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 support@jstor.org.

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