AR94. 23 August 2005.
Copyright © 2005 by Kevin Sharpe and Leslie Van Gelder. All rights reserved.
Submitted for publication.
Techniques
for Studying Finger Flutings
by
Kevin Sharpe
Graduate College, Union Institute &
University, Cincinnati, Ohio
Harris Manchester College, Oxford University
10 Shirelake Close, Oxford OX
ksharpe@ksharpe.com
www.ksharpe.com
and
Leslie Van Gelder
Walden University, Minneapolis, Minnesota
10 Shirelake Close, Oxford OX
lvangeld@waldenu.edu
ABSTRACT.
Archaeologists usually gloss over parietal finger flutings, especially the nonfigurative and nonsymbolic fluted lines. Yet these marks constitute a major portion of Paleolithic parietal ‘art,’ whether in western Europe or Australia. This paper reports on an attempt to rectify this by developing a collection of forensic and internal methodologies for investigating the phenomena, using experiments, observations, and studies of physiognomy to help derive data about the fluters from the flutings they created. These methods can produce such information as each fluter’s gender and age group, and the number of individuals involved in fluting a panel or a cave.
KEY WORDS. Finger flutings, forensics, methodology, parietal ‘art,’ prehistoric ‘art.’
CONTENTS.
Paleolithic finger flutings (lines made with fingers 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 (see Figure 1). (They
occur in other locations as well, though probably of a more recent age.) They
sometimes form figurative images, patterns, or motifs, but often present no
recognizable symbol, picture, or pattern. A significant proportion of
Paleolithic cave ‘art’ in western Europe and Australia comprises nonfigurative
fluted lines.
Figure 1. Finger flutings in the Desbordes Subchamber of Chamber A1, Rouffignac Cave, France.
While investigators in the past have speculated about the
meaning of these lines (for example, Breuil et al. 1915), most nowadays merely
mention their occurrence, if they mention them at all (Clottes and Courtin
Three early phases of this research have proved helpful:
1. A nomenclature was created so that investigators can discuss and differentiate the flutings they study (Sharpe, Lacombe, and Fawbert 2002).
2. Two
methodology-based variables and hence four forms of flutings were recognized,
enabling a study of flutings by categories (Sharpe and Van Gelder To Appear 1).
The two variables are:
(a) whether the fluter uses one or more than one finger of one hand to flute the unit (a unit comprises the flutings drawn with one sweep of one hand or with one finger); and
(b) whether the fluter stands in one place, hips still, or moves his or her lower body during the fluting of the unit.
The four forms these variables produce are:
(a) Kirian flutings: the fluter stands still while fluting each unit, and each unit comprises only one line;
(b) Evelynian flutings: the fluter moves while fluting each unit, and each unit comprises only one line;
(c) Rugolean flutings: the fluter stands still while fluting each unit, and each unit comprises more than one line; and
(d) Mirian flutings: the fluter moves while fluting each unit, and each unit comprises more than one line.
3. Flutings were looked at in situ and replicated in the laboratory in different media to see what flutings are possible and how they were made (Sharpe, Lacombe, and Fawbert 2002; Sharpe and Van Gelder To Appear 2; Preprint 1).
These findings help inform what is thought and investigated regarding flutings.
Significant Observables
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 are some other pertinent observables (the limitations of these studies are given in Sharpe and Van Gelder Preprint 1):
Different Fingers
The different fingers of a hand sometimes produce flutings with different characteristics, making it possible to ascertain what fingers were used for fluting:
· The little finger may not make as deep a fluting – if any fluting at all – as do the three central fingers and is thus usually fainter than their lines. It also starts lower down than they do (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. 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. The lines to the right of the flutings are cave bear scratches. Rouffignac Cave.
· When the hand is relatively straight, the lateral position of the thumb means it drags over the medium nearly at right angles to the orientation of the other fingers. The thumbnail, therefore, is sometimes pressed into the surface to produce a sharp nail line or wide gouge. The thumb fluting also starts lower down than those of the other four fingers and its distance from them may be somewhat greater than they are individually from each other.
Width of Fingers
The width of the fluted fingers is an important variable. For one or two lines in a unit, there is ambiguity as to which fingers were used and what finger’s fluted width is being measured. To remove the ambiguity, the flutings of the three central fingers are used to study finger width.
Another difficulty arises. The spacings between the fingers in units of lines that one person flutes may not be the same from unit to unit. But what if the fingers are held close together? Measurements were made of the three-fingered flutings in the same medium (clay) from two fluter subjects, fingers close together, and with various pressures applied. For each person, the widths ranged at most 0.5 millimeters from the mean, within the error associated with the measuring process. That is, apart from a very light or a very heavy touch (and these are obvious), the size of the fingers probably can be reliably determined from the flutings of the three central fingers held close together.
Relative Heights of Fingers
The flutings from the three central fingers at the beginning of a unit can show different heights relative to the middle finger – though the fingers cannot be curled (see Figure 2).
Inferences
Besides the obvious and well-established inferences that can be drawn – such as recreating the temporal sequence of the fluting (following Marshack’s (for example, Marshack 1972) technique of internal analysis – the following information is some of what also may be gleaned about the fluters and their activities, especially from the above observations:
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 or the right hand.
Age Group 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; Preprint 2). Measuring the width of a fluted unit (actually, of the three central fingers in a unit) may, therefore, indicate the age group of the fluter.
Gender of Fluter
The fluting of the middle finger is the furtherest out at the start of a unit of flutings made with at least the three central fingers. Peters’ research into the ratio of the extent of the ring or fourth finger (4F) to the extent of the index or second finger (2F) relative to the middle finger (3F) offers a tool helps distinguish male from female fluters. He and his colleagues write:
Because in our measure a smaller number denotes longer distal extent, the ratio (ring finger value/index finger) value will yield a figure < 1 if the ring finger extends further than the index finger and > 1 if the converse is the case….Averaged across…five studies [of 1455 subjects in Brazil, Canada, India, Korea, and Turkey], 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, et al. 2002: 179b).
Thus, 4F/2F
< 1 suggests a male and 4F/2F ≥ 1 suggests a female.
Number of Fluters
The following two observables may be used to help distinguish fluters:
1. the width of the three central fingers held close together; and
2. the relative heights of these fingers for the hand in a vertical position.
Discussion and Conclusions
Earlier papers developed and applied this empirical
methodology to examine the flutings in the Desbordes Subchamber of Chamber A
The goal of this investigatory process for many researchers may also be to suggest intelligently what the intention or meaning of the fluters may or may not have been. This research has, for instance, called several suggestions as to the meaning of the flutings in the Desbordes Subchamber into question (2-5 year-olds would probably not have been shamans or the subjects of puberty initiation rites, for example) (Sharpe and Van Gelder Preprint 3).
Initial and sometimes detailed examination of the flutings in various caves suggests the potential usefulness of the techniques this paper samples. 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, the fingers they used; whether they fluted the units with their left or right hands; their handedness, heights, age groups, and genders; where they stood; whether different fluters fluted the units; and the number of fluters. In terms of the structure of the flutings, in principal one can tell, for instance, the beginnings and ends of lines, and the order of their creation – further structural investigations of the flutings, if structures are found, may tell something about what the fluters intended to draw. Not only is more work on flutings required following this methodology, but more work can also be done on developing the methodology itself. Further, it may be possible to extend it into the study of other artifacts such as finger paintings and hand stencils.
Acknowledgements
Several individuals, communities, and institutions have helped in this research:
· Jean and Marie-Odile Plassard, with discussions, support, and permission to work in Rouffignac Cave.
· Conservation Régionale de l’Archéologie, Toulouse, and the Mayor and Commune of Aventignan with 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, with discussions and guiding us in their caves.
· Union Institute & University, with financial support through its faculty research grants.
· Robert Bednarik, Jean Clottes, Francesco d’Errico, Sandor Gallus*, Michel Lorblanchet, Alexander Marshack*, and Hallam Movius Jr.*, with discussions and support over many years (*now deceased).
References
Barrière, Claude.
Breuil, H.,
H. Obermaier, and W. Verner. 1915. La Pileta a Benaojan (Malaga). Monaco:
Institut de Paléontogie Humaine.
Clottes, Jean, and Jean Courtin.
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.
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.
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
_________. To Appear 1. Trois Formes de Tracés Digitaux (ou Sevérines) en Grotte de Rouffignac, France. To appear in Préhistoire du Sud-Ouest.
_________. To Appear 2. A Method for Studying Finger Flutings. To appear in Exploring the Mind of Ancient Man: Festschrift to Robert G. Bednarik.
_________ and Leslie Van Gelder. Preprint 1. The Study of Finger Flutings.
_________ and Leslie Van Gelder. Preprint 2. Young Children Create Paleolithic Art.
_________ and Leslie Van Gelder. Preprint 3. Finger Flutings in the Desbordes Subchamber of Rouffignac Cave, France.
Sidebars
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 exist 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.’)
Four Forms of Flutings
A definition of forms helps develop a language and a basic framework for studying the fluting phenomena. Not pictorially oriented or of appearance, but of manufacture, 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 3).
Figure 3. Kirian
flutings (from the Goursolle Panel
(Panel I) in Chamber E, Rouffignac Cave).
Evelynian flutings: the fluter moves while fluting each unit, and each unit comprises only one line (see Figure 4).
Figure 4. 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 5 and 6).
Figure 5. Rugolean flutings; note the cave bear scratches below (from Chamber G, Rouffignac Cave).
Figure 6. Rugolean flutings (from Gargas Cave).
Mirian flutings: the fluter moves while fluting each unit, and each unit comprises more than one line (see Figure 7).
Figure 7. Mirian flutings (from Gargas Cave).
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. Further, within each form, variations can exist from place to place, for instance variations in appearance (compare Figures 5 and 6, both of the Rugolean Form).
Experiments with Flutings
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.
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 did 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.
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? (Results can be found in Sharpe and Van Gelder Preprint 1.)
Analyzing a Tectiform
Figure 8. A tectiform in Chamber G (see Sharpe and Van Gelder 2004: Fig. 2) of Rouffignac Cave.
Figure 9. Notes made on the tectiform pictured in Figure 8.
A tectiform is a shape occurring several times in Rouffignac and in other caves nearby. The one pictured in Figure 8, found on the wall of Chamber G of Rouffignac (and numbered Tectiform 32 in Barrière 1982), comprises six units of flutings. Figure 9 shows the analysis of the tectiform following the methodology described in the accompanying article. This drawing is made in the cave using a computer with an electronic drawing board, writing in PhotoShop on a layer placed over the photograph of the tectiform digitally shot and imported directly into the computer.
The notation on the drawing is the following:
· [ and ] represent the ends or beginnings of units;
· ® and ← represent the direction in which the unit was fluted;
· O and U signify whether the unit is over or under the one it intersects in that vicinity;
· N/M says that the unit comprises N fingers whose three-fingered width is M millimeters; and
· L or R in N(L or R)/M signify whether the unit was made with the left or right hand.
From the above analysis, it is possible to suggest:
· the number of units in the tectiform (six);
· the temporal order of the fluting of the units (an internal analysis from the overlays and underlays of the units);
· the direction in which each unit was fluted (given the buildup at the ends of the non-vertical units);
· the age group of the fluter (an adult; from the three-fingered widths of the units, 45.2 millimeters on average);
· the character of the fluter perhaps or the circumstances of the fluting (the fluter fluted with vigor and force consistently creating buildups at the end of the flutings, unlike flutings made by other fluters in Rouffignac).
Note that it is not possible from this tectiform to tell if the fluter was a male or a female. While other units in the cave have the same width as those in this tectiform, a search has yet to be made among them for vertical examples that clearly depict the tops of the three central fingers – which would imply the fluter’s gender.