• Author / Uploaded
• Zacharias Tarpagkos

• Categories
• Flauta
• Instrumentos musicales
• Términos anatómicos de la ubicación
• Arqueología
• Biblioteca y museo

Citation preview

The Prehistoric Flute-Did It Exist? Author(s): Christine Brade Reviewed work(s): Source: The Galpin Society Journal, Vol. 35 (Mar., 1982), pp. 138-150 Published by: Galpin Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/841239 . Accessed: 15/09/2012 06:12 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Galpin Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Galpin Society Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

CHRISTINE BRADE

The

Prehistoric FluteDid it Exist?

note: Introductory It is morethan twenty-fiveyearssinceGSJfirst includeda paperon the mostcommonmusicalinstrument claimedto befoundin archaeological contexts in Europe,theend-blownpipe of bone(Raistricket al. 1952). Sincethattime furtherpaperson the subjecthave beenpublishedin the JOURNAL(Megaw 1965; Wade-Martins1973) but all of theseprecededDr ChristineBrade's and acousticsurvey of muchof the extant material thorougharchaeological and the medieval earlierperiods (Brade 1975; 1978). In the brief from that her work summaryof follows, English-speaking palaeo-organologists may be able to judge-in many casesI suspectfor thefirst time-whether claimsfor the musicalnatureof the earliestof thesesimpleobjectshave not beenexaggerated.For my part (as expressedin the Appendix)I think it is unlikelythat,even now, the last wordon the subjecthas beenwritten.

W J.V.S.MEGA

the existence of prehistoricflutes might be thought to Tobequestion in the face of the more than one hundred years of daring archaeological research on the subject. The published evidence for palaeolothicfinger-hole flutesby Fetis (1872),Miiller (192O),Passemard (1923), Sachs (1929) and Horusitzky (1955) among others, seems too strong to be ignored. Since the publication of Seewald'swork Beitrdge zur Kenntnissteinzeitlicher Musikinstrumente (1934), in which he treated the accumulatedevidence for Stone Age flutes in their cross-cultural context, the existence of prehistoric flutes has been increasingly accepted (cf Megaw 1960; 1961; 1968). Seewald's results were seemingly confirmed twenty years later by the musicologist H. A. Mocck (1951; 1967). The musicological researchof Salmen (1970) is also based on assumption of the proven existence of prehistoric flutes, and it continues to be true that 'as a result of the discovery of ancient flute instruments, scholars conclude that the flute was very probably the earliest musical instrument of mankind' (Scheck 1975: 14). In the light of the statement that 'musical archaeology cannot, or should not, be stretched beyond the range of extant material objects as still available to us in the collections of the world's museums' 138

(Megaw 1968: 333), recentresearchon the medievalductedfipple flutesof CentralandNorthernEuropehasbeenrelatedto the existing ancestors(Brade1975; publishedmaterialon theirsupposedprehistoric The renewed discussion of 1978). prehistoricflute finds-not taking into accountthe numerousputativeprehistoric phalangepipes-which hasbeenconcernedwith theirprecisedating,theirmethodof production andtheirfunctionas ductedor fipplefluteshasled to conclusions which will be treatedin abbreviated form in thisarticle. PALAEOLITHIC FINDS Whileone canalmostalwaysbe sureof the datingof supposedpalaeolithic flute finds, which is not the case with those ascribedto the neolithicperiod,scholarsdisagreewidely about the method of productionof the fingerholesand theirfunctionas flutes.Let us consider firstthosefindswhichhavealreadybeencalledinto question. The bone from the cave of Poto'ka Zijalka,which was foundtogetherwith a large numberof worked bear bones and which was itselfproducedfrom the femurof a cave-bear,can be assignedto the secondAurignacianperiod.This objectexhibitsseveralholesthatare fairlyevenlyspaced.Bayer(1929) comparesthe boneto a simpleflute; Seewald(1934)does not doubt the artificialcharacterof the holes, while Moeck(i95i) at firstidentifiedthreefingerholesand alsoa slit on the upperend; however,he later(1967)calledthis 'flute'find into question.In 1955Horusitzkypointedout thatthe holesin thisobject were the resultof pathologicalchanges.Seewaldhad alreadydesignated the bone fragmentsfrom the so-calledDragon Caves near Mixnitzas 'not fully comparablepieces'(1934: 192) with the find from PotoakaZijalka.Abel (1931)did not excludethe possibilitythat chemicalprocessesor abrasionhad causedthe largerof the two holes in this object.While Seewaldwantedto wait for comparablefinds, Moeck(195I, 1957)no longermentionsit; Megawhasreferredto this objectas 'a more doubtfulcandidate'(1960:8). Horusitzkycouldnot see in this bone, which has oinits surfacethreelargerand a row of smallerholes, 'a productof humanhandiwork'(1955:136). Concerninganotherobjectfound in 1953at the Ukrainianpalaeolithic stationof MolodovaV in the Cernovicdistrict,Hiuslerspeaks of an 'excellentlycraftedflutefromthepalaeolithic period'(1960:15 ). But Haiuslerhimself questionswhetherthe 210 mm long reindeer antlerbone couldhave beenhollowedout with the tools availableto man some i8,ooo yearsago in the Magdalenian period;yet even the 139

fact that the lengthwise perforationonly reachesto the fourth opening of the narrow end does not prevent him (152) from classifying this object from Molodova as 'the most perfect of the known palaeolithic pipes and flutes'. This find must be rejected as a musical instrument. Megaw (1968) calls into question its function as a musical instrument on the basis of the minute size of the fingerholes (the largest is only 6 x 3 mm). How could this object be played as a flute when the hollowing of the bone only reachesto the fourth opening? In addition, the four 'fingerholes' are so close together that they do not have the slightest influence on tone production and pitch. What is decisive, however, is that the random holes in the other surfaceof the bone also led Moeck (1967) to reject this object as a flute. The find at Pernau in former Estonia is considered to be a further example of a flute belonging to the late or immediate post-pleistocene period. In 1913Ebertpublishedthe discovery of a phalange bone with three holes. Seewald describesthis object in detail: 'It is a tubular bone about 9 cm long. .. which has on it a row of three holes 6 to 7 mm apart... It is not difficultto see that this instrumentallows the production of three different tones if one uses one of the holes at the joint end as a blow-hole and the others as fingerholes' (1934: 36). Seewald classifies the object as intermediate between a phalange pipe and a fingerhole flute. Moeck characterisesit as a hollow flute (1967: 27). In 1949, however, Indreko had already described this object as 'a metatarsalbone from a domestic pig with holes bored through on all sides. On the dorsal surfacefour holes, on the plantarsurfacetwo holes, on the median surface two holes, and on the lateral surface three holes. The significance of this object is puzzling' (Paulson 1949: 144). Consequently,there seem to be no groundsfor accepting the piece as a flute. In contrast, the discovery of a possible flute in the Hungarian cave of Istill6sk6 in 1951 in levels dated to the second Aurignacianperiod, describedin great detail by Horusitzky, can be regardedas one of the most interesting examples of a palaeolithic musical instrument (Pl. XXVII a). The object demands a closer description. With a maximal length of 107 mm, the dorsal surfaceexhibits two holes. The hole found on the proximal end, called 'hole I' by Horusitzky, is 'characterisedby a shallow crater-likedepressionformed from approx. 1-2 cm long notches lying close together and running in a radial direction' (1955: 133). The manner of formation of these holes is, according to Horusitzky, assignableto human agency. On the distal 14o

end is a larger opening, hole 3, from Io to I3mm in radius 'having an irregular circumference, damaged, which must originally have been oval in shape'. Three cracks leading from this opening are evidence that the object must have been joined together from two fragments. Therefore 'we can only guess at the original form of hole 3 on the basis of the present condition'. On the ventral surface there is a hole in the middle of the bone c.7 mm in diameter.Horusitzkytypologically characterisesthis object as a flute with blow-hole, fingerhole and thumb-hole. 'The shape of hole 3 is similar to the mouth opening of a contemporary flute, and the deviation in shape and size--in comparison with the two other openings-can only be explained by the fact that in early times this hole was blown through and that the air within the hole was made to vibrate' (fIorusitzky 1955: I33f). During examination, both ends of the object were sealed with plasticine and the object was blown as a transverseflute. The tone scalethus produced was then proclaimed as an example of the earliest tonal system. Since the Istill6sk6 find is crucial for claims as to the existence of prehistoricflutes, it is equally important closely to examine Horusitzky's statements. Horusitzky admits that he cannot make any definite claims about the original shape and size of the perforationin the bone which he has termed the 'bow-hole'. Neverthelessthe opening existing after the reassemblingof the fragments is declared to be a blow-hole since its shape and size approximateto that of present-dayblow-holes. If we take into considerationthe points of fracturewe may ask whether the hole existed at all when the bone was intact or whether an originally small hole could not have been enlarged by subsequentfracturing.In any case the classificationof this hole as a blow-hole is not acceptable and, accordingly, the typological assignment of this object-asa transverse flute or as a forerunner of the modern concert flute nmustbe queried. In addition, the crater-likedepressionof the proximal fingerhole which, according to Horusitzky, is man-made, must also be re-examined. If the notches in this hole were really meant to facilitate gripping the object, then this would be the only example among comparable ducted fipple flute finds, including medieval examples, to exhibit such a highly developed concept. Furthermore,the inner side of the hole exhibits a crater-like formation. How could a fingerhole of this type be produced in an intact bone? This object demands, therefore, a careful and renewed examination. Horusitzky attempted to support his claims for the Istll6sk6 find by comparing it with a bone found in the Bukovac Cave. Here, Kormos found a bear bone with a bored hole, which he declaredto be a pipe because 'the maimer of piercing was doubtless artificial' (1912: 99). I4I

Horusitzky concluded from this statement that the bone marrow had been removed, and thought he could use this as a parallelfor the flute from Istill6sk6, 'because the hole corresponding to hole I is also presenthere. On the other end, no bored hole can be found; nevertheless, this circumstancecan be ascribedto damage to the bone' (1955: 136). Even though the object is now incomplete, the hypothesis that a second hole may possibly have once existed in the subsequently damaged part of the bone does not establish a connection with Istaill6sk6iany more than the assumption of bone marrow removal. Horusitzky also refersto a bone from the Salzofen Cave in the Austrian Toten Gebirge. Here the find consisted of the upper thighbone of a bear which was 'opened on both sides for the purpose of obtaining marrow ... and bored through on the dorsal side of its upper third' (Mottl 1950: 28). According to Horusitzkythe bone in its presentform is not a musical instrument; however, since a large piece is missing from the distalend, he believes that the bone requiresa minor 'addition, and in that case one could possibly introduce a blow-hole' (1955: 136). He justifies this kind of arbitraryassumptionon the grounds that this makes it possibleto regardthe object as a musicalinstrumentanalogous to the flute from Istill6sk6. With the example of the flute from Lokve, and even more with that from the Salzofen Cave, it becomes clearhow much Horusitzky abandons his otherwise very thorough reasoning for assumptionsand hypotheses when it becomes a matter of establishing parallelsto Iskill6sko. The object from the Liegl Hohle, a cave in the Enns Valley, is the only one that Horusitzky denies as having the function of a musical instrument, although it is 'in four places bored through in an almost "flute-like"manner' (Mottl 23); it has two pairs of holes distributedirregularlyover the left and right sides of the dorsal surface. In another effort to produce a comparable prehistoric find for the flute from Istdll6sk6,Horusitzky uses the find from Badegoule in the Dordogne (Cheynier 1949). Since the object from Badegoule exhibits a hole on the ventral surface clearly enlarged by subsequentdamage, Horusitzky concludes that the original shape of this hole 'must have approximatedthe mouth opening of the object from Istaill6sk6'(1955: 137). He thereby overlooks the fact that with respect to the so-called 'blow-hole' he cannot reconstructits original form either on the flute from or on the find from Badegoule. Two 'intentionally bored'Istill6sk65 holes are located on the proximal and distal epiphyses. The artificialcharacterof these holes must be denied since the hole on the distal end is almost directly opposite the so-called blow-hole, which 142

makessoundingimpossible.The arbitrarypositionof the otherhole excludesits use as a fingerhole.As far as this objectis concernedwe canonly describethe threeholesaseitherhavingbeenboredarbitrarily or causedby pathologicalalteration. The most importantexamplesof presumedprehistoricflutesare those from Isturitzin the Basse-Pyrenees.In the cave at Isturitz Passemard(1923) found three'flutefragments'of the MiddleAurignacianperiod (P1.XXVII d). Seewalddescribesthat reproducedby 'One end is cut andpartiallybrokenoff, on the other end Passemard: the object is broken off, and through this break one of the three fingerholeshas been bisected'(Seewald1934: 34). R. and S. SaintPerier(1952) recordthat in total twelve bone fragmentswere found whichmightpossiblybe consideredas musicalinstruments (Pl.XXVII andSaint-Perier, each e). Thebonefragmentsmentionedby Passemard havingmore thanone hole, when placedside by side form a unique group. These 'flutes',althoughall of them are fragments,have not only approximatelythe same length but also, more importantly,a similarpatternof fracturing.The fracturepoints of the individual objectslook so much alikethat it is difficultto believethat theseare due to accidentalbreakage;however,directevidenceof tool useis not in the publishedillustrations. recognisable Similarly,the five examples of halvedfingerholes-thatis, the truncationof a boredhole on the lower and upperbone edge-are so astonishingthat once more it is difficultto believe in accidentalbreakage.Not a single medieval fragmentarybone flute exhibitsbone modificationwhich leavesthe upperand lower edge undamagedwhen the fingerholeshave been truncated.Seewaldclassifiesthese objectsfrom Isturitzas fingerhole flutesand assumes,on the basisof the 'missing'blow-hole,that they aresimpleend-blownpipes.Accordingto Moeck(1967)the fragments representductedfippleflutesof the Aurignacianperiod.If the means of blowingthesefragmentscannotbe determined,then theirpossible use mustbe re-examined;in any case,it mustbe establishedwhether the circumferences of the holes bearevidenceof tool-use.

NEOLITHICFINDS The precedingdiscussionof palaeolithicflute finds was intendedto explainwhy futureinvestigationsof these finds shouldplace more emphasison their practicalfunctionas artificiallyproducedmusical instruments.In contrast,it is much easier to make a typological 143

of thosefindswhichhavebeenpublishedto dateas belongassessment to the neolithicperiod.In most casesthe form leavesno doubt ing that they were usedas ductedfippleflutes.With theseobjects,however, their dating continuesto raise problems.The most famous exampleis the flute from the Danishislandof Bornholmwhich has been cited frequentlyas an exampleof a neolithicflute (e.g. Scheck 1975).AlthoughSeewald(1942)only provisionallyassociatedit with the earlyStoneAge settlementof the area,Vestergaard-Nielsen (1951) conclusivelyassignedto it a medievaldateandMegaw (1960)wholeheartedlysupportsthis date. The importanceof the need to check datingevidenceis shown from the exampleof the bone from 0116 (Pl. XXVII b), a well-preservedductedfipple flute with an ovalshapedopening, three fingerholesand a thumb-hole,to which is assigneda datein the HungarianBronzeAge: 'Someaccidentalfinds originatein Ol11. The National Museumreceivedfrom there, in additionto containerfragmentsfromthe secondandthirdBronzeAge period,a wind instrumentmadeof bone' (von Tompa1937:84). On the basisof thisfindit seemedthatthe existenceof fluteswith an ovalshapedblow-hole and threefingerholescould be tracedback to the BronzeAge. Furthermore, thisfind becameimportantas a comparative piecefor manyotherundatablefinds.Followingconsultationwith authoritiesat the NationalMuseumof Budapestit cannow, however, be ascertainedthat the ductedfipple flute from 10110came into the possessionof the NationalMuseumbeforethe SecondWorld War as an object without provenance.Later,new chancefinds from 0l115 becameknown and von Tompa publishedboth together.Although von Tompa did not directlyassigna BronzeAge date to the flute, his descriptionhas generallybeentakento meanthatthe nevertheless flute was regardedas associatedwith the Bronze Age fragments. Obviouslythe neolithicdatingof thisaccidentalfind mustbe rejected, and the flutefrom 0116,on the basisof its typologicalcharacteristics, mustbe assignedto a groupof sometwo dozenmedievalfluteswhich similarlypossessa centralrow of fingerholes(Brade1975);threeof theseobjectsexhibitthe sameoval opening. The flute from Landesbergen, a ductedfipple pipe with a semicircularopeningandthreecentralfingerholes,was foundin the course of dredginga gravelpit at a depthof 8 metresby the WeserRiver nearNienburg.Sincethefindcircumstances didnot provideanydating clues,Seewald(1942)turnedto the flutesfromBornholmandOUllfor comparisonand thus set the date for this flute within the neolithic period;Moeck supportedthis dating(1967).It is absolutelyessential 144

to reconsiderthe find at Landesbergen in the light of the existing medieval and comparableobjects from the central and northern Europeanarea(Brade1975;1978).If we considertheabove-mentioned exampleswith centralfingerholes,19 have a semi-circularopening. Similarcircumstances surrounda secondfind from the Weser River nearBremen,whichwasalsodiscoveredin the courseof dredgingand was publishedby Seewald(1942).The objectherewas a flutewith a damagedblow-holeand two fingerholesin the upperpart,the rims of whichweresquaredoff. As a comparativefindfor thisfluteSeewald chosethatfromGourdan,Haute-Garonne, whichwas 'similarlymade from a bird bone and exhibitstwo fingerholesin similarposition' (1942: 191). The find referredto by Seewaldwas discoveredin 1871 in the cave of Gourdanin occupation' materialconsistingof charcoal and ash mixed with flint artefacts.Piette (1874)speaksof a neolithic flute instruemntwith severalholes on its side; Seewaldrefersto this statementandmentionstwo smallroundfingerholes,locatedc.24mm and38 mm fromone end of the 90omm long bone.Thereis no indication of the diameterof theseholes. In any case,this objectmust be re-examinedat firsthandwith respectto the removalof the marrow andthenumberof 'fingerholes' andtheirsizebeforewe canspeakwith convictionof a neolithicflute. As far as comparisonsand datingare concerned,the tiny holes of Gourdando not provideany evidence for the secondWeserfind.It is muchmoreconvincingto assigna late medievaloriginfor thelatteron thebasisof theexcellentworkmanship of the edgesof the fingerholes. Inthecontextof unassociated discoveriesof flutesassigneda neolithic date on the basisof typologicalcharacteristics, the object from the neighbourhoodof the Swisslakesidesettlementof Corcelettesmust alsobe mentioned.This flute,clearlydesignatedby Meylan(1974)as an accidentalfind,hasa circularblow-holeandtwo fingerholesin the lowerpart;it canbe placedtypologicallywith eightmedievalexamples showingthe samepositionof fingerholesandthe sameopeningshape (Brade1975).Theneolithicdatingof the flutefromMontale(Pigorini 19oo; Moeck I95I) on the basisof its typologicalcharacteristics-a similarcircularblow-hole and two fingerholesin the lower partmustalsobe calledinto question;thisis anothercasewheretheassumption of a medievaldateis preferable.Fdtis(1872)publishedthe find of a 'flute'in a group of dolmensnear Poitiers;it was made from an animalhorn closed at the lower end. Fitis reportedthat the three holes producedfour diatonictones. The objectitself, equally-spaced is not however, convincingas a musicalinstrument.The tiny tone 145

holes are scarcelyrecognisableand the questionariseswhetherin this case purelyrandomperforationshave been designatedas fingerholes and blow-hole.Once more,thisfind requiresfurtherinvestigation. The only securely dated neolithic bone is the fragment from Maihrisch-Kromau (P1.XXVIIc). Foundin 1912togetherwith 30 shell it was associated with an inhumationgrave. Again, Seewald beads, describesthis objectin detail:'the tubularbone has been workedon in such a mannerthat the side that has the fingerholesforms a flat surface.The fragmenthasa width of 1.25cm anda lengthof 6.1 cm. The fracturespassthroughfingerholeson both sides;in betweenthere aretwo additionalfingerholes...' (1934:49). Unfortunately,Seewald does not mentionthe dimensionsof the fingerholes.The typological of this object, however, continueto raise problems. characteristics with Isturitz,we alsofind here breakagepointsrunning Comparable through 'fingerholes'leaving the upperand lower bone edges undamaged.We alsofind examplesamongmedievalflutesof fracturing along the line of fingerholes,althoughin these casesthe rest of the tubularboneis usuallysharplysplit.We arejustifiedin askingwhether with Miihrisch-Kromau the smooth bone edges can be attributedto artificialtreatment.In addition,the largesize of the fingerholesmust be noted. Seewald does not state their dimensions,but from the scaledreproductionit is evidentthat their size significantlyexceeds that of most medievalflutes(the averagehavinga diameterof 3 to 4 mm). Hereagainwe mustraisethe questionof the functionof the fragment. CONCLUSIONS In connectionwith the originaldissertationresearchon which this summaryaccountis based(Brade1975),it was not possibleto visit all the variouscountrieswhere palaeolithicand neolithicfinds are preserved.As a result,the argumentsraisedhereagainstthe existence of palaeolithicflutesrest exclusivelyon the evidenceof the literary discussionsarisingfrom individualfind reports,and must clearlybe supportedby renewedfirst-handinvestigation.In this context the followingpointsshouldbe considered: I. The existenceof palaeolithicandneolithicflutesremainsunproven. The numerousobjectsdescribedas palaeolithicfingerholeflutesmay, on the basisof criticalreadingof the availableliterature,be reducedto a few possiblefragments,suchas Isturitzand Maihrisch-Kromau. But even these finds must be re-examined.It remainsto be established 146

whether the damaged hole margins can be attributedto human work which would exclude their use as flutes, or whether it can be claimed that all the objects exhibit comparably similar fracturepoints. 2. The thesis that 'the bone flutes from the Aurignacianperiod up to quite recent times are all ducted fipple flutes, and the numerous fragmentary objects do not allow a contradictory interpretation'(Moeck 1967: 57) must be rejected.No prehistoricbone has been preservedfor which the ducted fipple flute principle can be conclusively demonstrated. Nothing further can be said about the blow-holes of these supposedly prehistoric musical instruments. On the contrary, every voicing lip of these fragments,every notch suggestsa differentmethod of blowing. 3. Future research should bear in mind that not every prehistoric object with one or more holes is automatically a musical instrument or a flute. Every object must be thoroughly investigated to determine whether it displayshuman workmanship, whether it can function as a flute, and whether it is securely dated. For too long archaeologistsand musicologists, fascinated with the developing studies of ethnomusicology and palaeo-organology, have uncriticallyassumedthe existence of prehistoric instruments, although the 'instruments'themselves do not furnish sufficient evidence of prehistoric age nor actual function as flutes.

APPENDIX: ThePrehistoric Flute-twofirthernoteswithanoptimistic sound J. V. S. MEGAW

I havesuggestedin a reviewof Brade'smainthesis(1976)thatherconsideration of putativeprehistoric'flutes'may have ignored such possiblealternative for the bonesas ductlessor cross-blownpipesratherthanducted explanations or end-blowninstruments of the generalwhistletype. Two otherfootnotes may be addedto keepthe questionopen. excludesfromherdiscussion AlthoughBradein thepresentarticlespecifically the so-calledphalangewhistlesor piercedreindeertoe-boneswhich seem to be an almostubiquitousfeatureof the EuropeanUpperPalaeolithic, one study mustbe cited which suggeststhat it is just thosephalangeswhich may hold thekey to theevolutionof theend-blownpipe.Harrison(1978)hasundertaken an extensivestudy of piercedphalanges--including experimentalworkwhich,althoughit hasindicatedthatsomepiercingsaredue to naturalcauses, hasconfirmedthe efficacyaswhistlesof otherswith obvioushumanmodification. Moresignificantstillis the recognitionon severalbonesof a secondhole for the multi-tonalpipe manufactured from allowingan obviouspredecessor a long bone; the contemporary of such presence twin-piercedphalangesand 147

modified long bones at such Gravettiansites as the Pekarnacave in Moravia cannot pass unnoticed (Megaw 1960: 6-7 and fig. I:I; Harrison 1978: fig. I c-d). As Harrisonis the first to point out, the position of phalange 'whistles'in the prehistoricevolution of the pipe remains unproven; equally the question remains to be answered: what was the predecessorof the undoubted bone duct-flutesof the laterprehistoricand earlyhistoricperiodsin Europe?Certainly there is considerableargument againstthe view that bone duct-flutesrepresent the earliestform of pipe (Jeremy Montagu in litt. contraSachs 1929: 20ff.). Secondly-and again the evidence remains open to dispute-there are two further bone 'flutes' from well-attested Upper Palaeolithic sites previously only briefly published(Collins 1975: 104-6 and P1. sa; 1976: ill. p. 191 above). Both are c.I20 mm in length and are in the British Museum. One is from Les Roches, Sergeac (ex Sturge Coll.) and has two holes more or less centrally placed on its posterior surface;certainlyfor this piece other explanationsmay be offered: for example, it might be regardedas a type of buzz-disc, though the holes and the bone itself seem too large. The second bone, though unfortunately incomplete, seems undoubtedly a musical instrumentwith 'window' or blow-hole and voicing lip, four fmgerholes, and at the rear two possible thumb-holes (Pl. XXVIIf); this bone, ex Christy Collection, is labelled as coming from La Roque, Pas de Miroir in the commune of Pyzac in the Dordogne. The site is identified by Collins as the late Perigordianrock shelter of Roque St. Christophe opposite the type-site of Le Moustier; despite, I confess, the latter bone's 'recent' appearance-and dispositionof fmgerholesboth sites have apparently little or no signs of post-palaeolithicoccupation. Finally, the question must be posed-though I know of no answer either from Brade or anyone else-as to what function was served by the palaeolithicbones for which at least some degree of intentional human modification may be proved. The debate continues ... ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am indebted to Desmond Collins and also Clive Bonsall-the latter formerly Research Assistant in the Department of Prehistoric and Romano-British Antiquities, British Museum-for assistance in studying in 1977 the two specimens in the British Museum. The translationof the present article from the German is by Marilyn Schapiro,Fritz Neubauer andJ. V. S. Megaw.

REFERENCES Abel, O. and Kyrle, G. 1931. Die Drachenhdhlebei Mixnitz=Speldologische Monographien 7/8. Vienna. 6: 83-95. Bayer, J. 1929. 'Die Olschewakultur',Eiszeit und Urgeschichte Mittel- und Nordeuropas= Brade, Ch. 1975. Die mittelalterlichen Kernspaltfldten 14. Neumiinster: K. WachGottingerSchriftenzur Vor-und Fruhgeschichte holtz. 148

U16

((

owi~i

PLATE XXVII

Threeaspectsofsupposedbone'flute'.Length1oo mm. (a) Istdllodskd. (AfterHorusitzky.) (b) Ul11.Boneflute. Length142 mm. (Aftervon Tompa.) Boneflute. Length63 mm.(AfterSeewald.) (c) Mdhrisch-Kromau. Two boneflutes'. Lengths1o8 mmand Isturitz, (d)-(e) Basse-Pyrend'es. mm. andSaint-Pe'rier.) Passemard 92 (After ? St. Pas de Miroir. Boneflute. Length120 mm. (f) Roque Christophe, Trustees the BritishMuseum.) (Photo.courtesy of

(b)

aus Haithabu',Ausgrabungen in Brade,Ch. 1978.'KnocherneKernspaltfl6ten Haithabu 12, pp. 24-33 (ed.K. Schietzel).Neumiinster:K. Wachholtz. station solutriene Archives de Cheynier,A. 1949.Badegoule, etprotomagdalinienne= dePaleontologie l'Institut Humaine. Mem.23. Paris. Collins,D. I975. 'Earlyman',Originsof Europe,pp. 19-125 (ed. D. Collins). London:Allen & Unwin. Collins,D. 1976. The humanrevolution: fromape to artist.Oxford:ElsevierPhaidon. Ebert,M. 1913. 'Die baltischenProvinzenKurland,Livlandund Estland', Praehistorische 5: 498-559. Zeitschrift. de la musique. Paris. F6tis,F.J. 1872.Histoire ge'ndrale Harrison,R. A. 1978.'A piercedreindeerphalanxfrom Banwellbone cave and some experimental work on phalangealwhistles',Proc.Univ.Bristol Soc.I5(1):7-22. Spelaeological in Osteuropa', Musikinstrumente Hiusler,A. 1960.'NeueFundesteinzeitlicher ActaMusicologica. 32: 151-155. Horusitzky,Z. 1955.'EineKnochenfliteaus der H6hlevon Istill6sk5',Acta Academiae Scientiarum 5: 133-145. archaeologica Hungarica. Kormos,Th. 1912. 'Die erstenSpurendes Urmenschenim Karstgebirge', Foldtani Kdzlony.42: 98-1l0. 34. 6-13. Megaw,J. V. S. 1960.'Pennywhistlesandprehistory', Antiquity, Megaw,J. V. S. 1961.'Pennywhistlesandprehistory:furthernotes',Antiquity, 35: 55-57. Megaw,J. V. S. 1965. 'A medievalbonepipefromWhiteCastle',GSJXVI: 85-94. Megaw, J. V. S. 1968. 'Problems and non-problems in palaeo-organology, a

musicalmiscellany',Studiesin ancientEurope:Essayspresented to Stuart Piggott,pp. 333-58 (eds.J. M. Coles and D. D. A. Simpson).Leicester UniversityPress. Megaw,J. V. S. 1976.Review of Brade1975,Antiq.Jnl.56: 131-3. 4. Bern:Hallwag. Meylan,R. 1974.Die Flote=UnsereMusikinstrumente undTradition derKernspaltfl6ten deseuropiiischen Moeck,H. A. 1951. Ursprung Volkstums und die Herkunftder musikgeschichtlichen Diss. Kernspaltfldten. phil. Univ. Gittingen. in Vorzeit,Geschichte Moeck, H. A. 1967. Typeneuropdischer und Celle:Moeck. Blockfl6'ten Volksiiberlieferung. im Toten Mottl, M. 195o.'Die paliolithischenFundeaus der Salzofenhoihle Austriaca. 5: 18-22. Gebirge',Archaeologia Miller, S. 1920. 'Nye fund og former',Aarboger for nordiskoldkyndighed og historieIo: 88ff. Passemard,E. 1923. 'Une flute aurignacienned'Isturitz',Assoc.franf. pour dessciences:Compte rendude la 46e session:Montpellier. l'avancement 474-6. im Nord-Amerikaund Paulson,I. 1949.'UbereinenPrototypdes Fangspiels Europa',Ethnos2 (4): 140-8. prihistorischen Piette,E. 1874.'Laflutecompos6e l' ge du renne',Comptes rendus desseances 149

d l'Acad.d. Sciences.79: 1277-9. Pigorini, L. 19oo. 'Di alcuni strumenti da suono dei Terramaricoli', Strena Helbigiana.232-34. Raistrick, A. et al., 1952. 'The Malham Iron-Age pipe', GSJ V: 28-38. Berlin. (Reprint 1965, Sachs, C. 1929. Geist und WerdenderMusikinstrumente, Hilversum: Knuf.) Salmen, W. 1970o.'Urgeschichtliche und mitteliulterlicheMusikinstrumente aus Schleswig-Holstein', Offa. 27: 5-19. St. Perier, R. and S. 1952. La grotted'Isturitz:Les Solutriens,les Aurignacienset les Moustriens=Archivesde l'Institutde PaliontologieHumaine.Mem. 25. Paris. Seewald, 0. 1934. Beitrdgezur Kenntnisder steinzeitlichenMusikinstrumente zur Ur- undFriihgeschichte 2. Vienna. Anton Schroll. Europas=Biicher Seewald, O. 1942. 'Zwei Baggerfundevon Fl1ten aus der Weser', Mannus.34: 187-95. Scheck, G. 1975. Die FliiteundihreMusik. Mainz: Schott. Tompa, F. von. 1937. '25 JahreUrgeschichtsforschungim Ungarn 1912-1936', Kommission1934135:27-44. 24/25 BerichtderRdmisch-Germanischen Vestergaard-Nielsen,S. I95I. 'Blokflojter fra Oldtid og Middelalder',Kunl. 145-53.

Wade-Martins, P. 1973. 'A tenth-century bone flute from North Elmham, Norfolk', GSJ XXVI: 142-3.

15o