AR82. 27 October 2004
Copyright © 2004 by Kevin Sharpe. All rights reserved.
In process.

2004-2005 Archaeology Grant Application:

Outline

by

Kevin Sharpe

Harris Manchester College, Oxford University, Oxford
Graduate College, Union Institute and University, Cincinnati, Ohio
10 Shirelake Close, Oxford OX1 1SN, United Kingdom
kevin.sharpe@tui.edu
www.ksharpe.com

Background

Prehistoric finger flutings (the lines that human fingers leave when drawn over a soft surface) occur in caves through southern Australia, New Guinea, and southwestern Europe, and were presumably made over a considerable time span including some or all of the Upper Paleolithic. Most are not obvious figures or symbols, but are just lines (flutings of this type are termed ‘severines’).

Lorblanchet (1992: 451) writes about the 120 square meters of flutings that occur in Pech Merle Cave in the Lot Department of France: ‘Almost all the clay walls that are accessible without too much difficulty bare these markings.’ Plassard (1999: 62; Plassard and Plassard 2000: 98) mentions 500 square meters of severines (‘meanders’ as he calls them; they are also known as ‘macaroni’ and ‘serpentines’ (Marshack 1977: 286)) in Rouffignac Cave in the Dordogne, France, whereas he isolates 255 figures (animal, human, and other motifs) in the cave; these cover far less surface area. Leroi-Gourhan (1958: 314) reports that ‘incomplete outlines and bundles of lines…with very few exceptions…exist in every cave.’ Severines form a major – if not the largest – component of Paleolithic ‘art.’

Little is written and known about them, however. Clottes and Courtin (1996: 59) write: ‘Barely a quarter of the finger tracings in some seventy European Paleolithic painted caves has been the subject of surveys and precise analyses.’ Just about the only writings on them either barely describe them, say that they exist in profusion or are enigmatic, or mention them only in-so-far as they occur in conjunction with or are used to create figures such as mammoths (Barrière 1982: 150) and motifs such as Tectiforms (Barrière 1982: 156; Plassard 1999: 61; for examples of other motifs, see Barrière 1982: 158). ‘Archaeologists have not known what to do with this class of marking or image,’ Marshack (1977: 286, 300) says, though examples have ‘been seen, copied, and published’ for a century.

Most investigators nowadays merely mention the occurrence of these lines, if they say anything about them at all. 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 (2003: 91) 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.’ Previous understandings of nonfigurative flutings perhaps appear wanting and so scholars increasingly say less and less about them, and what they do say often is speculative.

The reason for this, Marshack (1977: 286, 300) continues, ‘is that there has been no theoretical basis for internal analysis or interpretation of form, no technology for its study, and no means for relating these forms to the recognizable animal images with which they are often associated.’ Or, as Clottes and Courtin write:

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).

Inadequate Paradigms

Speculation as to their meaning, therefore, can run unchecked; they are seen, for example, as mimicking bear claw scratches (Aujoulat and Gély, mentioned above), or representing such things as water (Marshack 1977: 314), entopic shapes or phosphenes (Bednarik 1984), huts, comets, or rivers (Leroi-Gourhan 1958: 314), snakes (and thereby associated with death) (Barrière 1982: 88, 195), psycho-neurological archetypes (Gallus 1977), and hunting marks (Barrière 1982: 184). Four of the most well-known expert voices on prehistoric art – depicted below in chronological order – fall to over-reaching speculation:

· Breuil (1915; 1952) describes severines carefully, seeing them in part as the first scribbles by humans, though intuitive and random. The fluters probably recognized images in the severines and thus, from them, developed the tradition of simple and crude outline figures. Breuil’s interest lies in the development of a comparative typology and chronology of the styles of the ‘art.’ He speaks of severines as serpentine-meanders and thinks of them as snakes.

· Using statistics, Leroi-Gourhan (1958; 1972) studies the placement and spread of signs and images within a cave and their association with each other. He calls these relationships polar, oppositional, sexual, or female/male. He speaks of severines as linear-phallic and thinks of them as a male symbol or as unfinished outlines.

· Marshack (1977: 301) not only suggests that the meaning of severines lies in an association with water, but he also names an evolutionary sequence of severine forms ‘in which a more formal [form] begins to give a geometric appearance to the linear, carefully drawn [severine] structure.’

· Lewis-Williams (2002: 215) begins to approach flutings more openly when he writes: ‘finger flutings appear without representational images often enough to suggest that they had their own significance.’ However, at about the same time he and Clottes also write:

In some instances, it seems as if people were trying to penetrate the surfaces, to reach through the walls; in other instances, people were simply touching – and leaving evidence for their actions on – the walls. Why did they do this? [For Upper Paleolithic people,] the walls, ceilings, and floors of the caves were…little more than a thin membrane between themselves and the creatures and happenings of the underworld. The caves were awesome, liminal places in which to be: Literally, they took one into the underworld….Perhaps one could say that the caves were the entrails of the underworld….What people believe[d] about the walls influence[d] those who made the images [on the walls] (Clottes and Lewis-Williams 1998: 85-86).

The Shamanic Hypothesis

The Lewis-Williams and Clottes hypothesis – extrapolating from the San art in Southern African to worldwide – is becoming more and more popular because it offers a universal explanation for prehistoric art. At this point it is still a young idea and ought only to be considered a hypothesis, though it appears to be rapidly becoming a paradigm. It also strikes a chord in many people seeking to emphasize the spiritual side of life over against the material. However, a story – which is what it is – is a story is a story. Is it true? Is it empirically valid and fruitful? About flutings, Lewis-Williams writes:

Upper Paleolithic evidence suggests that parts of the caves, especially the deep passages and small, hidden diverticules, were places where visionary quests took place….In their various stages of altered states, questers sought, by sight and touch, in the folds and cracks of the rock face visions of powerful animals. It is as if the rock were a membrane between them and one of the lowest levels of the tiered cosmos; behind the rock lay a realm inhabited by spirit-animals, and the passages and chambers of the cave penetrated deep into that realm.

Such beliefs and rituals also account for…the various ways in which the walls of numerous Upper Paleolithic caverns were touched and otherwise treated. In some sites,…finger-flutings cover most of the walls and parts of the ceilings to a considerabe height….If we allow that Upper Paleolithic people believed that the spirit world lay behind the thin, membranous walls of the underground chambers and passages, the evidence for this and much otherwise incomprehensible behavior can be understood….In a variety of ways, people touched, respected, painted, and otherwise ritually treated the cave walls because of what existed behind their surfaces. The walls are not a meaningless support. They were part of the images, a highly charged context (Lewis-Williams 2002: 208-209).

We can explore this hypothesis for observable consequences. This passage might suggest that, for flutings, fingers would go into the walls trying to get as far as possible through the membrane toward the sacred. The fluters supposedly wanted to touch or pass through the membrane. Or that the surface would be taken away because it was sacred. If they were to flute, there would be little concern about the form used because the action of touching is what’s essential. On the other hand, in Chamber A1 of Rouffignac Cave, one of the greatest sites of flutings so far found, there are no finger holes produced by trying to get as far as possible into the surface. There’s no evidence that the surface was gouged out to be taken away. And there’s considerable concern about the form of fluting used. These flutings may be structured (this has not been investigated yet), but other panels of flutings in Rouffignac show a high degree of ordering and structure. Neither would careful relayering with clay over the flutings make sense, as in Panel I in Chamber E of the cave. Elsewhere, Lewis-Williams ( ??? ref actually the first part of the above quote) writes that shamans would enter the caves to paint or draw or flute, favoring low places with closed in ceilings. But from this perspective, the most inviting of the alcoves in Chamber A1 aren’t touched. All these observations would suggest that the shamanic hypothesis is incorrect in what it says about flutings. It probably does not apply to flutings. It comprises sweeping generalizations and lacks an empirical base.

Bednarik also relies on entopic phenomena when trying to understand the fluting phenomenon. The chief difference from Lewis-Williams here is that Bednarik does not offer the cultural context of shamanic ritual as the means by which the entopic forms become experienced and the reason why they are expressed. Without such a context, Bednarik’s theory does not answer why people would want to express the entopic forms they experience. ??? give theories of both men and Bednarik’s critique of Lewis-Williams ???

Regardless of the hypothesis Bednarik wishes to offer for understanding the origin and reason for the fluting phenomenon, he has devoted considerable energy to searching for flutings, to examining them, to describing them, and to studying their geomorphological and chemical environments and their physical media. ??? explain more ???

The Breuil Paradigm

The Breuil paradigm has several components. One of them concerns religion (not surprising since Breuil was a Roman Catholic priest) and this continues into the shamanic hypothesis with its emphasis on religious ritual. ??? names given to cave parts, including to Chauvet ??? The Paleolithic cave artists were seen to have been participating in religious ritual or expression when painting or drawing. This element of the paradigm continues very strongly. But it is without substantive ground and is purely speculative. It would be better to desacrilize the ‘art’ – in the case in point, the flutings – until proven otherwise. The caves were not necessarily considered holy in our sense of the word. They were not necessarily holy to the fluters, or held in reverence or in fear. ??? talk about our fear of the underworld that isn’t every culture’s ???

As mentioned above, the Breuil paradigm believes in an evolution from crude scribbles (severines) to crude and simple outline figures, to sophisticated art. The sophistication, beauty, yet considerable age of the paintings and drawings in Chauvet Cave dismiss the simplistic linear progression inherent in the Breuil paradigm. The Victorian evolutionary perspective and its social Darwinistic conclusions turn out to be far too simplistic. Human development probably wasn’t that linear. Marshack believes

that in the Upper Paleolithic the recognizable image was not derived accidentally from random [severine] marking, first because the [severines] are not random but, more important, because the ability to see an image in a random cluster (or a rock or wall formation) requires culture. It is part of a process of description, classification, comparison, and naming. It is a human, cultural activity. In this regard, the ability to initiate and maintain an image system, such as the [severine], requires naming and language….[This] is, of course, [in addition to the] basic cognitive, kinesthetic, non-linguistic component in image-making and recognition (Marshack 1977: 300).

Time is ripe to desacrilize and delinearize Paleolithic ‘art’ ??? need to say why I apostrophize art ??? and to accept its complexity and localization. ??? explain ??? Strike out the ‘this is the first instance, the earliest’ mentality. Generalizations about humanity. They are the ‘every people.’ Strike these out because they can’t respond. It’s too easy for us. They were individuals. They weren’t holy and stupid. We oughtn’t to project onto them a pristine nature unsullied by the evils of modernity or the agriculture life, and at the same time think of them as stupid and clueless. ??? ref Leslie’s work ???

One of the more enduring aspects of the Breuil paradigm – even in part able to endure through and beyond the shamanic hypothesis – is the emphasis on animal and human shapes and certain recognizable symbols. The belief that the only worthwhile or important prehistoric ‘art’ are these forms and symbols. Severines are still dismissed or disregarded as not worthwhile because of this belief.

A New Approach

Severines, to restate Lewis-Williams (2002: 215), ‘had their own significance.’ They need to be taken seriously and not dismissed, and not subordinated to something else or some other perspectives including forms of ‘art.’ The chief problem is that investigators bring to their study preconceived, westerner notions as to what is meaningful and what constitutes a pattern. They introduce what they consider is the meaning of the severines and how the various forms of prehistoric ‘art’ relate to each other. Previous investigations try, Marshack writes,

to recognize or interpret images or signs on the basis of what the modern eye sees or on what historic cultures might offer for analogic comparison….to seek for the origins of ‘art’ in the recognizable image, recognizable to us. Because recognizable images such as animals are occasionally found among the [severines], it was assumed that it was out of random marking that representational art was eventually born (Marshack 1977: 287, 300).

The focus on meaning leads to little real knowledge, merely to much speculation. It may be mostly about the cultural or personal views of the investigators. Should or can nothing therefore be said about severines? Ucko (1992: 158) states: ‘It is…inconceivable to us today to understand the nature of [severines].’ Often thought of as meaningless, they are now usually considered beyond interpretation.

This is too extreme a conclusion. However, it makes sense at this stage of the study of severines to leave aside the question of meaning; better would be to see what can be said about the marks themselves as they were made. Such investigations logically come before subjective-interpretative and meaning-seeking approaches to severines and may help sort out the various suggestions as to meaning or lay a solid foundation for seeking meaning.

Marshack, though he defers to his predecessors, pioneers strategies for this type of research and starts to break out of the meaning seeking paradigm. He talks about severines as intentional systems of markings, and he writes:

I tried to develop techniques and a theoretical basis for the intensive internal analysis of the Upper Paleolithic symbolic materials….My effort was…directed toward…a study of the cognitive processes involved in the formation of an image, a study of the sequence of making an image or a composition or the sequence of accumulating images on a surface….This enquiry was…functional and psychological (Marshack 1977: 287; see also his 1972; 1975; 1989; 1997).

By placing a development of forms onto the forms themselves, and by expounding water as the meaning of the markings, Marshack retreats from grounded analysis to speculation, and does so without clearly differentiating between the two approaches. The core of Marshack’s methodology needs adopting and developing, and his speculations as to meaning and the evolution of ‘art’ need putting aside, at least in the meantime.

This proposed research continues to establish the more objective and experimental approach to the lines (Sharpe Preprint; Sharpe and Fawbert 1998; Sharpe and Lacombe 1999; Sharpe, Lacombe, and Fawbert 1998; 2002; Sharpe and Van Gelder Preprint 1; Preprint 2; for some of the author’s relevant prior work, see Sharpe 1977; 1978; Sharpe and Sharpe 1976) ??? in above ??? . In other words, this proposed work continues the beginning of a remedy for the situation that Clottes and Courtin diagnose and that Marshack attempts to meet. Following but developing his methodology come Bednarik (Aslin, Bednarik, and Bednarik 1985; Bednarik 1986a; 1986b; 1986c; 1987; 1990; 1994a; 1994b; 1994c; 1997), d’Errico (1989; 1991; 1992a; 1992b; 1993; 1994; 1995; d’Errico, Henshilwood, and Nilssen 2001), and Lorblanchet (1984; 1992; 1995; 1999). ??? update bibs ???

The approach being offered extends the internal analysis started by Marshack to building on forensics. This potential new paradigm for viewing people of the past by looking at the lines that Breuil saw as secondary. To see into the minds and cultures of the people. Lines humanize and individualize the people ??? this is a VIP emphasis ??? whereas focusing on the art has caused the opposite. The forensic methods individuate the lines. The individual in tension with the broad strokes of culture. This offers the chance to talk about the interrelationships between the individuals involved in a panel. It works from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It is into evidence rather than the big meanings.

Research to Date

Initial work to the proposed research has been carried out in Rouffignac Cave in the Dordogne, France, and Gargas Cave in …. ??? . Four different forms of severines have been differentiated: Mirian, Rugolean, Kirian, and Evelynian flutings (Sharpe and Van Gelder Preprint 1):

· ??? better wording in the method paper ??? One thing defines a cluster of finger flutings as of the Mirian Form: lower-body movement on the part of the fluters (as opposed to them only moving their upper bodies). ‘Lower-body movement’ means that the people who fluted the walls or ceilings in the Mirian Form not only sometimes walked or otherwise moved their legs while fluting (thus the lines may extend beyond the arm range of a stationary fluter), but almost always moved their bodies from their hips to create the flutings by, for instance, bending, twisting, or shifting their weight.

· Two things define a cluster of finger flutings as of the Kirian Form: the fluter standing in one spot while fluting a unit, and each unit comprising only one line. The people who fluted the walls or ceilings in the Kirian Form stood still and marked with one finger.

· Two things define a cluster of finger flutings as of the Rugolean Form: the fluter standing in one spot while fluting a unit, and most units comprising more than one line. The people who fluted the walls or ceilings stood still, moved their upper bodies, and marked mostly with more than one finger at a time. The fluter may have moved between making units, but stood stationary for each unit.

Having recognized and substantiated these distinctions, further preliminary work (following the methodology described below) has enabled particular questions to be asked of each of the three forms of flutings, questions that form the basis for this proposed research project. ??? methodological division ???

Research Questions

The questions underlying this research are broad. Using severines as the phenomena for analysis, ??? reword ???

1. What can be said about the people who used the caves, including Rouffignac?

2. What did they use the caves for?

Following the above-mentioned initial research, three specific and two exploratory research questions can be asked:

1. Did children create some of the Mirian flutings in Chamber A1 in Rouffignac Cave?

Initial investigations suggest an affirmative answer (Sharpe and Van Gelder Prepint 2), but more data gathering both in the cave and from the hands of contemporary people, plus a refinement of technique so as to minimize potential errors are in order. It has been found, for instance, that the drawing of fingers held together over soft clay produces an image, measuring the central three fingers of which gives a reliable database for comparing with similarly made flutings in the cave. If the tentative conclusion about children is upheld, this may represent the first known example of children creating prehistoric ‘art’ in the European Paleolothic. ??? have done an update ???

2. A continuation of research on the Mirian flutings in Chamber A1: the number of individuals, the genders of the fluters (based on the relative heights of their fingers), different people in different alcoves, structure, ‘snakes’ and ‘anthropomorphs.’

3. What is the precise structure of the Kirian flutings and how do the various modalities of marking relate to each other?

Though initially appearing simple, some of the Kirian flutings are complex overlays of single digit marks, applications of clay, and scoring with sticks. This question has particular importance because of the possibility of dating the charcoal left by the scoring with burned sticks; none of the other ‘art’ in Rouffignac Cave has been dated directly.

4. Is the numbers of fingers used in Rugolean flutings a significant variable?

Rugolean flutings can appear ordered. Initial investigations suggest that the number of fingers used in each unit may be significant, for instance in terms of the Zipf plots graph from communications theory that attempts to isolate attempted communications from otherwise apparently random elements (Nadis 2003). If these initial suggestions are affirmed after further investigation, and if the Zipf plot truly does isolate attempted communication from random events, then Rugolean flutings may be a form of communication. Such a conclusion will lead to further questions.

Ages, numbers of individuals, gender – for all clusters (at least four are usable).

5. Are there other isolatable forms of severines in Rouffignac Cave? Study of Evelynian lines – ideas.

6. How do the forms isolated in Rouffignac compare with severines in other caves?

??? update ??? Initial visits to several caves, a literature search, plus discussions with French prehistorians, have suggested that it would be profitable to investigate the severines in Gargas Cave and Baume-Latrone Cave. Applications have been lodged with the relevant authorities to undertake this work. Further, Michel Lorblanchet has suggested that he will collaborate in a larger study to include Pech Merle and Altamira caves. He wishes to use the same general methodology to examine the products of human hands in several caves to which he already has access.

Methodology

The core of the approach adopted is three fold: ??? update ???

1. Laboratory Experimentation

Research is undertaken in the laboratory to ascertain what can and cannot be fluted or engraved in the situations of the severines, to clarify what particular features of the severines still visible may imply about how they were made and who made them, and to refine data recording techniques (Lorblanchet 1995: 209-223). For instance, for the study on Miriam flutings and finger widths, a comparison can be made between contemporary finger marks in plaster of Paris, finger paints, clay, and outlines of the fingers drawn or photocopied onto paper, to choose the most accurate and versatile medium to be used to measure the fluted fingers of contemporary people.

2. Fieldwork

A thorough examination of the lines is made using non-intrusive techniques such as varied lighting techniques. Photography with digital technology, different filters, light sources (including infrared and ultraviolet), and note taking of the severines are the foundations of the field techniques (Lorblanchet 1995: 113-128).

3. Analysis

After the fieldwork, the lines are drawn and reconstructed electronically. This redrawing often raises points about the image that need clarification and that only further field work can answer. From this work, specific questions such as the first three research questions above can be formulated for further investigation.

Funding Request

A request would be made to fund four years’ of field research, each year comprising two visits of a total per year of four weeks in the field. Funding would also be requested for laser fellow ??? for the field work and for the costs for attending two international rock art conferences to present the results of the research.

Publications

2 books, several journal papers, conference presentation

References

Aslin, G. D., E. K. Bednarik, and R. 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. 1984. On the Nature of Psychograms. The Artefact 8: 27-32.

_________. 1986a. Parietal Finger Markings in Europe and Australia. Rock Art Research 3 (1): 30-61.

_________. 1986b. Cave Use by Australian Pleistocene Man. Proceedings of the University of Bristol Speleological Society 17 (3): 227-245.

_________. 1986c. Reply to ‘Parietal Finger Markings in Europe and Australia.’ Further Comments. Rock Art research 3 (2): 159-170.

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

_________. 1990. The Cave Petroglyphs of Australia. Australian Aboriginal Studies 2: 64-68.

_________. 1994a. On the Scientific Study of Paleoart. Semiotica 100 (2): 141-168.

_________. 1994b. The Discrimination of Rock Markings. Rock Art Research 11 (1): 23-44.

_________. 1994c. Further Comment. Epistemology and Paleolithic Rock Art. Rock Art Research 11 (2): 118-121.

_________. 1997. The Global Evidence of Early Human Symboling Behavior. Human Evolution 12 (3): 147-168.

Breuil ( ??? 1915; ??? 1952)

Breuil, Henri. 1952. Four Hundred Centuries of Cave Art. Montignac: Centre d'Études et Documentations Prehistoriques.

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.

Clottes, Jean, and David Lewis-Williams. 1998. The Shamans of Prehistory: Trance and Magic in the Painted Caves, English edn., transl. Sophie Hawkes. New York: Harry N. Abrams.

d’Errico, Francesco. 1989. A Reply to Alexander Marshack. Current Anthropology 39: 494-500.

_________. 1991. Microscopic and Statistical Criteria for the Identification of Prehistoric Systems of Notation. Rock Art Research 8 (2): 83-93.

_________. 1992a. A Reply to Alexander Marshack. Rock Art Research 9: 59-64.

_________. 1992b. Technology, Motion, and the Meaning of Epipaleolithic Art. Current Anthropology 33 (1): 94-109.

_________. 1993. La Vie Sociale de l’Art Mobilier Paléolithique: Manipulation, Transport, Suspension des Objets en Os, Bois de Cervidés, Ivoire. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 12: 145-174.

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

_________. 1995. A New Model and its Implications for the Origin of Writing: The La Marche Antler Revisited. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 5: 3-46.

_________, 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.

Gallus, Alexander. 1977. Schematization and Symboling. In Form in Indigenous Art: Schematization in the Art of Aboriginal Australia and Prehistoric Europe, Prehistory and Material Culture Series, no. 13, ed. Peter J. Ucko (Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies), pp. 370-386.

Leroi-Gourhan (1958 ??? ;1972 ??? )

Leroi-Gourhan, André. 1958. La Fonction des Signes dans les Sanctuaires Paléolithiques. Bulletin de la Société Préhistoriques Française 55: 307-321.

Lewis-Williams, David. 2002. The Mind in the Cave: Consciousness and the Origins of Art. London: Thames & Hudson.

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 Center 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.

_________. 1975. Exploring the Mind of Ice Age Man. National Geographic 147 (1): 64-89.

_________. 1977. The Meander as a System: The Analysis and Recognition of Iconographic Units in Upper Paleolithic Compositions. In Form in Indigenous Art: Schematization in the Art of Aboriginal Australia and Prehistoric Europe, Prehistory and Material Culture Series, no. 13, ed. Peter J. Ucko (Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies), pp. 286-317.

_________. 1989. Methodology in the Analysis and Interpretation of Upper Paleolithic Image: Theory versus Contextual Analysis. Rock Art Research 6 (1): 17-53.

_________. 1997. Paleolithic Image Making and Symboling in Europe and the Middle East: A Comparative View. In Beyond Art: Pleistocene Image and Symbol, Memoirs of the California Academy of Sciences, no. 23, ed. M. W. Conkey, O. Soffer, D. Stratman and N. G. Jablonski (San Francisco, California University Press), pp. 53-92.

Maynard, Lesley, and Robert Edwards. 1971. Wall Markings. In Archaeology of the Gallus Site, Koonalda Cave, Australian Aboriginal Studies, no. 26, ed. R. V. S. Wright, pp. 59-80. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.

Nadis, Steve. 2003. Look Who’s Talking. New Scientist 179 (2403): 36-39.

Plassard, Jean. 1999. Rouffignac: Le Sanctuaire des Mammouths. Paris: Seuil.

Sharpe, Christine E. 1977. Koonalda Cave: The Beginning of Artistic Expression. New Quarterly Cave, 2 (3): 226-234.

_________. 1978. An Analysis of Prehistoric Engravings on Boulders in Koonalda Cave, South Australia. In National Geographic Society Research Reports, 1976 Projects (Washington, DC: National Geographic Society), pp. 31-50.

_________, and Kevin J. Sharpe. 1976. Preliminary Survey of Engraved Boulders in the Art Sanctuary of Koonalda Cave, South Australia. Mankind 10 (3): 125-130.

Sharpe, Kevin. Preprint. Incised Linear Markings: Animal or Human Origin? www.ksharpe.com.

_________, and Helen Fawbert. 1998. An Externalism in Order to Communicate. The Artefact 21: 95-104.

_________, and Mary Lacombe. 1999. Line Markings as Systems of Notation? In News 95: International Rock Art Congress Proceedings. Pinerolo, Italy: IFRAO – International Federation of Rock Art Federations, p. 46 and NEWS 95 - International Rock Art Congress Proceedings_files/sharp.htm.

_________, Mary Lacombe, and Helen Fawbert. 2002. Investigating Finger Flutings. Rock Art Research 19 (2): 109-116.

_________, and Leslie Van Gelder. Preprint 1. Three Forms of Finger Flutings in Rouffignac Cave, France. www.ksharpe.com.

_________, and Leslie Van Gelder. Preprint 2. Children and Paleolithic ‘Art’: Indications from Rouffignac Cave, France. www.ksharpe.com.

Ucko, Peter J. 1992. Subjectivity and Recording of Paleolithic Cave Art. In The Limitations of Archaeological Knowledge, ed. T. Shay and J. Clottes, Études et Recherches Archéologiques de l’Université de Liège, no. 49 (Liège: Université de Liège), pp. 141-180.

Copyright © 2004 by Kevin Sharpe. All rights reserved.