AR105. 9 June 2008
Copyright © 2008 by Kevin Sharpe and Leslie Van Gelder.
All rights reserved.
In process. **Major paper on Tectiforms
for Science/Nature or Antiquity/CAJ / French journal**
The Tectiforms in
Graduate College, Union Institute & University,
Harris
ksharpe@ksharpe.com
www.ksharpe.com
and
Leslie Van Gelder
leslievg@ksharpe.com
ABSTRACT.
KEY WORDS.
CONTENTS.
·
Young
children make symbols in the U.P. – see other papers incl.
AR 104.
·
Build on
and in some ways include AR104.
·
·
History of
tectiform discussion: Nougier, Breuil, Barrière, Plassard x2 (including his
recent study). Also in other caves (incl. Breuil’s suggestion in Gargas).
·
Need #s
and photos and locations of all tectiforms.
·
?any
definition of a tectiform that would include the new ones?
· I need to do a good restatement of our methodology and terminology as it has now become, including the use of 1 or 2 fingers for width (note: error margin; assume what the 1 and 2 fingers are). Also need to include the deciphering of family members. Also the social interactions among the fluters (by, e.g., holding others up; use of nonuse of torches).
· How do the symbols function (not what they might mean).
·
Analytical
studies: Marshack’s internal analysis; our forensic analysis (our past
publications on this).
·
Do these
two studies on the tectiforms of
·
Is there a
quantitative way of giving a profile?
·
·
Details of
all Rouffignac tectiforms from two studies
·
Age plus
gender for all (also put in discussion and conclusions).
·
Is the
child 28 one (#262) different in that the horizontals go under the verticals?
Tectiforms 35-36:
· LH one done by 34/or 31.
o 2 fingers (including RH index) ~12 mm.
o 1 finger (index) ~9 mm.
o 126 cm above floor.
· RH one done by 41.
o 2 fingers (RH including index) ~26 mm.
o 1 finger ~13mm.
o 146 cm above floor.
·
Tectiform
in Chamber E:
o Body done by 38, i.e., not 41.
o But 2 units in top right:
o RH one 2=26; but on tectiform 2=25. LH one
splayed.
·
· The cultural explosion of the Upper Palaeolithic saw rapid developments in artefacts, both functional and symbolic. The latter are now almost universally agreed to imply the maturation of language too, for - as Terence Deacon in particular has extensively argued - language is hinged upon symbolism. Indisputably the most powerful and compelling ||| examples of Palaeolithic symbolic imagery are the cave paintings. (Spurway 2006: 16-17 on Wentzel)
·
Tectiforms:
if same structure; same finger width? Done by same person? Signature? Use
Frédéric Plassard’s work when it comes out.
·
Look into
the widths/identities of the tectiform makers. If they are different, what does
that say about it as a unit of meaning? (Chamber E = 34 mm; Rhino panel = 38
mm.)
·
Build up
on the tectiform by the ‘lion’ implies energy/speed/pressure applied. Very
little build up elsewhere implies slowness and deliberateness of the flutings.
·
Frédéric
etc.’s work on this.
·
Children;
different for each of them individually and each do the same.
·
Could be
names (is this a symbol? Or more than a symbol?)
·
Cf.
engraved tectiforms.
o
Different
individuals, each doing the same.
o
Different
individuals, each doing different variations.
o
Ages and
gender.
o
Significance/intention/meaning:
signatures? Symbols?
o
Relationship
to engraved tectiforms: Les Combraelles, etc.
o
Social
symbols (see AR104)
·
How
do the symbols function (not what they might mean).
·
Ages
and genders – suggested.
·
Structures
(from internal analyses): see FP’s discussion.
·
More to
do.
·
The
5 or 6 tectiforms we've looked at so far are made (I think) by different people
but each is made by one person. All are different structures. Compare with
Frederic Plassard's results.
·
Tectiforms
being possibly self-portraits -- and the one with many fluters may be that of
the band.
·
A
cross over from flutings to engravings: Frederic Plassard -- 4 lines in the
verticals of tectiforms he thinks is significant, in both engraved and fluted
tectiforms. Is this a key? It could help bridge between flutings and engravings
by e.g., suggesting that the engravings emulate the flutings.
·
Why
don’t the crayon artists and engravers draw tectiforms (since they come in both
forms and other caves)? Why are they only fluted?
·
Why not
scribbles as protosymbols? Suppose a person does verticals, zigzags, etc. –
all by the same person. If so, not protosymbols or adults on the A1 ceiling.
·
What does
this contribute to the study of tectiforms? Refutes some speculations; adds
information on some tectiform fluters. How does it add to Plassard’s results?
·
Any future
research questions to come out of this? E.g., anything re names? Anything re
engraved tectiforms?
·
Other
interpretations: Barrière, Nougier, Leroi Gourhan, etc.?
·
What
further work on these fluters?