AR
Copyright © 2006 by Kevin Sharpe and Leslie Van
Gelder. All rights reserved.
In process. Detailed report on the 3/4?? panels.
Zipf #3.
Applying Internal,
Forensic, and Zipf Analyses to Three/Four++??? Panels of Finger Flutings in
by
Kevin Sharpe
Graduate College, Union Institute & University,
Harris
ksharpe@ksharpe.com
www.ksharpe.com
and
Leslie Van Gelder
leslievg@ksharpe.com
ABSTRACT.
This paper uses an empirical methodology to examine two
clusters of a variant of the Rugolean Form of finger fluting found in
KEY WORDS.
??? Finger flutings, methodology, parietal art, prehistoric art.
CONTENTS.
·
It’s
striking that there are no undulations in these two panels (Mammoths of
Discovery and the Patriarch). Re other indicators of different intentions.
·
What isn’t
there in the cave and what isn’t there in each panel. E.g., lines circling
rocks in A1 and E, but nowhere else we’ve studied (½ circling, twice, on a
wall). Zigzags (undulations) not in some panels. Re other indicators of
different intentions.
·
Continued validity of the argument for Rugolean’s being
writing with children not making lines in Chamber E or in Breuil. Relates to
forensics.
·
Another measure, called
But another aspect of information theory can take you further than just knowing a species has the potential for advanced communications. Without understanding what is being said, you can find out just how complex its communications are.
Claude Shannon, the father of information
theory, pioneered the approach.
The higher entropy levels, second order and up, relate to the notion of ‘conditional probabilities’: once you have seen a particular sequence of elements, what are your chances of predicting the next element in the series? If, for instance, you know the first and second words of a phrase, the third-order entropy tells you (in logarithmic form) the odds of guessing the third word correctly. Analyses of English and Russian suggest that these languages show evidence of 8th or 9th-order Shannon entropy, meaning that when presented with a string of eight words, you have some ability (slim but non-zero) to predict what the ninth word might be. After that, though, all bets are off. If you want to guess what the 10th word is, the previous nine are of no value.
Primitive communications, such as chemical
signaling systems employed by cotton plants, don’t go beyond first-order
This kind of analysis can reveal differences in communication complexity between the species. Interpretation of such graphs is complicated, but it does show that human languages have broadly similar communication potential, and that other animals have different capabilities, the limits of which have not yet been fully explored (Nadis 2003: 38).
· Do forensic analyses (perhaps there will be other important data here for the next study).
·
· Do I need a forensic analysis? Maybe not at this stage – for example different fluters – could go into the questions for the future.// to do a full forensic analysis in this paper may take too much space and documentation. Do I need it at first?
· Perhaps the curved || || is a form or element of the grammar (in MoD Panel).
The following are observations made in the
cave in March 2007. Whether they are relevant in this paper or the fuller
version or something else (e.g., when doing forensic analyses of these 2
panels) needs to be decided.
Mammoths of
Discovery:
· Both mammoths appear to be fluted by the same 16 mm fingered person who also appears to have done all of the flutings surrounding the mammoths (i.e., th doubles and quadruples). The tops are confusing, are not 41. In one instance, they appear male. Often a curvature to the tops so hard to say.
· Need to experiment with children (especially and adults) to see the vertical proximity of the pinky to the other fingers (would be on young kids versus adults). The ‘pink distance’ may be another good indicator of age and individuality.
· 50 (48) just after the ‘X’ gives 2=29 and 1=14. Above it a fingered unit of 3=38, then another of 46 that gives 1=16-17.
· After looking, 38 and 50 both seem female.
· The panel with curved ends has in both cases 2-fingered units on both sides. Units in between done by different people, which implies not the same person.
· Perhaps the curved || || is a form or element of the grammar.
· ‘Profiles matter.’ Judge by widths and then if same width, see if there are other distinguishing characteristics.
· Rugolean units of RH end of panel are 41 (i.e., 41 is present right after the bear scratches). Tops are 41 are obvious.
AB Rugolean (i.e., Patriarch) Panel:
· RH end mammoth. Inside is a 3=44 unit with very rounded tops (1=14). Back of mammoth is 1=15; 2=34S.
· In the panel: 34, 41, 38 by widths and profiles. 38 appears to have much thinner fingers than 41 (perhaps).
· RH mammoth: 3=36 and 34. Single finger on back of mammoth: 14 and 13. Index on front? is 13. 1 of 3.
· LH mammoth: 3=43, 2=31, 1=15 (back). If 44, did 41 do the mammoths at both ends of the panel?
· Mess to left of mammoth has 34 in the middle and 28 as well.
· Maybe do the 3rd paper before the 2nd – or at least refer to it. I need to spend some time working out the relevant content of each.
·
Use of
· Forensic analysis and its influence (or should this be the 3rd paper?).
· Chamber E for 3rd paper.
· Do yet another Zipf paper for Gargas – 2 panels plus baton.
· Forensics may explain why the Patriarch Panel does not produce a gradient of -1.
· Fuller discussion of Zipf.
· Fuller discussion on notation, etc.
· I think this paper still needs to focus on the 2 panels in the 1st paper.
· Many of the future directions will come out of the 1st paper.
·
So the 3rd paper is a fuller analysis
of 2/3/4 panels in
A full analysis of the
four+ panels in
·
Use Zipf’s
Law on Blombos ochre.
·
Do the
number of units repeat between clusters? If so, does this give a similarity to
Kirian flutings?
·
Have I
written more extensively about the Rugolean form elsewhere? Seems to be very
little here. Perhaps in the forms paper. Also there must be more notes on them
other than those from November
·
Add stuff
from previous papers, e.g., on the forms in Rouffignac.
·
Looking
for meaning-repetition-structures across the panels: use Zipf’s law to find
them.
·
We see a
commonality of 6 units of 4 near the LHS of 2 Rugolean clusters near the
Mammoths of Discovery and the Patriarch.
·
It’s
striking that there are no undulations in these two panels (Mammoths of
Discovery and the Patriarch).
· Continued validity of the argument for Rugolean’s being writing with children not making lines in Chamber E or in Breuil.
· What isn’t there in the cave and what isn’t there in each panel. E.g., lines circling rocks in A1 and E, but nowhere else we’ve studied (½ circling, twice, on a wall). Zigzags (undulations) not in some panels.
Introduction including
to the cave, our work (history of publications).
Historical,
geographic, cave layout
Update from AR
Prehistoric finger flutings (the lines that human fingers
leave when drawn over a soft surface) occur in caves through southern
Australia, New Guinea, and southwestern Europe, and were presumably made over a
considerable time span including some or all of the Upper Paleolithic. Most are
not obvious figures or symbols; flutings of this type are termed ‘severines.’
Rather than speculate as to meaning or the development of types of severines
over time, this paper continues to establish an objective and experimental
approach to the lines (Sharpe and Lacombe
The following terminology may help when discussing flutings: ??? say draws on … reference for terms relevant to this report and the development of new terminology. ???
· As said above, the word fluting refers to a line drawn with a finger.
·
The phrase graphical
unit (or, abbreviated, the word unit) refers to flutings drawn with one sweep
of one hand or with one finger (Marshack
· The word cluster labels an isolatable group of units that exhibit a unity, for instance because they overlay each other.
· The word panel of clusters …. ???
The term fluting applies to line markings made with fingers, and the term engraving refers to line markings made with a tool. Within engravings, a difference exist between scratches (animal claw marks), incisions (lines that humans make with flint or other piece of rock), scorings (lines that humans make with a stick), and bone marks (lines that humans make with a bone).
The term severine is suggested for line markings that do not participate in the figurative part of a definitive figure or demonstrable symbol or sign, equivalent to Marshack’s term ‘meander’ (Marshack ??? ) but without the restrictive overtones of this word. Thus, the category ‘line markings’ not only comprises flutings and engravings but, coextensively, also severines, figures, and symbols.
The following three forms of fluting have been introduced and possibly established for finger flutings found in Rouffignac Cave, France (Sharpe and Van Gelder Preprint):
Two things define a cluster of finger flutings as of the Rugolean Form: the fluter standing in one spot while fluting a unit, and most units comprising more than one line. The people who fluted the walls or ceilings stood still, moved their upper bodies, and marked mostly with more than one finger at a time. The fluter may have moved between making units, but stood stationary for each unit.
This paper continues the stylistic analysis of flutings of
the Rugolean Form, particularly the flutings found in Gallery … and …
(otherwise known as the … respectively) of
Previous work on
Rugolean Form in Rouffignac and elsewhere
·
Look for
units touching or overlaying to see the direction for making the units.
Give the impression of multiple markers working in concert.
Overall questions.
Specific questions.
Introduction to the three methods. // Overall methodology, specific
methodologies, comparison with other methodologies
Specific questions for
this form
·
Do adult
hands make long horizontals along the walls, or only children?
·
Seems to
be RH
·
In
groupings, are there always RH
·
Number of
fluters.
·
Can we
distinguish individuals among Rugolean sets?
·
Fingers
splay when stretching. The further out from the center, the more the fingers
splay.
·
Need
notation as to where the marker stood.
1.
Need where
people stand, and relative positions of them, which implies
1.
White space,
2.
Continuous
movement of marker from place to place, or
3.
Different
acts.
2.
Mark on photo
of area where a cluster made from.
3.
There is a
sense of the relative placement of clusters.
·
Different
widths imply different persons?
·
Look at the Rugolean lines specifically for gender.
Overall (Update this):
To understand the fluting creation process and to know about the behavior and biology of the fluter(s).
· Distinguishing between individual fluters
· How many fingers
· Left or right hand
· Gender of fluter
· Height of fluter
· Age of fluter
· Direction each fluting made
· Direction in which the flutings were applied
· Order in which the flutings were made
· Layout of cluster and panel of clusters
· Height of cluster above original floor
· Addition of things (such as clay and charcoal) over the fluting
· What movements of the fluter were involved in the marking process
· Use of other marking techniques besides finger fluting
· Condition of fluting: comparing old and new ones
·
Generally
upright. Markings show evidence of stationary line marker. Length of lines
tends to be determined by the arc of an arm moving in one gesture (generally
from top to bottom or from the side across to bottom).
·
Leslie’s
trying with finger paints when away from the center, even the starts of units
show a curvature indicative of the hand L or R.
·
Research
results
To the right of the Patriarch. Assume is Breuil.
·
Are the
top (narrow) lines Jasperian versus Rugolean? But kids doing their thing while
adults were doing something else?
·
We see a
commonality of 6 units of 4 near the LHS of 2 Rugolean clusters near the Mammoths
of Discovery and the Patriarch.
·
It’s
striking that there are no undulations in these two panels (Mammoths of
Discovery and the Patriarch).
·
Around the
Patriarch:
o For Rugolean lines: put the over/underlay
analysis further back. Isolating the number of individuals may be more
important.
·
Around the
Patriarch:
o One person with R and L hands and space
between.
·
Are all
the units here (the Patriarch lines) right handed? If they are, why the curve
to the left? Experiment with this.
The following notes
are from the Abbé Breuil chamber, but whether they pertain to the first or
second panel is unclear. I also recorded the measurements as cm but I guess
they’re meant to be mm.
Flutings – end – LHS
1.
L –
2. to
right of (
3. to
left of (
4. to
left of (
(
(
5. RH
6. ~
?RH
7.
obscure beginnings
Much harder to see the units clearly enough to measure it than visually to
distinguish it
8. to
right of (
top obscure
9. to
right of (
top obscure
10. to right of
(
top obscure
11.
top obscure
12. Kirian – tops obscured by bear scratches
13. horizontal
unit
top obscure
14.
15.
16. horizontal
–
beginnings obscured
ends further to right of (
· Appear to be a lot of hands here.
· Very difficult to tell the relative heights: the act of measuring is very difficult.
To the right of the Mammoths of Discovery
·
We see a
commonality of 6 units of 4 near the LHS of 2 Rugolean clusters near the
Mammoths of Discovery and the Patriarch.
·
It’s
striking that there are no undulations in these two panels (Mammoths of
Discovery and the Patriarch).
·
Has some
single lines following bear scratches as in other Rugolean panels.
·
First
mammoth panel: x’s: LH unit under RH unit.
·
The pairs
in the mammoths of discovery:
o Tusks cut over everything.
o The very left lines aren’t paired.
o To the right of the X cluster there are
smaller clusters; a V, etc.
·
The
underlying cluster/unit is a large horizontal X.
·
Around the
Patriarch:
1.
Looked at
finger widths => more than one individuals (between
·
First mammoth
panel: tusks over the paired lines => mammoth over the pairs and quadruple
units.
·
At the X
itself, the side starting on the left is done with the left hand, the side
starting on the right is done with the left hand and is over top of the left
side (see the thumb marks as well).
·
The second
right unit has a different curvature and looks less weathered.
·
Looking to
measure finger top height:
1.
Can’t do a
unit that starts curved.
2.
The LHS
doesn’t give a good finger top height.
3.
The RHS
person didn’t have big relative height differences.
4.
Better to go
with where the person stood.
5.
Or with
finger widths.
6.
Problem also
with the wall curvature where the lines start.
7.
Even a photo
wouldn’t help measure the relative heights as the information isn’t there.
8.
Stretching would
also mess up the relative heights.
·
They have
better finger tops than the others.
·
The quads
curve differently from the pairs.
·
The pairs
in the mammoths of discovery:
1.
Very small
lines, much smaller than Leslie’s.
2.
The very left
(long?) seems splayed.
3.
For the pair
units, there is one spot for making them.
4.
For the quad
units, there is also one spot (the epicenter) for making them.
5.
There’s about
6.
The different
line widths between the pairs and the quads say they were done by different
people. They could be contemporaneous because they’re
7.
The epicenter
at the X is much further away, about
·
X panel:
Séverine could draw most of it while standing at the X.
·
RHS has
right tilt and LHS has left tilt. Curvature => where standing.
·
Did more
than one person make the lines at the two mammoths?
·
First
mammoth panel: Looks like
·
By the 2
mammoths for finger heights.
·
Did more
than one person make the lines at the 2 mammoths?
In the Via Sacra, right hand wall???
·
Via Sacra:
o Are some Rugolean lines and one large
concentration of them.
o Rugolean can include horizontal lines; just,
not walking.
·
Via Sacra
Rugolean Panel:
o
o Many of the
o Large ones are sometimes splayed.
o Horizontal lines are of different widths.
In the Via Sacra, left hand wall???
·
Via Sacra
Rugolean II:
o Horizontal lines are Rugolean.
·
About
In the Via Sacra, moving left to right????, some widths:
1. In
‘tectiform-type figure’:
2. To
right of this, sets are of
3. Small
units of
4.
5. But
beneath it is a
Lighter sets are
6.
7.
Seems as if older marks – fainter – are
Over these in bigger composition – are
In this area, flint nodules missing (don’t appear to be elsewhere) with some evidence of forcible removal.
• Having done this with one cluster of
lines of a particular style, seeing how another cluster of the same style
stacks up against it.
• Can we break a cluster of structured
units into ideational units (called motifs or something)? If so, how do the
ideational units of one cluster compare with those of another cluster? (Maybe
this is as close as we can get to meaning.)
• Then compare this from Rouffignac
with the same analysis from another cave nearby and one from some distance
away.
·
Are there repetitions of structures?
·
Including
comparison of panels
Specific conclusions,
general implications, further questions arising. Include other places in
·
We need a
panel or cluster with enough clarity to look at. Which leads me to ask about
ignoring certain lines while including others. Ignore underlying ones? NO. Ones
with older weathering (fainter)? Different hands made them?
·
3’s and 4’s
might not be significantly different if the 4 is a drag at the end or at
corners. Note to make a 2 or a 1 or a 3 or a 4 with intention (i.e., holding
fingers up) is more significant.
·
??? Chamber A
·
Junction
of A
o Some Rugolean lines are high up at the
junction on the RH side (a person would have had to climb up on the flint
nodules to have made the marks).
o Some long horizontals along the RH side
wall.
o Space gets lower and lower the further down
A, and yet there isn’t evidence of much on the ceiling (a lot of graffiti).
·
Measure widths of Rugoleans at the entrance to A2.
·
A1/A2 junction: 5 units fluted @ 48 mm for 3 fingers.
·
A cross
over from flutings to engravings: Frederic Plassard -- 4 lines in the verticals
of tectiforms he thinks is significant, in both engraved and fluted tectiforms.
Is this a key?
·
The next
big questions beyond the adequacy of this methodology and analysis concern
translation.
o That may not be possible.
o Some leads: Ogham, etc.
o May be very cultural, time, and geography
dependent
o The making of severines may be fairly
universal however.