Res

earc

h

New views on old hands: the context ofstencils in El Castillo and La Garmacaves (Cantabria, Spain)Paul Pettitt1, Alfredo Maximiano Castillejo2, Pablo Arias2, RobertoOntanon Peredo2,3,4 & Rebecca Harrison5

Madrid

La Garma and El Castillo

N

0 km 400 Hand stencils are an intriguing feature ofprehistoric imagery in caves and rocksheltersin several parts of the world, and the recentdemonstration that the oldest of those inWestern Europe date back to 37 000 yearsor earlier further enhances their significance.Their positioning within the painted cavesof France and Spain is far from random,but responds to the shapes and fissures inthe cave walls. Made under conditions oflow and flickering light, the authors suggestthat touch—‘palpation’—as much as vision,would have driven and directed the locationschosen for these stencils. Detailed study of theimages in two Cantabrian caves also allows

different individuals to be distinguished, most of whom appear to have been female. Finally, theproject reveals deliberate associations between the stencils and features on the cave walls.

Keywords: Cantabria, El Castillo, La Garma, Palaeolithic art, painted caves, hand stencils,palpation

Supplementary material is published online at http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/pettitt339/

IntroductionHand stencils form one of the most recognisable categories of European Palaeolithic ‘caveart’. Since their initial study by Cartailhac (1906–1909), Capitan (1911) and Breuil (Alcaldedel Rio et al. 1911; Breuil 1952), research into their nature and meaning, particularly over1 Department of Archaeology, Durham University, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, UK (Author for

correspondence, email: paul.pettitt@durham.ac.uk)2 The Cantabria International Institute for Prehistoric Research, University of Cantabria, Edificio

Interfacultativo, Avda. los Castros s/n, 39005 Santander, Spain3 Museo de Prehistoria y Arqueologıa de Cantabria, Avda. los Castros 65–67, 39005 Santander, Spain4 Cuevas Prehistoricas de Cantabria, 39670 Puenta Viesgo, Spain5 Department of Archaeology, University of Sheffield, Northgate House, West Street, Sheffield S1 4ET, UK

C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.ANTIQUITY 88 (2014): 47–63 http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/088/ant0880047.htm

47

New views on old hands

the last half century, has essentially repeated questions as to what the age and gender of thestencilled individuals were and why some fingers or parts of them appear missing. We takehere a contextual approach to the production and location of hand stencils in the caves of ElCastillo and La Garma in Cantabria (henceforth ‘stencils’—which are far more numerousthan positive prints). These caves are in relatively close proximity and contain a relativelylarge number of stencils. Our rationale is to look past questions about the possible identityof those stencilled and reformulate our approach around their context in the caves. Whatfollows is the first detailed examination of the physical context of stencils. Our resultinginterpretations are preliminary, but reveal the potential of a new concept—palpation—forunderstanding cave art more widely.

Hand stencils in Palaeolithic cave artIn many societies the hand serves as a cultural icon. Although modern Homo sapiens societiestend to prioritise spoken language above hand-based communication, enough use is madeof hand communication by small-scale societies to suggest that this has a considerableantiquity, and thus that it may have played an important role for Palaeolithic homininscapable of creating and understanding symbolic systems (e.g. Capitan 1911; Leroi-Gourhan1967). Examples of hand stencils (outlines created by projecting fluid pigment over a handplaced against a cave surface) and prints (made by pressing a pigment-covered hand against asurface) are known in a variety of countries and areas, notably Argentina, Australia, Borneo,Mexico, Peru, the Sahara and the USA (Arizona, California and particularly Texas), allapparently of Late Pleistocene age or younger. European Upper Palaeolithic examples—thefocus of this study—are known in France, Spain and Italy. No precise quantification ofthe number of stencils/prints and the number of caves in which they occur is known to us:we count them in 44 caves, of which 30 are in France, 13 in Spain and 1 in Italy (for detailsand references see online supplementary material). Among these the greater majority are insouthern France (Dordogne, Lot, Ariege) and northern Spain (Cantabria), although isolatedexamples are known as far north as the Grande Grotte at Arcy-sur-Cure, Burgundy (Baffier& Girard 2007) and as far south as Ardales near Malaga (Espejo Herrerıas & CantalejoDuarte 2006).

Breuil (1952: 38) assigned prints and stencils to his Aurignacian-Perigordian cycle onstratigraphic grounds and their lack of association with anything other than dots or simpleanimal outlines, and although Leroi-Gourhan occasionally assigned them to a later phase(e.g. his Style III/Solutrean-Early Magdalenian for Tibiran; Leroi-Gourhan 1968: 321) mostsubsequent researchers, basing their conclusions on radiocarbon measurements and U-seriesmeasurements on stalactites overlying stencils support the view that they are Gravettian orearlier (e.g. Lorblanchet 1995: 245–46; Ripoll Lopez et al. 1999a: 13; Foucher et al. 2007:83; Pike et al. 2012.). For the purposes of this paper, however, the only assumption oneneeds to make is that the stencils in each cave are broadly contemporary and thus can beinterpreted as a thematic whole.

In only a few cases have stencils been meticulously studied and published, notably atGargas (Sahly 1966; Barriere & Sueres 1993; Foucher & Rumeau 2007), Cosquer (Clotteset al. 1992; Clottes & Courtin 1996: 69–79) and Maltravieso (Ripoll Lopez et al. 1999aC© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

48

Res

earc

h

Paul Pettitt et al.

& b). Wider research has concentrated entirely on the identity of hand stencils rather thantheir context, i.e. the possible gender and age of the people whose hands were depicted,whether the left or right hand was shown (e.g. Faurie & Raymond 2004), and why in somecaves fingers or parts of them appear attenuated, i.e. missing or bent back (in the last halfcentury, for example, Janssens 1957; Sahly 1966; Hooper 1980; Wildgoose et al. 1982;Barriere & Sueres 1993; Ripoll Lopez et al. 1999a; Guthrie 2005: 114–32; Rouillon 2006).Most researchers agree that the left hand was overwhelmingly stencilled; that the ratio oflengths of ring and index fingers—which indicate gender from the age of two (Manninget al. 1998)—is often consistent with female hands, and that there is no reason to assumemore than a small number of individuals are represented in each cave. Attenuated (usuallydescribed as ‘missing’) fingers in fact belong to stencils in only a small number of the caves,and the focus on these presumably resulted simply from their abundance in Gargas andneighbouring Tibiran. Given the relative rarity of attenuated fingers (a term we favour dueto its neutrality) among this relatively rare category of parietal art one really should not bepreoccupied with them.

New research in La Garma and El CastilloWe have undertaken an informed analysis of the context and positioning of stencils in LaGarma and El Castillo, taking a number of observations and measurements of each visiblestencil. By focusing on context we hope that we will widen our understanding of stencilsand by so doing widen the appreciation of ‘cave art’ through exploring objectively processesof individual decision-making made in a very specific and constrained environment. Giventhat the stencils appear to be relatively early in the chronology of European Palaeolithic artwe hope that this new perspective will contribute to current debates as to the origins anddevelopment of cognitively ‘modern’ behaviour and art in general.

Figure 1. Location map of El Castillo and La Garma.

El Castillo, in the village of PuenteViesgo, and La Garma, just north of thevillage of Omono, lie around 29km apart,to the south-west and east of Santanderrespectively (Figure 1). The c. 300m-longcave of El Castillo can be divided intotwo areas; a large entrance chamber (theGran Sala), and a subsequent labyrinth ofnarrow galleries totalling almost 1km inlength. Much of its art is figurative andcan be attributed to the Solutrean or theMagdalenian, although its hand stencilsbelong to an earlier group which includesdots and lines, the antiquity of which wasrecently attested by the U-series datingnoted above (Pike et al. 2012). Most of the

stencils—at least 44 of which 38 are clear—cluster in a panel in a narrow gallery beyondthe Gran Sala (the Gallery of the Hands) although isolated examples exist further into the

C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

49

New views on old hands

Figure 2. El Castillo, the Main Panel of hands. Photo: Luis Teira, courtesy of the Gobierno de Cantabria.

cave’s depth (Alcalde del Rio et al. 1911; Leroi-Gourhan 1968: 333–34; Figure 2) and asmany surviving examples are faint one cannot rule out that their absence from the GranSala is due to their disappearance due to atmospheric erosion (Alcalde del Rio et al. 1911:117). The c. 300m-long Lower Gallery of La Garma cave, 12km from Santander, can bedivided into nine zones on the basis of the cave’s topography. Contrasting patterns of spatialdistribution distinguish the early (Pre-Magdalenian) and late (Middle Magdalenian) stagesof Palaeolithic activity so far identified in the cave (Gonzalez Sainz 2003; Ontanon 2003;Arias et al. 2011). The former stage (including the stencils, series of red dots and other simplepaintings, as well as animal representations also in red) occurs along the entire gallery; thelater stage (comprising the remains of habitation structures and numerous paintings andengravings of Magdalenian style) is concentrated in the areas that are close to the cave’soriginal entrance (zones I–IV, spanning roughly one third of the gallery’s length). Recentpigment analyses of a number of examples of the cave’s art has reinforced this division,demonstrating that the hand stencils are linked to non-figurative dots and lines rather thanto the more diverse figurative images of the Magdalenian (Arias et al. 2011).

We examined as many hand stencils as were clearly visible in La Garma (n = 27) andEl Castillo (n = 38) (Figure 3), taking a series of observations on each, notably: colour (inboth caves always red); left or right hand (assuming a palm down position); the length (mm)of each observable digit; the width of palm (mm); the orientation of the hand (expressedas a point in a 360◦ circle); the angle between the thumb and the index finger; and theheight above the cave floor. In addition to these we recorded contextual information aboutC© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

50

Res

earc

h

Paul Pettitt et al.

Figure 3. La Garma. Recording the morphology of hand stencils. Note the low position of the stencil within a natural alcove.Photo: Alfredo Maximiano Castillejo, courtesy of the Gobierno de Cantabria.

the location and associations of each hand stencil, specifically: the type of surface (e.g. flat,smooth, modified, bright, dull); the presence/absence of specific features (notably stalactite,concave or convex surface, cracks) and relation of these to the stencil; any artistic association(i.e. whether other stencils or other art is located close by); the wider positioning of thestencils (i.e. chamber type, proximity to shafts, stalactite columns and other features); andthe specific position of stencils in relation to localised cave wall morphology, e.g. convexor concave surfaces, cracks and the like. In this paper we concentrate on these contextualassociations.

Stencils: context and associationsThrough the experimental replication of stencils we created a coded scheme reflecting theease or difficulty of producing stencils. This confirmed that the most comfortable position inwhich to produce stencils was at 45◦ to the left (of vertical) when producing a stencil of theright hand, and 45◦ to the right (of vertical) when producing a stencil of the left hand. Table 1compares coded ease/difficulty with the orientation of stencils in La Garma and El Castillo.Although most stencils in these caves were created within the most practical and comfortablerange of 45◦ (left) to 135◦ (right), a small number of exceptions were identified (one inLa Garma and five in El Castillo), which were created in uncomfortable and impractical

C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

51

New views on old hands

Table 1. Orientation, practicality and comfort levels of stencils at La Garma and El Castillo.

Number (% of total) of stencils

Orientation of stencil1 La Garma (N = 21) El Castillo (N = 37) Comfort2 Practicality3

10◦ 1 (2.7%) 4 445–145◦ 20 (95%) 32 (86.5%) 1 1150◦ 1 (2.7%) 2 1170◦ 1 (5%) 3 2190◦ 1 (2.7%) 4 3200◦ 1 (2.7%) 4 4280◦ 1 (2.7%) 5 5

1from an angle of 0◦ which is horizontal and pointing towards the left (9 o’clock on the clock face)2levels defined from experimental work: 1 = very comfortable; 5 = very uncomfortable3levels defined from experimental work: 1 = very practical; 5 = very impractical

conditions even though more comfortable and practical locations were available in theirimmediate vicinity (e.g. flat surfaces around head height). In four of these cases the stencilsare associated with features of the cave walls, to which we return below. Choices aboutthe placement of stencils were not simply about practicality, therefore; some were createdat chosen locations irrespective of whether they were comfortable or practical or neither.Some examples are extreme: Hand 28 at the far right of the Main Panel of Hands in ElCastillo—the only example of an uncomfortable or impractical stencil without any obviousassociation to a feature of the cave wall—was created at a low height on a steeply slopingflowstone surface close to where it meets the cave wall. This is a remarkably uncomfortableand impractical position to assume, strongly suggesting that a second individual created thestencil, i.e. that stenciller and stencilled were separate individuals (Figure 4).

Little attention has previously been paid to the context of stencils. What information hasbeen published is typically informal, with formal associations generally restricted to thosewith other examples of cave art, which may or may not be contemporary. Leroi-Gourhan(1968: 148), for example, noted an association between hand stencils and rows or clustersof dots and parallel strokes in Gargas, Les Merveilles (Rocamadour), Pech Merle, El Castilloand Bernifal, and their proximity to or location in the midst of ‘central compositions’ inBayol, El Castillo, Pech Merle and Bernifal. He interpreted them in terms of his genderedsymbolism, although he was probably grouping art of different ages into this holistic viewand thus they are not meaningful associations. Otherwise, published associations with thetopography of cave surfaces are few. Lewis-Williams (2002: 219) noted a ‘bulging’ of the rockface between two hand stencils of the dappled horses panel in Pech Merle, and in the GrotteCosquer eight stencils cluster on a stalagmite drapery and another was placed in a naturalniche (Clottes et al. 1992: figs. 6 and 7, respectively). Most importantly Gonzalez Garcia(1987) noted that the stencils of El Castillo were created on concave surfaces in his wideranalysis of the context of the cave’s art. It is obvious from published photographs that stencilscould be placed in or above niches (e.g. in Gargas (Foucher et al. 2007: 41, fig. 37; Foucher& Rumeau 2007: figs. 49, 52, 67 & 68) and Cosquer (Clottes & Courtin 1996: 71, fig. 35)),in proximity to cracks (e.g. in Gargas (Bourges 2007: fig. 31)) and in Cosquer (Clottes &Courtin 1996: figs. 33 & 171)), atop stalactite draperies (e.g. in Cosquer (Clottes & CourtinC© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

52

Res

earc

h

Paul Pettitt et al.

Figure 4. El Castillo. Position of the individual whose hand (Area 3, Hand 28) was stencilled at the extreme right end ofthe Main Panel of Hands. Photo: Luis Teira, courtesy of the Gobierno de Cantabria.

1996: figs. 31 & 38)) and in apparent association with cracks (Les Fieux (Lorblanchet 2010:325)), but no systematic study has to our knowledge been undertaken of stencils per se.Table 2 presents hand stencils in El Castillo and La Garma that are found in obviousassociation with natural features, notably fissures, convex bosses and concave depressions,observed examples of which are defined in the table. In total 80% of observable stencilsat La Garma and 74% at El Castillo have some kind of association, either with fissures orundulations on the caves’ surfaces. As areas of ‘smooth’ rock were easily accessible in eachcave and within close proximity to stencils, such associations cannot be entirely fortuitous.Some stencils seem to have been ‘fitted’ to subtle topographic features in the wall, and somewere positioned on bosses in the wall in such a manner that they appear to be ‘gripping’ thewall in a similar way that explorers use their hands to steady themselves when navigatingthe caves (Figure 5).

From Table 2 it can be seen that a concern with ‘gripping’ convex rock surfaces isobservable on around 27% of stencils in La Garma and around 23% in El Castillo. Thepalms of a smaller number of stencils—17% and 5% respectively—were ‘ergonomically’fitted to slight concavities on the cave surfaces. Even using modern lighting these can onlybe seen very close up, and under the lighting conditions in which they would have beencreated, such fitting would have necessarily involved touch as well as very close-up scrutinyof the surface. Overall there seems to have been more of a concern with fitting stencilsto surface morphology in La Garma (44% have either gripping or ergonomic characters)

C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

53

New views on old hands

Table 2. The context and association of stencils at El Castillo and La Garma with natural features ofthe cave surfaces.

La Garma handstencils (recorded by El Castillo hand Percentage ofour stencil numbers). stencils (recorded recorded stencils(N = 29, includes our stencil numbers). by site (rounded

Category of association two thumb stencils) (N = 38) up/down)

No observable associations 6 (Hands 2; 3; 5; 11;13; 19)

10 (Hands 15; 17;21; 22; 23; 25; 27;28; 31; 34)

La Garma 20%El Castillo 26%

Ergonomic: the stencil is matchedto undulations/curves of wall(typically the palm is placed overa minor concave depression)

5 (Hands 1; 9; 16;18; 26)

2 (Hands 26; 37) La Garma 17%El Castillo 5%

Gripping: the fingers of a stencilplaced over (‘grip’) a convex bossor ridge

6 plus 2 thumbs(Hands 6; 10; 16;23; 24; 27; Thumb1; Thumb 2)

9 (Hands 3; 4; 5; 6;8; 32; 35; 36; 38)

La Garma 27%(includes2 thumbs)

El Castillo 23%Below fissure: the stencil is located

below a natural fissure/crackwhen viewed upright (i.e. fingersto top)

1 (Hand 9) 0 La Garma 3%

Bordered by fissures: the stencil islocated between two naturalfissures/cracks, i.e. to its left andright

3 (Hands 15; 23; 24) 1 (Hand 24) La Garma 9%El Castillo 3%

Within multiple fissures: the stencilis in close proximity to multiplenatural fissures/cracks (>2)

2 (Hands 4; 17) 3 (Hands 9; 13; 14) La Garma 6%El Castillo 8%

Above fissure: the stencil is locatedabove a natural fissure/crackwhen viewed vertically

1 (Hand 20) 1 (Hand 32) La Garma 3%El Castillo 3%

Atop fissure(s): the stencil is placeddirectly on top of fissure(s)

1 (Hand 25) 11 (Hands 1; 2; 3; 5;6; 9; 10; 16; 18;29; 33)

La Garma 3%El Castillo 29%

Atop stalactite: the stencil is placedon top of a stalactite (flowstone)

0 1 (Hand 7) El Castillo 3%

Spanning fissure: a pair of stencilsspans a natural fissure/crack, i.e. oneto either side

0 4 (Hands 11 & 12;19 & 20)

El Castillo 11%

than El Castillo (28%). By contrast, an association with natural cracks or fissures typicallyaccounts for 39% of stencils in La Garma and 60% in El Castillo. Details differ betweenthe two: in La Garma the concern is more with placing the stencil to the right of fissures(15%) or in between two fissures (9%), whereas in contrast a concern with placing stencilsdirectly on top of fissures (29%) or with two stencils spanning fissures (11%) is clear atEl Castillo. It is of interest that the few examples of stencils placed in uncomfortable and

C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

54

Res

earc

h

Paul Pettitt et al.

Figure 5. El Castillo, the Main Panel of Hands (our Area 3). The ceiling drops sharply at this point, requiring a crouchingposition, and the placement of the stencils suggests the use of hands to steady the explorer. Photo: Luis Teira, courtesy of theGobierno de Cantabria.

Figure 6. El Castillo, Area 1, Hand 1. This stencil wascreated ‘within multiple fissures’. Photo: Luis Teira, courtesyof the Gobierno de Cantabria.

impractical positions (with coded scoresof 4 or 5 in each category) possess clearassociations: in El Castillo these are Hand7 (placed atop a stalactite), Hand 13(associated with a crack), Hand 35 (placedin a chimney accessed only up a steep slope)and Hand 36 (ergonomically fitted to apalmar concavity, with fingers gripping aboss).

Specific examples illustrate our obser-vations. Six stencils comprise El CastilloArea 1, among which one was createdfrom a comfortable position on a relativelyflat surface atop several fissures, despitethe ‘availability’ of unfissured rock nearby(Figure 6). In the Main Panel of Hands(our Area 3) one stencil was createdover a small concave depression, and thuswas ergonomically placed (Figure 7). Anisolated hand in the Gallery of Dotswas similarly ergonomically fitted to anotherwise smooth surface, the palm placedover a slight concave depression and thefingers ‘gripping’ a boss in the wall next toa natural fissure (our ‘ergonomic, ‘gripping’

C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

55

New views on old hands

and ‘right of fissure’ positions) (Figure 8). In the Main Panel two stencils of a left hand(probably the same hand) were created in very close proximity to each other to eitherside of a natural crack (Figure 9). A more obvious pairing, again ‘spanning’ a crack, wascreated by left and right hands placed on an otherwise smooth surface (Figure 10). We canbe reasonably sure that the present floor level approximates fairly closely the level of thefloor at the time these were created: the lack of excavation or modification and the survivalof stalagmite flows over the floor suggest this is so. Assuming this is correct the height ofthese stencils—directly above the head of the stenciller/stencilled—would have renderedthem difficult to create.

Figure 7. El Castillo, Area 3, Hand 37. This stencil wascreated in a slight concavity of the rock surface. Photo: LuisTeira, courtesy of the Gobierno de Cantabria.

By comparing these associations with thespecific morphologies of the relevant handstencils we hoped to establish a patternof individual choice in the placing ofthe stencils. In most cases stencils weretoo faint to establish finger lengths andother measurements confidently. Wherestencils are clear, finger terminations maystill be vague and thus decisions aboutwhere to begin and end measurementsprobably involve an error in the order ofa few millimetres; thus we are cautiousnot to over-interpret these results andaccept that the little data we do havemay underestimate the actual number ofindividuals who left stencils of their handsin the caves. Table 3 documents finger andpalm measurements for stencils with themost common associations in the two caves.

At La Garma, the morphology of stencils in the gripping position seems to reflect fourseparate individuals; the index/ring finger ratios (sensu Snow 2006) of two are consistentwith females (Hands 16 and 24) and one with a male (Hand 23). At least two individualsplaced stencils to the right of fissures based on the length of their middle fingers (Hands14 and 16, the small length of the former possibly indicative of a juvenile). Hand 16 wasplaced with the fingers in the gripping position, the palm ergonomically fitted and to theright of a fissure. At least two individuals placed stencils in positions bordered by fissures(Hands 15 and 23 and 24 which may belong to the same individual and are consistent witha male). At least three individuals left stencils with no association visible today (Hands 2, 5and 13).

In El Castillo it is possible that Hands 4 and 6 in the gripping position were left by thesame individual, although two other individuals seems to have adopted this position too(Hands 32 and 38, the latter of which has finger ratios consistent with a female). Little canbe said for stencils placed atop fissures except that three individuals seem to be representedby Hands 1, 6 and 18, the finger ratios of the latter consistent with a male. Three individualsplaced stencils spanning fissures (Hands 12, 19 and 20, the latter of which is consistentC© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

56

Res

earc

h

Paul Pettitt et al.

Figure 8. El Castillo, Gallery of Dots, Hand 38. This isolated stencil was placed over a slight concave depression, with itsfingers ‘gripping’ a slight convex ridge (just visible to the top left of the stencil); the ‘fit’ of the left side of the stencil to themorphology of the natural crack is remarkable, as if the crack ‘continues’ the line of the arm. Photo: Luis Teira, courtesy of theGobierno de Cantabria.

Figure 9. El Castillo, Area 3, Hands 11 and 12. Two stencils of a right hand, placed either side of a natural crack (‘spanningfissure’). Photo: Luis Teira, courtesy of the Gobierno de Cantabria.

C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

57

New views on old hands

Figure 10. Positioning necessary for the creation of the stencils of El Castillo Area 3, Hands 19 and 20. Photo: Luis Teira,courtesy of the Gobierno de Cantabria.

with a female). This is of interest, as Hands 19 and 20 form a left and right pair thatotherwise one would assume to represent the same individual, but the morphology suggeststhat one person placed their left hand to the left of the fissure and a second individual placedtheir right hand to the right of the fissure. Given the distinct differences in ring, index andlittle finger lengths of these stencils it is unlikely that these differences reflect measurementimprecision. Three or four individuals left stencils with no association (Hands 15, 27 and28, which may be the same individual, and 31) and of these the finger ratios of Hand 28are consistent with a female.

Given the indistinct nature of most stencils one should not make too much of thesedata. It is of interest that few examples exist of the same individual represented in differentareas, but this may well be masked by the indistinctiveness of most examples. What itdoes reveal, at least, is that several individuals were making similar decisions about themeaningful placement of stencils; it is not the work of one individual, but represents similardecision-making among a group.

Palpation: a new understanding of hand stencilsUnder the best of lighting conditions the exploration of caves is a tactile process; handsare often placed on floors, slopes and walls to steady the body. In the extremely low lightconditions that pertained for the stencillers they would be brought into very close proximityC© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

58

Res

earc

h

Paul Pettitt et al.

Table 3. Finger lengths, palm widths and angles between thumb and first finger for stencils in LaGarma and El Castillo, ordered by apparent association. It will be noticed that most are ‘indistinct’ i.e.too faint to record measurements with confidence, but these are included here for completeness.Shaded measurements of index fingers indicate hands with finger ratios consistent with (but notnecessarily indicative of) females; shaded measurements of ring fingers are male.

Thumb Index Middle Ring Little Angle between Palm(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) thumb & index width (mm)

La GarmaNo associationHand 2 Indistinct 70 Indistinct 70 60 60 95Hand 3 Indistinct Indistinct 73 68 Indistinct 47 81Hand 5 50 78 65 77 69 62 82Hand 11 Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct IndistinctHand 13 Indistinct 58 >48 Indistinct 51 Indistinct 94Hand 19 Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct 90

GrippingHand 6 Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct 82Hand 10 Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct IndistinctHand 16 Indistinct 75 68 59 Indistinct Indistinct 90Hand 23 Indistinct 58 75 72 50 45 90Hand 24 Indistinct 74 76 69 62 45 90Hand 27 Indistinct 58 61 56 Indistinct 35 85

ErgonomicHand 1 Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct IndistinctHand 9 Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct IndistinctHand 16 Indistinct 75 68 59 Indistinct Indistinct 90Hand 18 Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct IndistinctHand 26 Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct 52 Indistinct Indistinct

Right of fissureHand 8 Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct IndistinctHand 12 Indistinct 71 Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct IndistinctHand 14 Indistinct Indistinct 44 Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct IndistinctHand 16 Indistinct 75 68 59 Indistinct Indistinct 90

Bordered by fissuresHand 15 Indistinct Indistinct >72 74 >58 Indistinct 76Hand 23 Indistinct 58 75 72 50 45 90Hand 24 Indistinct 60 Indistinct 65 50 55 89

Within multiple fissuresHand 4 Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct IndistinctHand 17 Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct

El CastilloNo associationHand 15 Indistinct 65 85 66 60 35 94Hand 17 Indistinct Indistinct 76 80 70 Indistinct 84Hand 21 Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct 85Hand 22 Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct

C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

59

New views on old hands

Table 3. Continued.

Thumb Index Middle Ring Little Angle between Palm(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) thumb & index width (mm)

Hand 23 Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct IndistinctHand 25 Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct IndistinctHand 27 Indistinct 70 80 70 60 40 80Hand 28 Indistinct 75 80 70 Indistinct 45 85Hand 31 Indistinct 68 76 Indistinct 63 35 79Hand 34 Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct

GrippingHand 3 Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct IndistinctHand 4 Indistinct 68 72 65 Indistinct 36 84Hand 5 Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct IndistinctHand 6 Indistinct 65 70 66 60 35 84Hand 8 Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct IndistinctHand 32 Indistinct Indistinct 75 66 50 40 87Hand 35 Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct IndistinctHand 36 Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct IndistinctHand 38 Indistinct 60 65 55 60 Indistinct 85

Atop fissureHand 1 Indistinct 75 71 Indistinct 53 25 95Hand 2 Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct IndistinctHand 3 Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct IndistinctHand 5 Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct IndistinctHand 6 Indistinct 65 70 66 60 35 84Hand 9 Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct IndistinctHand 10 Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct IndistinctHand 16 Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct 60 Indistinct 35 83Hand 18 Indistinct 70 80 75 70 30 85Hand 29 Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct 80Hand 33 Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct

Spanning fissureHand 11 Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct 27 IndistinctHand 12 Indistinct 70 66 Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct 90Hand 19 Indistinct 66 Indistinct 67 58 30 IndistinctHand 20 55 90 90 80 65 Indistinct 90

Within multiple fissuresHand 9 Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct IndistinctHand 13 Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct IndistinctHand 14 Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct Indistinct

with any surface they intended to mark. Hands would be placed on surfaces, fingers andpalms traced across them, and the undulations of the cave walls and ceilings could be ‘read’as much by touch as visual inspection. We will probably never know exactly why decisionswere made to mark walls with pigments or engravings, although we have identified herea plausible link between touch and marking. In order to fix stencils, red pigments wereC© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

60

Res

earc

h

Paul Pettitt et al.

presumably selected for their visual ‘warmth’, i.e. their visibility in low light conditions(Groenen 1997). The use of cave topographies and shadows to place and structure figurativeart is well known (e.g. Lejeune 2004; Pigeaud 2004; Remacle 2004; Vialou 2004), and ourresults suggest that similar processes were at work in the creation of stencils, irrespective ofwhether the process was easy or difficult. To an extent these are visual processes, but stencilsin gripping positions and particularly with palms fitted to very slight concavities indicatethat visual stimuli were not the only way that stencillers interacted with cave surfaces.These reveal that a close-up scrutiny of cave surfaces must have preceded the creation ofstencils in the majority of cases in La Garma and El Castillo. For this, we suggest the termpalpation, deriving from the surgical term for examination by touch. Not that palpationgoverned only the production of hand stencils; finger dots and lines connect the artist’shands with the cave wall, and finger flutings—that appear to have been created irrespectiveof discomfort (Sharpe & Van Gelder 2006)—could be interpreted as the visible record ofthe act of palpation. Furthermore, Lorblanchet (2009) has noted the gradation betweenbear claw marks and finger ‘rubbings’ and traces in the caves of the Quercy, which heinterprets as a ritual interaction with the cave walls. We have, so to speak, barely scratchedthe surface here, but hope that we have demonstrated the heuristic potential of examiningtouch and context in Palaeolithic art. Far more formal examination of the context of parietalart is necessary, as is the investigation of levels of illumination and its effects on visibility,topography and placement of art. There is clearly much more to ‘cave art’ than meetsthe eye.

AcknowledgementsWe are grateful to the Gobierno de Cantabria for authorisation to conduct this research and for their kindassistance. It was funded by a Leverhulme Trust grant to PP which employed RH as Research Associate. We aregrateful to Marc Groenen for his support for the project. Paul Bahn and Joao Zilhao kindly commented on aprevious draft. Beatrice Greenfield, Ellie Walton and the students of the Department of Archaeology at SheffieldUniversity gave up much of their time reproducing hand stencils, for which PP is grateful. Luis Teira providedthe photographs.

ReferencesALCALDE DEL RIO, H., H. BREUIL & L. SIERRA. 1911.

Les cavernes de la region Cantabrique (Espagne).Monaco: Imprimerie A. Chene.

ARIAS, P., E. LAVAL, M. MENU, C. GONZALEZ SAINZ &R. ONTANON PEREDO. 2011. Les colourants dansl’art parietal et mobilier paleolithique de La Garma(Cantabrie, Espagne). L’Anthropologie 115: 425–45.

BAFFIER, D. & M. GIRARD. 2007. La Grand Grotted’Arcy-sur-Cure. Les Dossiers d’Archeologie 324:74–85.

BARRIERE, C. & M. SUERES. 1993. Les mains deGargas. Dossiers d’Archeologie 178: 46–54.

BOURGES, F. 2007. Les peintures prehistoriques desGrottes, les raisons d’une conservationexceptionelle, in P. Foucher, C. San Juan-Foucher &Y. Rumeau (ed.) La Grotte de Gargas. Un siecle dedecouvertes: 53–57. Mazeres de Neste:Communaute de Communes du Canton deSaint-Laurant de Neste.

BREUIL, H. 1952. Four hundred centuries of cave art.Paris: Sappho.

CAPITAN, L. 1911. Les empreintes de mains sur lesparois de las Grotte de Gargas. BulletinAnthropologique 1911: 87–88.

CARTAILHAC, E. 1906–1909. Les mains rouges et noireet les dessins paleolithiques de la Grotte de Gargas.Bulletin de la Societe d’Archeologie du Midi de laFrance 37: 140–41.

C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

61

New views on old hands

CLOTTES, J. & J. COURTIN. 1996. The cave beneath thesea. Palaeolithic images at Cosquer. New York: HarryN. Abrams.

CLOTTES, J., J. COURTIN, H. VALLADAS, H. CACHIER,N. MERCIER & M. ARNOLD. 1992. La GrotteCosquer datee. Bulletin de la Societe PrehistoriqueFrancaise 89: 230–34.

ESPEJO HERRERIAS, M. & P. CANTALEJO DUARTE. 2006.Cueva de Ardales (Malaga). Reproduccion digital delarte rupestre paleolıtico. Guadalteba: Comarca delGuadalteba.

FAURIE, C. & M. RAYMOND. 2004. Handednessfrequency over more than ten thousand years.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B271: S43–S45.

FOUCHER, P. & Y. RUMEAU. 2007. Les galleries orneesde Gargas, in P. Foucher, C. San Juan-Foucher & Y.Rumeau (ed.) La Grotte de Gargas. Un siecle dedecouvertes: 61–86. Mazeres de Neste:Communaute de Communes du Canton deSaint-Laurant de Neste.

FOUCHER, P., C. SAN JUAN-FOUCHER & Y. RUMEAU

(ed.). 2007. La Grotte de Gargas. Un siecle dedecouvertes. Mazeres de Neste: Communaute deCommunes du Canton de Saint-Laurant de Neste.

GONZALEZ GARCIA, R. 1987. Organization,distribution and typology of the cave art of Montedel Castillo, Spain. Rock Art Research 4: 127–36.

GONZALEZ SAINZ, C. 2003. El conjuncto parietalpaleolitico de la galerıa inferior de La Garma(Cantabria): avance de su organizacion interna, inR. de Balbın Behrmann & P. Bueno Ramırez (ed.)El arte prehistorico desde los inicios del siglo XXI:Primer Symposium Internacional de Arte Prehistoricodi Ribadasella: 201–22. Ribadasella: AssociacionCultural Amigos de Ribadasella.

GROENEN, M. 1997. Ombres et lumieres dans l’art desgrottes. Bruxelles: ULB.

GUTHRIE, R.D. 2005. The nature of Paleolithic art.Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.

HOOPER, A. 1980. Further information on theprehistoric representations of human hands in thecave of Gargas. Medical History 24: 214–16.

JANSSENS, P.A. 1957. Medical views on prehistoricrepresentations of human hands. Medical History 1:318–22.

LEJEUNE, M. 2004. Quelques reflexions sur le role de laparoi rocheuse dans l’art du Paleolithique Superieur,in M. Lejeune (ed.) L’Art parietal paleolithique dansson contexte naturel (ERAUL 107): 15–19. Liege:Universite de Liege.

LEROI-GOURHAN, A. 1967. Les mains de Gargas. Essaiepour une etude d’ensemble. Bulletin de la SocietePrehistorique Francaise 64: 107–22.

– 1968. The art of prehistoric man in Western Europe.London: Thames & Hudson.

LEWIS-WILLIAMS, J.D. 2002. The mind in the cave:consciousness and the origins of art. London: Thames& Hudson.

LORBLANCHET, M. 1995. Les grottes ornees de laprehistoire: nouveaux regards. Paris: Errance.

– 2009. Claw marks and ritual traces in the Paleolithicsanctuaries of the Quercy, in P.G. Bahn (ed.) Anenquiring mind: studies in honour of AlexanderMarshack: 165–70. Oxford: Oxbow.

– 2010. Art parietal. Grottes ornees du Quercy.Parc-Saint-Joseph: Rouergue.

MANNING, J.T., D. SCUTT, J. WILSON & D.I.LEWIS-JONES. 1998. The ratio of 2nd to 4th digitlength: a predictor of sperm numbers andconcentrations of testosterone, luteinizing hormoneand oestrogen. Human Reproduction 13:3000–3004.

ONTANON, R. 2003. Sols et structures d’habitat duPaleolithique superieur, nouvelles donnes depuis lesCantabres: la Gallerie Inferieure de La Garma(Cantabrie, Espagne). L’Anthropologie 107: 333–63.

PIGEAUD, R. 2004. Dialogue avec la paroi: cas desrepresentations paleolithiques de la Grotte orneeMayenne-Sciences (Thorigne-en-Charnie,Mayenne), in M. Lejeune (ed.) L’Art parietalpaleolithique dans son contexte naturel (ERAUL107): 21–43. Liege: Universite de Liege.

PIKE, A.W.G., D.L. HOFFMANN, M. GARCIA-DIEZ, P.B.PETTITT, J. ALCOLEA, R. DE BALBIN, C. GONZALEZ

SAINZ, C. DE LAS HERAS, J.A. LASHERAS, R.MONTES & J. ZILHAO. 2012. U-Series dating ofPaleolithic art in 11 caves in Spain. Science 336:1409–13.

REMACLE, L. 2004. De la grotte au(x) mythe(s).Phenomenes d’interaction et lecture de l’imagepaleolithique, in M. Otte, L. Oosterbeek, D. Seglie,L. Remacle & V. Bertollo (ed.) Art du PaleolithiqueSuperieur et du Mesolithique (British ArchaeologicalReports international series 1311): 7–14. Oxford:Archaeopress.

RIPOLL LOPEZ, S., E. RIPOLL PERELLO & H. COLLADO

GIRALDO. 1999a. Maltravieso. El santuarioextremeno de las manos. Caceres: Museo de Caceres.

RIPOLL LOPEZ, S., E. RIPOLL PERELLO, H. COLLADO

GIRALDO, M. MAS CORNELLA & J.F. JORDA PARDO.1999b. Maltravieso. El santuario extremeno de lasmanos. Trabajos de Prehistoria 56: 59–84.

ROUILLON, A. 2006. Au Gravettien, dans la GrotteCosquer (Marseille, Bouches-du-Rhone), l’hommea-t-il compte sur ses doigts? L’Anthropologie 110:500–509.

SAHLY, A. 1966. Les mains mutilees dans l’artprehistorique. Toulouse: Privat.

SHARPE, K. & L. VAN GELDER. 2006. The study offinger flutings. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 16:281–95.

C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

62

Res

earc

h

Paul Pettitt et al.

SNOW, D.R. 2006. Sexual dimorphism in UpperPalaeolithic hand stencils. Antiquity 80: 390–404.

VIALOU, D. 2004. Architecture de l’art parietalpaleolithique, in M. Lejeune (ed.) L’Art parietalpaleolithique dans son contexte naturel (ERAUL107): 7–14. Liege: Universite de Liege.

WILDGOOSE, M., E. HADINGHAM & A. HOOPER. 1982.The prehistoric hand pictures at Gargas: attempts atsimulation. Medical History 26: 205–207.

Received: 23 April 2013; Accepted: 20 June 2013; Revised: 3 July 2013

C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

63