AR106. 19 December 2006.
Copyright © 2006 by Kevin Sharpe and Leslie Van
Gelder. All rights reserved.
To appear in the Proceedings of the Eleventh Congress of the International Federation
of Rock Art Organizations,
Fluted Animals in the Zone
of Crevices,
Kevin Sharpe
Graduate College, Union
Institute & University,
Harris
ksharpe@ksharpe.com
www.ksharpe.com
and
Leslie Van Gelder
lvangeld@waldenu.edu
ABSTRACT.
The (assumedly Paleolithic) finger flutings in
KEY WORDS. Claude Barrière, Henri Breuil, finger
flutings,
CONTENTS.
The lower cavern of the cave is an arched, almost straight gallery, about 140 meters long and 25 meters wide, which divides into three chambers. The Zone of Crevices lies in the third of these (we choose the English word ‘crevices,’ a valid translation of the French, ‘les crevasses,’ because it more aptly describes these ceiling features than does ‘crevases’). Chamber III extends approximately 60 meters and grows increasingly broader until it concludes at about 40 meters wide. The floor, which runs almost level, remains dry for the most part and the pools that can form on it spread to a maximum of about two meters in diameter. The ceiling hangs low and forms two distinct areas. The left side is level but its surface is rough, and an unbroken curve connects it to the chamber wall. In contrast, a high fissure with ascending chimneys runs along the straight right hand wall. The ceiling in between is broken by roughly parallel crevices of different widths that run across the gallery at a slightly oblique angle to its line; they start from fissures in the rock and occasionally widen out into large domes. Soft clay (which may have come down the high chimneys), occasionally calcitic, frequently covers the sides of these crevices, which rise roughly vertically and often bear finger flutings.
Finger Flutings and Gargas
In 1907, Breuil and Cartailhac identified and then
investigated Gargas’s finger flutings, recognizing their similarity to those in
the caves of Altamira, Hornos of Pena, and Clotilde de
Though usually considered Aurignacian, Gargas’s flutings
have received no absolute dating. A C14 dating of bone slivers found
in the wall of the cave beside a hand print gives 26,860 ± 460 years (Clottes,
Valladas, and Cachier 1992: 273), but no one has established that this also
pertains to the flutings.
Breuil writes (sometimes with Cartailhac and sometimes with Obermaier):
A very large surface of the ceiling of the Chamber of Crevices…is coated with clay. On more than 100 square meters, this coating is completely covered with particular kind of decoration mainly comprising interlaced, intertwined flowing lines of an unpredictable and irregular form, traced by human fingers held together or separated. These strange images often continue on spaces so wide that a person could only create them by changing position several times (Cartailhac and Breuil 1907: 215-216; 1910: 139-140; KS transl.).
These lines constitute a form of fluting. Breuil supposes (1952: 256-257) their Aurignacian origin and writes: ‘such drawings have now been found in so many places…that their antiquity and their [precedence] over all other techniques are no longer questioned.’ He then introduces the fluted drawings that form the subject of this paper:
Some animal figures (bison), very roughly drawn in clay, are visible among and framed by [these flutings]. These animals are reduced to elemental lines, but their significance is not in doubt. [Like the other flutings,] they are of the same brown [oxidized] color as is the unmarked surface, obviously different from the color of the modern names written into it. Concretions frequently cover these old features, and often the surface of the clay has undergone a particular modification to give it a grainy appearance that affects the old drawings but not the modern names (Cartailhac and Breuil 1907: 215-216; 1910: 139-140; KS transl.).
His 1952 book adds a little to this description:
the first animal figures drawn with a finger...[are] very primitive but already vigorously naturalistic in style….Some…are very large, but…have been so disfigured by modern scribbling that I had to give up the idea of tracing them.…[Those remaining are] clearly recognizable and some [have] a remarkable [form] comparable to those at Altamira, Clotilde, etc., made in the same technique (1952: 254-255, 257).
Gargas contains, writes Barrière (1976: 14), ‘countless [fluted] drawings, especially in the section of the “[Crevices].”’
Finger drawing…is used on surfaces covered with soft clay or chalk in a state of clayey decomposition (mond-milch [moonmilk])….It is called monodigital when a single finger was used; this is true of the animal figures in the region of the [Crevices] (1976: 368).
The Zone of the Crevices is limited to the right half of Chamber III and in and among its many polydigital [flutings] several figures can be distinguished. These are always made with a single finger, especially represent bovids (bulls and bisons), and depict a simple sinuous contour in frontal aspect with the animal more or less complete. Seventeen figures were noted (1984: 518; KS transl.). [Note that he actually published more than 17 of these figures.]
We revisited the animal flutings isolated by Breuil and Barrière as part of our research program to examine Paleolithic lines drawn by fingers. Our published results to date include descriptions of our methodologies (Sharpe and Van Gelder 2004; 2006a-c) and analyses of the Desbordes Panel in Chamber A1 of Rouffignac Cave that show young children fluted a significant potion of the panel. Our methodology allows inferences about the gender, age group, height and other personal attributes of the fluters, plus the catalogue of flutings from each individual and a determination of the number of fluters at a site. One of the main aspects of the methodology is the repeated examination of a panel. This especially led us to re-examine the animal figures to ascertain the viability of Breuil’s and Barrière’s conclusions about them. Following our method of study, the investigator ought not to hold in mind concepts and interpretations that might lead to reading them into the flutings; thus, for instance, we do not try to see animal or human forms or recognizable symbols in them, or to insist that a mathematical logic determines their position in the cave (e.g., Leroi-Gourhan 1967). It also means the avoidance of terms like ‘macaroni’ and ‘meanders’ to describe flutings unless justified for a particular panel (Sharpe and Van Gelder 2006c). The lines must speak for themselves and yield data without direct attempts at interpretation of form.
Results
The Zone of Crevices takes up over half of Chamber III and flutings cover much of its soft surfaces. All the animal figures in the Zone, Barrière writes (1976: 151), ‘have been drawn with one finger. Most of them are [bovids]; in several instances a tuft of beard or humped back enables them to be identified as bison.’ He adds that the heads are drawn very schematized, in profile and, being monodigital, they readily stand out from the polydigital flutings (Clottes 1973: 481).
Below are the published figures that Barrière numbers, with some gaps, 1 to 24 (we have retouched all of Barrière’s drawings for clarity). He omits some of the numbers, and we omit others because they do not refer to monodigital flutings in the Zone of Crevices. We arbitrarily sampled his figures for detailed investigation and below present the results of this work plus his and Breuil’s descriptions of all the mondigital figures in the Zone.
Figure 1. Barrière’s drawing of his Bovid 1.
No. 1 (see Figure 1). We could not find Barrière’s (1976: 151, 152 [fig. 40, 1], 153 [pl. 36, 1]) Bovid 1 where his map indicates its location, or anywhere else. He writes (Barrière 1976: 151): ‘No. 1. The head of a [bovid], facing left. The horn which curves forward, the head and the neck are drawn in a single line, a line joined on to this gives the rest of the neck; two lines in front of the horn and running parallel with it could be first attempts which failed, or a second horn. 25 cm.’ We are skeptical that this cluster depicts a bovid or anything else that can be recognized now.
Figure 2. Barrière’s (1976: 152, fig. 40, 2) drawing of his Animal 5.
No. 5 (see Figure 2). Barrière writes (1976: 151; see also 153, pl. 36, 2): ‘a head facing left, round, one horn joined to it, the nostril roughly modeled by tearing off pieces from the layer of clay (now calcitic), the eye created by a heavy impression made with the tip of the finger. 20 cm.’
An examination of the original drawing reveals the following (see Figure 3). Barrière’s rendition of this figure includes a three-fingered unit on the right. Since he determines the animal drawings by their being monodigital, he should have ignored three-fingered units, including this one, unless good non-interpretative reasons exist for their inclusion. The finger points for the ‘eye’ and ‘nostril’ add to the sense of this depicting an animal, but another point lies just to the left of the ‘nostril.’ This suggests, assuming one person made all the points, that the fluter may not have intended the ‘nostril’ and ‘eye’ points as such but either used pre-existing points to help create an animal impression or that we read them into the ‘animal.’ Note that two finger points make the ‘nostril’ and that a fingerprint has been left in the clay here. The ‘horn’ comprises a short single line that ends 15 mm before the ‘head’ and does not extend further left as Barrière’s drawing suggests. Two lines lay a little to the left and a little lower than it but, by their patination, appear modern. The ‘head’ line on the right does not appear to continue with that of the ‘jaw’ (the two lines appear to be separate flutings and hence one should not draw them, as Barrière does, with open ends). These matters result in a cluster of lines that less likely depicts an animal than Barrière suggests, but still may do so.
Figure 3. A
conservative rendering of Barrière’s Animal 5 based on an examination of the
drawing itself.
Figure 4. Barrière’s drawing of Barrière’s Bison 8.
No. 8 (see Figure 4). Breuil writes (1952: 251, fig. 276): ‘Bison outlined on clay…, covered by stalagmite. Note “iron wire” style [the term he uses for the monodigital fluted animals, fairly complete or complete in outline], quite conspicuous here, with a single horn. Length: 0.80 m.’ Barrière also writes:
A bison facing left….Length 55 cm….It was deliberately damaged by a ‘tourist’ during the summer of 1972. The figure was made with two lines, each one starting from a horn, of which one gives the outline of the forequarters, from the horn to the leg, while the other runs from the second horn to the tail, with a line joined on to form the hind leg; the horns are thus joined to the outline and shown in ‘normal’ perspective (1976: 151; see also 154, fig. 41; 155, pl. 37).
Barrière later writes (1984: 522) that the head of the bison was irreparably damaged between his visits, but, elsewhere he shares (1984: 517; KS transl.) that ‘the head of a beautiful fluted bison was erased after 1976,’ versus the pre-1972 date he earlier gave. Conservation and protection in the cave are required, not only for the hand stencils, but for the engravings (see, e.g., Begouën and Breuil 1933) and flutings.
An examination of the original of No. 8 reveals a more complex and less convincing image (see Figure 9) than the one Barrière drew, even when ignoring the damaged portion at the bottom of the horns. He appears to have overlooked two lines in the horns, taken a calcitic deposit as a hump on the head, rendered a part of a natural line as a drawn line under the chin, made a series of lines hair on the belly though drawn with quite a different character. Further, he selected one of a pair of faint fluted lines as the inside of the rear leg, a faint scratched line as the outside of the rear leg, imaginatively connected and extended two separate lines to form a back, and incorporated a wide finger or stick unit of two lines under the back as part of the composition. The actual monodigital drawn image (less the damaged area), 60 centimeters wide and 45 centimeters high, looks more like in Figure 9.
Figure 5. A conservative rendering of Barrière’s Bison 8 based on an examination of the drawing itself.
Figure 6. Barrière’s drawing of what he calls Bison 9.
No. 9 (see Figure 6). Barrière writes:
Large head, neck, and withers of a bison, facing right.
Length 1.30 metres. One line gives a horn, the hump and the beginning of the
back, another line gives the other horn, the head and the neck. Horns in semitwisted
perspective, cutting the outline, skull open
(1976: 151; see also 156, fig. 42; 157, pl. 38).
An examination of the original reveals (see Figure 7) that the line of the bison on the far left is a crack, the split at the back actually comprises a unit of two lines, the back line is separate from the left horn, the right horn starts futher to the left than Barrière suggests, and no obvious single lines exist like the one he indicates under the chin. The actual monodigital drawn image looks more like in Figure 7. This cluster may still represent a bison.
Figure 7. A conservative rendering of Barrière’s Bison 9 based on an examination of the drawing itself.
Figure 8. Barrière’s drawing of his Bison 10.
No. 10 (see Figure 8). Barrière writes (1976: 151; see also 158, fig. 43, 1; 159, pl. 39): ‘rough drawing of a hump joined to a horn and the beginnings of a forehead, belonging to a bison…, with a large horizontal line made with the finger across it. Length 55 cm.’ We have not examined this figure but it does not obviously represent a bison.
Figure 9. Barrière’s drawing of his Bison 11.
No. 11 (see Figure 9). Barrière writes:
a bison facing right: horns in normal perspective intersecting the line of the hump and the back, and also the line of the forehead, a tuft of beard joined on to the outline. The backward-sloping line of the hump was done by hatching. The back, together with the [polydigital] drawing which obliterates the bison, disappears to the left under a thick layer of calcite. Length 50 cm (1976: 151; see also 158, fig. 43, 2; 160, pl. 40).
We have not examined this figure, but it may well represent a bison.
Nos. 12 and 12bis. Barrière writes (1976: 136; see also pl. 35): ‘No. 12….Some curves in the [flutings] suggested to Breuil the head of a species of [bovid]: this is possibly so. Nearby, on the roof (12bis), there is a work of the same type.’ We have not examined these figures though, given Barrière’s reticence to agree with Breuil, they may not represent bovids.
No. 13. Breuil considers Barrière’s No. 13 a tectiform, as
seen in caves in the
Figure 10. Barrière’s drawing of his Bison 15.
No. 15 (see Figure 10). Barrière writes:
A bison facing right: drawn in two lines running in opposite directions: the hump and the back, and a single horn intersecting the bearded head. Heavy lines made with the fingers and set either straight or sloping left, form a separate area covering a large part of the figure. Length 60 cm (1976: 151; see also 161, fig. 44; 162, pl. 41).
We have not examined this figure in detail.
Figure 11. Barrière’s drawing of his Animal 16.
No. 16 (see Figure 11). Barrière writes (1976: 136; see also 147, fig. 39, 1; 148, p1. 34, 1): ‘The contours of a rock recall the profile of a species of goat. It has been striped with rectilinear and parallel [flutings], then impressed with a design in [mono- or polydigital] lines which seem to complete the form evoked by the natural form of the rock.’ Besides the fact that only monodigital flutings should form part of the figure, judging from Barrière’s drawing, this cluster does not produce an obvious rendition of a goat – with or without the mono- or polydigital flutings.
Figure 12. Barrière’s drawing of his Double Bison 17.
No. 17 (see Figure 12). Breuil writes (1952: 251, fig. 275): ‘Bison outlined on the clay….On the left, the head and the horns, the legs are merely sketched. 1 m.’ Barrière also writes:
a large figure 1 meter long, facing right (toward the cave exit) usually taken to be a bison. A line starts from the withers and forms the back, the hindquarters and the tail which is set high at an angle; a second line which obliterates the first at the withers forms the horn, head, beard and chest. But looking at it the other way round, the hindquarters and tail are used again as the hump of a bison outline with a single horn intersecting the line of the head (1976: 164-165; see also pl. 42).
We have not examined this figure.
Figure 13. Barrière’s drawing of his Bison 18.
No. 18 (see Figure 13). Breuil writes (1952: 251, fig. 274) ‘Small bison….Very rudimentary figure. Approximate length: 0.60 m.’ Barrière writes (1976: 164; see also 166, pl. 43): ‘a bison facing left; length 55 cm. One line forms the horn intersecting the hump and the back, a line joined on to the horn forms the head and chest; a third, joined on to this, forms the two spaced forelegs, which are short and pointed, and the beginning of the belly.’
An examination of the original drawing reveals the object in Figure 14. The horn comprises two lines, perhaps representing two horns. Barrière’s eye line is not obvious in the original, whereas the fluter could have easily made an obvious line or finger point here. The junction of the neck and the chest comprises the end of one line and the beginning of another. The figure may not include the line Barrière draws as meeting the chest, or the one he mistakenly draws as the top of the left leg because they appear to have been drawn earlier than the bison. The right line of the right leg is separate from and over the left hand line of that leg. The two lines Barrière draws to the left and right of the right hand line of the right leg appear unrelated to the bison and parts of another unit of lines under it. Similarly, the short vertical line Barrière draws above this leg appears part of another unit of fluted lines within the right hand side of the bison.
Figure 14. A conservative rendering of Barrière’s Bison 18 based on an examination of the drawing itself.
Figure 15. Barrière’s drawing of his Bovid 19.
No. 19 (see Figure 15). Barrière writes:
a strange figure…[vigorously] drawn with one finger. It can only be the head of [a bovid] because of the horn and the narrow muzzle. The horn and head are in a single continuous line, the line of the neck is separate, the eye was made by pressing with the fingertip, the nostril similarly (?). The whole thing is heavily covered with calcite. Length of the head 20 cm (1976: 164; see also 167, pl. 44).
An examination of the original drawing reveals the following. Between the two finger points in the ‘muzzle’ of the ‘bovid’ lies a third finger point, rendering Barrière’s interpretation of the two as ‘eye’ and ‘nostril’ doubtful. In fact, in the immediate neighborhood of No. 19 lie 12 finger points. (‘Between points 19 and 20,’ Barrière also writes [1976: 136; see also 144, pl. 31], ‘is an area of about one square metre riddled with shallow depressions made with the fingertips.’) The three fluted lines on the ‘neck’ of the ‘bovid’ constitute a unit of three and hence he should not have counted them as part of the construction. The line above the ‘eye’ is one of 11 short single finger flutings in this immediate neighborhood and therefore not definitely part of the construction. The single line across the end of the ‘muzzle’ is a portion of a line that begins (or ends) just above the first bend in the profile line and runs under it; if considered part of the construction, the image of a ‘bovid’ vanishes so he should have ignored it. In fact, like the single line to the left of the profile, this line is one of several separate mondigital units fluted down this crevice. Nothing convincingly suggests the left one as part of the ‘bovid’ construction. The short line merging into it about a third of the way down its length is hard to distinguish on the original; Barrière may have drawn a portion of the calcite prolific in this vacinity. The final lines in his drawing of the profile may depict one of a unit of three that here meet the profile line, and hence he should have ignored it. The net result of this critique leaves only the strongest aspect of Barrière’s ‘animal’ drawing, namely (most of) the profile line. This line by itself may not suffice to call this a depiction of a bovid or anything else.
Figure 16. Barrière’s drawing of his Bison 20.
No. 20 (see Figure 16). Barrière writes (1976: 164; see also 168, pl. 45): ‘Part of it has become heavily covered with calcite. A bison, its head with a hump, facing left, a single horn whose base intersects the head and is obliterated by the eye which is oval and very large. Length 40 cm.’
The first thing to note about this figure from an examination of it (see Figure 25) is the large number of lines here and that distinguishing a bison requires excluding almost all the other markings, including several monodigital flutings. The eye appears to comprise finger points. Two horns exist, the right of which Barrière has drawn and the left lies under calcite and hard to see. The back comprises parts of two lines joined with hatching on Barrière’s drawing; the juncture lies under calcite and difficult to distinguish. Drawing the probably accurate paths of these two lines (see Figure 17) causes the back of the bison to disappear. This examination leaves only the horns, eye, and the top and bottom of the muzzle. The cluster may, however, still represent an animal.
Figure 17. A conservative rendering of Barrière’s Bison 20 based on an examination of the drawing itself, including the two lines Barrière takes to form the back, but which really do not.
Figure 18. Barrière’s drawing of his No. 21, what he thinks may be a bovid (left) and a pair of horns (right).
No. 21 (see Figure 18). Barrière writes (1976: 164; see also fig. 45; pl. 46): ‘The small head of [a bovid] (?), facing left, a horn intersecting the outline, eye made with the fingertip. Length 15 cm. Obliterated by a [polydigital] drawing. Below this, a line drawn with one finger shows a pair of horns (?).’ Though we have not examined these drawings, Barrière’s interpretations are probably not sustainable.
Figure 19. Barrière’s drawing of his Animal 22, what he thinks may be a goat or a deer.
No. 22 (see Figure 19). Barrière writes (1976: 136; see also 147, fig. 39, 2; 148, pl. 34, 2): ‘One finds here a pattern which similarly, though less clearly, recalls a species of goat or deer.’ Though we have not examined this drawing either, we anticipate that Barrière’s identification may not stand. In addition, the fluings are polydigital.
Figure 20. Barrière’s drawing of his Animal 23, what he thinks may be a bovid.
No. 23 (see Figure 20). Barrière writes:
Indeterminate animal’s head, facing right. Two ‘horns,’ a long thin muzzle with a spatulate end, humped neck. Made with three lines: one for the hump, one for one horn and the corner of the jaw, the other for the front horn the muzzle and the neck. Length 60 cm (1976: 164; see also pl. 47).
Again, we have not examined this figure but, judging by Barrière’s drawing and photograph, this does not convince.
Figure 21. Barrière’s drawing of his Animal 24, what he thinks may be a bovid or a cervid.
No. 24 (see Figure 21). Barrière writes (1976: 164; see also pl. 48): ‘a long line made with one finger gives the outline of the horn head and neck of [a bovid or a cervid]. Length 60 cm.’ This does not convincingly represent anything. We have not examined the original drawing.
Discussion and Conclusions
Not all the mondigital flutings or mondigitally fluted clusters in the Zone of Crevices represent animals or might reasonably represent animals, despite Breuil’s and Barrière’s observations. To summarize our results:
· we were unable to locate No. 1 (it does not appear where Barrière’s map suggests); and
· we doubt Breuil or Barrière’s interpretations as to what many of the figures represent (specifically Nos. 1, 10, 12,* 12bis,* 13,*16, 19, 21, 22, 23, and 24 [*Barrière also appears to question Breuil’s identification of these figures as representing an animal or tectiform]).
The remaining eight (Nos. 5, 8, 9, 11, 15, 17, 18, and 20) may well be drawings of animals as Barrière published them or as we modified his drawings (we altered five of them, all significantly, Nos. 5, 8, 9, 18, and 20). We have not examined the three (Nos. 11, 15, and 17) of the eight figures not in the last list. This means that, by our estimation and in relation to the figures we have examined, none of the figures Barrière or Breuil say constitute animal drawings as they publish them are exactly what they claim.
It would appear that Breuil and Barrière overstretched their imaginations. Barrière, given the notation on some of his figures, apprarently worked from photographs for at least some of the figures and thus uncritically included natural lines or finger dots that appear frequently in the local area. In some occasions, the lines he drew do not really exist.
He also seems to have made two erroneous assumptions: that all monodigital lines represent or are parts of representations of animals, and that the monodigital fluters mainly aimed to draw animals. In his summary of the flutings in Gargas, Barrière writes (1976: 136): ‘A certain number made with one finger and generally found in an isolated position…[and] which always show animal figures[,] are in contrast with the others.’ It would appear that Breuil and others after him, including Barrière, assumed – once they noticed they could interpret as animals the monodigital fluted clusters they observed in the Zone of Crevices – that all monodigital flutings in the Zone depict animals. Their minds appeared set to see as many animals or signs or symbols as they could, especially in the monodigital flutings. But they were wrong. We cannot as yet say why only some of the monodigital clusters depict animals and others do not, though different fluters could have created the different types. Perhaps in the Zone the fluters only made animals with one finger rather than with sweeps of more than one, but this does not mean all monodigital flutings in the Zone represent animals.
These conclusions require a re-examination of Barrière’s (1976) and other similar stylistic typologies of the fluted figures.
Further, the scholar need not theorize about more ‘evolved’ fluters who intended animals rather than scribbles, and with this separate the mondigital fluters from the polydigital ones. This constitutes an imposition by the researcher desiring to see as much ‘evolved’ or ‘sophisticated’ activity here as possible, and it provides a good example of the reigning interpretative paradigm overreaching itself by misinterpreting the marks, or creating for them a context which probably does not apply. Scholars require much more data before offering any tenable suggestions as to the fluters’ intentions and meaning, or as to the significance of the flutings in Gargas for human evolution.
The above type of study is not the only objective of our
research into flutings. With the methodology we have developed we can, in some
instances, tell the age group, the gender and handedness of the individual
fluter. Further, we can determine the number of fluters involved, each fluter’s
corpus of flutings, their heights, and sometimes something about their
character (Sharpe and Van Gelder 2006a). We have successfully used these
techniques in
Despite our critique of Barrière’s drawings and analyses of the figures, we want to acknowledge the tremendous patience he showed to look at this very large area in detail, to search out single lines, to try to make sense of them as animals or known patterns (or symbols), and then to publish all of this methodically and comprehensively so that researchers after him have something solid with which to start their own work.
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank those who have helped in this research: Conservation Régionale de l’Archéologie, Toulouse, and the Mayor and Commune of Aventignan for permission to work in Gargas Cave; Marie-Paule Abadie and Nicolas Ferrer for discussions and guiding us in the Cave; Union Institute & University, for financial support through its faculty research grants; Robert Bednarik, Jean Clottes, Francesco d’Errico, Pascal Foucher and Cristina San Juan, Sandor Gallus,* Michel Lorblanchet, Alexander Marshack,* and Hallam Movius Jr.* for discussions and support (*now deceased).
References
Barrière, Claude. 1976. L’Art
Pariétal de la Grotte de Gargas: Palaeolithic Art in the Grotte De Gargas.
Transl. W. A. Drapkin. BAR Supplementary Series, no. 14; Mémoires de l’Institut
d’Art Préhistorique de Toulouse, no. 3.
_________. 1977. A Propos des Mains de Gargas. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique
Française: Comptes Rendus des Séances Mensuelles 74:8 (November), pp.
226-227.
_________.
_________. 1984. Grotte de Gargas. In L’Art des Cavernes:
Atlas des Grottes Ornées Paléolithiques Françaises, ed. André Leroi-Gourhan
(
Begouën, H. and H. Breuil. 1933. De la Protection des Grottes Préhistorique. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 30, pp. 235-238.
Breuil, Henri. 1952 [1979]. Four Hundred Centuries of
Cave Art. Transl. Mary E. Boyle.
_________ and H. Obermaier. 1912. Les Premièrs Travaux de l’Institut de Paléontologie Humaine. III. Fouilles et Relevés de Dessins à Gargas (Hautes-Pyrénées). L’Anthropologie 23, pp. 26-27.
Cartailhac, M. E. and H. Breuil. 1907. Une Seconde Campagne aux Cavernes Ornées de Niaux (Ariège) et de Gargas (Hautes-Pyrénées). Comptes Rendus: Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, pp. 213-222.
_________. 1910. Les Peintures et Gravures Murales des Cavernes Pyrénnées. L’Anthropologie 21, pp. 129-148.
Clottes, Jean. 1973. Circonscription de Midi-Pyrénées.
_________, Hélène Valladas, and Hélène Cachier. 1992. Des Dates pour Niaux et Gargas. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 89:9 (December), pp. 270-274.
Leroi-Gourhan, André. 1967. Les Mains de Gargas: Essai pour une Étude d’Ensemble. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française: Etudes et Travaux 64:1, pp. 107-122.
Sharpe, Kevin,
and Leslie Van Gelder. 2004. Children and Paleolithic ‘Art’: Indications
from Rouffignac Cave, France. International
Newsletter on Rock Art 38, pp. 9-17.
_________. 2006a.
The Study of Finger Flutings.
_________. 2006b. Evidence for Cave Marking by Paleolithic Children. Antiquity 80, pp. 937-947.
_________. 2006c. Finger Flutings in Chamber A1 of
_________. To Appear. Four Forms of Finger Flutings as Seen
in
_________. In
Prep. The Finger Flutings of