AR48. 5 April 2004
Copyright © 2004 by Kevin Sharpe and Leslie Van Gelder. All rights reserved.
In process.

Revisiting Figures in Rouffignac Cave, France

by

Kevin Sharpe

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

and

Leslie Van Gelder

Walden University, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
Oxford Institute for Science and Spirit, Oxford, UK
10 Shirelake Close, Oxford OX1 1SN, United Kingdom
leslievg@ksharpe.com

Question for this Paper and Further Research on Other Figures

General

In the Cave

· Redraw and update from photos each figure.

To Include in the Paper

· The size of the depiction of an animal is relative to the tool used. Depictions made with fingers would be (true?) larger than those made with flints.

· Do this as short papers for Jean Clotte’s INORA magazine or Current Anthropology.

· Séverine’s children (and school) => the direction the mammoth faces is the opposite to the handedness of the artist => RH’ed person, left mammoth more poorly done (with right hand).

· Look at the figures/drawings for an hint of a style associated with them.

· Take a dozen or so well preserved figures and see if we can find (a) style(s) of figures (including the other associated lines).

· Relationship between line markings and drawings? How and where do they appear? Does the medium in which the animals were made affect the lines?

· Looked at mammoths of discovery, 5 mammoth frieze, rhinos, ‘lion,’ grand ceiling, 2 facing mammoths down a side chamber, the mammoths on the ceiling by the frieze, the patriarch et al. around it, the 2 mammoths opposite the discovery ones (with double zigzags):

o Many animals have several short lines (divot marks) in them done with force and in the same manner as the animal.

o However (apart from the frieze for which we need to look at its notes), the meanders (Marshack term) could be independent from the figures as there’s no direct evidence for the figures being made at the same time as the meanders.

o How to distinguish between male and female mammoths? Do the divot marks relate to only one gender?

Matters for the Analyses

· Re undulations: did they tend to start from right to left? Did they have a certain number of turns?

· What is the relationship between nonrepresentational flutings to representational fingures?

Experiment

Five mammoth frieze

In the Cave

· Check the cross sections of the lines constituting the mammoths to see if the tools are different and if this collaborates the three different people.

· Also, there is a large mammoth on the ceiling here. How does this relate according to our variables with the five on the wall?

To Include in the Paper

· Draw the zigzag mammoth.

· Via Sacra five mammoth frieze:

o Long horizontal is 34 mm

o 2 fingers over the zigzag is 21 mm = ? same as the 2 fingers to the right of the head, but we don’t as yet have the methodological justification for measuring 2 fingers of 3.

o The left two mammoths look by the same hand.

o The right two mammoths look by the same hand.

o But the right ones are different from the left ones. Therefore ? a family of 2 adults (left and right handed) and a child?

o Flutings seem to be done by the same hand (underneath, the ‘cane,’ two to the right of the face) of 34 mm. But they are over and under the mammoth => they are part of composition.

· Pairs of lines in zigzags (see inside the mammoth) – can’t do in more than 2 lines; 3 fingers end as 2. So 4 lines need to be 2 units of 2 lines (written 2+2), but is very hard to get them to follow or parallel each other closely, which implies much practice and very deliberate. (Is easy to do matching pairs of zigzags with each hand the at the same time, with arms stretched out.)

· Distance apart of pairs of zigzags may imply comfortable stretch of arms: the ‘embracing width.’

· Note mammoth drawn yesterday: LH side done with a squared bottomed U tool and the RHS with a V tool.

Matters for the Analyses

Experiment

Horse

In the Cave

To Include in the Paper

· Horse: or a bear. Catalogued as a mammoth, but isn’t.

Matters for the Analyses

Experiment

Lion

In the Cave

· Check the construction of the lion to see if we got it right.

To Include in the Paper

· The ‘lion’ has been rephotographed.

Matters for the Analyses

Experiment

Mammoths in Chamber J??

In the Cave

· Do mammoth drawings appear over adult hands, or only children’s?

To Include in the Paper

· Mammoths: Lots of low, small, poorly drawn mammoths => by children. Lots of Mirian lines.

· Big ceiling mammoth has zigzags underneath, just like the one on the ceiling in the Via Sacra – may have other significant parallels.

Matters for the Analyses

Experiment

Mammoths of discovery

In the Cave

To Include in the Paper

· Some mammoths are made by one finger for outline but two or more fingers to denote long hair at the bottom of the mammoth.

· It’s difficult to distinguish if lines inside the mammoths were made deliberately to show wooly hair or if part of the original series of vertical finger flutings. Where the outline of the animal and the straight flutings came into contact, the outline markings were made over the straight flutings. Question: did the straight flutings suggest mammoths to the artist who therefore tried to draw a mammoth incorporating the straight flutings already there.

· The zigzag lines inside the 2 mammoths opposite the discovery mammoths: the zigzags are under the tusks of the LH mammoth, which are under the outline of the RH mammoth.

· Mammoths of discovery: tusks of LH one are very, very long, over the RH one. Lines around the trunk are hair and not meanders. So the order: meanders, RH mammoth, LH mammoth.

· If the mammoth was drawn after the pairs of flutings, why did the artist choose to put the mammoth there?

· Why is it centered over the pairs if they are not related?

· Lines in the mammoths of discovery: the quads curve differently from the pairs.

· First mammoth panel: tusks over the paired lines => mammoth over the pairs and quadruple units.

· The pairs in the mammoths of discovery:

o Very small lines, much smaller than Leslie’s.

o The very left (long?) seems splayed.

o Tusks cut over everything.

o The very left lines aren’t paired.

o For the pair units, there is one spot for making them.

o For the quad units, there is also one spot (the epicenter) for making them.

o There’s about 3 feet between the epicenter for the pairs and for the quads.

o The different line widths between the pairs and the quads say they were done by different people. They could be contemporaneous because they’re 3 feet apart.

o The epicenter at the X is much further away, about 5 feet from the epicenter of the quads to the epicenter at the X.

Matters for the Analyses

Experiment

Moose/penis

In the Cave

To Include in the Paper

· Probably isn’t. top made with finger; bottom and eye with flint. Horns are part of a long diagonal line.

Matters for the Analyses

Experiment

Tectiforms

In the Cave

· Tectiforms: look at them for 4 lines or for 2+2s.

· Photograph them all.

To Include in the Paper

· Draw the tectiforms from photos and check against the originals.

Matters for the Analyses

Experiment

Via Sacra Large Mammoth by Five Mammoth Frieze

In the Cave

To Include in the Paper

· The large mammoth on the ceiling has no obvious relationship with the other lines there; it was over all of them.

Matters for the Analyses

Experiment

ABSTRACT.

KEY WORDS.

CONTENTS.

Error! No table of contents entries found.

Introduction

Historical, geographic, cave layout

Fluted Figures

Forms, Figures, the specific figures this paper is about, previous work on these figures in Rouffignac and elsewhere

Research Questions

Overall questions, specific questions for these figures

Methodology

Overall methodology, specific methodologies, comparison with other methodologies

Results

Research results

Conclusions and Questions

Specific conclusions, general implications, further questions arising

Acknowledgements

References

Mammoth 17 (Barrière 1982)

The ‘First Mammoth’ in Grotte de Rouffignac (named so because it was the first figure that L. R. Nougier, R. Robert, and C. L. Plassard discovered in the cave (Plassard and Plassard 1995: 5)), or ‘Mammoth 17’ as Barrière names it (Barrière 1982: 20-21, Fig. 25, Plate VIII), shows four streams of two flutings in the body of the mammoth and six streams of four flutings to the right of the first set. The second set of streams underlies the back of the mammoth. However, the temporal relationship between the two sets, plus the first set relative to the mammoth, remains uncertain. The fourth finger of the streams in the second set appears to be the little finger and so was probably fluted by the right hand (the surface here is evidently still soft down to 1-3 centimeters).

Mammoth 18 (Barrière 1982)

To the left of Mammoth 17 is another one, Mammoth 18, their heads facing one another. Examination reveals six tusks between them: the right hand figure (Mammoth 17) appears to have two sets (Barrière 1982: 20-21, Fig. 26).

Streams

To the right of Mammoth 17 among the many flutings, there is a V shape composed of lines made with a single finger. Then occurs a stream fluted with three fingers and where the relative heights of the fingers at the start or top of the markings may be deciphered (Barrière 1982: 21, Fig. 27).

Mammoth 44 (Barrière 1982)

This figure combines incised lines and flutings (Barrière 1982: 32-34, 180, 184, Figs. 66-68, 503, 511; Plassard and Plassard 1995: 8-9). Barrière’s drawings of the figure differ in that lines to the right of the mammoth’s head are missing in two of his three renditions (compare Barrière 1982: Figs. 67-68 with Fig. 503). Several observations were made:

· The undulating flutings in the body of the mammoth (Barrière calls the stream ‘un vigoureux serpentin polydigital’ (Barrière 1982: 34)) were made with three fingers, though the fluting at the right hand side of the topmost turn inside the mammoth’s head may have been made by a thumb; if so, the stream was fluted with the left hand.

· The hand whose four fingers fluted the stream to the right of the mammoth’s head was considerably smaller than KS’s in width.

· The mark to the left at the bottom of this stream may have been made by the thumb of the hand that made the stream; if so, this stream was made with the right hand.

· The short flutings at the base of this stream were deeply made and contrast with the delicateness of the incised trunk.

‘Grand Féline’ (Barrière 1982)

Figure 1 shows the lines that constitute a figure usually thought to represent a lion and evidently drawn with fingers and tools such as sticks, bones, and flints (Barrière 1982: 28-29, 155, Figs. 52, 53; corrected from Sharpe … 2002, Fig. 1).

Figure 1. Barrière 1982’s ‘Grand Féline,’ with additions and corrections. For an updated analysis (in PhotoShop format) of the ‘Grand Féline,’ click here.

· The outline is broken in what would appear to be the middle of the ‘lion’s’ ‘back’ and then another tool used or perhaps the same tool from a different position. The ‘tail’ appears made with yet another tool. Why did the marker(s) not continue the line in one movement and with one tool? Was it because the hand used in drawing could not reach far enough and the marker needed to move her or his feet? Or perhaps the marker made only part of the picture and later she or he or someone else added to the picture? Does the use of different tools imply an inconsistency in the figure, that it is not intended to be a unity?

· Barrière 1982 does not recognize several major lines in the figure: for instance, flutings under the ‘tail’ and another set above and through the base of the ‘tail.’

· The flutings at the base of the ‘tail’ pass over the top of the ‘tail’ but under the ‘rear’ of the ‘lion.’ Those over the ‘tail’ pass over the lines of the ‘tail’ but under the ‘lion’s’ ‘rear.’ Neither of these two streams, therefore, can be ignored when analyzing the figure. Taking these into account further jeopardizes calling this figure a lion.

· The lines inside the body of the figure are in two streams. The left three are very small, 27 cm wide. The right three are thicker and deeper, one being 10 cm across.

As Figure 1 suggests, this is a complex composition made with fingers and different tools, and whose sequence of overlays undermines the uniformity of its being a single representational figure.

‘Tectiform’ on the ‘Via Sacra’ (Barrière 1982)

Plassard and Plassard (1995: 19) describe ‘an engraved [sic.] tectiform symbol. The pad of [buildup] formed on the fingertips has remained in place at the ends of the lines, showing the direction in which the artist “drew” (Length = 40 cm/15 in.).’ It is also possible to tell from the overlays the order in which three of the streams of lines were made: 1, 2, and then 3 (Figure 2; see also Barrière 1982: 28-29, 157, Figs. 52, 466 no. 32). Despite the indicated order of fluting in Barrière 1982: 157, Fig. 466 no. 32, stream 1 may lie under stream 2. It is not yet possible to tell the relative order of streams 2, 4, 5, and 6.

Figure 2. Barrière 1982’s ‘Tectiform’ on the ‘Via Sacra,’ with additions and corrections.

Flutings in the ‘Serpentine’ Chamber (Gallery A, Plafond aux Serpents: Barrère 1982)

Many of the flutings in the ‘Serpentine’ Chamber are similar but distinctive from other flutings in the cave. Streams are mostly made with two fingers and undulate with several turns – looking like a snake moving across the ground – usually with a width of about 3 centimeters and length of 60 centimeters. They are found on the low ceiling and generally not on the walls, and are distinguishable by the contrast between the red clay remaining on the ceiling and the white revealed by wiping off the clay with the fingers (Barrière 1982: 88-92, 155, Figs. 274-290, Plate VI).

· The undulating flutings are often called ‘serpentine.’ The term ‘serpentine’ calls to mind snakes. Is it influential in determining the fluting’s pictorial qualities? One ‘serpentine’ mark was pointed out and said to depict a snake with a tongue; it was unconvincing. It may be preferable to call these flutings not ‘serpentines,’ but ‘undulating flutings’ and the chamber not ‘the Serpentine Chamber,’ but ‘the Chamber of Undulating Flutings.’

· The ceiling is slightly domed and, given the present floor level, is low enough in some places to touch easily: ML is 1.7 meters tall and almost touches ceiling with her head at one point. But not always: sometimes a stretch is necessary for KS, almost 1.8 meters tall, to touch the ceiling.

· Some long flutings require walking over the undulating floor to cover their extent. If the floor level at the time was the same as at present, the fluter would have to be shorter than KS because the lines in each are smoothly made and KS had to take several steps hunched over to walk their full extent; taking a step, especially while hunched over and on an uneven floor, may interrupt the smoothness of a fluting.

· The size of the hand may be determined when all four fingers are placed tightly together to flute. As mentioned above, while a small hand could make a stream of lines at various distances apart, a large hand cannot make a stream of lines close together and shorter across than the width of the same number of its fingers. A variety of sizes of hands are represented on the ceiling of the Chamber of Undulating Flutings. Some lines are close together and would require a hand much smaller than KS’s; many tightly spaced finger markings were made by hands smaller than ML’s, yet she has thin hands and fingers. Perhaps these markings were made by small women or children (see Bednarik 1987 for discussion on this possibility for several Australian caves), perhaps by children on the shoulders of other people.

· Streams of two, three, and four flutings were noted. Some streams contain four flutings and it is possible to determine the mark made by the little finger because it starts below the other flutings (see, for example, the diagonal top-left to bottom-right stream in Barrière 1982: 90, Fig. 282). Many streams run into others or at some points parallel them. This makes it difficult to determine the exact beginning and end of some streams and the number of fingers used for each. No patterns were recognized in the length, direction, or the number of fingers used in the streams.

· There are several overhead circles or ovals made by fingers (see, for example, Barrière 1982: p. 89, Fig. 281).

· On the low ceiling that forms the wall – next to a natural barrier about one meter high, protruding about a meter at its base, and narrowing at the top – are four short streams of vertical flutings (Barrière 1982: 91, Fig. 290), looking unlike the usual flutings in this chamber.

· The floor is uneven but smooth and of moist and compact red clay. The floor and ceiling are relatively smooth compared to the adjoining space where large flint nodules occur in the ceiling and broken nodules on the floor. It was suggested that fluters may have prepared the Chamber of Undulating Flutings by breaking the nodules in the ceiling and throwing them into floor spaces in the adjoining chamber. Perhaps any naturally falling nodules or debris were purposefully cleared from the floor to prepare the room. However, no evidence was seen to compare the broken nodules in the adjoining chamber to possible placement in the ceiling of the chamber of undulating flutings.