 7 Henry Breuil.

Figure 8 Leroi- Gourhan.

For Breuil, the presence or absence of a “twisted perspective” in the paintings was an indicator of more or less primitive and archaic origins. Certain features, antlers for example, would be painted from a front perspective while the rest of the animal was seen from a profile viewpoint. This method proved to be inconsistent when images of species from various “known” time periods (Magdalenian & Gravettian) displayed both twisted and normal perspective. The Breuil cycle proposed that there were four cycles (eventually reduced down to two). The Aurignaco – Perigordian and the Solutreo – Magdalenian. Breuil thought that all the parietal art would fall into one of the two cycles based on it’s level of sophistication. He saw more primitive work as earlier. The problem, even at that time was that there existed enough skepticism about a strict dating scheme that could not account for the fact that some of the paintings that looked primitive were thought to be newer than much more sophisticated paintings.

Several successive scientists ( Annette Laming-Emperaire & Franciso Jorda) tried modifying Breuils theory by adding more cycles.

Where Breuil had his cycles Leroi-Gourhan had styles. Gourhan original thought the whole of the development of cave art could fit into four styles. The first style included Aurignacian and Early Gravettian art. This consisted of “. . .deep incisions, with stiff contours ( the Belcayre herbivore being the only complete specimen), an apparent obsession with vulvas, an absence of decorated utilitarian objects, and parietal art only in daylight areas of caves and shelters.” (Bahn 69). Style two included the rest of the Gravettian and part of the Solutrean

featuring good animal profiles, some twisted perspective and very little extremity detail. Style three consisted of the rest of the Solutrean and the Early Magdalenian. Some examples would be the animals found in Lascaux and Pech Merle.

Figure 9 Painted Gallery, Lascaux.

Figure 9.1 Great Painted Gallery, Lascaux. Figure 9.2 Great Hall of the Bulls, Lascaux

Figure 9.3 Great Hall of the Bulls, Lascaux.

Directly dating painting on stone walls was extremely difficult due to the the limits of Radio Carbon Dating. It used to be the case that most of the carbon matter that made up a painting would be needed to use carbon dating methods, thus destroying the painting. It wasn’t until recently that AMS (Accelerator Mass Spectrometry) was used that Radiocarbon dating became practical. AMS is a form or Radiocarbon Dating but requires far less organic material to get a date,

therefore it is far less invasive to the painting. As of 1995, thirteen sites had been analysed using this type of dating. Much of the earlier stylistic and archaeological materials dating estimates have been confirmed by AMS. There are some exceptions such as Chauvet which was estimated to be 20,000 years old based on portable art found there, but it turns out that AMS testing yielded a date around 30,000 years old. At Altamira, AMS has yielded some complex results. Three bison paintings dated to 14,800 & 14,600 & 13,570 years old. Large gaps between very similar images, which, could mean that the famous Altamira ceiling painting might not be one homogeneous composition. Though AMS dating reqiures far less invasive measures to get dates, it is still not nearly perfect.

Direct dating of parietal art is challenging, “. . . First, what has been dated is the death of the tree that produced the charcoal, which is not necessarily the same as the time when the charcoal was used to produce the figure; in most cases the two events are not far apart, but it is theoretically possible that people could have entered a cave and used charcoal from an ancient hearth to draw on the walls . . .so the charcoals age represents merely a maximum age for the art. . . . .Nevertheless, these uncertainties and caveats concerning radiocarbon dating are – and always have been equally applicable to the rest of the archaeological record because there is only a 68 per cent chance that the true age lies within the span including the plus/minus figure, it is obvious that at least a third of radiocarbon dates may be faulty; some are recognized as such immediately, because they are incongruous, but others that are currently accepted as correct are probably wrong “ (Bahn 76). As of 1997 only about 13 per-cent of cave’s had been dated via radiocarbon techniques, so much in still unknown. New discoveries and techniques could render all the dates thus far totally wrong, or solidify estimates already in place but, there is confidence that Palaeolithic cave art now does represent a recognizable period in history.

“The paintings, engraving, and carving in Europe may well represent a cultural explosion or sorts, but it could simply be the local expression of a cognative capacity that was already more widely spread in human populations thoughout much of the old world.” (Lewin, Research news 21 nov,1986)

“Art inside caves was simply much more likely to be preserved than art outside. Thus, the term cave art is analogous to caveman or cave lion – which accurately describe the taphonomic bias of preservation in caves than an actual life history . . . .We can safely say that cave art is a small sliver of the Paleolithic art that existed and was preserved only because of its protected location.” (Guthrie 35).

Figure 10 Great Hall of the Bulls, Lascaux.

Perhaps even more debated than the dates of cave art is it’s perceived meaning. This is a very broad area of inquiry not simply answering the question “what is it’s meaning” but in the process potentially shedding light on, who, how, why and giving a more complete image of who these people were and what they intended through these images. As seems obvious when looking at the many different images left on cave walls, there must be many different meanings, as diverse as the intentions behind them. One of the early theories put forth was that the images had no real intended meaning. This thought was originally attributed to the early portable art pieces that were discovered . . .no real obvious purpose, just decoration for art sake. Two proponents for the art for art’s sake idea

were Piette and Lartet in the nineteenth century. This theory seemed to make sense when applied to portable art, but not some much so when applied to parietal art. Why would people make special trips into caves they were not inhabiting, to paint images that have no meaning to them ? In some cases, patterns seem to appear over and over again, does this not at least hint at a widely held set of beliefs certain people had in common ? The idea of art for art’s sake could also include the satisfaction of the painter as a motivation, and in so doing, make a more plausible argument for this position. It is reasonable to think that some of the cave artists painted for nothing more than their own enjoyment and satisfaction, they were after all much like us today in many ways.

After the turn of the century, theories that tended to be more utilitarian started to emerge. In 1899 Balwin Spencer and F.J. Gillen published a book on the life and beliefs of the Arunta people of Central Australia. From there Salomon Reinach concluded that the primitive users of stone tools were at the same stage as Ice Age people and assumed that “ . . .the same motivation lay behind the art of both cultures” (Bahn 171). Out of this came the ideas of hunting magic and shamanism. Hunting magic being depictions of animals for various hunting related purposes. The exertion of influence over the animals outside was one purpose, in other words, if the bison were depicted as being well feed and strong in the paintings, perhaps this would magically yield well feed and strong bison just outside. Breuil and Begouen adopted a form of hunting magic. Breuil felt that some Palaeolithic Art rose out of an anxiety about the availability of wild game. Begouen saw ritual and magic in the images. He noted that marks on the bodies of animals were from arrows and spears while marks around the nose and mouth indicated blood being vomited by the dying animal. Dots represented stones thrown at the animals.

Figure 11 Tracing of engraving in Trois Freres.

Even if this theory is true, only about 3-4 per-cent of known Palaeolithic painted animals were depicted with missiles or arrows in the composition. The marks on or near the mouths of the animals seem open to interpretation. If one sides on the mystical, the marks may represent voices, on the literal, perhaps they represent the breath of the animal in the cold.

Shamanism has been used to explain meaning in cave art. In the picture below from Lascaux, certain elements fit the Shamanistic profile. “ . . .the famous Lascaux shaft scene of the four-fingered bird-headed ithyphallic man with the apparently disembowled bison and the bird-on-a-stick has often been interpreted, quite subjectively, as a typical shamanistic séance, depicting the shaman, his spirit helper and a sacrificial animal; or as a shamanistic fight, a psychic conflict between two shamans (one in animal form), or between a shaman and a malevolent spirit.” (Bahn 181).

Figure 12 Cave of dead man, Lascaux..

Here is another interpretation of as literal event. Illustrated by Dale Guthrie in his book The Nature of Palaeolithic Art. One man’s shamanistic ritual is another mans run of the mill hunting scene gone bad.

Figure 12.1 Cave of dead man, Lascaux. Guthrie illustration.

Associated with the shamanistic trance, some researchers (Jean Clottes & David lewis-Williams) have attributed cave paintings to “altered states of consciousness”.

Figure 13 Jean Clottes. Figure 14 David Lewis-Williams.

“Everywhere and at all times, the underground has been perceived as being a supernatural world, the realm of the spirits or of the dead, a forbidding gate to the Beyond which people are frightened of and never cross. Going into the subterranean world was thus defying ancestral fears, deliberately venturing into the kingdom of the supernatural powers in order to meet them. The analogy with shamanic mind travels is obvious, but their underground adventure went much beyond a metaphoric equivalent of the shaman’s voyage: it made it real in a milieu where one could physically move and in which spirits were literally at hand. When Upper Paleolithic people went into the deeper galleries, they must have been acutely aware that they were in the world of the supernatural powers and they expected to see and find them . . . The animals, individualised by means of precise details, seem to float on the walls; they are disconnected from reality, without any ground line, often without respect of the laws of gravity, in the absence of any framework or surroundings. Elementary geometric signs are always present and recall those seen in the various stages of trance. As to composite creatures and monsters (i.e., animals with corporal attributes pertaining to various species), we know that they belong to the world of shamanic visions. This does not mean that they would have made their paintings and engravings under a state of trance. The visions could be drawn (much) later. . . .

Under the power of the sacred paint, the hand would metaphorically vanish into the wall. It would thus, concretely, link its owner to the world of the spirits. This might enable the “lay people,” maybe the sick, to benefit directly from the forces of the world beyond. Seen in that light, the presence of hands belonging to very young children, such as those in Gargas, stops being extraordinary” (Clottes & Lewis-Williams 1998, 2001). Though a number of researchers have bought into the shamanistic theory in some capacity, there is a alternate theory at odds being talked about. This theory states that rather than completely subjective rituals many of the images claimed to be shamanistic or fertility based are really just Palaeolithic teenage graffiti. Dale Guthrie has been making waves by suggesting such a thing.

Though a trance-like state may explain strange imagery, it does nothing in furthering our understanding of the realistic depictions of existing animals. Why would someone need to alter their state of consciousness to depict what they’ve seen? Once again Bahn comes through with sensible skepticism: “In any case, the African research on which the new approach is founded is itself based on massive assumptions, wishful thinking, and extreme selectivity of image and of interpretation. In fact, there is no hard ethnographic evidence to link any prehistoric southern African rock art with shamans, let alone with trance phenomena. . .There is likewise no nineteenth-century ethnographic evidence of medicine men or rain doctors being the artists, nor of the artists being in a state of trance before or during the making of pictures. . .In short, there is nothing in the ethnographic record to prove any connection between shamanism and the execution of art” (Bahn 182-183). Along the same lines and rebuking the parallel comparisons of modern “primitive” cultures to ancient cultures:

“Upper Palaeolithic art has no real counterpart in any present day primitive community. (Lewis-Williams, Dowson, Current Anthropology volume 29, number 2, April 1988).

Another theory of meaning in cave art was that of fertility magic through sexually revealing images. In 1911 Henry Breuil was consulted as to the meaning of certain engravings found at Dordogne. His answer was that the triangle shapes engraved were female vulvas. This deduction was considered highly subjective but nonetheless it took hold and became a default answer anytime triangle shapes were found. Perhaps attributing eroticism to some of the images is a valid conclusion to reach, but at some point one must ask wether this is manufacturing something that is not really there.

Figure 15 The Playing Card from Dordogne.

“ . . .there is ample evidence of erotic emphasis in a number of images from our collection of Palaeolithic art. . . . Perhaps it is because this thread, which often transgresses into crudity, may not always be experienced as erotic but rather as strange or offensive. After all, we tend to look for some kind of beauty in art. But I submit to you that among the dramatic beauty of horse and bison so present in this old art, there also lie earthly and poignant insights into our human kinship. . . .This thread of sensuality, and sometimes crude coarseness discernable in some Palaeolithic art is a normal part of male development” (Guthrie 365).

While there is no doubt that there are sexually themed images in cave art, it also seems the case that overly zealous researchers have sought to find sexual meaning in just about every aspect of Palaeolithic art. The amount of “research” and theorizing that ends up concluding such narrow interpretations litters the web in huge volume . . . it’s as if the MTV crowd suddenly considered themselves researchers.

The absence of context in most of the supposed vulva images really begs the question how do we really know what the rough shape may indicate? Very few of these triangles are actually seen in context (as part of a naked female body). Further, many of the “triangles” must be looked at rather loosely to even fit that shape. “The identification of so many examples of female genitalia led to ideas about the Palaeolithic obsession with sex; there is a tautology in the reasoning – the figures are assumed to be vulvas, from which an obsession with sex is inferred, the evidence for which is the vulvas” (Bahn 187). Clearly, the artists engraving and painting images through the Palaeolithic had many things on their minds, it would probably seem strange in a cultural sense for there not to be some mention of their awareness, desire and acknowledgement of sex as part of their culture. In truth, many more attempts at explaining the meaning of cave art have been put into print. From sex to hunting magic, from fertility to story telling, cave art has been explained many ways. It has been said that we have to decide wether to be content working with the images as a body of markings that we cannot read, or, make up stories that we can’t prove to explain the meanings behind Palaeolithic cave art.

It is a shame to end this paper the way so many more knowledgeable writers have regarding their research into cave art, but to do otherwise would mean not recognizing how much we don’t know about the images in these caves, and the people who made them there. One of the temptations that is obviously yielded too so often in Cave Art research is the viewing of Palaeolithic images through modern day eyes. We see what appears to be beads and teeth with holes in them, we assume these must have been a necklace of some sort . . . .a reasonable guess but difficult to prove knowing so little about the people of that time and their cultural habits.

Figure 16 Gazel Teeth from Grotte Gazel.

We see images as seen as in figure 12 & 12.1 and must decide which interpretation to believe. Is it a shamanistic ritual being depicted or a normal hunting scene. Which one we decide to believe says something about what we think of the people who painted these images, were they primitive, believing in superstitions or were they just trying to make a record of something significant in a place where it may best be preserved? “ Judging from the images alone, it is impossible to know what part the rhino played in the artists beliefs . . . .imagine a future archaeologist visiting the ruins of 200 European churches: How would he guess from the nativity scenes that the mother was a virgina, or that the people with wings were angels?” (Balter, Science magazine).

Hopefully, in future years, dating technologies will continue to improve and more discoveries will be made yielding additional knowledge and insites about people of this time great span of time. Many great researchers have put down a foundation over the past 150 years . . . .Breuil, Lewis-Williams, Paul Bahn, Leroi-Gourhan, and Margaret Conkey among others all have made powerful contributions. It will be for future researches to decide wether they were accurate or not.

Image Credits

Figure 1: Portable art carving of Chaffaud from Prehistoric Art Virtual Museum.

http://vm.kemsu.ru/

Figure 2 Don Marcelino Sanz del Sautuola.

http://www.santillana-del-mar.com/espanol/altamira_archivos/Marcelino.htm

Figure 2.1 Ceiling Bison at Altamira

Figure 2.2 Ceiling Bison at Altamira

http://www.showcaves.com/

figure 3 Juan Vilanova y Piera

http://es.wikipedia.org

Fugure 4 Edouard Harle: Museum d’ Histoire

http://www.pole-prehistoire.com/

Figure 5 Emile Cartailhac

http://www.societes-savantes-toulouse.asso.fr

Figure 6 Pair-non-Pair image

http://www.visitorama.com

Philippe Berthé © CMN

Figure 7 Abbi Henry Breuil

http://secure.britannica.com

Figure 8 Leroi-Gourhan

http://prehisto.ifrance.com

Figure 9 Painted Gallery, Lascaux.

http://www.culture.gouv.fr:80/culture

Figure 9.1 Great Painted Gallery, Lascaux

http://www.culture.gouv.fr:80/culture

Figure 9.2 Great Hall of the Bulls, Lascaux

http://www.culture.gouv.fr:80/culture

Figure 9.3 Great Hall of the Bulls, Lascaux

http://www.culture.gouv.fr:80/culture

Figure 10 Great Hall of the Bulls, Lascaux.

http://www.culture.gouv.fr:80/culture

Figure 11 Tracing of engraving in Trois Freres.

http://donsmaps.com

Figure 12 Cave of dead man, Lascaux..

http://www.culture.gouv.fr:80/culture

Figure 13 Jean Clottes.

http://www.archaeologychannel.org

Figure 14 David Lewis-Williams.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com

Figure 15 The playing card from Dordogne

Journey through the Ice Age, Bahn, pp186

Figure 16 Gazel Teeth from Grotte Gazel.

http://donsmaps.com

“perhaps we have closed off certain lines of inquiry, simply by using the label art.” (Conkey in Lewin piece.)

Palaeolithic art is an unsatidfactory term that prejudges aesthetic sensibilities and obscures the variety of genres, but, in the absense of a better and equally succinct phrase, we retain it” (Conkey 1984, n.d.; davis 1986:193).

New light on the oldest art

Michael Balter

Science magazine Feb 12, 1999: 920-922

“ Judging from the images alone, it is impossible to know what part the rhino played in the artists beliefs . . . .imagine a future archaeologist visiting the ruins of 200 European churches: How would he guess from the nativity scenes that the mother was a virgina, or that the people with wings were angels ?”