AR84. 28 August 2006.
Copyright © 2006 by Kevin Sharpe and Leslie Van Gelder. All rights reserved.
Appeared in Cambridge Archaeological
Journal.
The Study of Finger Flutings
by
Kevin Sharpe
Graduate College, Union Institute &
University,
10 Shirelake Close,
kevin.sharpe@tui.edu
www.ksharpe.com
and
Leslie Van Gelder
Walden University, Minneapolis, Minnesota,
USA
10 Shirelake Close,
lvangeld@waldenu.edu
ABSTRACT.
Historically, archaeologists have usually glossed over parietal finger flutings, especially nonfigurative and nonsymbolic fluted lines. This paper attempts to rectify this by saying something more concrete about them than that they exist. In particular, it develops a nomenclature and defines four forms to provide the fluting phenomenon with a workable language and a descriptive structure from which to build analyses. The paper also develops forensic and internal methodologies for such investigations, using experiments and studies of physiognomy to help derive information about the fluters from the flutings they created. The methods developed are applied to each of the four forms of flutings, showing which approaches may be the most useful for each form. Then broader questions and applications are touched on, including approaches to meaning, figures, and other families of parietal markings such as hand stencils. This approach to flutings augments other approaches to prehistoric ‘art’ by seeking to know about the artists themselves, for instance their gender, age, size, handedness, and the number of individuals involved in creating a panel.
KEY WORDS. Finger flutings, forensics, methodology, parietal ‘art,’ prehistoric ‘art.’
CONTENTS.
Experiments,
Studies, and Results
Buildup
at the End of a Fluting
Continuing
the Development of this Approach
Other
Methodological Techniques
Severines,
Figures, and Symbols
Related
Types of Parietal Markings
Paleolithic finger flutings are lines made with fingers
drawn over a soft surface. They occur in caves through southern Australia, New
Guinea, and southwestern Europe, and presumably were made over a considerable
time (see Figure 1). They can appear figurative (for instance, figures of
mammoths in Rouffignac Cave, France), form patterns or motifs (tectiforms in
Rouffignac, for instance), or present no recognizable symbol, picture, or
pattern. Evidently, a significant proportion of Paleolithic cave ‘art’ in
France comprises nonfigurative fluted lines. Lorblanchet (
Figure 1. Finger flutings in Chamber A1, Rouffignac Cave, France.
Some investigators in the past speculated about the meaning of these lines (Breuil et al. 1915; Leroi-Gourhan 1958; 1972), but most nowadays merely mention their occurrence, if anything. Thus, regarding Chauvet Cave, France, Chauvet and his colleagues do not mention them, whereas Clottes and his colleagues do, at least a little (compare Chauvet et al. 1996: Pls. 29, 30, 32, 33 with Clottes 2003: Illus. 84, 87, 88, 94). Aujoulat and Gély write about a wall ‘covered with bear clawmarks’ in the Hillaire Chamber of the cave, ‘on which some long, sinuous vertical lines have been engraved [actually, fluted],’ and which they interpretively consider ‘a reminder of the clawmarks that probably inspired them’ (Aujoulat and Gély 2003: 91). Previous understandings of nonfigurative flutings perhaps appear wanting and so scholars increasingly say less and less about them, and what they do say often is speculative. Write Clottes and Courtin:
barely a quarter of the finger tracings in some seventy
European Paleolithic painted caves has been the subject of surveys and precise
analyses. This clearly has to do with the indifferent aesthetic appeal of these
depictions, with the technical difficulty their study presents, and with the
uncertain and often insufficiently gratifying results that the researcher can
expect at the conclusion of the task (Clottes and Courtin
Despite their prevalence, little until now has or could be written about flutings, especially the nonfigurative examples. This paper tries to change this by proposing a language and systematic methodology for their study based on theory, experiment, field research, and analysis (Sharpe and Van Gelder 2004; In Press c). From this, the researchers endeavor to gather sufficient information for each site to replicate the markings as the original fluters made them and to describe the line markers: their ages, genders, handedness, and sizes, for instance, plus how many there were. Thus the question underlying this research is broad: Using their flutings as the phenomena for analysis, what can be known about the people who used the cave? The core of the research is to glean as much information as possible from the lines in order to learn about the fluters and how they fluted. The methodology suggested is different from that normally used for prehistoric ‘art,’ but still an archaeological search for finding out about the fluters.
Background on Method
The method developed here derives from the internal analysis that Marshack introduces, where he studies incised lines (for instance, Marshack 1972). For example, often using magnification, he examines the junctions and cross-sections of lines. Different cross-sections of incised lines may imply the use of a different tool, perhaps by different people, and perhaps at different times. Junctions may tell which lines overlie others and therefore the temporal sequence of their creation. Marshack’s major contribution is to look at the lines themselves before launching into questions of meaning.
Besides
Marshack, internal analysis has been practiced by Bednarik, d’Errico,
Lorblanchet, and others (for instance, Bednarik
This investigation is part of a research program that bases
its methodology on the flutings themselves, including repeated examination of them (Sharpe
2004; Sharpe and Fawbert
For
flutings, internal analysis suggests a close examination of the points at which
lines meet or overlie. Flutings can be looked at more extensively than this,
however, to see what else they might reveal about their creators and their
creation.
Nomenclature
The following nomenclature provides a language to describe
and understand the fluting phenomenon, and thus remove some of the confusion
and near silence associated with it (Sharpe and Lacombe
· Finger fluting or, abbreviated, the word fluting, refers to a line drawn with a finger.
·
Graphical
unit or, abbreviated, the word unit, refers to flutings drawn with one sweep
of one hand or with one finger (Marshack
· Cluster labels an isolatable group of units that exhibit a unity, for instance because they overlay each other. A cluster of flutings may be isolated if it is possible to tell what flutings one person creates as a continuous unitary act – while standing in one place, for instance, or while squatting or moving sideways.
· Panel refers to a collection of clusters that appears geographically or otherwise distant from other clusters or on a surface of reasonably uniform orientation.
· Engraving refers to line markings made with a tool. Within engravings, a difference exists between scratches (animal claw marks), incisions (lines that humans make with flint flakes or piece of other rock), scorings (lines made with a stick), and bone marks. And
· Severine refers to line markings that do 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 the terms ‘pattern,’ ‘symbol,’ ‘sign,’ and ‘picture.’)
Forms of Flutings
A definition of forms also helps develop a language and a basic framework for studying the fluting phenomena. Not picture or appearance but manufacture oriented, this definition of forms aims at methodological questions for the study of each form of fluting. The initial object is to learn about the fluters and how they fluted rather than to seek the meaning of the flutings.
Two factors help to categorize flutings from what has been observed in caves, from experiments in fluting, and from methodological considerations that arise. They are, for each unit:
1. whether the fluter uses one or more than one finger of one hand to flute the unit; and
2. whether the fluter stands in one place, hips still, or moves his or her lower body during the fluting of the unit.
‘Stands still’ means ‘no lower body movement’; if this applies, the people who flute the walls or ceilings stand still, moving their upper bodies to mark with their fingers. The fluter may move between making units, but stands stationary for each unit. ‘Moves’ means ‘lower-body movement’: if this applies, the people who flute the walls or ceilings not only sometimes walk or otherwise move their legs while fluting (thus the lines may extend beyond the arm range of a stationary fluter), but move their bodies from their hips to create the flutings by, for instance, bending, twisting, or shifting their weight.
These two factors produce four forms of flutings:
Kirian flutings: the fluter stands still while fluting each unit, and each unit comprises only one line (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Kirian
flutings (from the Goursolle Panel
(Panel I) in Chamber E, Rouffignac Cave). Also apparent are
horizontal scorings made with a charcoal stick and clay reapplications over
(some of) the flutings.
Evelynian flutings: the fluter moves while fluting each unit, and each unit comprises only one line (see Figure 3).
Figure 3. Evelynian flutings (from Gargas Cave).
Rugolean flutings: the fluter stands still while fluting each unit, and each unit comprises more than one line (see Figures 4 and 5).
Figure 4. Rugolean flutings of a vertical orientation (from Chamber G, Rouffignac Cave).
Figure 5. Semicircular Rugolean flutings (from Gargas Cave).
Mirian flutings: the fluter moves while fluting each unit, and each unit comprises more than one line (see Figure 6).
Figure 6. Mirian flutings made by different people (from Gargas Cave).
As will be seen below, the two variables that form the basis of this four-fold form differentiation lead to different sets of methodological questions. For instance, more than one finger in a unit may lead to the possibility of determining the ages, genders, and the number of fluters, matters not so easily amenable to these techniques when the units comprise only one finger. Lower body movement allows the possibility of drawing different shapes than when stationary. It can also lead to the investigation of the paths the fluters take while fluting. The point of the form definition is methodological, finding out more about the makers, not necessarily the meaning.
Markings of different types of severine and forms of fluting can co-exist in the same panel or cluster, called ‘multi-media’ panels or clusters. For instance:
·
In Gargas Cave: narrow fingers fluted in the
Mirian form along one side of a central crevice run over onto the other side of
the crevice to become Rugolean (Sharpe and Van Gelder In Prep.).
·
In Rouffignac Cave: some figures are drawn using
several means; for instance, Barrière’s ‘lion’ in Chamber G is made with stick
scorings, stone incisions, and flinger flutings (see Figure 7) (Barrière 1982;
Sharpe, Lacombe, and Fawbert 2002).
Figure 7. Barrière’s ‘lion’ figure, Chamber G,
Rouffignac Cave.
·
In Rouffignac Cave: the markings on the ceiling
around Kolk A in Chamber E include (a) fluted severines of the Kirian form
plus, interspersed and over top of each other, (b) scored severines, sometimes
leaving charcoal, and (c) the application of clay on some of the flutings (see
Figure 2) (Sharpe and Van Gelder In Press c). While the form differentiation is
designed to provide a method for studying the Kirian flutings, other techniques
may help in the study of the scorings and clay application, and yet other
techniques may help in understanding the cluster as a whole.
Variations within Forms
Within each form,
variations exist from place to place. For instance:
· Kirian flutings appear in the Goursolle Panel in Chamber E of Rouffignac Cave (see Figure 8) (Sharpe and Van Gelder In Press c) and in the Heather Cluster in Gargas Cave (see Figure 9) (Sharpe and Van Gelder In Prep.). Flutings in both are made with one finger by a stationary fluter. The Kirian lines in the Goursolle Panel are separated in sets of 7 or 14; the Kirian lines in the Heather Cluster overlap, are very narrow, vertical, and in sets of large numbers.
Figure 8. Kirian flutings (the vertical fatter lines) in the Goursolle Panel in Chamber E, Rouffignac Cave.
Figure 9. Very narrow Kirian flutings in the Heather Cluster, Gargas Cave.
· Units of Mirian flutings in the Desbordes Subchamber of Chamber A1, Rouffignac Cave (see Figure 10), are about 30 centimeters to 2 meters long, cover the ceiling, and sometimes occur as 2+2 units (see below for details) (Sharpe and Van Gelder In Press a-b); units of Mirian flutings in the Ferrer Panel in the Crevices Area of Gargas Cave (see Figure 11) can extend for 9 to 12 meters and are often in single units (Sharpe and Van Gelder In Prep.). Both are made by a moving fluter using more than one finger.
Figure 10. Mirian flutings, including some sometimes called ‘serpentines,’ in the Desbordes Subchamber of Chamber A1, Rouffignac Cave.
Figure 11. Mirian flutings, which can extend for several meters, in the Ferrer Panel in the Crevices Area, Gargas Cave.
The basis for distinguishing between variations within each form to some extent uses significant physical differences between clusters, as with the above distinction between the two Kirian or the two Mirian variations. Whether different methodological questions arise or do not arise for different variations, the importance of recognizing variations is to allow for potential differences from place to place and time period to time period between different cultural and individual styles of fluting.
Experiments, Studies, and Results
Foundationally, a nomenclature and a division into forms provide some theoretical tools with which to start an in depth and systematic study of flutings. The practical side can also provide tools. Flutings were looked at in situ and replicated in the laboratory in different media. Lines were drawn to see what is possible and how they look, and how they compare with the flutings found in caves.
Media and Sites
The experiments replicated flutings in five media (though not in the moonmilk of caves):
1. Plaster
of Paris in aluminum trays (Sharpe, Lacombe, and Fawbert
2. Clay. This is better than plaster of Paris because it keeps the lines and maintains its softness, and is even sometimes the original medium. However, it continues soft and therefore is easily damaged, and again it meets the problems of gravity, requiring that only a small horizontal area be used for fluting.
3. Finger paint applied to sheets of suitable paper taped together or on sheets of plastic. Paint is more flexible than plaster of Paris and clay, and is easier to use over a wider area and on a vertical surface. Flutings can thus be replicated on an area similar in size and inclination to those in caves, allowing the extension of arms into positions the earlier fluters might have used. The flexibility of the finger paint also allows the use of the surface several times over to try for different effects. While finger paint helps the experimenting, it meets its limitations; the paper wrinkles, for instance, and impedes the application of paint, and on plastic the individual flutings do not stand out well.
4. A blank wall allows the stretching of arms in various directions and distances to see if flutings can be made.
5. A condensation covered wall is better than a blank wall as it can be seen where the fingers mark. However, the same space cannot be remarked. Condensation also runs and evaporates.
Field investigations were carried out in Bara Bahau,
Cougnac, Gargas, Goutran, Pech Merle, and Rouffignac caves, France.
Markings Possible
Two factors control the range of possible flutings. Anatomical restrictions or limitations of hand and body restrict possible flutings and the positions from which they can be made. The second factor is the comfort of the line marker: how much discomfort the fluter is willing to endure to create flutings. This constricts the possible flutings and the positions from which they can be made. Also, it is assumed that no fingernails were used for the markings, that they were made with the soft pad of the finger. Then, given anatomical restrictions and comfort constrictions, what shapes do the investigations mentioned above suggest it is possible and impossible to flute? For a person using the right hand – mirror results apply for the left hand – and standing in front of and facing the wall, the following seems to prevail (‘Le Chain Graphique’ [Leroi Gourhan]: what one person can do without moving).
When drawing the
fingers vertically downward, the fingertips press into the surface when
the hand is above the shoulders; a little below the shoulders, the fingernails
start to scrape the lines, unless the hand is slanted more vertically.
(Restriction – mention is made in each factor whether it is an anatomical and
physical restriction, or a comfort constriction.) It is comfortable
to reach over the head right of the body and flute vertically downward and to a short distance past the shoulder
but above the waist. These marks start approximately
When drawing the fingers vertically upward, the fingertips press into the surface when the hand is below the chest; above the chest, the fingernails scrape lines. (Restriction.) It is comfortable to flute vertically upward to about hip height. (Comfort.)
It is possible to flute horizontally, moving right, from the far left to about 15 centimeters right of the left shoulder. (Restriction.) It is possible to flute horizontally, moving left, from the far right to the left shoulder. (Restriction.) It is more comfortable to flute horizontally from right to left than from left to right. (Comfort.)
It is more comfortable at a corner
of a curved line to twist the hand with the arm outstretched than to twist the
wrist if the medium surface is close (less than
The form of the hand lends itself to curves, circles, and intricate pictures when only one or two fingers are used (see Figure 12). The index finger, or the index and middle fingers give more flexibility to the lines made; curves are easier to make and can be quite sharp, making drawings of animals or deigns easier. The fewer the number of fingers used, the greater the control and maneuverability, and the more complex the fluted cluster might be. Greatest dexterity is achieved by fluting with only one finger. (Restriction.)
Figure 12. A fluted circle in Chamber E, Rouffignac Cave. It had to have been made from underneath.
When drawing curves with three or four fingers, the lower place of the little and ring fingers can result in overlapping and overlays or obliteration of their marks. The marks made by the other fingers may also overlap each other. For undulations, it is physically easier not to twist the fingers at the corners, which also causes overlap if the surface is close (30 centimeters) to the body. It is easier to twist the hand if the arm is outstretched. Four-fingered curves and undulations may be made with two fingers of each hand held touching each other (called ‘2+2’ flutings) to remove the overlap that can occur with the use of four fingers of one hand (see Figure 13). (Restriction.)
Figure 13. Parallel flutings made with two hands. Rouffignac Cave.
Anatomically, it is
only possible to flute a one-movement circle overhead, as opposed to a
circle fluted with two or more sweeps of the hand. When fluting a one-movement
circle overhead, the torso, legs, and perhaps the feet need to twist to bring
the fingers around the
When fluting with an outstretched arm, the unit tends to arc with the arm as the radius (see Figure 14). (Restriction.)
Figure 14. Fluting with an outstretched arm produces arcs. Chamber G, Rouffignac Cave.
In general:
· It is uncomfortable to place the hand directly in front of the body, finger pads on the wall. (Comfort.)
·
It is comfortable to flute in any direction toward
and in front of the body, and it
is more comfortable to flute at
· It is uncomfortable to flute left of the center of the body. It is more comfortable to flute above the head to shoulder level to the left of the body than below the shoulder. Swiveling the hand to the left can make it more comfortable. (Comfort.)
·
It is more comfortable and practical to flute at
a distance of between
· It is more comfortable to flute with the three middle fingers than with them plus either or both the thumb and little finger – the distance from the wall is an important factor. It is more comfortable to flute with the index or middle finger than with the third finger, the thumb, or little finger. (Comfort.)
·
It is more comfortable to flute on wetter
surfaces with some distance (greater than
Fluting can continue below waist height by bending the knees into a squatting or kneeling position. However, it is more comfortable to flute by moving up from the floor with the hand inverted than to move the hand downwards. The flutings made when squatting or kneeling down tend to sweep toward the body. (Comfort.)
With the body turned at right angles to the wall, it is more comfortable to flute with the hand further from the wall than with the hand nearer the wall. (Note that it is possible to face different directions to create different parts of a panel.) (Comfort.)
If the comfort of the fluters determines
where they mark the wall, the set of flutings made by an individual standing
upright and without moving his or her feet would encompass a maximum area of approximately
How relevant, though, are findings based on comfort? Discomfort could offer a constraint, but fluters may not have worried too much about discomforts or they may have been in a subjective state where they did not notice them. The constraints imposed by the cave itself – height, width, darkness, hard versus soft surfaces, and uneven floors, for instance – may have been more pertinent. Further, if flutings had to be made, for whatever reason, the restrictions imposed by the cave, personal discomfort, and other such factors may have been largely irrelevant until fluting became physically impossible (for instance, downward fluting below the waist). Given that many cave settings are difficult, however, it could be assumed that fluters would accept minor discomforts. But what is ‘minor’? How much discomfort would fluters accept?
The above experimental findings help inform whatever else is thought about and investigated regarding flutings. They form a foundation for all other work.
Significant Observables
Research into engraved lines through internal analysis requires observation of line overlap and tool cross sections. In a sense, the engraved lines hold data. Similarly, flutings hold data beyond merely visible shapes. What follows starts this line of thought by turning in part to physiognomic considerations (forensics).
Besides the most obvious observables like the number of fingers in a unit, the lengths, depths, widths, and the courses the lines take, the following can be looked for (each observable listed may apply to some forms and not to others):
Different Fingers
Different fingers of a hand sometimes produce different flutings:
The little finger may not make as deep a fluting – if any fluting at all – as do the three central fingers and its line is thus usually fainter than their’s. Further, in a unit, it also starts lower down than they do (see Figure 15).
Figure 15. The little finger (on the right) may not make as deep a fluting – if any fluting at all – as do the three central fingers and also starts lower down. Rouffignac Cave.
When the hand is relatively straight, the lateral position of the thumb means that it drags over the medium nearly at right angles to the orientation of the other fingers. The fingernail is, therefore, sometimes pressed into the surface to produce a sharp nail line or wide gouge. If it flutes a line, it is usually fainter than the lines from the central three fingers. It also starts lower down than those of the other four fingers and may appear at a greater distance from the flutings made by them when compared with their inter-digital spacings – which could incorrectly suggest that the thumb fluting is unconnected to the others. While build-up can appear on both the left and right sides of the fingers, it only appears on the nail-side of the thumb (it is fluted perpendicular to the other fingers, on its side as it were).
Moving the fingers horizontally places the fingers in a particular relative position. For example, when moving from right to left with the right hand above the shoulder, the thumb will usually not flute because the twisting of the hand can place it too far off the surface. This may not happen with the right hand moving from left to right.
The thumb and little
finger can be used to anchor support when the medium is wet, and the fingers
are held at a steep angle of approximately
Width of Fingers
Various pressures on fingers can cause the flutings in a unit to spread out or close in; when the fluter is stretching, for example, the fingers tend to splay. Thus, the spacing between the flutings in units of lines that one person makes may not be the same. They may more or less be the same, however, if the fingers are held close together. Measurements were made of the three-fingered flutings in the same medium (clay) from two fluter subjects (one male, one female), fingers close together, and with various pressures applied. For each person, the widths ranged 0.5 millimeters from the mean, within the error associated with the measuring process. That is, the size of the hand or fingers can be determined when fingers are together in the process of fluting a unit (see Figure 15). Further experiments might be conducted to ascertain what happens to fluting width when the flesh of the fingers is softened by working in water or hardened by physical activity, or when fluting in a variety of media of differing firmness.
If there are fewer than five lines in a unit, there is ambiguity as to which fingers were used. One line could be from the index or middle finger, for example, and two may be the index and middle, or the middle and ring fingers. To remove the ambiguity, therefore, the three central fingers close together are used to study the width of the hand – though probably a still sufficiently accurate study may be made using two fingers because, for comfort, people are most likely to make a two-fingered fluting with the index and middle fingers.
Variations in the breadth of a fluting could in theory result from different pressures being applied or from different densities or firmness of the media. But, apart from a very light or a very heavy touch – and these are obvious – fluting widths are much the same for one person’s fingers held together on the same medium.
Buildup at the End of a Fluting
The medium can build up at the end of a fluting, the remnant of the finger’s gouging action as the finger moves and then stops. The start of a fluting does not have this build up and may be smooth. However, by pressing the finger instead of dragging it, no medium may amass at the end. Note also that flutings made without removing the medium adhering to the fingers cannot be discerned from those made with clean fingers.
Relative Heights of Fingers
The flutings from the different fingers at the beginning of a unit usually show different relative heights, whereas they usually conclude a unit at the same level (see Figure 16).
Figure 16. The flutings from the different fingers at the beginning of a unit usually show different relative heights, though curling when stretching may render the finger tops straight. Rouffignac Cave.
Note that the curling of the fingers – for instance, to provide enough pressure to go into the surface, or when stretching up – renders the tops straighter. Further, if a unit is fluted with the hand at an angle away from the body and the unit is made downward but slightly toward the body, the fingers may appear to start at the same level.
Arced Units
When making a long fluting with an outstretched arm, the unit tends to arc with the arm as the radius (see Figure 14).
Overlays
An examination of line junctions may tell which lines
overlie others (see Figure 17). At line crossings and intersections, one can
look for build up – a fluting that cuts another one can leave build up at the beginning of the
intersection – cutting of the walls of a unit, and marking by one unit inside
the other. These indicate which line overlies the other.
Practicability
Reenactment of a fluted unit in front of it without touching the original medium – using both the left and right hands if the original handedness is not clear or the original hand if known – produces data relating to the levels of discomfort and practicability of making the fluting.
Figure 17. An examination of line junctions may tell which lines overlie others. Rouffignac Cave.
Other factors can also be observed and it is expected that the above list will increase as research on flutings proceeds.
Inferences
Besides the obvious inferences that can be drawn, such as the distinction between units, clusters, and panel, the following information may also be obtained about the fluters and their activities from the above data:
Fluting Hand
The side of the unit that shows evidence of a thumb or a little finger suggests whether the unit was made with the left hand or with the right hand: the thumb on the left or the little finger on the right suggests the right hand, the thumb on the right or the little finger on the left suggests the left hand.
Fluter Handedness
Not only might the fluting hand suggest the handedness of the fluter, but reenactment to gauge the practicability of the fluting can sometimes tell the probable handedness because of the efforts gone to in the various local circumstances to flute the flutings. For instance, left handedness is suggested by a left semi-circle made right before a wall that juts out to the right from the marked surface leaving about 60 degrees of open space for the fluter.
Age of Fluter
The width of the fingers relates to the age of the fluter; the widths of young children’s being the most distinctive, becoming adult sized often before the individual reaches the teenage years (Sharpe and Van Gelder 2004; In Press a). Measuring the width of a fluted unit may, therefore, indicate the age of the fluter. As mentioned above, the use of the three central fingers held together to measure finger width avoids the ambiguity as to which fingers were used. Further, because it cannot be determined on the basis of digital separation if the same person made different units of flutings, the use the fingers close together is used to measure the finger width. Another reason to use the fingers close together is that, while a small hand can flute lines spaced apart at various distances, a large hand cannot flute a unit of lines close together and less distance across than the width of the fluter’s fingers. Thus, the width of the fingers can be determined when three fingers are close together in the process of fluting a unit, and this in turn indicates an age range for the fluters.
Direction of Fluting
The direction in which a unit was fluted may be told from the beginnings and ends of flutings: buildup – if it exists – lies at the end of a unit and not at the beginning, and the existence of relative finger heights – if it exists – shows the beginning of a unit and not at the end.
Gender of Fluter
The fluting of the middle finger is
the furtherest out at the start of a unit of flutings made with more than one
finger. Consider the relative heights of the three central fingers. Peters’
research into the ratio of the extent of the index or second finger (2F),
relative to the middle finger (3F), to the extent of the ring or fourth finger
(4F) offers a tool that may help distinguish male from female fluters. In the
ratio of the index finger to the ring finger, a smaller value indicates further
finger height; thus, a figure of <1 means the index finger does not extend
as far as the ring finger and a figure of >1 means the converse. ‘Averaged
across…five studies’ of 1455 subjects in Brazil, Canada, India, Korea, and Turkey,
Peters and his colleagues write, ‘the ratio for the male left hand was .84 and,
for the right hand, it was .84 as well. For the women, the ratio for the left
hand was 1.08 and for the right hand 1.00’ (Peters, Tan, et al. 2002: 179b; see
also Manning et al. 1998; Peters, Mackenzie, et al. 2002). ‘The dimorphism is
present from at least age 2 years,’ write Manning et al. (1998: 3000), and the
ratio ‘is probably established in utero.’
Thus, 2F/4F < 1 suggests a male and 2F/4F ≥ 1 suggests a female.
Number of Fluters
It is recommended that the following two observables be used to distinguish between fluters and hence determine the number of fluters of a panel or a site: (1) the width of three fingers held together, and (2) the relative heights of the three central fingers for the left or right hand in a vertical non-stretching position. The relative heights of the three central fingers may be unique to a person; at least they were unique to each experimenter – as with the gender issue, this requires further elaboration. This information might help unscramble many mazes of lines and help relate lines that do not intersect.
Other observables might be found that help distinguish fluters from each other. What is consistent about a person’s flutings that will differentiate one person’s markings from another’s? Differences in pressure and variability between media can cause differences in the depth of the lines. Therefore, it cannot be determined, on the basis of a fluting’s depth, if the same person made different units of flutings or if units made by a woman or girl are shallower than those made by a man or boy. The consistency would thus have to span different pressures, speeds, lengths, number of fingers used, and so on.
Position of Fluter
It is sometimes possible to determine approximately the location of the person fluting a cluster. People have a limited reach and mobility of hands and fingers.
Height of Fluter
According to the
golden proportion, the height of a person is approximately the stretch of his
or her arms. It is possible to use left and right arced units to gauge the
stretch, and therefore the fluter’s height.
Temporal Sequence
Marshack’s internal analysis suggests working out the lines’ overlays and underlays and hence the temporal sequence of their compilation.
Direction of Cluster
Overlays tell the temporal sequence in which units in a cluster were fluted, which then tell, if applicable, the direction in which the cluster was composed – for instance, left to right (see Figure 18).
Figure 18. The fluting whose top is second from right crosses over its left hand neighbor, suggesting that the cluster was fluted left to right. Chamber E, Rouffignac Cave.
Shapes
Shapes modern people can recognize as such, especially repeated shapes, may appear in a cluster (see Figure 19). Part of this investigation could include the identification of 2+2 units versus units fluted with the four fingers of one hand.
Figure 19. Shapes modern people can recognize as such may appear in a cluster. Whether these loops appear in other sites is unknown. Chamber E, Rouffignac Cave.
Reconstruction of a cluster by the above means does not suggest that the fluter intended the composition of the cluster, though this is a possible subject for investigation that will probably call upon the above inferences and observations. In fact, the goal of this process for many investigators may be to provide data from which they might suggest intelligently what the intention or meaning of the fluters may have been.
Application
At this stage, the following inferences can be drawn about each form of fluting, where each may have its own set of questions and ways to answer them:
|
Inference |
Kirian |
Evelynian |
Rugolean |
Mirian |
|
Fluting Hand |
|
|
ü |
ü |
|
Fluter Handedness |
ü |
ü |
ü |
ü |
|
Fluter Age |
|
|
ü |
ü |
|
Fluting Direction |
ü |
ü |
ü |
ü |
|
Fluter Gender |
|
|
ü |
ü |
|
Fluter Numbers |
|
|
ü |
ü |
|
Fluter Position |
ü |
ü |
ü |
ü |
|
Fluter Height |
ü |
|
ü |
|
|
Temporal Sequence |
ü |
ü |
ü |
ü |
|
Cluster Direction |
ü |
ü |
ü |
ü |
|
Shapes |
ü |
ü |
ü |
ü |
This study of the lines ties with other investigations, including:
· The study of other severines than flutings.
· The dating of the flutings.
· The height of the flutings above the original floor.
· The layout of units in a cluster, clusters in a panel, and panels in a cave site.
·
The exploration, description, and archaeological
analysis of sites (for instance, Aslin, Bednarik, and Bednarik
·
The distinguishing between animal scratches,
taphonomic markings, other nonhuman markings, and human engravings (for
instance, Bednarik
·
The geomorphology of the marked surfaces and the
means by which they change (for instance, Bednarik
As an example, an earlier paper developed and provisionally
applied this empirical methodology to examine the Mirian flutings in the
Desbordes Subchamber of Chamber A
Limitations
This analytic technique and analysis is still being developed. It also remains an ideal; in practice, it faces problems. For instance:
· Lines in a unit may not be close enough together to measure the three finger width.
· Measuring errors may arise because of difficulties in reading the ruler, the vague edges of flutings, and so on.
· The relative heights of the fingers at the beginning of a unit may not be apparent because of the way the fluter held his or her hand.
· Overlays may not always be ascertained with certainty.
· Some sets of lines may contain none that overlap or meet, and hence this method may lose at least the temporal dimension of the lines’ construction.
· The rock may now have a quite granular surface, which means that this analysis can only be carried out to a certain size dimension. At some point the rock surface may swallow up the lines and renders them indistinguishable from background marks. This happens especially with weathered lines. And
· Calcite may cover the markings and prevent closer examination.
These and other factors lead to a degree of subjectivity and error in the analysis of the lines. The significance of other limitations and constraints may become apparent with further studies. It is hoped that the current consistency in results – for instance, in a cluster a small number of three-finger widths found despite a much larger number of units measured – favors the accuracy of the conclusions despite the observational errors and other limitations (Sharpe and Van Gelder 2004; In Prep.; In Press a-b).
Continuing the Development of this Approach
Other Methodological Techniques
Other techniques – for example, different visible lighting sources, x-ray, ultraviolet light, sonar, ultrasound, laser (see Perkins 2004; Wasklewicz et al. 2004), computer manipulation of the images – than those used above might penetrate the surface or bring out aspects of the lines not regularly seen under normal light. Digital imaging of fluters’ finger prints – such as seen both inside and hanging from various flutings in Gargas Cave – may help distinguishing between various fluters. One could explore factors that still fluters do not have to worry about but that moving ones do: the paths taken, the steps danced, the distances moved, the obstacles stepped over, the different drawn shapes possible, and so on. Sideways or vertical movement of the body while fluting may in some way disrupt the flow of the resulting flutings. Other methodological questions to ask are not yet formalized. Video of Mirian and Evelynian lines may help document them in ways that still photographs do not, and lead to further questions.
Further experimentation is needed. For instance,
·
To explore the relationship between different media
and fluting width.
· To explore the reliability of flutings of relative finger heights. If the fingers are curled, which may give a more straight line of finger tops, all the fingers are affected. What if only some are curled? How could this be ascertained?
Other factors also need exploring, including geomorphological ones; for instance, how the growth of moonmilk might influence the flutings.
Severines, Figures, and Symbols
Three types of flutings have been examined in the caves: nonfigurative lines (severines), images that modern people recognize as figures, and line images (‘patterns’ or ‘shapes’ or structural repetitions) that moderns recognize as symbols. These types sometimes occur together. It is assumed at this point that there is no difference between the three in terms of the method for fluting, and hence the inferences as outlined above that may be drawn for them; the same questions are studied for all three. This may turn out to be an inadequate assumption the further this type of study progresses.
Related Types of Parietal Markings
Several other types of parietal markings besides flutings exist, including stick scorings, stone incisions, clay application, dots, hand prints, and stencils. The driving force behind the nomenclature of this paper is methodological: how to study flutings and, more generally, how to study each of the different types of markings. For instance, the forensic studies of hands help with the study of the flutings and may also help with hand stencils. As mentioned above, the techniques already being developed by d’Errico, Lorblanchet, and Marshack assist with the study of engravings with flint, combs, bones, and so on. Each family of markings offers its own set of methodological questions. The investigator needs to seek out the relevant techniques and develop them for the particular phenomenon being investigated. Some of the techniques may apply to more than one type of severine – for example, overlays applies to both engravings and flutings – and some may apply only to one type.
Is there a relationship between the different methods of marking? Maybe there is in some instances, but maybe there is not. Perhaps line engravings – engraved by humans with sticks, stones, bones, or other tools – are of the same, a similar, or a parallel tradition to flutings. The chief difference between them may arise from the softness of the media, flutings requiring a softer surface to mark. Further research may elucidate this for particular sites.
A Complementary Investigation
Nougier and Robert write of flutings on the ceiling of Chamber A1 in Rouffignac Cave:
On Oct. 11 and 13, 1956, we found four anthropomorphs at Rouffignac, two of them…in the great red dome of the white uniters [flutings]. All four obeyed the rules of the species, that is, of the anthropomorphic series, that is – no rule at all. They were true ‘grotesques’; with big noses and big mouths, like Perrault’s deceased grandmother….The anthropomorph on the red ceiling of the uniters has a blunt chin, a receding forehead, a jutting nose, and a lively eye. From the point of the chin to the top of the head he measures 45 cm. (nearly 18 in.). A companion on another part of the roof, near-by is more mysterious. Drawn also with a finger, the head is excellent: forehead, nose, mouth, chin – then, going downwards, everything melts away in a shapeless mass. One of us tried to pick out the beginning of a leg and a pretty breast (Nougier and Robert 1958: 60-61).
There probably are no drawings of anthropomorphs on the
ceiling, just as there probably are no drawings of snakes there, despite what
Nougier and Robert, and Barrière (1982) firmly declare (Sharpe and Van Gelder
In Press b). Nevertheless, Nougier and Robert observed the fluted ceiling
through the eyes of a paradigm that now can be augmented. They believed that
the key to understanding the activities lies in recognizing shapes in the maze
of lines, and in their case they saw snakes and anthropomorphs. This Breuil
approach, which includes the Lewis-Williams’ shamanism hypothesis
(Lewis-Williams 2002), emphasizes appearance in a recognizable form because it
primarily and dominantly aims at meaning, versus asking about the act of
manufacture and about objective information on the fluter. The Breuil paradigm
can now be augmented, at least with respect to flutings, by forensic
investigations.
The methodology suggested in this paper is an archaeological search for objective information about the people who made the flutings, but it requires provisionally bracketing the question of meaning. Otherwise meaning tends to override other matters when looking at the flutings. Most people immediately search for meaning when confronted by flutings. Once substantially more is known about the fluters from the flutings themselves, questions of meaning can be addressed and sifted with the fluter information obtained.
Breuil referred to severines as ‘lignes parasites’; ironically, the ‘lignes parasites’ may actually tell as much or more about the severine makers than does the painting of an aurochs or horse.
Conclusions and Questions
This paper develops a way to study finger flutings. It first suggests a nomenclature, including the ideas and words ‘fluting,’ ‘unit,’ ‘cluster,’ ‘panel,’ different words for engravings according to their means of manufacture, and ‘severine.’ It then suggests a methodological division of flutings into four forms – Kirian, Evelynian, Rugolean, and Mirian – and a recognition of local variations of the forms, for example, Kirian flutings in the Goursolle Panel, Chamber E, Rouffignac Cave, and Kirian flutings in the Heather Cluster, Gargas Cave. The key to the form differentiation is the recognition of two significant factors: whether the fluter uses one or more than one finger of one hand to flute the unit; and whether the fluter stands in one place, hips still, or moves his or her lower body during the fluting of the unit. These two factors together produce the four forms.
The methodology derives from experiments with fluting in different media to provide an idea as to markings that are possible and what is required to produce specific features in the flutings. These experiments were correlated with flutings observed in various cave sites. From this work, a list was compiled of some significant observables in the flutings: the different fingers of the hand used, the width of fingers, buildup at the end of a fluting, the relative heights of fingers, the presence of arced units, unit overlays, and their practicability of execution. From these, some inferences may be drawn: the fluting hand, the handedness of the fluter, the age of the fluter, the direction of the fluting, the gender of the fluter, the number of fluters, the position of the fluter, the height of the fluter, the temporal sequence of the flutings, the direction of the cluster, and the shapes drawn. A discussion is provided as to how the observation and inference process may be applied, its limitations, and future work on the methodology. The methodology may also be extended into the study of other artifacts such as finger paintings and hand stencils.
Initial and sometimes detailed examination of the markings in the various caves mentioned above suggests the potential usefulness of the techniques this paper develops. Many factors in the construction and structure of flutings can be ascertained: in principle one can tell, for instance, the beginnings and ends of lines, the order of their creation, the position they were made from. Perhaps as much about the manufacture of the lines can be discerned as is necessary to reproduce them exactly. From this, inferences can be drawn about the fluters: for example, whether the units were fluted by different individuals, by left or right hands, the handedness of the fluter, the fingers used, and the age and gender of the fluters. In principle, one might be able to number and identify the individuals who fluted in a particular cave: for each of them, their gender, age group, handedness, height, even something about their personality from the way they flute, plus what lines they made. An initial application of some of the techniques has shown that young children aged 2 to 5 fluted the 150 square metres of marked ceiling in Chamber A1 of Rouffignac Cave in France.
The search for the meaning or intention behind the flutings must conform to the data the above method isolates, and the meanings proffered ought to suggest researchable hypotheses that the method might adjudicate.
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank the many people who have helped support this research:
· Jean and Marie-Odile Plassard, for discussions, their support, and permission to work in Rouffignac Cave.
· Conservation Régionale de l’Archéologie, Toulouse, and the Mayor and Commune of Aventignan for permission to work in Gargas Cave.
· Séverine Desbordes, Frédéric Goursolle, and Frédéric Plassard of Rouffignac Cave, and Marie-Paule Abadie and Nicolas Ferrer of Gargas Cave, for discussions and guiding us in their caves.
· Union Institute and University, for financial support through its faculty research grants.
· Miriam Sharpe and Mary Lacombe, for assistance in the research.
· Robert Bednarik, Jean Clottes, Francesco d’Errico, Sandor Gallus (now deceased), Michel Lorblanchet, Alexander Marshack (now deceased), and Hallam Movius Jr. (now deceased), for discussions and support over many years.
References
Aslin, Geoffrey D., E. K. Bednarik, and Robert G.
Bednarik.
Aujoulat, Norbert, and Bernard Gély. 2003. The Hillaire
Chamber, Around the Large Collapse. In Return
to Chauvet Cave: Excavating the Birthplace of Art – The First Full Report,
ed. Jean Clottes, transl. Paul G. Bahn (London: Thames & Hudson), pp.
88-93.
Barrière,
Claude.
Bednarik, Robert G.
_________.
_________.
Breuil, H.,
H. Obermaier, and W. Verner. 1915. La Pileta a Benaojan (Malaga).
Monaco: Institut de Paléontogie Humaine.
Chauvet, Jean-Marie, Eliette Brunel Deschamps, and Christian Hillaire. 1996. Dawn of Art: The Chauvet Cave – The Oldest Known Paintings in the World. Transl. Paul G. Bahn. New York: Harry N. Abrams.
Clottes, Jean, ed. 2003. Return to Chauvet Cave: Excavating the Birthplace of Art – The First Full Report. Transl. Paul G. Bahn. London: Thames & Hudson.
Clottes, Jean, and Jean Courtin.
d’Errico, Francesco.
_________.
d’Errico, Francesco, Christopher Henshilwood, and Peter
Nilssen.
Leroi-Gourhan,
André.
_________. 1972. Animals of the Old Stone Age. In Animals in Archaeology, ed. A. Houghton Brodrick (New York: Praeger), pp. 1-14.
Lewis-Williams, David. 2002. The Mind in the Cave: Consciousness and the Origin of Art. London: Thames and Hudson.
Lorblanchet, Michel.
_________.
_________.
Manning, J. T., D. Scutt, J. Wilson, and D. I. Lewis-Jones. 1998. The Ratio of 2nd to 4th Digit Length: A Predictor of Sperm Numbers and Concentrations of Testosterone, Luteinizing Hormone and Oestrogen. Human Reproduction 13:11 (November), pp. 3000-3004.
Marshack, Alexander. 1972. The Roots of Civilization: The Cognitive Beginnings of Man’s First Art, Symbol, and Notation. New York: McGraw-Hill.
_________. 1977. The Meander as a System: The Analysis and Recognition of Iconographic Units in Upper Paleolithic Compositions. In Form in Indigenous Art, ed. P. J. Ucko (Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies), pp. 286-317.
_________.
Nougier, Louis-René, and Romain Robert. 1958. The Cave of Rouffignac. Transl. David Scott. London: George Newnes.
Peters, M., U. Tan, Y. Kang, L. Teixeira, and M. Mandal. 2002. Sex-Specific Finger-Length Patterns Linked to Behavioral Variables: Consistency across Various Human Populations. Perceptual and Motor Skills 94:1 (February), pp. 171-181.
Peters, Michael, Kevin MacKenzie, and Pam Bryden. 2002. Finger Length and Distal Finger Extent Patterns in Humans. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 117:3 (March), pp. 209-217.
Perkins, Sid. 2004.
Laser Scanners Map Rock Art. Science News 165:14 (3 April), p. 222.
Plassard,
Jean.
Sharpe, Kevin. 2004. Line Markings: Human or Animal Origin? Rock Art Research 21:1 (May), pp. 57-84
Sharpe, Kevin, and Mary Lacombe. 1999. Line Markings as
Systems of Notation? In News
Sharpe, Kevin, Mary Lacombe, and Helen Fawbert. 1998. An Externalism in Order to Communicate. The Artefact 21, pp. 95-104.
_________. 2002. Investigating Finger Flutings. Rock Art Research
Sharpe, Kevin, and Leslie Van Gelder. 2004. Children
and Paleolithic ‘Art’: Indications from Rouffignac Cave, France. International
Newsletter on Rock Art
_________. In Press a. Evidence for Cave Marking by Paleolithic Children. To appear in Antiquity.
_________. In Press b. Finger Flutings in Chamber A1 of Rouffignac Cave, France. To appear in Rock Art Research.
_________. In Press c. Four Forms of Finger Flutings as Seen in Rouffignac Cave, France. To appear in Festschrift for Alexander Marshack.
_________. In Preparation. Finger Flutings in Gargas Cave, France.
Wasklewicz, Thad, Heather Volker, Dennis Staley, David Whitley, and Joe Simon. 2004. A New Technique for Mapping Petroglyphs. Presented to the 2004 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Geographers, Philadelphia, 14-19 March.