Dude, I like your posts, but this is a weak Appeal to Authority defence here. I for my part cannot examine the evidence because I am not willing to shell out the 39 euros for access to anything beyond the synopsis.
I think it’s more important to point out that most likely more than one factor was in play here, and that a lot of the dismissive comments here assume that the authors are suggesting hypoxia was a main cause of the paintings. And that right there is not how I interpreted it: instead, it suggests more that hypoxia could have affected how the paintings turned out, or how the viewers would start to trip out if they lingered too long.
Going by the abstract (I agree about not willing to shell out to read it) it sounds like they’re going farther than that, and that the effects of combustion were an intentional piece of the art and process, although how much isn’t clear just from the abstract.
That is, it wasn’t just an accidental effect, or something that was tolerated, but something that was sought out.
That’s a pretty radical claim, and I doubt the evidence supports it. That’s not to say I think it’s impossible, but it seems like they’re stretching a lot to get to what they’re asserting, and this needs a lot more work to get past the point of unsupported speculation.
Not my area of expertise or anything but if people were going down there regularly it seems possible they’d bring the bodies of anyone who died there out when they could.
Bodies are also not necessarily great at sticking around unless the climate/environment allows for it.
