α, β, γ, δ, ε
AR
Copyright © 2007
by Kevin Sharpe and Leslie Van Gelder. All rights reserved.
In process.
Multi-Media Line Markings in
Chamber E of
Kevin Sharpe
The Graduate College, Union Institute and
University, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Harris Manchester College, Oxford University, UK
kevin.sharpe@tui.edu
www.ksharpe.com
and
Leslie Van Gelder
lvangeld@waldenu.edu
· Get F Plassard to do the dating, including of charcoal on floor.
·
Do this
paper for CA. It constitutes a new way of doing Paleolithic anthropology.
·
If it
gets submitted to CA, it will need to have references to ethnography, and
theories on the ‘origin’ of prehistoric ‘art.’
·
Get
better pictures from portable hard drives.
In the Cave
·
Examine,
draw, photograph Mammoth 176 at the end of Chamber E. Measure its fluted line.
Check out the marks in the middle of it.
·
Figure 1. Chamber E, looking toward the rear of
the chamber. Note the cupola, named Cupola α, in the upper center of the
picture. ??? need new photo with
scale
·
ABSTRACT.
This paper uses an empirical methodology to examine Panel I of multi-media severines, including the variant of the Kirian Form of finger fluting called Kirian goursolle, in Chamber E of Rouffignac Cave, France. The methodology uses experiment, repeated field inspection, drawing, photography, and electronic depiction. The research aims to know about the people who made the severines in the cave, using their severines as data. An initial result of this approach is that the vertical flutings frequently appear in sets of around seven or fourteen, they were probably made right to left, that stick scoring and clay reapplication were involved, and that several shapes repeat across the clusters in this form. Charcoal between the flutings and the clay retouches suggests the possibility of dating. Possible conclusions from these data and inferences are explored.
KEY WORDS. Finger flutings, methodology, parietal art, prehistoric art, severines.
CONTENTS.
Research
Questions and Methodology
Broad
Research Questions and Methodology
Phase
Three (for Severines Other than Flutings)
What
is the Height of Each Unit Above the Original Floor?
What
is the Condition of the Unit in Comparison with Other Severines and With
Graffiti?
What
is the Layout of the Units in the Cluster?
What
is the Layout of the Cluster in its Panel of Clusters?
What
is the Position of the Panel in Relation to the Geography of the Cave?
Other
Occurrences within Rouffignac Cave
Other
Occurrences of the Form Elsewhere
Introduction
Prehistoric finger flutings (lines that fingers leave on a
soft surface) occur in caves at least hrough southern
Rather than speculate as to their meaning or to the
development of prehistoric ‘art’ or types of line markings over time, this
paper continues to establish an objective and experimental approach to the
study and cataloguing of them, with the work ongoing (üSharpe 2004, üSharpe
and Fawbert 1998; üSharpe and Lacombe 2003; Sharpe, Lacombe, and Fawbert
This paper focuses on a Rouffignac panel of flutings barely mentioned before, the Goursolle Panel in Chamber E (e.g., Barrière 1982; Plassard 2005 ??? ; Plassard 2006a ??? ; Plassard 2006b ??? ; Plassard 1999; Plassard and Plassard 2000; Sharpe and Van Gelder ü2006a; ü2006c). We also use two methods of analysis (Internal Analysis and Forensic Analysis) in particular to throw more light on the line markings here.
Terminology
We employ a terminology to help with the study:
· a fluter makes a fluting by sweeping his or her fingers across a soft surface;
· a unit comprises flutings drawn with one sweep of one hand or finger;
· monodigital and polydigital units refer to units of, respectively, one or more than one fingers;
· the profile of a unit or a fluter comprises the silhouette of the finger tops left in the medium from the fluting.
More broadly:
· an engraving refers to a line marking made with a tool (within engravings, incisions to lines made with pieces of rock, and scorings to lines made with a stick);
· a severine refers to a line marking that does not participate in the figurative part of a definitive figure or demonstrable symbol or sign; thus, the category ‘line markings’ not only includes flutings and engraved lines, but, coextensively, also severines, figures, and symbols (the term ‘figure’ is taken to mean something a modern person would recognize as a figure; similarly for such terms as ‘motif,’ ‘pattern,’ ‘picture,’ ‘sign,’ and ‘symbol’);
· a cluster comprises an isolatable group of units that exhibit a unity, for instance because they overlay each other; and
· a panel comprises a collection of clusters that appears geographically or otherwise distant from other clusters or on a surface of reasonably uniform orientation.
This terminology draws on that introduced elsewhere (Barrière 1976; Marshack 1977; üSharpe and Lacombe 2003; Sharpe and Van Gelder ü2004; ü2006a; ü2006d; üTo Appear a), the particular terms listed above being relevant to the flutings and related severines found on the Goursolle Panel.
We also introduced the following four forms for flutings (detailed in Sharpe and Van Gelder ü2006a; üTo Appear b) in an additional attempt to provide vocabulary for discussing them:
· Evelynian Form: the fluter moves while fluting each unit, and each unit comprises only one line.
· Rugolean Form: the fluter stands still while fluting each unit, and each unit comprises more than one line.
· Mirian Form: the fluter moves while fluting each unit, and each unit comprises more than one line.
At present, the
distinction among flutings on the basis of these four forms helps to make
initial sense of the flutings in
Rouffignac Cave
Figure 2. Local geography of Rouffignac (after Barrière
Figure
3. Plan of
Henri Breuil visited the cave in 1915 and André Glory in 1948. Neither ventured very
far. It was not until 26 June 1956 that Louis-René Nougier and Romain Robert
entered and recognized some of what they saw on the walls as prehistoric. From
that time they published many articles and books on the art, some of which
attempted to be somewhat inclusive (e.g., üNougier and Robert
1958; ü1959).
Claude Barrière joined them in their research there and published (ü1982)
the comprehensive monograph of the ‘art’ that forms the basic catalogue for the
cave. Jean and
Traditional scholars consider the ‘art’ in Rouffignac,
including the flutings, to be 13-14,000 years old, in Middle Magdalenian, based
on stylistic comparisons of the animal drawings in the cave, though it could
date up to 27,000 years (Plassard
Rouffignac Cave contains over 500 square meters of flutings (Plassard 1999: 62), made into moonmilk (a white and potentially soft precipitate from limestone comprising aggregates of fine crystals of varying composition usually of carbonate materials, e.g., calcite, hydromagnesite, and gypsum). The flutings in several chambers, including many in the Goursolle Panel appear to have been made through a thin clay film into the moonmilk underneath or to the limestone intself.
The Goursolle Panel
Figure 4. Chamber E, looking toward the rear of the chamber. Note the cupola, named Cupola α, in the upper center of the picture. ??? need new photo with scale
The Goursolle Panel lies in Chamber E of the cave (see Figure 3). (The chamber is also known as the ‘Leroi Gourhan Gallery,’ but we do not use this name because of its possible interpretative connotations.) Chamber E opens up from the main gallery (Chamber G) on the left about 450 m into the cave. Its floor, about 10 m steeply down from G, runs for about 40 m and starts at about 10 m in width. A significant low, transverse arch of 1.5 m interrupts its ceiling at about 10 m from the entrance.
The chamber contains several cupolas, four significant ones within the Goursolle Panel, Cupolas α, β, γ, δ, ε ??? is this correct? What defines significant? Does this need checking in the cave? Yes, including for relative positions. Ask Leslie. She says there are more recent photos. Another cupola down from α, named β. It evidently has the crossover cluster at its end; inside it are flutings out of the red. ??? Other photos##(see Figure XYZ). To a certain height the chamber has in the past been filled with red clay now deposited on the walls, ceilings, and still forming the floor. The tops of some of the cupolas are free of the red deposit perhaps because there was insufficient pressure on the clay to force it upward into the domes (see e.g., Figure 4 for Cupola α).
Barrière describes the chamber (see Figure XYZ, based on his sketch of the chamber and including the location of his geographical points):
This is the first gallery on the left after the aven [at the right angle turn in Chamber G]. The gallery is short, with a bright red, very slippery clay floor, covered with charcoal dense in places….The ceiling is also coated with a film of red clay, conducive to clear flutings….[Small cupolas precede and follow the lowering at the arch.] The finger flutings are located on the circumference of these cupolas and on the central arc of the arch (Barrière 1982: 110; KS transl.).
As Barrière writes, flutings occur on the cupolas and on the arch. We call the panel of these lines the ‘Goursolle Panel,’ after a guide of the cave (Sharpe and Van Gelder ü2006a; ü2006d).
Barrière continues (the number 175 refers to his numbering of the image referred to in his text, and he defines his ‘Point 4’ in Figure XYZ):
175. At Point 4, a figure can be found, related to the
tectiforms, taking an anthropomorphic form and resembling many of certain
figures in [Chamber G between its junction with Chamber J and the Great
Ceiling] (Barrière 1982: 110; KS transl.).
Figure XYZ. ??? to redraw ??? Barrière’s (1982: 110, fig. 330) sketch of Chamber E. Barrière’s point numbers and letter refer as
follows (see below for the descriptions): Point 1 is Cluster E-3 , Point 2 is
Cluster E-1, Point 3 is Cluster E-2, Point 5 is Cluster E-9 and to its right,
and Point M is Mammoth 176. Point 5
is actually below where Barrière originally places it, more accurately placed
as 5*.
??? Change position of #5.
The cupola letters have been added, as has the presence of Cupola β. ??? check with results section
Plassard (1999: 79; KS transl.) writes of the flutings in this chamber as, proceeding down the cave, the first ‘“great collection” with two mammoths, flutings and…the first tectiform sign.’ He illustrates this with Mammoth 175a and Tectiform 175 both in the Goursolle Panel.
A year later, he and
This mammoth [175a]…is located in Gallery E.
After about ten meters, the ceiling abruptly lowers into a slanted step
conducive to drawing. A body of abstract markings is located on the vertical
edge of this occurrence, among which is Tectiform 175. This is superimposed on
the schematic drawing of a mammoth. The quality of the base is very good since
it is covered with a clay coating, which means that one can mark the surface
without needing special tools….Also one notices the difference in treatment
between the non figurative lines made with fingers and the animal outline made
with a burin. It is this distinction that supports the distinguishing of this
new figure.
The work is in strict profile and, in itself, is of little importance since it measures only 36 cm and is limited to about ten lines that draw the top of the head and the back down to the drop off to the loins (2000: 87; KS transl.).
What specifically might Plassard and Plassard mean, with regard to Mammoth 175a, by ‘the difference in treatment between the non figurative lines made with fingers and the animal outline made with a burin’? Just the difference between fluting and incision? What is the relationship between Mammoth 175a, Tectiform 175, and the rest of the Goursolle Panel?
Barrière elucidates a little on the markings and his figures, the descriptive parts of which provide the following information about some other markings in Chamber E:
At the far end of the gallery is a rather important
cupola in which a person can easily stand upright. This cupola is white with no
clay coating. On its wall:
176. Mammoth. Engraved finely with a burin,
the cervico-frontal line retraced with a finger. Like a 3-point arabesque. With
no underbelly marked, in left-facing profile. Empty triangular eye; hanging
trunk; two tusks with simple features and curve. L 45 cm, H 37 cm.
At the end of the trunk is a curious small engraved drawing which looks a little like a head (?) obliterating the end of the trunk of the mammoth. It is old because it carries the same patina as the mammoth.
Below is a small flint nodule surrounded by traces of strong strikes made as if trying to release and remove it: these traces are white and are thus much more recent, as also is the forceful scrape on the body of the mammoth (üBarrière 1982: 110; KS transl.).
Mammoth 176 mentioned above is illustrated in Figure ABC below.
Figure ABC. Barrière’s (ü1982: 112, fig. 340) ??? to redraw ??? drawing of the incised and fluted Mammoth 176 at the end of Chamber E.
There are more sets of markings in Chamber E than Barrière
reports (Barrière
The Goursolle Panel divides into two sections.
Many of the flutings of Section I of the panel occur on a
Other severines and motifs, called Section II, also appear in the Goursolle Panel, chiefly to the right of Section I. It includes Mammoth 175a and Tectiform 175. The markings in Section II include flutings plus incisions. In reference to Barrière’s figures (ü1982: 110-111), numbers 331, 336-337 fall into Section II.
The two sections of the panel appear to overlap, and their relationship and differentiating qualities need clarifying. This paper describes and attempts an initial analysis of the severines from both Sections I and II of the panel.
Research Questions and Methodology
Initial Research Questions
From the above
review, the following initial questions arise:
1.
What is
the relationship between Sections I and II of the Goursolle Panel? Were they
made by the same people? Are the marking techniques different?
2. What is ‘the difference in treatment between the non figurative lines made with fingers and the animal outline made with a burin’ (Plassard and Plasard)?
3. What is the relationship, if any, between Mammoth 175a, Tectiform 175, and the rest of the Goursolle Panel?
4.
What,
if any, is the relationship between the Goursolle Panel and Mammoth 176 at the
end of the chamber?
In reference to question 4 above, Plassard and Plassard’s paper adds the following (see also Plassard ü2005a: 279; ü2005b; ü2006):
With a low ceiling (1 m) interrupted by many cupolas and a slippery red clay covering it, this gallery is comparable to the Red Lounge [Chamber D]. However, in this case, the gallery does not feel like a living room and one cannot take it in with a single glance. This is maybe why the Paleolithic artist used it differently since here the works are in two distant panels 25 m apart. The first one, at the entrance, is a comparatively complex assemblage of various finger flutings with no apparent organization, in the midst of which is located Mammoth 175a, and on which is superimposed Tectiform 175. The second, and the last, is limited to an isolated engraving of mammoth outline in the one of the last cupolas at the dead end of the chamber. (C. Barrière indicates that a sign occurs here, but which, on inspection, proves to be only a recent graffiti obliterated by scraping, maybe by its author.) This is all of the gallery that was used (ü2000: 99; KS transl.).
Other (more reflective than descriptive) published writing on Chamber E raises issues that might also be followed. Besides what of his was quoted above, Barrière writes:
[Chamber E has] obvious marks of clay mining (clayey dirt of the Middle Ages)….The mining of clay and the nature of certain designs do not favor a great age for these markings. However, some flutings may be Paleolithic (üBarrière 1982: 110; KS transl.).
Barrière does not provide details of his visual differentiation between the various flutings of Chamber E and hence does not found his cultural attribution of the flutings.
5. What are the ‘certain designs’ to which Barrière refers? Might in fact all the ‘designs’ in the Goursolle Panel be Paleolithic?
Earlier Approaches
How have other researchers approached flutings, and might their methods help answer questions such as those above?
Flutings form a major component of Paleolithic ‘art,’ but
little is written and known about them. Clottes and Courtin (
‘This clearly has to do with the indifferent aesthetic
appeal of these depictions,’ Clottes and Courtin (
The lack of thorough studies on flutings, let alone methods
for doing them, means speculation as to their meaning runs unchecked, even by
the most well-known experts on prehistoric art. They are seen, for example, as
representing such things as the first scribbles by humans, though intuitive and
random but serpentines (Breuil
Most writers bring to their discussions of flutings preconceived, cultural or personal notions as to the meaning of the flutings, what constitutes a pattern, and how the various forms of prehistoric ‘art’ relate to each other. They tie their methods to these preconceptions. The focus on meaning has thus led to little in depth knowledge, merely to much intractibly speculation. In fact, the meaning of severines probably is not obtainable.
Should or can nothing therefore be said about severines?
Ucko (
Lewis-Williams (
Marshack, though he defers to his predecessors, pioneers
strategies for this type of research. (Following but developing Marshack’s
methodology come Bednarik [e.g., üBednarik
I tried to develop techniques and a theoretical basis
for the intensive internal analysis
of the Upper Paleolithic symbolic materials….My effort was…directed toward…a
study of the cognitive processes
involved in the formation of an image, a study of the sequence of making an image or a composition or the sequence of
accumulating images on a surface….This enquiry was…functional and psychological
(Marshack
Inspired by Marshack and trying further to remedy the situation Clottes and Courtin diagnose, the research we pursue on the Goursolle Panel continues to establish an objective and experimental approach to the lines, uncovering data in the lines themselves. We ask about the act of manufacture – what can be said about the marks as they were made – and from that to seek objective information on the fluters. Flutings are important because they say something about the people who fluted.
This does not rule out hypothesizing as to meaning. The investigations we suggest logically come before interpretation and provide information that questions about and suggestions for meaning need to address. Results of the research we suggest may help sort out the various ideas as to meaning and help lay a solid foundation for seeking meaning. But our approach does mean that questions about interpretation are not the primary or initial concerns. We ask for a change of paradigm.
Broad Research Questions and Methodology
Besides questions that emerge from prior studies, therefore, we have our own broad question. Though initially appearing simple, some of the clusters in the Goursolle Panel involve complex overlays of the digit marks with scoring with sticks, and retouchings. The research asks first about the precise structure of the severines in the Goursolle Panel. What can be said observationally and empirically about these markings? The physical data in the flutings themselves comprise what we seek: how their fluters constructed them and, if possible, how they functioned. Then, having used the severines as the phenomena for analysis, what can we know about the people who used the cave? The core of the research is to glean as much information as possible from the lines, to learn about the severine makers, their relationships, and how they made their severines – probably the chief aim of the study of prehistoric artifacts. The methodology suggested in this paper is an archaeological search for finding out about the severine makers.
How might empirical data about severines be obtained and how might the type of inferences be drawn?
In brief and in general, our methodology’s corner-stone principles include multiple examinations of the flutings under investigation, openness to experimentation, continuing reflection on our methods, and the initial and primary setting aside of questions of meaning. The core of the approach adopted is four fold (for more detail, see Sharpe and Van Gelder ü2006a; ü2006d):
Fieldwork
The foundations of the field techniques include:
· a thorough and repeated examination of the lines using non-intrusive techniques such as varied angles of lighting, the taking of measurements, and the noting of certain observables (listed in the next section);
· digital photography;
· recording of the data electronically (with a digital pen) into Photoshop images of the lines and if necessary on paper.
Analysis
From the fieldwork, the lines are drawn and reconstructed electronically. This redrawing often raises points about the images that need clarification and that only further field work can answer. In addition, a number of inferences (listed in the next section) can be sought of the data. We use two central analyses, which we briefly outline in Phases Six and Seven below:
· Internal Analysis: from the data collected, we can reconstruct for example the temporal sequence of the markings. It also isolates the clusters and units.
· Forensic Analysis: physiological data collected for flutings allows the inference of such things as the age group, sex, individuality of the fluter, and a fluter’s corpus of lines.
(We have also suggested [Sharpe and Van Gelder In Prep. c] a Zipf Analysis, but have not as yet applied it to any part of the Goursolle Panel.)
Laboratory Experimentation
Research on particular types of open questions is undertaken in a laboratory situation to ascertain, for example, what lines can and cannot be made in the situations of the severines, to clarify what particular features of the severines still visible may imply about how they were made and who made them, and to refine data recording techniques.
Theoretical
We aim to be transparent methodologically and conceptually; this requires that we, for example, explore potential methodologies, answer critiques, and look at implications and inferences of data.
We make, for instace, a methodological assumption that shows in this paper because it studies both flutings and incisions. What is the basic unit for severines? With engravings, the individual mark constitutes the basic element; does this suggest for flutings the taking of each individual finger line as the foundational element? The basic unit we assume and usually work from for flutings, however, comprises the lines drawn with one sweep of a hand. We argue that the fluter makes one hand of finger lines at a time, matching the engraver who makes one line, notch, or microcupule at a time. This methodological assumption does not lie in the Internal Analysis because that focuses on individual finger lines, especially their overlays. Neither does it belong to the Forensic Analysis proper because that focuses on the fluter’s physiology. Rather, it comes before both analyses and rises to application at various relevant points.
Specific Research Questions
Thus, our primary research task is to apply our methods to catalogue and analyze the Goursolle Panel. Within this broad desire to understand the process of creating severines and to know about the behavior, relationships between, and physiology of the severine makers, the above methodology allows the asking a panel of severines of more specific questions broken into phases. The phases offer a practical way to approach the study (including cataloguing and analyzing) of a panel, uses various methods, including experiment, Internal Analysis, and Forensic Analysis.
Phase One
Identify the panels, clusters, and units of the severines.
This may require deciding which, if any, lines to ignore. Modern graffiti and accidental lines can be distinguished because of their relatively bright surface, a darker patination not yet having formed whereas one has on the cluster lines. These lines can be ignored in an analysis of a cluster. Further, background and later stray lines might also be distinguished if they do not obviously appear part of a cluster and lie either above or below all the lines of the cluster.
Phase Two
Identify the types of severines and the forms of the flutings being investigated. Note that the forms were isolated for methodological purposes.
Phase Three
Investigate the geographical context of the severines using such questions as: What is the layout of the cluster in its panel of clusters? What is the position of the panel in relation to the geography of the cave? What was the original floor below the severines? What is the height of each unit above the original floor? Relative or associational dating of the markings may be possible because of what else exists in the chamber where the markings are found.
Phase Four
Investigate of the geomorphological context of the severines by considering, for instance, the condition of the unit in comparison with other severines and with graffiti, the history of any travertine growing over the markings, or of the medium the severines are made into.
Phase Five
Investigate the observable data applicable to the types of severines and forms of flutings. For flutings, the observables include: shapes drawn, line overlays, direction of fluting, fingers used in a unit, buildup at the end of flutings, arced units, finger widths, and hand profiles. For Mirian and Evelynian flutings, the movements of the fluter were involved in the marking process. These data provide the basis for Phases Six and Seven.
Phase Six
Carry out an Internal (which includes a compositional) Analysis of the severines. It leads to such inferences as the layout of the units in the cluster, the order in which the units in a cluster were made, the directions of clusters, and the shapes fluted.
Phase Seven
Carry out a Forensic Analysis. From the fluting observables, the inferences that can be drawn include: fluting hands, fluters’ ages, sexes, number, positions when fluting, heights, individuality, social relationships, and the corpus of flutings by each fluter.
Phase Eight
Carry out any laboratory research suggested in any of the above phases (which includes any possible dating analyses).
Phase Nine
Provide a larger context to make sense of the panel. This may mean treading the way of the meaning makers discussed above. It may mean hypothesizing as to the severine makers’ intentionality. It may mean telling a story about the fluters, what they were doing in the cave given their social relationships as indicated by the data. However, all hypotheses as to meaning must subject themselves to and be fully responsible to the data and inferences from the previous eight phases. Each hypothesis also ought to extend its empirical accountability by pointing to potentially discordant data that if found would call it into question, and to data that if found would show its superiority over other proposals. Hypothesizing as to meaning requires responsibility.
The above list of phases is in a logical but not necessarily an actual order. For instance, the definition or recognition of the variant of a form of fluting (in Phase Two) may occur after considerable work in Phase Five has occurred. Phase Eight may be necessary earlier on. Further, not all the items in the list are relevant for all severines, the methods used are somewhat independent of the phases, plus more items may be recognized through continuing research and reflection.
The results of investigations into questions such as the phases raise – those that can be asked of the flutings and related severines in the Goursolle Panel – will lead to a discussion that elucidates our broad research questions.
The methodology we elaborate here in a general manner is
tailored for the Goursolle Panel, developed from our experience in both
Rouffignac and Gargas caves. It could be used as is or modified for other sites
and panels, and further experience will inform it.
Results
The following records the results of observations undertaken in Phases One to Five, and Phase Eight (the remaining phases more appropriately belong to the Discussion Section below).
Goursolle Panel, Section I
Figure 5. The larger cupola is Cupola α in Figure 4; also showing some of Section I of the Goursolle Panel. The bottom right hand corner of the picture faces toward the chamber entrance. ??? need new photo with scale
Section I of severines in and around Cupola α was
surveyed (see Figure 6). ??? This needs updating to include all of
Section I.
Figure 6. Goursolle Panel, Section I, showing several clusters of markings in and around Cupola α (see Figure 5). ???Update, scale…needs to show all of the clusters of Section I that are described below.
The Goursolle Panel can be divided into clusters whose individual descriptions we use below as the framework for reporting the data. (Note that we do not extend Barrière’s [1982] numbering system as followed thereafter by the Plassards [e.g., Plassard and Plassard 2000], because it assumes the isolatable figures are recognizable as animals, symbols, or signs. Instead, we use their numbers where they exist [e.g., Tectiform 175] and otherwise number and isolate clusters according to the cave chamber number and our sequence therein [e.g., Cluster E-1].):
Cluster E-1
Figures 7 and 8 depict Cluster E-1 in Section I (see Figure 6 for location). Figures 8a and 8b summarize the results of investigations of this cluster. Note the existence of flutings, stick scorings (sometimes with charcoal), and clay (which makes this a multi-media cluster). The cluster is 217 cm above the floor; its length x height is 66 x 49 cm.
Figure 7. Cluster E-1.
Figure 8a. The data for an Internal Analysis of Cluster E-1 also showing the type of severines: blue respresenting stick scorings, black flutings, and the hatching clay (see Figure 7).
Figure 8b. The data for a Forensic Analysis of Cluster E-1. Only the flutings are shown. (We use the following forensic notation for the units: ‘NH/M=XYS’ means a unit of N lines, H handed [L or R where ascertainable] whose M-fingered width is XY mm [and, when indicated by an ‘S,’ is splayed].) The widths in mm are those of single flutings.
None of the lines pictured appear to be modern. Some may not reasonably be part of the cluster as originally created, but this decision cannot be made at present.
The widths of the flutings vary over their lengths. The measurements recorded in Figure 8b are for where the flutings are mediumly wide as subjectively ascertained.
We use the term ‘motif’ to refer to a distinctive and recurring shape. One of these appears in Cluster E-1 on the right, what we call ‘unicentric arcs,’ where arcs emerge from a common point. The unicentric arcs in Cluster E-1 (5-7) are monodigital, though fluting 7 may have required two flutings.
Three issues immediately arise here that will be discussed later.
·
Is the
clay intentionally applied or is it an accident result of dirty fingers?
·
On fluting 13, clay appears over charcoal which
is on the fluting.
·
Are the
main straight flutings (11-18, 21-25) Kirian or Rugolean, i.e., mono- or
polydigital? Possible polydigital units: 12-14, 15-17, 21-22, 23-24; 11, 18, 25
are mondigital. Number 11 could be part of the 12-14 unit, being F5 (the little
finger), maybe gone over later to produce the left hand sweeping lower half.
Other scenarios are that number 23 could be part of the 21-22 unit, with 24 and
25 mondigital, or even forming their own unit.
Cluster E-2
Figures 9 and 10 depict Cluster E-2 in Section I (see Figure 6 for location). Figure 10 summarizes the results of investigations. The cluster is 236 cm above the floor; its length x height is 103 x 45 cm.
Figure 9. Cluster E-2.
Figure 10. The data for an Internal and a Forensic Analysis of Cluster E-2 also showing the type of severines: blue respresenting stick scorings and black the flutings (see Figure 9).
· ##Left hand section of the cluster is of motifs, whereas the right hand section is of ‘straight’ lines; are they separate? Done by different people? The horizontal scratches, over on LHS and under on RHS, if done at the same time, would suggest two different actions for the flutings.
· There are some horizontals beneath the spirals, not on the drawing.
· Lines 1-3 are a lot thinner fingers than the others.
· 18-20 appear modern.
· Many of the flutings are in poor condition (because of the nature of the film), especially on the left of the cluster, and hence their outlines may be inaccurate.
· Flutings appear single unless noted as part of a polydigital unit.
· The spiral at the end of 45 would have to be Evelynian because you’d have to move your body (twisting) to do it.
· Get the profile for unit 26-29. Is this spread too much for the width to be of much use (see discussion)?
??? check below with most recent data Too
high for me to reach. Line
·
lines
·
lines
·
lines
·
line
·
lines
Because of considerations listed above, lines ??? can be ignored as background, accidental, modern, stray, or lines otherwise reasonably not part of the cluster.
??? Most of this will become redundant now. A preliminary analysis was undertaken on Cluster E-2 (see Figure ??? and Figure ??? ). It suggests that several units constitute this cluster, reflecting the order of marking:
??? Are there Rugoulean and Kirian units here?
· Lines to unit: R to L: 2, 2, space, 1, 3, 1, 3, 2 (or 1, 1).
· In the middle: a spiral includes crossovers, meaning that 2 people had to make them at the same time. The horizontal crosses over all meetings with spiral.
Cluster E-3
·
Identify the panels,
clusters, and units. Lines to ignore.
· Identify the types of severines and the forms of the flutings.
· Investigate the geographical context; What is the layout of the cluster in its panel of clusters? What is the position of the panel in relation to the geography of the cave? What was the original floor below the severines? What is the height of each unit above the original floor?
· Observables: shapes drawn, line overlays, direction of fluting, fingers used in a unit, buildup at the end of flutings, arced units, finger widths, and hand profiles.
· Include profiles if possible
Figures 11 and 12 depict Cluster E-3 in Section I (see Figure 6 for location). Figure 12 summarizes the results of investigations. The cluster is 232 cm above the floor; its length x height is 112 x 104 cm.
Figure 10. Cluster E-3 (detailed in Figures 22 and 25 ??? ).
Figure 11. A overlay and medium analysis of Cluster E-3, blue representing stick scorings and hatching clay (see Figure 10).
Figure 12a. The data for an Internal Analysis of Cluster E-3 also showing the type of severines: blue respresenting stick scorings, black flutings, and the hatching clay ??? (see Figure 9).
Figure 12b. The data for a Forensic Analysis of Cluster E-3. Only the flutings with their clay are shown.
Do the unicentric arcs go over the vertical
flutings? Do they also in other clusters?
??? check with most recent data Because of considerations listed above, in Cluster E-3, lines ??? can be ignored as background, accidental, modern, stray, or lines otherwise reasonably not part of the cluster.
· Clay over the severines in upper left.
·
Line
·
Line
·
Line
·
Some of the lines
·
The lines under the cluster drawn above and on
the face perpendicular to it appear to be a
· Lines to unit: R to L: 2, space, 2, 1, (single changes to L bent), 3, 2, 3, 1.
· Bottom of cluster: Lines to unit: R to L: 3 fingers R, 3 fingers R, space, 1.
· No clay at top, lots at bottom.
· Edge mess bit: could vertical be relatively new over old ‘structure’? Would account for fresh looking clay. Plus 2 top and one lower (top of lower part) are new.
· Some flutings do not show the white underneath; they are just pressed into the clay.
Cluster E-4
·
Identify the panels,
clusters, and units. Lines to ignore.
· Identify the types of severines and the forms of the flutings.
·
Investigate the geographical context; What is the layout of the cluster in its
panel of clusters? What is the position of the panel in relation to the
geography of the cave? What was the original floor below the severines? What is
the height of each unit above the original floor?
·
Observables:
shapes drawn, line overlays, direction of fluting, fingers used in a unit,
buildup at the end of flutings, arced units, finger widths, and hand profiles.
· Include profiles if possible.
Figures 13 and 14 depict Cluster E-4 in Section I (see Figure 6 for location). Figure 14a and b ??? summarizes the results of investigations. The cluster is 179 cm above the floor; its length x height is 35 x 22 cm.
Figure 12.
Cluster E-4.
Figure 13. A overlay and medium analysis of Cluster E-4 (see Figure 12).
Figure 14a. The data for an Internal Analysis of Cluster E-4 also showing the type of severines: blue respresenting stick scorings, black flutings, and the hatching clay ??? (see Figure 9).
Figure 14b. The data for a Forensic Analysis
of Cluster E-4. Only the flutings with their clay are shown.
Because of considerations listed above, in Cluster E-4, lines ??? can be ignored as background, accidental, modern, stray, or lines otherwise reasonably not part of the cluster.
??? Is 12 a little finger? Is there dark clay over 13 and 14?
· With ‘Fenouie’ under it (???see fig 13): Lines to unit: R to L: 2, 3, 1, space, 1, 3, space, 2.
· Note pairings at edges.
· Rugolean: 13-14, 9-12 LH, ?6-3 LH
· Both Kirian and Rugolean units here: e.g., #12 a little finger?
Cluster E-5
·
Identify the panels,
clusters, and units. Lines to ignore.
· Identify the types of severines and the forms of the flutings.
·
Investigate the geographical context; What is the layout of the cluster in its
panel of clusters? What is the position of the panel in relation to the
geography of the cave? What was the original floor below the severines? What is
the height of each unit above the original floor?
·
Observables:
shapes drawn, line overlays, direction of fluting, fingers used in a unit,
buildup at the end of flutings, arced units, finger widths, and hand profiles.
· Include profiles if possible.
Figures 15 and 16 depict Cluster E-5 in Section I (see Figure 6 for location). Figure 16a and b ??? summarizes the results of investigations. The cluster is 265 cm above the floor; its length x height is 17 x 30 cm.??? Updated analyses (psd’s) and notes – do from hereon out ??? It is … above the floor, 32 cm high, and 14 cm wide.
Figure
14. Cluster E-5.
Figure 15. A overlay and medium analysis of Cluster E-5, hatching representing clay (see Figure 15).
Figure 16a. The data for an Internal Analysis of Cluster E-5 also showing the type of severines: blue respresenting stick scorings, black flutings, and the hatching clay ??? (see Figure 9).
Figure 16b. The data for a Forensic Analysis of Cluster E-5. Only the flutings with their clay are shown.
??? check below with most recent data
If done in 2 units (+1 line) then the
directionality of the cluster is lost.
Not counting Line 7, Line 3 is over Line 2, which implies that the cluster was fluted from right to left.
· Why does Line 7 not follow Line 1 more exactly, as clay retouching of flutings do elsewhere in this panel?
·
Note that unit
· Unit 3 is over unit 2, which may imply that the cluster was made right to left with unit 7 then added.
Cluster
E-5. Do all lines have light clay in them? What about the dark spots, e.g. on
Because of considerations listed above, in Cluster E-5, lines ??? can be ignored as background, accidental, modern, stray, or lines otherwise reasonably not part of the cluster.
·
Lines to
unit: 3, 3.
· Is this 2 units of 3 fingers each, with additional clay finger? Seems, given the scarcity of clay on rock, that the clay on the lines is added, from 2 different colored sources.
Cluster E-6
Figures 17 and 18 depict Cluster E-6 in Section I (see Figure 6 for location). Figure 18a and b ??? summarizes the results of investigations. The cluster is 171 cm above the floor; its length x height is 31 x 36 cm.
Figure
16. Cluster E-6.
Figure 18. The data for an Internal Analysis of Cluster E-6 also showing the type of severines (blue respresenting stick scorings and black flutings), together with what data for a Forensic Analysis that could be obtained (see Figure 17).
In Cluster E-6, line 9 can be ignored as a modern scoring. The following lines may also be natural (i.e., not flutings): 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, but cannot as yet be ignored.
Scratches that appear on lines 1-4 were probably made by the fluter’s fingernails.
Cluster E-7
Figure 19 depicts Cluster E-7 in Cupola β, in Section I (see Figure 6 for location) and also summarizes the results of investigations. The cluster is 217 cm above the floor; its length x height is 24 x 6 cm.
Figure 17. Cluster E-7, including the data for a
Forensic Analysis.
Unlike the other clusters in the Goursolle Panel, Cluster E-7 is fluted into the white moonmilk and not through the red film over the moonmilk. Little information can be obtained from its lines.
Cluster E-8
·
Identify the panels,
clusters, and units. Lines to ignore.
· Identify the types of severines and the forms of the flutings.
·
Investigate the geographical context; What is the layout of the cluster in its
panel of clusters? What is the position of the panel in relation to the
geography of the cave? What was the original floor below the severines? What is
the height of each unit above the original floor?
·
Observables:
shapes drawn, line overlays, direction of fluting, fingers used in a unit,
buildup at the end of flutings, arced units, finger widths, and hand profiles.
· Include profiles if possible.
Figures 21 and 22 depict the two-lined Cluster E-8 in Section I (see Figure 6 for location). Figure 22a and b ??? summarizes the results of investigations. The cluster is 212 cm above the floor; its length x height is 5.5 x 20 cm. ??? Updated analyses (psd’s) and notes – do from hereon out ???
Figure 20. Cluster
E-8.
Figure 21. A overlay and medium analysis of Cluster E-8 (see Figure 20).
Figure 21a. The data for an Internal Analysis of Cluster E-8 also showing the type of severines: blue respresenting stick scorings, black flutings, and the hatching clay ??? (see Figure 9).
Figure 21b. The data
for a Forensic Analysis of Cluster E-8. Only the flutings with their clay are
shown.
Cluster E-9
·
Identify the panels,
clusters, and units. Lines to ignore.
· Identify the types of severines and the forms of the flutings.
·
Investigate the geographical context; What is the layout of the cluster in its
panel of clusters? What is the position of the panel in relation to the
geography of the cave? What was the original floor below the severines? What is
the height of each unit above the original floor?
·
Observables:
shapes drawn, line overlays, direction of fluting, fingers used in a unit,
buildup at the end of flutings, arced units, finger widths, and hand profiles.
· Include profiles if possible.
Figures 23 and 24 depict the one-lined Cluster E-9 in
Section I (see Figure 6 for location). Figure 24a and b ??? summarizes the results of
investigations. The cluster is 189 cm above the floor; its length x height is
11 x 1.5 cm.??? Height above floor ??? Size ??? Updated
analyses (psd’s) and notes – do from hereon out ???
Figure 22. Cluster
E-9.
Figure 23. A overlay and medium analysis of Cluster E-9 (see Figure 22).
Figure 23a. The data for an Internal Analysis of Cluster E-9 also showing the type of severines: blue respresenting stick scorings, black flutings, and the hatching clay ??? (see Figure 9).
Figure 23b. The data
for a Forensic Analysis of Cluster E-9. Only the flutings with their clay are
shown.
Because of considerations listed above, in Cluster E-9, lines ??? can be ignored as background, accidental, modern, stray, or lines otherwise reasonably not part of the cluster.
Two separate fingers.
Cluster E-10
·
Identify the panels,
clusters, and units. Lines to ignore.
· Identify the types of severines and the forms of the flutings.
·
Investigate the geographical context; What is the layout of the cluster in its
panel of clusters? What is the position of the panel in relation to the
geography of the cave? What was the original floor below the severines? What is
the height of each unit above the original floor?
·
Observables:
shapes drawn, line overlays, direction of fluting, fingers used in a unit,
buildup at the end of flutings, arced units, finger widths, and hand profiles.
· Include profiles if possible.
Figures 25 and 26 depict Cluster E-10 in Section I (see Figure 6 for location). Figure 26a and b ??? summarizes the results of investigations. The cluster is … cm above the floor; its length x height is …x… cm.??? Height above floor ??? Size ??? Updated analyses (psd’s) and notes – do from hereon out ???
Figure 24. Cluster
E-10.
Figure 25. A overlay and medium analysis of Cluster E-10 (see Figure 24).
Figure 25a. The data for an Internal Analysis of Cluster E-10 also showing the type of severines: blue respresenting stick scorings, black flutings, and the hatching clay ??? (see Figure 9).
Figure 25b. The data
for a Forensic Analysis of Cluster E-10. Only the flutings with their clay are
shown.
Because of considerations listed above, in Cluster E-10, lines ??? can be ignored as background, accidental, modern, stray, or lines otherwise reasonably not part of the cluster.
Circle made with single fingers. Should this be drawn?
Goursolle Panel, Section II
·
Plenty of 28 in red still further into the
cave from the second cupola: probably this means on the arch wall in Section
II.
·
Many of the units have 3-fingered widths of
26 and 34 mm, and some are in the 2+2 format.
·
Need overall photos and plan for Section II.
·
To results:
Compare the Kirian and Mirian with those
on the modern graffiti also nearby.
Cluster E-11
·
Identify the panels,
clusters, and units. Lines to ignore.
· Identify the types of severines and the forms of the flutings.
·
Investigate the geographical context; What is the layout of the cluster in its
panel of clusters? What is the position of the panel in relation to the
geography of the cave? What was the original floor below the severines? What is
the height of each unit above the original floor?
·
Observables:
shapes drawn, line overlays, direction of fluting, fingers used in a unit,
buildup at the end of flutings, arced units, finger widths, and hand profiles.
· Include profiles if possible.
Figures 27 and 28 depict Cluster E-11 in Section II (see Figure ??? for location). Figure 28a and b ??? summarizes the results of investigations. The cluster is … cm above the floor; its length x height is …x… cm.??? Height above floor ??? Size ??? Updated analyses (psd’s) and notes – do from hereon out ???
Figure 26. Cluster
E-11.
Figure 27. A overlay and medium analysis of Cluster E-11 (see Figure 26).
Figure 27a. The data for an Internal Analysis of Cluster E-11 also showing the type of severines: blue respresenting stick scorings, black flutings, and the hatching clay ??? (see Figure 9).
Figure 27b. The data
for a Forensic Analysis of Cluster E-11. Only the flutings with their clay are
shown.
Because of considerations listed above, in Cluster E-11, lines ??? can be ignored as background, accidental, modern, stray, or lines otherwise reasonably not part of the cluster.
Should
this be drawn?
Tectiform 175 ##
·
Identify the panels,
clusters, and units. Lines to ignore.
· Identify the types of severines and the forms of the flutings.
·
Investigate the geographical context; What is the layout of the cluster in its panel
of clusters? What is the position of the panel in relation to the geography of
the cave? What was the original floor below the severines? What is the height
of each unit above the original floor?
·
Observables:
shapes drawn, line overlays, direction of fluting, fingers used in a unit,
buildup at the end of flutings, arced units, finger widths, and hand profiles.
· Include profiles if possible.
Figure 28.
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.
o Center of tectiform could be 2+2. What is
finger/unit width?
·
How does my internal analysis compare with
the Plassards’ and with Barrière’s?
Mammoth
175a
· What is the relationship between the incisions of the mammoth and the flutings that are in the same place? Cover the same lines? Overlays?
· Are the engravings over or under the flutings?
Cluster E-12
To the right
of the tectiform, flutings above the fire pit:
·
Identify the panels,
clusters, and units. Lines to ignore.
· Identify the types of severines and the forms of the flutings.
·
Investigate the geographical context; What is the layout of the cluster in its
panel of clusters? What is the position of the panel in relation to the
geography of the cave? What was the original floor below the severines? What is
the height of each unit above the original floor?
·
Observables:
shapes drawn, line overlays, direction of fluting, fingers used in a unit,
buildup at the end of flutings, arced units, finger widths, and hand profiles.
· Include profiles if possible.
o |
| curving in a bit at the bottom.
Not mirror units but done by same right hand. Two right hands of same person
(?).
o Right one, RH 3=39, 2=20, 1=14. Top doesn’t
look like 41, i.e., more likely 38 than 41. Probably male.
o Left one (multi overlying units). Not clear
further down. Might have here 4 at top then becomes 2. In tail, 2=32, 1=18.
Can’t get top measurements as not clear it is one unit. If clear on LH side of
it is 3=38.
Cluster E-13
Zig zags to
left of tectiform are 2=18 (i.e., 28 or 34).
·
Identify the panels,
clusters, and units. Lines to ignore.
· Identify the types of severines and the forms of the flutings.
·
Investigate the geographical context; What is the layout of the cluster in its
panel of clusters? What is the position of the panel in relation to the
geography of the cave? What was the original floor below the severines? What is
the height of each unit above the original floor?
·
Observables:
shapes drawn, line overlays, direction of fluting, fingers used in a unit,
buildup at the end of flutings, arced units, finger widths, and hand profiles.
· Include profiles if possible.
Figure 30.
Cluster E-14
Is this in Section I or II?
Figure 31.
Cluster E-15
Underneath and to the left of Mammoth 175a.
Figure 32.
Cluster E-16
Is
this in Section I or II?
Figure 33.
Cluster E-17
Figure 34.
Flutings after the Arch
·
Check the mammoth and the flutings at the end of the
chamber. Could it have been made by 34?? since her flutings are found on the
ceiling beyond the arch?
·
After the overhang: there is a unit of 34
wide and has 34 profile (apparently). The author of the mammoth at the end?
??? any more clusters? Set all up as above.
Laboratory Investigations
·
Experiments had to do with flatness of hand
(Kirian versus Rugolean) – i.e., form of flutings (flatness when held up) etc.
·
On clay
reapplication – colors related to thickness – smeared from first touch. Clay
color. To tell first smearing from reapplication.
o On clay reapplication - colors related to thickness - smeared from first touch.
o How can reapplied clay be distinguished from clay smeared when first fluted (if no stick lines to cover with the reapplication)? (Maybe we can’t except when the color is very different.) // On Cluster E-1, is a light colored clay just a thin layer? // How to tell apart the clay smudges formed in the initial process of fluting and those formed when clay is later smeared onto the flutings. Or it could be attempted with clay from the floor of the room on a surface not in the cave.
o Is all the coating of clay in the fluting is not only the result of smearing the clay already on the wall when fluting the original severine, but added? // Is some of the clay that is smudged into some of the lines appears to be the result of fluting on an already clay-covered surface (the clay somehow rolls up and deposits onto the white of the underlying and exposed-in-the-process moonmilk or limestone), or is it later and artificially applied?
·
Possible
C14 dating. // Can the charcoal from the walls and ceilings be dated
(especially that on and in lines applied with the scoring of lines with a
charred stick)? // Spot spots on ceiling would be datable.
Discussion
·
Motifs:
compare with Barrière’s ‘symbols,’ pp. 158-9. Why don’t the motifs in Chamber
E appear elsewhere in the cave? Or do they, only elsewhere when fluted they are
polydigital not monodigital? They do with Mammoth 176 down the end of Chamber
E, but nowhere else? So, different people? If not, what’s going on?
·
E-2, unit
26-29 may be the male 38 mm fluter. Check the profile. If so, this may be a way
of connecting E with the rest of the cave (besides the style of Mammoth 176). This
issue may be the biggest one besetting E: how does it relate to the rest of the
cave? Same people? Perhaps the structured clusters around Cupola alpha were
done by adults who didn’t otherwise do much fluting and perhaps did a lot of
drawing of animals.
·
What does
this paper prove (see conclusions as well)?
o Motifs exist.
o Complex multimedia structures.
o Clusters (more than one?) go right to left.
o Retouch.
o …..
o ?The people had more than just complex
mental abilities?
·
Maybe the
paper shows 2-3 types of activities:
o Children’s: tactile.
o Adult: ‘serious’ – motifs, etc.
o Adult: complexity.
o Mammoth 176 may be one of the above.
o Finger widths may help distinguish these
different activities.
·
Maybe the
paper is actually about the whole of Chamber E and not just the Goursolle Panel.
·
Section I
of the GP seems so different from Section II. Why? Because children did Section
II and adults Section I? So who did what cluster is important in understanding
why the sections differ.
·
Seems in
Section I that there was a different type of activity there than in the other
chanbers. Maybe it has a greater ritual/symbolic content (because of the
motifs), but maybe not.
·
Would Zipf
help? What would be the variable? None seems obvious.
·
Cluster
E-7: The flutings that are measurable come from very small fingers.
·
What is
the significance of the respective clusters as they are laid out around Cuplola
α?
·
Original
floor is probably not the current one. What about the height though?
· The difference between the severines in this chamber and those in the others. See the differences between many of the chambers, e.g., A1 or the Red Lounge and the Via Sacra. To a large extent this depends on the medium. The mess of Section II means a very different experience to flute than A1 for the children.
·
No build
up on any of the flutings or profiles in Section I means we can’t tell the
directions in which the flutings were made.
·
Only fluter 50 mm has a 19 mm single finger
width? Cluster E-1.
·
For
Cluster E-1:
o Surfaces are flat like a slightly curved
ceiling versus a vertical wall. Imagine hands flat to the surface. Lines don’t
come to a close fingered point (focus) possibly because of the shape of the
wall. Spread of fingers a little larger than mine. Mine 45, which implies the
fluter 48-50.
o Hand held flat. Fluter taller than me.
o Spread
of fluted unit implies the fluter from measurements of spreads from elsewhere.
o Generally
assume fingers are index and pointer, or just pointer.
·
Do the unicentric
arcs go over the vertical flutings? Yes, in Cluster E-1. Do they also in other
clusters? Note in E-1 that the unicentric arcs are narrower than the other
flutings. Done by someone else? Who?
·
Cluster
E-5 moves from right to left.
·
Definitely
seems to be only one clay overlay: 1 cluster and 1 line.
·
Questions
of flaking clay on some flutings.
·
For all
clusters: stretching = splaying of fingers.
·
Section
II: don’t think there’s a huge amount of fluting. Rather it looks like a mess because
of the flaking off of the clay.
·
Clay on
the RH wall (a couple of lines here) – too thick or sticky – doesn’t come off
to reveal white, therefore perhaps not good for the fluting effect? Therefore
not many flutings here? No severines apparent on the wall under the clay. Clay
quite thick on side walls, which implies it is probably not white from fluting.
·
Could
stand on flint nodules. L couldn’t reach Clusters E-1 to E-3 by far.
·
Where the two sections meet, the Kirian flutings
are over the Mirians. Over this section of the wall, the two types seem mixed. Many
of the Mirian lines have three-fingered widths initially showing to be of
·
Is the clay intentionally applied or is it an
accident result of dirty fingers?
·
Internal and any Forensic Analysis.
·
Using
their severines as the phenomena for analysis, what can we know about the
people who used the cave???
reiterate and answer this in the conclusions. ???
·
This
research has particular importance because of the possibility of dating the
charcoal left by the scoring with burned sticks; none of the other ‘art’ in
·
The motif at the end of the trunk of Mammoth
176 is not Medieval or Neolithic or else Barrière comment on its patina and
age. Yet it looks like some of the other motifs in the Goursolle Panel. They
may well be therefore Paleolithic too.
·
The two mammoths are incised (as a
sub-category of engraved).
·
It’s important to show how much E lines are
like other Rugoleans (which implies against Barrière) – with outstretched arms.
·
It seems
that the meaning for Miriam lines comes from doing them. The meaning for Kirian
and Rugolean lines come from their visual appearance and structure or motifs.
It would be good to research rock art from post-Paleolithic times in this area
of
·
Check the
relationship between Sections I and II of the Goursolle Panel.
·
Somewhere
here (and reiterate in the conclusions) I need to discuss Barrière’s statement
about the Medieval or Iron Age origin of some of the flutings. The smoke, charcoal on the ground, and fire
may be Neolithic or Medieval.
·
Consider
the layout here: does the phase approach still make sense? List subjects to
cover.
·
Discuss somewhere the mammoth down the end,
plus other flutings in between.
·
The profiles/sexes/etc. may change with more
data from the rest of the cave.
·
The story uses all the facts we’ve uncovered
without making huge assumptions beyond the normal possibilities of their social
situations. New part of method.
·
The story doesn’t need shamans or
pseudohallucinations, etc.
·
Are there any forensic considerations? Yes,
e.g., tectiforms; Kirian versus Rugolean; 28 mm in cupola.
·
28 mm in the cupola.
·
Issue of Kirian versus Rugolean.
·
Relationship between the two halves of the
panel.
·
Catalogue of images/motifs.
·
Numbers still 7 or 14?
·
Anything consistent about the vertical lines?
·
Kirian or Rugolean (it doesn’t matter apart
from interpretation).
·
Flutings in clay or through the clay to the
moonmilk (ref. 2nd children paper in RAR).
·
‘Motifs.’
·
Sticks.
·
Charcoal and dating.
·
Retouching.
·
Young child 28 mm on shoulders.
·
Relationship between the 2 halves of the
panel.
·
The mammoth (and tectiform: see the other
paper(s)) in relationship to the G Panel; hopefully with a bigger picture of
severines to animals.
·
The tectiform (see the other paper(s)) in
relationship to the G Panel.
·
Mining.
·
Anything else? See text.
·
Mixtures of forms.
·
Section II of panel – any analysis possible
of this? Too poor condition? An example of structured (Section I) and haphazard
(Section II)?
·
Relationship between the 2 halves of the
panel. Want to make a case for continuity between them, though it may be kids
on the right and adults (men? women?) on the left. See heights.
·
It appears we have the presence of 28, 38,
and 48 in E, but 41, 34, 46-44 don’t seem to be here.
·
Previously thought profile of 28, 38, 48 are
more similar than those of 34, 41, 44 (or is this more like 28/38/48?)? I.e.,
if a family issue, not all came to E.
·
This stuff doesn’t explain anything about the
incised mammoth in the back of the chamber.
·
After the overhang: there is a unit of 34 wide
and has 34 profile (apparently). The author of the mammoth at the end?
·
Check the mammoth and the flutings at the end of the
chamber. Could it have been made by 34?? since her flutings are found on the
ceiling beyond the arch?
Relevant matters for discussion beyond the results listed above, based on the list of research questions also outlined above, include:
Phase One
Goursolle Panel Flutings
Phase Two
Lines to Ignore
It is assumed that the scoring
by sticks is intentional, but that the presence of charcoal is an accident of
the use of charred sticks for scoring. Thus, treat the charcoal stick lines as only stick lines.
Phase Three (for Flutings)
Ages of Fluters
The Kirian goursolle flutings
in Chamber E measured are between
Directions of Flutings
To flute vertically inside a cupola, the lines must be made downward or else, if upward, they would be made by the fingernail. They appear to be made downward.
Directions of Clusters
??? Check the drawings to see in what clusters a direction is
discernable and note it down Clusters E and
…. ??? appear to have been made from right to
left.
Cluster E-3: 18 over 17, that is left lies over right, implies direction right to left.
Directionality
from the overlays, etc. Check for all clusters.
Shapes Fluted
The shapes (repeated elements in the clusters
of the line markings) found in the clusters of Panel I include.???
Redo this section with more results. Say what each is like; i.e., typify them.
???
·
From Clusters A, B, C, D, E, F: sets of approximately
·
From Clusters A, B: grids at the ends of
Figure 18. Grid from Cluster E-1 (detailed
in Figure 23). ??? redo photo with scale
·
From Clusters B, C: spirals (see Figures 8, 10, 21, and Barrière
Figure 19. Spiral ??? or a circle ??? from Cluster E-3 (detail of Figure 10).
· Question of spirals: there are circles in Section I but also in Section II (hot cross bun).
· Big spiral in Cluster E-2 requires turning around a couple of times; standing on flint nodules? Ditto for Cluster E-3.
· From Cluster E-2: swirls (see Figures 8, 22, below and to the left in Cluster E-2 in Figure 8). The bottom shape here has two spirals with start (or end) points. The full circle loop and the rest are not closed pathways. The top of the swirl has a small C shape that is a complete form, and a line to the right at the end of it.
Figure 20. Swirls from Cluster E-2 (see Figure 8).
In Cluster E-3, the middle set of swirls (see Figure 10) comprise contain a spiral and a complete circle.
In the middle of Cluster E-3 (see Figure 10),
a spiral includes crossovers, meaning that two people had to make them at the
same time. ??? check ???
A repeated shape ??? is it ??? in Panel I is portrayed in Figure 21 (see Figure 8, bottom of Cluster E-2 ??? ), a shape with spiral ??? not right word? ??? ends.
Figure 21. A shape with spiral ends from Cluster E-2.
·
From Clusters A, C: unicentric arcs (semi-circular lines from one point) (see Figures
6, 10, 24, and Barrière
Figure
22.
Unicentric arcs from Cluster E-3 (detail of Figure 10). ??? new photo with scale
·
From Cluster E-2: a V shape at one end of a cluster of
Plassard
Figure 23. From Cluster E-1 (detail of Figure 18). ??? what’s this for? Clay over charcoal?
Sharper photo? ???
Note the following numbers of fluted lines in clusters:
·
·
·
·
·
·
Phase Three (for Severines Other than Flutings)
??? put this subsection at end of section ???
What questions can be
asked of the non-fluting media present in Panel I, namely, stick scorings and
clay application?
For Cluster E-1, at several places (see Figure 8, on Line
· The charcoal stick scoring is probably of the same age as the fluting with its clay overlay. // These are Kirian flutings with related severines including stick scorings (sometimes involving the brushing of charcoal) and clay application. It is artificial to separate flutings extensively from scorings and retouches apart from methodologically. Therefore can’t here separate fingers and hands from the use of instruments and additives. One cannot, therefore, just talk about flutings and should rather refer to the overall collection as line markings. Of course it is possible that other people than the fluters came into the cave to score and apply clay to the original flutings. If so, given how closely they followed the flutings, they were probably of the same cultural group and a relatively short amount of time later. Whether Kirian goursolle flutings always involve stick scorings and clay reapplication is not known as no other sites of Kirian goursolle have been discerned. Similarly, whether they involve the shapes discerned (see below) or not has not yet been discerned.
· Some of the clay that is smudged into some of the lines appears to be the result of fluting on an already clay-covered surface (see the discussion above on laboratory investigations).
· Two colors of clay appear. However, in Cluster E-1, a light color clay may be just a thin layer. In Cluster E-5, clay color differences seem to be different clays. In Cluster E-1, the clay appears the same color as that on the nearby floor and on flint nodules – the clay on some nearby has been interfered with. Flutings appear on some nodules. Did the fluters take clay (and charcoal?) from the floor to decorate with, or did they (also) take it off local nodules, like a palette?
Kirian Severines are not just participatory, but when they were
retouched, they were retouched or added to with a different medium (clay,
sticks). Marshack considers meanders as sequential and participatory, for
instance by writing of their reuse of severines (e.g., in Gargas,
Marshack
Phase Four
Age of Severines
It has been implied (Barrière 1982: ???) that the Kirian lines in Chamber E were made in the Neolithic or in Medieval times. However, the Kirian lines occur alongside Mirian lines, usually considered Paleolithic ??? are they over or under them ??? with the same patination in comparison with that on modern graffiti also nearby.
To consider Barrière’s implication that the Kirian goursolle flutings (of ‘certain design’) may not be of ‘great age,’ maybe Medieval (??? check translation ??? Barrière 1982: ???). To argue against the Medieval dating:
1. He doesn’t apply the same logic to the adjacent Mirian flutings (although the ‘certain designs’ reference probably only applies to the Kirian goursolle flutings, which means that perhaps this counterargument could only apply to the clay ‘exploitation’ part of his comments).
2. There are no signs of clay mining, or at least Barrière doesn’t say what they are and to other observers there is no obvious direct evidence.
But is the floor much the same height as when the severines were created?
??? below should reference and be updated from the paper on A1. ??? The current floor surface is smooth,
reasonably flat, and probably was originally rougher and comprised of small
piles of partly desiccated clay, as in the alcoves in A1 and the now
water-logged passage where few or no people have apparently walked or crawled
(Sharpe, Lacombe, and Fawbert
One way to tell whether the floor is approximately at its
original height would be to compare the height of similar looking cave bear
scratches between this area and another. The absence of bear scratches and
obvious cave bear pits in the floor means that this indicator of the
Paleolithic floor in many other parts of the cave is of no help in this
chamber. There are some animal scratches in the clay on the walls, but not many
and probably not of the cave bear because they are a smaller size than what be
expected from that animal. ??? check in cave ???
Barrière suggests that clay was mined from the subchamber since the Paleolithic, perhaps by Medieval peoples. This would mean the current floor is at a different level than when the flutings were made if Paleolithic or were perhaps made by the miners.
Mining of the clay from the floor – notably closer to the
ceiling before mining than the current floor level – would have required
considerable effort both in the excavation and in the transportation of the
results to the surface. Thus, there is the question of whether the quality of
the clay in this subchamber (it is suggested that three chambers were mined: A
Considerable soot on the ceiling from the fires needed to light the subchamber during these extensive operations might be, but are not visible.
Similarly, large amounts of charcoal might occur on the floor from the fires lighting the mining activities. There are considerable amounts on the floor, though when they were left is unclear.
Marks on the ceilings from the swinging of picks in what would have been a lower ceiling than at present might be, but also are not visible (apart from a couple of recent lines, which are probably the result of relatively modern scraping with sticks).
The miners would probably have put their graffiti on the
ceilings, but nothing like that is apparent. As mentioned above, Medieval markings
in Chamber C and post-Paleolithic markings in …
??? in
Evidence of mining tools (broken or otherwise) left by the miners might also be evident, though conceivably they may have disintegrated or rusted away by now. By all accounts, none have been found here though apparently some were excavated in the entrance chamber of the cave ( ??? reference?). Barrière only found a piece of pottery and a portion of a buckle.
There is insufficient evidence for clay mining in Chamber E.
3. The
Medieval markings in Chamber C are quite different from Kirian flutings (see
Figure ??? ). Similarly, the Medieval markings in
4. Is the time period suggested by dendrological analysis on the charcoal? If so, then this only says that post-Paleolithic people visited this chamber of the cave. Barrière’s pottery and clasp finds here also suggest this (Barrière 1976 ???: ). There is no necessary connection between their presence and the Kirian flutings, as there is no necessary connection between these artifacts and the Mirian lines or the mammoth ( ??? ref…Plassard too?) or the tectiform in the same part of the chamber; or, elsewhere in the cave, between nineteenth century dates and nearby mammoths.
5. The Kirian goursolle flutings have the same patination as the nearby Mirian flutings.
Speculation as to the age of the Kirian lines in Chamber E may be elucidated by C14 dating the charcoal that has been deposited in some of them from the ends of burned sticks scraped over them and covered with clay (Phase Seven).
Charcoal on the floor and walls may or may not be Paleolithic.
What was the Original Floor?
Clay was evidently mined from the chamber during medieval times
(Barrière 1982: ??? ). What is the evidence for this supposition? Is the mining the
cause of the apparent digging of the clay from beside the walls? No: original
appearance. Are the charcoal remains of fires from medieval times? Is the
charcoal on the ceilings from medieval times?
??? ref. discussion in
Chamber A1copied above
What is the Height of Each Unit Above the Original
Floor?
In Cluster E-3 (and …
??? ), the height of
most of the lines are beyond the reach of a
What is the Condition of the Unit in Comparison with Other Severines and With Graffiti?
What is the Layout of the Units in the Cluster?
In Cluster … ??? , the vertical (?all) lines were fluted first, then the horizontal stick scratches, sometimes with charcoal, then clay was added last over the vertical flutings. This pattern (flutings, charcoal stick scorings, and clay) is repeated in other places of Kirian lines too. ??? Look at other clusters for this. ???
What is the Layout of the Cluster in its Panel of Clusters?
??? Look at the local geography around the cupola(s) of Kirian Severines:
does the relative layout tell us anything? Could it be that it represents the
cosmology of the people? Redraw
the plan of the area with the motifs showing to see if there’s any pattern to
their distribution ???
What is the Position of the Panel in Relation to the Geography of the Cave?
Geography questions:
· Question of geography. This general area may relate to why the markers of a particular form chose the chambers they did to mark.
· Side chamber or main?
· Does it require moving downwards to enter?
· Is the chamber fully closed or connected?
· Are animal scratches present? If so, where? How do they relate to the human marks?
· Where do the line markings begin in relation to the entrance?
· What type of floor?
·
Evidence of bear pits? Fire pits?
· Color and texture of the wall and ceiling?
· Presence or absence of cupolas?
· Dauvois has studied the acoustics of several caves, frequently finding a ‘correlation between the locations of decoration and the areas of best resonance for men’s voices’ (Bahn 1994: 200). Bahn suggests this can help revive ‘the sound dimension that accompanied whatever rituals may have been carried out….Since [the cave artists] took full advantage of the morphology of the cave and especially of particular rock shapes, they would also have utilized any acoustic peculiarities to the full.’
The question of the flutings with respect to cave layout is the subject of Leroi-Gourhan’s work. Does he help in this, particularly his writing on Rouffignac or what he says about flutings?
Other Occurrences within Rouffignac Cave
The G
Some of the lines in clusters of other forms, for instance the V in the middle of the Rugolean cluster beside the Mammoths of Discovery, appear to be Kirian in that they are single lines.
Are there other units or clusters in Rouffignac than Gallery E where clay or charcoal has been applied over flutings (for instance, in the Chamber of Undulating Flutings)?
Other Occurrences of the Form Elsewhere
??? comparison of Chamber
E Kirian lines and other instances of Kirian lines not in Rouffignac ???
Phase Six
·
Ask Leslie
to do the section on story (with respect to hunter-gatherers).
Intentionality
Define intentionality. Positively: intentionally made; not necessarily, but could be, the composition intentional. Negatively: not accidental, doodling, haphazard, functional or utilitarian.
The above propositions state the idea and attempt to support
the existence of intentionally repeated structures in the markings. We do not
attempt to build from consistent structure to meaning-based intentionality (and
thence to a notation system). Animal markings in caves frequently show a
functional consistency (Bednarik
What if the finger markings show consistencies that do not represent the meaning of the inscriptions? Consistencies could derive from elsewhere than the markings’ meaning; for instance, the markings could move in one direction because of where the line marker had to position him or herself to draw. But, supposedly, we cannot convincingly explain as accidental or functional the structures isolated and associated with the meaning of a notation system. Thus we need to distinguish between these two types of consistencies: those functionally or accidentally based, and those not. We suggest examining consistent structures in situ to see if the situation readily explains them. Those that evade accidental or functional rationales then become candidates for us to consider as products of the markings’ meaning.
Intentionality:
Cluster E-2: Similar in structure to Cluster E-1, with the grid on the left and lines on the right, but without the uni-centered arcs on the right as in A and with various arc shapes on the left in Cluster E-2.
Floor heights – fluters requiring a lift: This would suggest intentionality about the making of the markings that involves their placement on the wall or ceiling. Not just any old reachable surface would suffice for the line makers; they had to create height artificially to mark the areas they wanted to mark.
Some indicators of intentionality or its opposite:
· an excess of flutings; no layering (Cosquer, Koonalda).
· Depth, width, shape.
· We don’t see the dig in approach, i.e., low hand pressure, Rouffignac.
· No flat handed prints, no blowing, i.e., no hand identities.
The indicators of intentionality with the Kirian flutings:
· Different media retouch.
· Repeated motifs.
· Being raised to make the lines.
Whether intentionality leads to the cluster being a composition is another matter. This brings up the question of meaning. // Signs on intentionality may imply culturally transmitted meaning.
Meaning
· Leads from meaning discussion from old methodologies.
General questions and issues related to meaning:
· Are the lines open to audience participation, or watching, or neither?
· Note the absence of markings and drawings in Rouffignac, that is, over the apparent long time that this cave could have been used by humans, it was actually used very little. When it was used, it was probably used by one person or a small group of people at a time. It doesn’t have the feel of large group participation. (If many people visited and revisited a part of the cave over and over again without adding marks to existing ones, perhaps more ancient soot would be present either on the walls and ceiling (floor charcoal would have presumably been crushed by now).) Perhaps, therefore, someone special from the tribe came into the cave (for instance, a shaman). It’s hard to imagine a group allowing Joe Blow to come in as everyone is necessary for the survival of the group and it’s a risky visit. But the shaman has to go to special places to do only what shamans can do. She or he may have had ample opportunity to draw all over the place and to observe the animals in the wild. However, the art is also quite prevalent in the rock shelter homes (on the shelter walls, on the artifacts, and presumably on such perishable items as skins and woven materials). It was therefore probably not only made by the shaman.
· Why do the four forms exist? That is, why are the two variables important sometimes culturally? Or individually? It may be hypothesized that they relate to different cultures or traditions, each having a different way of fluting the cave walls. Or it may be that the different forms relate to different behaviors, or that they were made for different purposes, or in response to different needs. This could lead to a discussion on the meaning of the flutings.
· Does the original meaning of the lines have to do with what they remove from the medium rather than what they add?
Questions and issues related specifically to the meaning of the severines of Panel I:
· Do cupolas create different genres or meanings than do other geomorpological cave forms? Do long straight walls only have another type of severine, for instance, Rugolean flutings?
· How can we get closer to meaning, for instance with the Kirian lines?
- The numbers don’t seem to represent anything in the natural world.
- How about in the social world?
- It seems as if I need a piece of someone’s social life to use as an ethnographic model.
- Or I just need to take a stab and see how it makes sense of the cluster – e.g., say that each motif represents a person or character,…
- What might be represented?
· Why made only in Chamber E? On the other hand, the physical geography of the room or its position in the cave may more directly relate to the fluting form used in it and those not used in it.
· If the markings were made as the ‘representation’ of stories being told by the line makers, then the retouching of the lines with clay and sticks may represent the retelling of the stories.
· Instead of one story being repeated in several places in a room, maybe different stories are told using motifs chosen from a standard collection.
Elucidating meaning is premature at this stage of the research and perhaps may only ever be guessed, though hopefully educated guess work. Stay with questions of intention and not proffer any meanings.
Conclusions and Questions
·
Using
their severines as the phenomena for analysis, what can we know about the
people who used the cave?
·
??? Put in phase names. Do phase by phase with very brief conclusions and
questions that remain. //
·
Specific
conclusions, further questions arising. Answer cluster by cluster, then
generalize. Include only those applicable here. Say how conclusions are drawn.
//
·
From
particular research questions, answers above. Go back to what this says about
general questions: behavior, thinking, and who they were. //
·
Reorganize
what’s below according to the appropriate phases. ???
·
Go back
over results and discussions and make sure I’ve picked up the important pieces.
·
What’s the
most powerful conclusion or implication of this study? Repeating lines?
Multimedia (sticks and flutings)? U. Paleolithic motifs? Think about other
possibilities.
·
Social
context and relationships (e.g., kid)? Can I imagine/portray a possible social
context? May need a full picture of all Rouffignac fluters (in which case do
this as part of that paper). Brainstorm this with Leslie. Support for this
story versus any other, e.g., shamanic? Ours has fewer assumptions.
·
What is
the relationship between the tectiforms and these motifs?
Definition of Forms
The key distinguishing factors used to define the Mirian, Rugolean, Evelynian, and Kirian Forms are locomotion on the part of the fluter and whether single or multiple fingers comprise most of the units. Apart from moving from one cluster or part of a cluster to another to create new flutings, no lower body locomotion is required to flute in the Kirian Form. Whether other features of the forms turn out to be decisive, remains to be seen.
Comparative Research
Can the catalogue of motifs from
The Kirian lines occur alongside Mirian lines: are they over or under them? Do they have the same patination? Compare them also with that on modern graffiti also nearby.
Further Laboratory Research
??? summarize from section above on this ???
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank those who helped support this research:
·
Jean, Marie-Odile, and
· Our guides while in the cave: Sevérine Desbordes, Frédéric Goursolle, and Frédéric Plassard.
· Union Institute & University, for financial support through its faculty research grants.
· Robert Bednarik, Jean Clottes, Francesco d’Errico, Sandor Gallus,* Michel Lorblanchet, Alexander Marshack,* and Hallam Movius Jr.* for discussions and support over many years (*now deceased).
References
Aslin, G. D., E. K. Bednarik, and R. G. Bednarik.
Aujouat and Gély
2003
üBarrière, Claude.
Bednarik, Robert G.
ü_________.
_________.
_________.
_________.
_________.
_________.
_________.
_________.
_________.
Breuil, Henri.
Breuil et al.
1915
Chauvet et al.
1996
Clottes 2003
Clottes, Jean, and Jean Courtin.
Clottes, Jean, and David Lewis-Williams.
d’Errico, Francesco.