MIND2WALL

Several Palaeolithic archaeological sites of the Gravettian period such as Gargas, Tibiran, or Fuente del Trucho display hand stencils with so-called ‘mutilated’ fingers. Here we study the hypothesis that these stencils represent sign language gestures (a classical conjecture by Leroi-Gourhan (1967), which was never put to test). Preliminary work of the biomechanics of the handshapes suggests a connection with sign language handshapes, as only those gestures articulable in sign languages are found in the cave stencils and the patterns attested abide by constraints on the phonology of sign languages. We posit that they correspond to handshapes of ‘alternate sign languages’, ritually employed by bi-modal bilingual populations (as those attested today in Australia in the Great Plains of North America and elsewhere (Kendon, 1988; Davis, 2010)). The project, thus, has 2 main objectives: (1) to create a 3D corpus with the stencils of the major caves in Europe, and (2) to explore the hypothesis that sign language expressions underlie the stencils. This will be approached by combining the newest techniques and analytic tools in linguistics and archæology. The project involves the following 6 main tasks: 1. Creation of a FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable) corpus with the hand stencils of four major sites in France and Spain (Gargas, Fuente del Trucho, El Castillo and Maltravieso). This task will involve three sub-tasks: (a) Photogrammetric and hyperspectral analysis of the stencils, (b) archæological contextualization of the paintings in each of the cave settings, (c) creation of a public web corpus with manipulable 3D images and all the required (meta)data. The obtained data will be further compared with published data from other caves, including Cosquer, Erberua, Arcy-sur-Cure, Margot, Cudón, Fuente del Salín, etc. 2. Cross-comparison of the hand stencils in each of the caves studied, searching for matches across stencils. Assessment of the identity of the individual template hands, and potentially, the variability of finger disposals by a same individual in different stencils. Quantitative analysis of the data (cluster analyses and principal component analyses). 3. Categorical analyses and annotation of the handshapes corresponding to each stencil (e.g. with Brentari’s (1998) model or the Hamburg Notation System (Hanke, 2004)). 4. Bio-mechanical analyses of the gestures underlying handshapes. Comparison of different metrics of articulatory complexity (Ann, 1993; Aristodemo & Geraci, 2014; Aristodemo et al., 2019; Morgan et al., 2019). 5. Interpretation of stencil hand gestures as instances of sign language gestures, by examining (i) the extent to which they correspond to general phonetic restrictions in sign languages cross-linguistically; (ii) the extent to which they abide by phonological generalizations established in sign language typology (in particular, in “alternate” sign languages); (iii) their statistical plausibility as linguistic symbol systems. 6. Review of instances where sign languages have been recorded in ethnographic contexts and more specifically with the Plains Indians, Aboriginal Australians and San people. Analysis of the extent to which ethnographically recorded, contemporary stenciling and traditional audio-visual storytelling provide models to suggest critically the uses of handshapes in Palæolithic art. Access to rock art databases, such as the South African Rock Art Digital Archive (SARADA) will enrich the comparative aspect of the study.