AR
Copyright © 2004 by Kevin Sharpe and Leslie Van Gelder. All rights reserved.
In Exploring the Mind of Ancient
Man: Festschrift to Robert G. Bednarik, ed. P. Chenna Reddy (New Delhi: Research
India Press, 2006).
A Method for Studying Finger Flutings
Kevin Sharpe
Graduate College, Union Institute and University, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Harris Manchester College, Oxford University, UK
10 Shirelake Close, Oxford OX
kevin.sharpe@tui.edu
www.ksharpe.com
and
Leslie Van Gelder
Walden University, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
10 Shirelake Close, Oxford OX
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
a taxonomy based on four genera to provide the fluting phenomenon with a
workable language and a descriptive structure from which to build analyses. The
paper also develops methodologies for such investigations, using experiments
and studies of physiognomy to help derive
KEY WORDS. Finger flutings, methodology, parietal art, prehistoric art, severines.
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
Families of Parietal Markings
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 including some or all of the
Upper Paleolithic (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 prehistoric cave
‘art’ in France comprises nonfigurative fluted lines. Lorblanchet (
Figure 1. Finger flutings in Chamber A1, Rouffignac Cave, France.
Some investigators speculate 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: Plates 29, 30, 32, 33 with Clottes 2003: Illustrations 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 very 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
This paper focuses on flutings and
provides a language and methodology so that something more can be said about
them, including the nonfigurative examples, than pure speculation; it proposes
a systematic methodology for their study based on theory, experiment, and field
research. From this, it is hoped to gather sufficient
Background on Method
The method developed here derives from the internal analysis that Marshack introduces, where he especially studies incised lines (for instance, Marshack 1972). For instance, often under 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 jumping to questions of meaning.
Besides Marshack, internal analysis has been practiced by
Bednarik, d’Errico, Lorblanchet, and others (for instance, Bednarik
Internal analysis emphasizes for flutings, as with
engravings, the gleaning of as much
Nomenclature
The following nomenclature provides a language to describe
and understand the fluting phenomenon, and thus remove some of the confusion
and 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 and 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.’)
Methodological Taxonomy
A taxonomy also helps develop a language and a basic framework for studying the fluting phenomena. Not pictorially oriented or of appearance, but of manufacture, this taxonomy 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. The suggested methodological taxonomy is:
Family: Finger flutings (versus
engravings, for instance).
Genus: Forms (four: Kirian, Evelynian, Rugolean, Mirian).
Species: Local variant (for example, Kirian goursolle in Rouffignac Cave, Kirian abadie in Gargas Cave).
Note the absence of such phrases as ‘fluted severines,’ ‘fluted figures,’ and ‘fluted symbols.’ A fluted unit may be a figure, or symbol, or just a severine; the difference lies in differing intentions as modern people see them. Since recognizing such differences depends on the culture of the observer, the words are interpretative and the taxonomy avoids them.
The following sub-sections discuss the origin and use of the genus and species categories.
Genus
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 genera or 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 (Kirian goursolle lines
in Chamber E of Rouffignac Cave).
· 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 (from Chamber G, Rouffignac Cave).
Figure 5. 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 (from Gargas Cave).
As will be seen below, the two variables that form the basis of this four-fold genera 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 amenable to these techniques when the units comprise only one finger. Lower body movement allows the possibility of drawing different shapes than when stationary, plus it can lead to the investigation of the paths the fluters take while fluting. The point of the taxonomy is methodological, finding out more about the makers, not necessarily the meaning.
Markings of different taxonomic genera and families can co-exist in the same panel or cluster, called ‘multi-media’ panels or clusters. For instance:
·
In Gargas Cave: narrow fingers fluted Mirian
style 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. 1).
·
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 goursolle variant, plus
(interspersed and over top of each other) (b) scratched severines (some of
which have applied charcoal), and (c) the application of clay on some of the
flutings (see Figure 2) (Sharpe and Van Gelder To Appear; In Prep. 2). While
the taxonomy is designed to provide a method for studying the Kirian flutings,
other techniques may help in the study of the scratches and clay application,
and yet other techniques may help in understanding the cluster as a whole.
Species
Species are local
variants of the genera or forms. For instance:
· Kirian goursolle lines in Chamber E of Rouffignac Cave (see Figure 8) (Sharpe and Van Gelder To Appear; In Prep. 2) and Kirian abadie lines in Gargas Cave (see Figure 9) (Sharpe and Van Gelder In Prep. 1). Flutings of both variants are made with one finger by a stationary fluter. K. goursolle lines are separated in sets of 7 or 14; K. abadie lines overlap, are very narrow, vertical, and in sets of large numbers.
Figure 8. Kirian goursolle lines in Chamber E, Rouffignac Cave.
Figure 9. Kirian abadie lines in Gargas Cave.
· Units of Mirian desbordes lines in Chamber A1 of 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 To Appear; In Prep. 3); units of Mirian ferrer lines in the ‘crevices’ in Gargas Cave (see Figure 11) can extend for 9 to 12 meters and are often in single units (Sharpe and Van Gelder In Prep. 1). Both are made by a moving fluter using more than one finger.
Figure 10. Mirian desbordes lines in Chamber A1, Rouffignac Cave.
Figure 11. Mirian ferrer lines in Gargas Cave.
The basis for distinguishing between species is to some extent methodological using significant differences between clusters, as with the above distinction between the two Kirian or the two Mirian species. Perhaps different methodological questions may always arise for different species, but this is not clear as yet. Whether this happens or not, the importance of recognizing different species is also 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 taxonomy 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. But 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. 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.
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. But the same space cannot be remarked. Condensation also runs and evaporates.
Given this approach, 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.
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 more than one hand. 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
Significant Observables
Internal analysis on engravings requires observing line overlap and tool cross-sections; one could say that engraved lines potentially hold these data. Continuing this theme, what data might flutings hold? What follows starts to answer this question by turning in part to physiognomic considerations (forensics). Each observable listed may apply to some genera and not to others.
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:
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 is thus usually fainter than their lines. Further, in a unit, it also starts lower down than they do (see Figure 15).
Figure 15. The little finger 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. (This 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 together. 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. 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 16).
Figure 16. To measure the width of the three central finger flutings. Rouffignac Cave.
If there are fewer than five lines in a unit, however, 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 together are used to study the width of the hand.
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. (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.) The start of a fluting does not have this build up and may be smooth.
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 17).
Figure 17. The flutings from the different fingers at the beginning of a unit usually show different relative heights. 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 18). 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.
Figure
18. An examination of line
junctions may tell which lines overlie others. Rouffignac Cave.
Inferences
Besides the obvious
inferences that can be drawn, such as the distinction between units, clusters,
and panel, the following may also be drawn about the fluters and their
activities from the above
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. (Note that the question has not been asked whether the fluter was left or right handed.)
Age of Fluter
The size of the hand 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 Prep. 4). 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 hand 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 together is used to measure the hand width. Another reason to use the fingers 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 size of the hand or 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. Manning’s
research into the ratio of the length of the index finger or second digit (2D)
to the length of the pointer finger or fourth digit (4D) offers a tool that may
be able to distinguish male from female fluters. He and his colleagues show
that ‘2D:4D in right and left hands has a sexually dimorphic pattern; in males,
mean 2D:4D = 0.98, i.e., the 4th digit tended to be longer than the 2nd and, in
females, mean 2D:4D = 1.00, i.e., the 2nd and the 4th digits tended to be of
equal length. The dimorphism is present from at least age 2 years and 2D:4D is
probably established in utero’
(Manning et al. 1998: 3000). A series of questions arise from this to use the
2D:4D ratio for suggesting the fluter’s gender. The measurements that Manning
et al. use are ‘on the ventral surface of the hand from the basal crease of the
digit to the tip’ (Manning et al. 1998: 3000). Yet what can be observed in
flutings is the silhouette of the finger tips, and hence only the difference in
the finger heights can be observed and measured (no access being available to
the base of the fluter’s digits). What are needed are measures such as 2D:4D
< ym Þ xm
% of the fluter being male, where ym < 1.00, and 2D:4D ≥
yf Þ xf
% of the fluter being female, where xf ≥ 1.00. At this
point, though it obviously requires further research, Manning et al.’s data are
being taken as indicative for work on flutings. Then, their histograms of the
distributions of the 2D:4D ratios for the right hands of 800 subjects (400
female, 400 male) provide the following indicators (Manning et al. 1998: 3001):
2D:4D < 1 Þ 54%
chance of being male, and 2D:4D ≥ 1 Þ
55% chance of being female. However, if their data centering on a figure a
little less than 1 can be applied to the flutings, greater gender
differentiation can be obtained; for instance, 2D:4D < 0.98 Þ 72% chance of being male. This offers a promising road
to pursue.
Number of Fluters
At present, it is
suggested that the following two observables be used to distinguish between
fluters: (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
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
The height of a
person is approximately the stretch of his or her arms (Da Vinci, the golden
proportion: the picture of a man within a square and a circle). 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 19).
Figure 19. The fluting whose top is second to right crosses over its left hand neighbor, suggesting that the cluster was fluted left to right. Chamber E, Rouffignac Cave.
Shapes
Shapes we can recognize as such, especially repeated shapes, may appear in a cluster (see Figure 20). Part of this investigation could include the identification of 2+2 units versus units fluted with the four fingers of one hand.
Figure 20. Shapes we can recognize as such may appear in a cluster. Chamber E, Rouffignac Cave.
At this point, reconstructing the cluster isn’t to suggest that the fluter intended it to be as it is, as if it were a composition, 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 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 genus 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 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 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 desbordes flutings in 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.
All this 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 in the field. It is hoped that the so-far found 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 in the techniques (Sharpe and Van Gelder 2004; In Prep. 1; In Prep. 2; In Prep. 3; In Prep. 4).
Continuing the Development of this Approach
Other Methodological Techniques
Other techniques (different visible lighting sources, x-ray, ultraviolet light, sonar, ultrasound, laser (see Perkins 2004; Wasklewicz et al. 2004), computer manipulation of the images, and so on) than those used above might penetrate the surface or bring out aspects of the lines not regularly seen under normal light. Explored could be questions that still fluters don’t 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,
·
Explore the relationship between touch –
pressure – and fluting width.
· 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 to tell this?
Other factors also need exploring; geomorphological ones for instance: how the growth of moonmilk might influence the flutings.
Severines, Figures, and Symbols
Three types of flutings have been looked at in the caves: nonfigurative lines (severines) plus images that modern people recognize as figures or symbols (‘patterns’ or ‘shapes’ or structural repetitions) made with lines. 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 techniques are studied and are thought to apply to all three. This may turn out to be an inadequate assumption the further this type of study progresses.
Related Families of Parietal Markings
Several other families of parietal markings besides flutings exist, including stick scratches, stone engravings, clay application, dots, hand prints, and stencils. The driving force behind the nomenclature and taxonomy of this paper is methodological: how to study flutings and, more generally, how to study each of the different families of markings. For instance, the forensic studies of hands helps 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 family (for example, overlays applies to both engravings and flutings), and some may apply only to one family.
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.
Paradigm Change
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 are no drawings of snakes there, despite what Nougier and Robert, and Barrière (1982) firmly declare (Sharpe and Van Gelder In Prep. 3).
Nougier and Robert observed the fluted ceiling through the
eyes of a paradigm that now must be left behind if progress is to be made in
understanding the activities that took place there. Nougier and Robert 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. Observers
need to change from the Breuil approach (appearance in a recognizable form is
what the Breuil paradigm emphasizes because it primarily and dominantly
emphasizes meaning, versus asking about the act of manufacture and for
objective
Prehistoric ‘art’ has in part become important because of
what drawn and painted animals say about ritual and the artists’ inner lives,
whereas nothing can really be said about these things; they are only
speculation. What remains after removing ‘ritual’ and ‘spirituality’ from the
art? What remains after removing the speculation? Very little if anything, except
matters of technique, ingredient origin, and image distribution. Probably
nothing can be said objectively about the people. Now much more progress can be
made toward what would be acknowledged as the chief aim of the study of
prehistoric artifacts, namely, to find out about the people. The methodology
suggested in this paper is an archaeological search for finding out about them.
Flutings are not important primarily because of what modern people think they
mean; they are important because many say something about the people who made
them. Breuil referred to severines as ‘lignes parasites’; the ‘lignes
parasites’ may actually tell more about the severine makers than does the
creation of an auroch or horse. Then, once a lot more is known about the fluters,
questions of meaning can be addressed and sifted with the
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 taxonomy: Family (finger flutings), Genus (four forms: Kirian, Evelynian, Rugolean, Mirian), and Species (local variants of the genera, for example, Kirian goursolle in Rouffignac Cave, Kirian abadie in Gargas Cave). The key to the taxonomy 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 genera or 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, and unit overlays. From these, some inferences may be drawn: the fluting hand, 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 required paradigm change implied in this approach is discussed in relation to the direction of many of the previous studies on flutings.
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 fingers used, and the age and gender of the fluters. Much more work on flutings is required following this methodology. Plus more work can be done on developing the methodology itself.
An evaluation is also required of this general approach, including the taxonomy. Primarily, the question to ask is: Is it useful? It is devised with methodological questions in mind. So if it is not helpful, then another way needs seeking to help analyze and present the flutings, and otherwise find out what we can about the fluters.
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.
·
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,
Barrière, Claude.
Bednarik, Robert G.
_________.
_________.
Breuil, H., H.
Obermaier, and W. Verner. 1915. La Pileta a Benaojan (Malaga). Monaco:
Institute 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; A. H. Brodrick, ed.; Praeger: New York, pp 1-14
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 P. J. Ucko, ed., Form in Indigenous Art (Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies), pp. 286-317.
_________.
Nougier, Louis-René; Robert, Romain. 1958. The Cave of Rouffignac. Transl. David Scott. London: George Newnes.
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
_________. To Appear. Trois Formes de Tracés Digitaux (ou Sevérines) en Grotte de Rouffignac, France. To appear in Préhistoire du Sud-Ouest.
_________. In Preparation 1. Forms of Finger Flutings in Gargas Cave, France.
_________. In Preparation 2. Kirian Flutings in Rouffignac Cave, France.
_________. In Preparation 3. Mirian Flutings in Rouffignac Cave, France.
_________. In Preparation 4. Children and Finger Flutings in Rouffignac 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.