AR13. 3 August 2004
Copyright © 2002 by Kevin Sharpe. All rights reserved.
Rock Art Research 19 (2) 2002: 109-116.

INVESTIGATING FINGER FLUTINGS

Kevin Sharpe

(with Mary Lacombe and Helen Fawbert)

ABSTRACT. Extending previous experiments on finger flutings (lines made with fingers on a soft surface), this review delineates differences between marks made: by different individuals, with different fingers and hands, in different directions and orders, in various shapes, and when comfort and discomfort are considered. The method and results are then preliminarily applied to markings in three French caves (Grotte à Goutran, Grotte de Rouffignac, and Grotte du Pech-Merle). More information on flutings can be obtained this way than in previous investigations, and it helps ascertain how the flutings were made and contributes to the discussion on the lines’ possible meaning.

KEYWORDS. Archaeology_art; archaeology_European; Koonalda; sociobiology_mind evolution.

CONTENTS.

Introduction. 1

Laboratory Studies. 1

Field Investigations. 1

Grotte à Goutran (Les Eyzies-de-Tyac Seuril, Dordogne, France) 1

Grotte de Rouffignac (Rouffignac, Dordogne, France) 1

Mammoth 17 (Barrière 1982) 1

Mammoth 18 (Barrière 1982) 1

Streams. 1

Mammoth 44 (Barrière 1982) 1

‘Grand Féline’ (Barrière 1982) 1

‘Tectiform’ on the ‘Via Sacra’ (Barrière 1982) 1

Flutings in the ‘Serpentine’ Chamber (Gallery A, Plafond aux Serpents: Barrère 1982) 1

Other Observations. 1

Grotte du Pech-Merle (Cabrerets, Lot, France) 1

Introduction

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 including some or all of the Upper Paleolithic.

To westerners, flutings can appear figurative (for instance, figures of mammoths in Grotte de Rouffignac, France), form patterns, or present no recognizable symbol, picture, or pattern. (The term ‘figure’ is taken to mean something a modern westerner would recognize as a figure; similarly for the terms ‘pattern,’ ‘symbol,’ and ‘picture.’) While some investigators speculate about the meaning of nonfigurative flutings, most nowadays merely mention their occurrence, if anything. Previous interpretations of flutings appear wanting and so, evidently, scholars increasingly say less and less about the lines. Write Jean Clottes and Jean 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 1996: 59).

The work in this paper focuses on nonfigurative flutings and attempts to say something more about them than that they exist. To this end, flutings have been studied in situ and replicated in the laboratory in different media than the moonmilk of caves. This research is still in its infancy.

The method developed here derives from the internal analysis introduced by Alexander Marshack, and practiced by him, Robert Bednarik, Francesco d’Errico, Michel Lorblanchet, and others, d’Errico focusing on engravings on portable artifacts (for instance, Bednarik 1986, 1994; d’Errico 1992, 1994; d'Errico, Henshilwood, and Nilssen 2001; Lorblanchet 1992, 1995, 1999; Marshack 1991). They especially examine the junctions and cross-sections of the lines. Different cross-sections of incised lines would imply the use of a different tool, perhaps by different people, and perhaps at different times. Junctions often tell which lines overlie others and therefore the temporal sequence of their creation. This approach suggests, for flutings, a close examination of the lines, looking at their cross-sections – depth, width, and shape – over their length, and of the points at which they meet or overlie. Flutings can be looked at more closely than this, however, to see what else they might reveal about their creation. Doing so engages published analyses of flutings, as will be seen below with Claude Barrière’s (1982) research.

Other work, especially by Bednarik (for instance, Bednarik 1999), explores the impact of the medium on flutings. A soft medium, such as moonmilk and sometimes clay coatings on cave walls. The history of the flutings from then depends on, among other factors, the history of the medium. The growth of moonmilk, for instance, can distort the original flutings (moonmilk can, on the other hand, offer the opportunity to date the flutings (Bednarik 1999)).

Though this still needs to be established, it may be that line incisions – engraved by humans with sticks, flints, 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. The following discussions will, therefore, sometimes mention line incisions as well as flutings, though the experiments have as yet only been applied by us to flutings. The discussions will sometimes also refer to fluted figures as well as nonfigurative lines.

Laboratory Studies

The experiments in the laboratory replicated flutings in three media:

1. The first experimental medium was plaster of Paris in aluminum trays. This choice of medium was restricting. . The plaster could only be worked on when it was within a particular range of drying, thus limiting how much could be made up and poured into trays, in turn limiting the surface area that could be worked on. Further, it is difficult to use plaster for exploring the relationship of the body of the fluter to the cave wall due to the restrictions imposed by the size of the pans and the action of gravity on soft plaster.

So, two other media were used for flutings:

2. Finger paint was applied to 12 A3 sheets of finger painting paper taped together to cover an area roughly 1.5 by 7 meters. Paint is more flexible than plaster of Paris and easier to use over a wider area and on a vertical surface. It not only allowed an expansion on research results obtained using plaster of Paris, but encouraged experiments with new ideas that arose from using a larger and upright surface. Flutings could be replicated on an area similar in size to those in caves, allowing the extension of arms into positions the earlier fluters might have used. The flexibility of the finger paint also allowed the use 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 application of paint.

3. A blank wall, allowing the stretching of arms in various directions and distances to see if flutings could be made.

Earlier reports covered the results with plaster of Paris and therefore they are summarized here (Sharpe, Lacombe, and Fawbert 1998), grouping them under categories that could help the development of further questions and research. To these results are added those obtained from the two new media.

Note the use below of the term ‘stream’: it refers to flutings ‘drawn with one sweep of one hand’ or, similarly, ‘a set of subparallel lines engraved with one tool’ (Sharpe and Lacombe 1999). The term ‘cluster’ labels a group of streams that ‘exhibit a unity, for instance because they overlay each other’ (Sharpe and Lacombe 1999).

Different Markers

What features of streams of flutings might suggest whether one person or different people made them?

· The size of the hand can be determined when all four fingers are tight together in the process of fluting a stream. While a small hand can flute lines spaced apart at various distances, a large hand cannot flute a stream of lines tight together and less distance across than the width of the same number of fingers of its hand.

· The fluting of the middle finger is the furtherest out at the start of a stream of flutings made with more than one finger. The relative heights of each finger’s fluting were unique to each experimenter.

· Various pressures on fingers can cause the flutings in a stream to spread out or close in. Thus, the spacing between the flutings in streams of lines made by the same person may not be the same (unless the fingers are tight together) and it cannot be determined, on the basis of digital separation, if the same person made different streams of flutings.

· Differences in pressure and variability between media can also 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 streams of flutings or if streams made by a woman or girl are shallower than those made by a man or boy.

· The same applies to the cross-section of a fluting, in particular to its breadth.

Different Fingers

What features of flutings might suggest which fingers of the hand made them?

· The little finger may not make as deep a fluting – if any fluting at all – as do the first three fingers.

· In a stream, the fluting of the little finger starts lower down than those of the three central fingers.

· The thumb and little finger can be used to anchor support when the medium is very wet (found while using finger paints), and the fingers are held at a steep angle of approximately 45º. This produces a distinctive five-finger stream. However, the mark made by the little finger may not be as strong, perhaps to the point of being indistinct, when the medium is just wet.

· When the hand is relatively flat, 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 plaster to produce a sharp line or wide gouge.

· The thumb fluting also starts lower down than do those of the other four fingers.

· The thumb fluting may appear at a greater distance from the flutings made by the other fingers when compared with their inter-digital spacings. (This could incorrectly suggest that the thumb fluting is unconnected to the others.)

Directionality

What features of a stream of flutings might suggest the direction it was made in?

· The medium can build up at the end of a fluting, the remnant of the finger’s gouging action. The start of a fluting does not have this build up. (However, by pressing the finger instead of dragging it, no medium may amass at the end.) Note also that flutings made without removing the build-up on the fingers cannot be discerned from those made with clean fingers and that build-up can appear on both the left and right sides of the fingers, but only on the nail-side of the thumb.

· A fluting that cuts another one can leave build up at the beginning of the intersection.

· The flutings from the different fingers at the beginning of a stream usually show different heights, whereas they usually conclude a stream at the same level.

· Moving the fingers horizontally places the fingers in a particular relative position. For example, when moving from right to left with the right hand, the thumb will usually not flute because the twisting of the hand can place too far off the surface. This may not happen with the right hand moving from left to right.

Handedness

What features of a stream of flutings might suggest whether it was made with a left or a right hand?

· The side of the stream that shows evidence of a thumb or a little finger suggests the use of the left or the right hand: thumb on the left or little finger on the right suggests the right hand, thumb on the right or little finger on the left suggests the left hand.

Sequences

What features of streams of flutings might suggest the temporal sequence in which they were made?

· An examination of line junctions may tell which lines overlie others and hence the temporal sequence of their compilation.

Shapes

What shapes is it possible and impossible to flute?

· The form of the hand lends itself to curves, circles, and intricate pictures when only one or two fingers are used. The fewer the fingers, the more complex the flutings can be. Greatest dexterity is achieved by fluting with one finger.

· When drawing curves with four fingers, the lower place of the little finger can result in overlapping or obliteration of its mark. The marks made by the other fingers may also overlap each other.

· It is anatomically only possible to flute a one-movement circle overhead (as opposed to a circle fluted with two or more sweeps of the hand). The hand and fingers are not flexible enough a one-movement circle to the side. The torso, legs, and perhaps the feet need to twist to bring the fingers around 360°.

· 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.

· When drawing the fingers vertically downward, the fingertips press into the surface when the hand is above the shoulders; below the shoulders, the fingernails scrape lines.

Comfort

How might the comfort of the line marker constrict fluting and the positions from which it can be done? For a person using the right hand (mirror results apply for the left hand) and standing in front of and facing the wall:

· It is comfortable to flute horizontally or vertically toward and in front of the body.

· It is more comfortable to flute horizontally from right to left than from left to right.

· It is more comfortable to flute at 45º to the vertical than horizontally.

· 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.

· It is comfortable to flute vertical downward.

· 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 60 centimeters beyond the right shoulder. It is less comfortable to continue fluting below the waist.

· It is more comfortable and practical to flute at a distance of between 30 and 45 centimeters from the center of the body to the wall directly in front rather than to stretch the arm excessively in any direction.

· It is uncomfortable to place the hand directly in front of the body, finger pads on the wall.

· It is more comfortable to flute with the three middle fingers than with them plus either or both the thumb and little finger.

· It is more comfortable to flute with the index or middle finger than with the third finger, the thumb, or little finger.

· 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 (<30 centimeters) to the body.

· It is more comfortable to flute on wetter surfaces with some distance (>2 centimeters) between the fingers than with the fingers closer together.

· It is more comfortable to flute on dryer surfaces with a shorter distance (<1.5 centimeters) between the fingers than with the fingers further apart. More pressure is required to make a mark and so the lower parts of the fingers (the proximal phalanges) provide support.

Also, from different positions:

· Squatting or kneeling. 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.

· Standing at right angles to the wall. 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.

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 60-90 centimeters long and 90 centimeters wide. If the fluter continues fluting while or after moving down into a squatting position, this lengthens the marked area; if the person finds a way to rise above the floor, this also lengthens the marked area; if the person steps sideways, this widens the marked area. Flutings do appear in some sites at floor level (Snowflake Cave in Victoria, Australia, for example) and above an easily reached level on ceilings and walls (in Cosquer Cave, France, for example, the lines are visible over three meters from the floor (Clottes and Courtin 1996: 61)). 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, including squatting or moving sideways hand-on-wall). Note that sideways or vertical movement of the body while fluting may in some way disrupt the flow of the resulting flutings.

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). (This line of argument may suggest that difficulty in producing existent flutings implies a deliberate motivation for fluting.) Given that many cave settings are difficult, it could be assumed that fluters would accept minor discomforts. But what is ‘minor’? How much discomfort would fluters accept?

Field Investigations

Visits to three caves in the Dordogne and Lot areas of France (Grotte à Goutran, Grotte de Rouffignac, Grotte du Pech-Merle) aimed at seeing see how the above experimental findings relate to actual prehistoric flutings. Two types of markings were looked at in the caves: nonfigurative lines plus images that westerners recognize as figures made with lines. The two types often occur together. It is assumed at this point that there is no difference between the two in terms of the method for fluting. The same techniques are studied and are thought to apply to both. Also looked at were figures and lines engraved with flint, bone, or wood, together with the flutings.

Following are several preliminary observations on markings looked at and that, with the above techniques, raised questions or suggestions for further research.

Grotte à Goutran (Les Eyzies-de-Tyac Seuril, Dordogne, France)

The flutings in Grotte à Goutran were too concealed by reprecipitated calcite deposits and too weathered to tell much except that such markings do not allow for useful application of the techniques developed.

Grotte de Rouffignac (Rouffignac, Dordogne, France)

Mammoth 17 (Barrière 1982)

The ‘First Mammoth’ in Grotte de Rouffignac (named so because it was the first figure that L. R. Nougier, R. Robert, and C. L. Plassard discovered in the cave (Plassard and Plassard 1995: 5)), or ‘Mammoth 17’ as Barrière names it (Barrière 1982: 20-21, Fig. 25, Plate VIII), shows four streams of two flutings in the body of the mammoth and six streams of four flutings to the right of the first set. The second set of streams underlies the back of the mammoth. However, the temporal relationship between the two sets, plus the first set relative to the mammoth, remains uncertain. The fourth finger of the streams in the second set appears to be the little finger and so was probably fluted by the right hand (the surface here is evidently still soft down to 1-3 centimeters).

Mammoth 18 (Barrière 1982)

To the left of Mammoth 17 is another one, Mammoth 18, their heads facing one another. Examination reveals six tusks between them: the right hand figure (Mammoth 17) appears to have two sets (Barrière 1982: 20-21, Fig. 26).

Streams

To the right of Mammoth 17 among the many flutings, there is a V shape composed of lines made with a single finger. Then occurs a stream fluted with three fingers and where the relative heights of the fingers at the start or top of the markings may be deciphered (Barrière 1982: 21, Fig. 27).

Mammoth 44 (Barrière 1982)

This figure combines incised lines and flutings (Barrière 1982: 32-34, 180, 184, Figs. 66-68, 503, 511; Plassard and Plassard 1995: 8-9). Barrière’s drawings of the figure differ in that lines to the right of the mammoth’s head are missing in two of his three renditions (compare Barrière 1982: Figs. 67-68 with Fig. 503). Several observations were made:

· The undulating flutings in the body of the mammoth (Barrière calls the stream ‘un vigoureux serpentin polydigital’ (Barrière 1982: 34)) were made with three fingers, though the fluting at the right hand side of the topmost turn inside the mammoth’s head may have been made by a thumb; if so, the stream was fluted with the left hand.

· The hand whose four fingers fluted the stream to the right of the mammoth’s head was considerably smaller than KS’s in width.

· The mark to the left at the bottom of this stream may have been made by the thumb of the hand that made the stream; if so, this stream was made with the right hand.

· The short flutings at the base of this stream were deeply made and contrast with the delicateness of the incised trunk.

‘Grand Féline’ (Barrière 1982)

Figure 1 shows the lines that constitute a figure usually thought to represent a lion and evidently drawn with fingers and tools such as sticks, bones, and flints (Barrière 1982: 28-29, 155, Figs. 52, 53).

Figure 1. Barrière 1982’s ‘Grand Féline,’ with additions and corrections.

· The outline is broken in what would appear to be the middle of the ‘lion’s’ ‘back’ and then another tool used or perhaps the same tool from a different position. The ‘tail’ appears made with yet another tool. Why did the marker(s) not continue the line in one movement and with one tool? Was it because the hand used in drawing could not reach far enough and the marker needed to move her or his feet? Or perhaps the marker made only part of the picture and later she or he or someone else added to the picture? Does the use of different tools imply an inconsistency in the figure, that it is not intended to be a unity?

· Barrière 1982 does not recognize several major lines in the figure: for instance, flutings under the ‘tail’ and another set above and through the base of the ‘tail.’

· The flutings at the base of the ‘tail’ pass over the top of the ‘tail’ but under the ‘rear’ of the ‘lion.’ Those under the ‘tail’ pass under the lines of the ‘tail’ but over the ‘lion’s’ ‘rear.’ Neither of these two streams, therefore, can be ignored when analyzing the figure. Taking these into account further jeopardizes calling this figure a lion.

As Figure 1 suggests, this is a complex composition made with fingers and different tools, and whose sequence of overlays undermines the uniformity of its being a single representational figure.

‘Tectiform’ on the ‘Via Sacra’ (Barrière 1982)

Plassard and Plassard (1995: 19) describe ‘an engraved [sic.] tectiform symbol. The pad of [buildup] formed on the fingertips has remained in place at the ends of the lines, showing the direction in which the artist “drew” (Length = 40 cm/15 in.).’ It is also possible to tell from the overlays the order in which three of the streams of lines were made: 1, 2, and then 3 (Figure 2; see also Barrière 1982: 28-29, 157, Figs. 52, 466 no. 32). Despite the indicated order of fluting in Barrière 1982: 157, Fig. 466 no. 32, stream 1 may lie under stream 2. It is not yet possible to tell the relative order of streams 2, 4, 5, and 6.

Figure 2. Barrière 1982’s ‘Tectiform’ on the ‘Via Sacra,’ with additions and corrections.

Flutings in the ‘Serpentine’ Chamber (Gallery A, Plafond aux Serpents: Barrère 1982)

Many of the flutings in the ‘Serpentine’ Chamber are similar but distinctive from other flutings in the cave. Streams are mostly made with two fingers and undulate with several turns – looking like a snake moving across the ground – usually with a width of about 3 centimeters and length of 60 centimeters. They are found on the low ceiling and generally not on the walls, and are distinguishable by the contrast between the red clay remaining on the ceiling and the white revealed by wiping off the clay with the fingers (Barrière 1982: 88-92, 155, Figs. 274-290, Plate VI).

· The undulating flutings are often called ‘serpentine.’ The term ‘serpentine’ calls to mind snakes. Is it influential in determining the fluting’s pictorial qualities? One ‘serpentine’ mark was pointed out and said to depict a snake with a tongue; it was unconvincing. It may be preferable to call these flutings not ‘serpentines,’ but ‘undulating flutings’ and the chamber not ‘the Serpentine Chamber,’ but ‘the Chamber of Undulating Flutings.’

· The ceiling is slightly domed and, given the present floor level, is low enough in some places to touch easily: ML is 1.7 meters tall and almost touches ceiling with her head at one point. But not always: sometimes a stretch is necessary for KS, almost 1.8 meters tall, to touch the ceiling.

· Some long flutings require walking over the undulating floor to cover their extent. If the floor level at the time was the same as at present, the fluter would have to be shorter than KS because the lines in each are smoothly made and KS had to take several steps hunched over to walk their full extent; taking a step, especially while hunched over and on an uneven floor, may interrupt the smoothness of a fluting.

· The size of the hand may be determined when all four fingers are placed tightly together to flute. As mentioned above, while a small hand could make a stream of lines at various distances apart, a large hand cannot make a stream of lines close together and shorter across than the width of the same number of its fingers. A variety of sizes of hands are represented on the ceiling of the Chamber of Undulating Flutings. Some lines are close together and would require a hand much smaller than KS’s; many tightly spaced finger markings were made by hands smaller than ML’s, yet she has thin hands and fingers. Perhaps these markings were made by small women or children (see Bednarik 1987 for discussion on this possibility for several Australian caves), perhaps by children on the shoulders of other people.

· Streams of two, three, and four flutings were noted. Some streams contain four flutings and it is possible to determine the mark made by the little finger because it starts below the other flutings (see, for example, the diagonal top-left to bottom-right stream in Barrière 1982: 90, Fig. 282). Many streams run into others or at some points parallel them. This makes it difficult to determine the exact beginning and end of some streams and the number of fingers used for each. No patterns were recognized in the length, direction, or the number of fingers used in the streams.

· There are several overhead circles or ovals made by fingers (see, for example, Barrière 1982: p. 89, Fig. 281).

· On the low ceiling that forms the wall – next to a natural barrier about one meter high, protruding about a meter at its base, and narrowing at the top – are four short streams of vertical flutings (Barrière 1982: 91, Fig. 290), looking unlike the usual flutings in this chamber.

· The floor is uneven but smooth and of moist and compact red clay. The floor and ceiling are relatively smooth compared to the adjoining space where large flint nodules occur in the ceiling and broken nodules on the floor. It was suggested that fluters may have prepared the Chamber of Undulating Flutings by breaking the nodules in the ceiling and throwing them into floor spaces in the adjoining chamber. Perhaps any naturally falling nodules or debris were purposefully cleared from the floor to prepare the room. However, no evidence was seen to compare the broken nodules in the adjoining chamber to possible placement in the ceiling of the chamber of undulating flutings.

Other Observations

No evidence was seen of the nail marking of the thumb, as had shown up on the plaster of Paris experiments. Plaster experiments were not done overhead.

Grotte du Pech-Merle (Cabrerets, Lot, France)

The work of Lorblanchet was followed in Grotte du Pech-Merle. He applies the method of internal analysis to the cave’s flutings and finds new facts about their creation (Lorblanchet 1984, 1992).

Discussion

Method

Initial examination of the markings described above suggests the potential usefulness of the techniques this paper develops. An examination of replicated marks, in conjunction with studying examples in situ, should therefore help in understanding how the lines were produced. 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, whether fluted by different individuals, by left or right hands, the fingers used, and the age or gender of the fluters (Bednarik 1986). One can also tell if lines were fashioned by fingers and, if not, what type of tool was used. Perhaps as much about the manufacture of the lines can be discerned as is necessary to reproduce them exactly.

This analytic technique and internal analysis is still in its infancy, as said above. It also remains an ideal; in practice, it faces problems. For instance,

· Some sets of lines 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 swallows up the lines and renders them indistinguishable from background marks. This happens especially with weathered lines.

· Calcite may cover the markings and prevent closer examination.

· Natural lines can sometimes be of the same dimension as engraved lines.

· Cross-sections and overlays cannot always be ascertained with certainty.

All this leads to a degree of subjectivity and error in the analysis of the lines. Other limitations and constraints may become apparent with further studies in the field.

Studies of the lines tie with other investigations, including:

· exploration and description of sites (for instance, Aslin, Bednarik, and Bednarik 1985);

· distinguishing between animal scratches, taphonomic markings, and human engravings (for instance, Bednarik 1994; Sharpe 2000); and

· the geomorphology of the marked surfaces and the means by which they change (for instance, Bednarik 1999).

Meaning

One of the chief questions asked of flutings and line engravings concerns meaning. Were they intentionally made to have individual- or socially-communicable meaning? Or are they arbitrary (namely accidental, haphazard, or doodles)? If they have socially communicable meaning, do they mean something ‘simple’ like ‘Josephine Bloggs was here 7,001 BCE,’ or a more complex narrative like the myth of ‘Eve and Adam’? While it is not suggested that any interpretation applies to all the markings, the suggestion that all the flutings are accidental, haphazard, or doodles should probably be rejected.

Initial impressions suggest meaningfulness. For instance:

· The lines sometimes cover areas with difficult access, many hundreds of meters from the surface. In Koonalda Cave, South Australia, the part of the Upper Chamber where flutings occur lies nearly an hour away from the surface. Investigators without extensive climbing experience can access it with using steel ladders, cut paths, lights (the Upper Chamber is in total darkness), and other modern paraphernalia. Once inside, access and maneuverability are difficult. Further, the cave probably lay hundreds of kilometers away from where the fluters lived, across an inhospitable desert (Sharpe, Lacombe, and Fawbert 1998), and no steel ladder aided the climb into the Koonalda sinkhole. These points suggest that the line makers deliberately journed to and climbed into the Upper Chamber to do specific things that included mining (Wright 1971) and may have included running their fingers over the walls.

· In Koonalda Cave, most of the flutings are more or less straight and vertical. Why do not they go in every conceivable direction and form every conceivable shape? That they do not suggests a social or individual convention to their execution. A similar inference can be made from the existence in Grotte de Rouffignac of at least three styles of flutings: undulating streams of flutings, vertical streams of flutings, and flutings as part of animal figures. They were not haphazardly, randomly, or accidentally made. A convention of the markers suggested one or several specific manners for fluting and perhaps specific purposes and meanings.

The research this paper reports may suggest that at least some of the flutings were meaningfully as opposed to arbitrarily made. That is, they are probably not:

· accidental – because of consistent styles in a local area;

· haphazard – also because of consistent styles in a local area and because those styles do not include every conceivable fluting possible; or

· doodles – because of the inseparable relationship that sometimes occurs at European sites between nonrepresentational flutings and representational figures.

However, more research is required before the meaningfulness hypothesis can be established. Perhaps there are other reasons for the flutings not appearing accidental, haphazard, or doodles. For instance, if the above listed factors involved in ‘shapes’ and ‘comfort’ are taken into account, will the lines of necessity look the way they do? Is it possible to flute them in any way other than how they appear? If not, then meaningfulness is less probable.

It requires even further work to find – if one can be found – an explanatory framework for the flutings and to suggest why they were produced. Needless to say, ideas as to meaning must work from the analysis of how the lines were made, an analysis based on research using the method this paper develops.

Conclusions

This work offers one approach to flutings and line engravings and hopefully contributes to the understanding of these forms, irrespective of other motivations. Thus, when researchers consider panels of markings, they ought to consider all the marks, including nonfigurative lines, and not just the recognizable patterns of animals and tectiforms; inseparable combinations of figures and nonfigurative lines occur in many sites as with several of those mentioned above from Grotte de Rouffignac. What this paper advocates is more complex and difficult than the simplifying pictorial description usually undertaken, and the results may not be as reassuring – as witnessed with the initial analysis of the ‘lion’ in Rouffignac. Without this, though, analyses may be overly artificial and false.

Acknowledgements

I wish to acknowledge and thank M. and Mme. Jean Plassard of Grotte de Rouffignac, for their hospitality and assistance; M. Frederic Goursolle for his guidance in Grotte de Rouffignac; Mr. Robert Bednarik, Dr. Francesco d’Errico, and Dr. Michel Lorblanchet for conversations and support; Dr. Leslie Van Gelder for comments; and the Musée National de Préhistoire at Les Eyzies-de-Tayac for permission to enter and assistance in visiting Grotte à Goutran.

References

Aslin, Geoffrey D., E. K. Bednarik, and Robert G Bednarik. 1985. The ‘Parietal Markings Project’: A Progress Report. Rock Art Research 2 (1): 71-74.

Barrière, Claude. 1982. L'Art Parietal de Rouffignac: La Grotte aux Cent Mammouths. Paris: Picard.

Bednarik, Robert G. 1986. Parietal Finger Markings in Europe and Australia. Rock Art Research 3 (1): 30-61.

_________. 1987. The Cave Art of Western Australia. The Artefact 12: 1-16.

_________. 1994. Wall Markings of the Cave Bear. Studies in Speleology 9 (February): 51-70.

_________. 1999. The Speleotherm Medium of Finger Flutings and Its Isotropic Geochemistry. The Artefact 22: 49-64.

Clottes, Jean, and Jean Courtin. 1996. The Cave Beneath the Sea: Paleolithic Images at Cosquer, English edn., transl. Marilyn Garner. New York: Harry N. Abrams.

d'Errico, Francesco. 1992. Technology, Motion, and the Meaning of Epipaleolithic Art. Current Anthropology 33 (1): 94-109.

_________. 1994. L'Art Gravé Azilien de la Technique à la Signification. Supplément à 'Gallia Préhistoire' no. 31. Paris: CNRS Editions.

d'Errico, Francesco, Christopher Henshilwood, and Peter Nilssen. 2001. An Engraved Bone Fragment from c. 70,000-Year-Old Middle Stone Age Levels at Blombos Cave, South Africa: Implications for the Origin of Symbolism and Language. Antiquity 75: 309-318.

Lorblanchet, Michel. 1984. Grotte du Pech-Merle. In L’Art des Cavernes: Atlas des Grottes Ornées Paléolithiques Françaises, ed. André Leroi-Gourhan (Paris: Ministère de la Culture), pp. 467-470.

_________. 1992. Finger Markings in Pech Merle and Their Place in Prehistoric Art. In Rock Art in the Old World, ed. Michel Lorblanchet (New Dehli: Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts), pp. 451-490.

_________. 1995. Les Grottes Ornées de la Préhistoire: Nouveaux Regards. Paris: Editions Errance.

_________. 1999. La Naissance de l'Art: Genèse de l'Art Préhistorique dans le Monde. Paris: Editions Errance.

Marshack, Alexander. 1972. The Roots of Civilization: The Cognitive Beginnings of Man's First Art, Symbol, and Notation. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Nougier, Louis-René; Robert, Romain. 1958. The Cave of Rouffignac. Transl. David Scott. London: George Newnes.

Plassard, Marie-Odile, and Jean Plassard. 1995. Visiting Rouffignac Cave, English edn., transl. Angela Moyon. Bordeaux: Sud Ouest.

Sharpe, Kevin. 2000. Incised Linear Markings: Animal or Human Origin? Presented to the biennual meeting of the International Federation of Rock Art Organizations, Alice Springs, Australia, July.

Sharpe, Kevin, and Mary Lacombe. 1999. Line Markings as Systems of Notation? In News 95: International Rock Art Congress – North, East, West, South, 1995 IRAC – 30 August-6 September 1995 – Proceedings (Pinerolo, Italy: IFRAO – International Federation of Rock Art Organizations), p. 46 and <NEWS 95 – International Rock Art Congress Proceedings_files/sharp.htm>.

Sharpe, Kevin, Mary Lacombe, and Helen Fawbert. 1998. An Externalism in Order to Communicate. The Artefact 21: 95-104.

Wright, R. V. S., ed. 1971. Archaeology of the Gallus Site, Koonalda Cave. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.