AR
Copyright © 2006 by Kevin Sharpe and Leslie Van Gelder. All rights reserved.
Published in Rock Art Research 23:2
(November 2006), pp. 179-198.
Finger Flutings in Chamber
A1
of Rouffignac Cave, France
Kevin Sharpe
Graduate College, Union Institute & University, Cincinnati, Ohio
Harris Manchester College, Oxford University
ksharpe@ksharpe.com
www.ksharpe.com
and
Leslie Van Gelder
Walden University, Minneapolis, Minnesota
lvangeld@waldenu.edu
ABSTRACT.
An empirical methodology is used to examine finger
flutings in Chamber A
KEY WORDS. Cave Art Intentions, Cave Art Meaning, Finger flutings, Rouffignac Cave.
CONTENTS.
The Fluted Subchamber of Chamber A1, Rouffignac Cave
The Flutings in the Chamber A1
Research Question and Methodology
Further Discussion on the Flutings in Chamber A1
Choice of the Fluted Subchamber of Chamber A1
Intentions behind the Flutings
Initiation Ceremonies and Male Symbols
Prehistoric finger flutings (the lines that human fingers leave when drawn over
a soft surface) occur in caves through southern Australia, New Guinea, and
southwestern Europe, and were presumably made over a considerable time span
including some or all of the Upper Paleolithic. Most are not obvious figures or
symbols. The reigning question about the flutings – usually taken as enigmatic
– has to do with intention (or purpose, the two words used interchangeably) and
meaning. Why did the fluter flute? (A ‘fluter,’ according to the Encarta Dictionary, is a ‘fluting maker,
somebody who makes fluting in something.’) What did they mean with their
flutings?
A previous report (Sharpe and Van Gelder To Appear 1) showed
that young children fluted on the ceiling of Chamber A1 of Rouffignac Cave (near the village of Les Eyzies de
Tayac) in the Dordogne, France
(see Figure
Figure
Terminology
The following terminology helps the discussion of flutings:
· graphical unit (or, abbreviated, the word unit) refers to flutings drawn with a sweep of a hand or finger;
· cluster descriptively labels an isolatable group of units that exhibit a unity, for instance because they overlay each other; and
· panel refers to a collection of clusters that appears geographically or otherwise distant from other clusters and on a surface of reasonably uniform orientation.
The Fluted Subchamber of Chamber A1, Rouffignac Cave
Despite previous controversy as to the authenticity of the
art in Rouffignac Cave (Plassard
1999), it is now generally accepted as Paleolithic and the date usually
given for it, based on stylistic comparisons of the animal drawings in the
cave, is
The flutings that form the basis of this study are those near the terminus of Chamber A1, about 300 meters from the cave entrance (see Figure 2). (The names already given to this subchamber – e.g., the Macaroni Ceiling and the Serpents’ Dome (Nougier and Robert 1958; Plassard 1999) – will not be used because they suggest meanings or inaccurate characterizations for the flutings, as will be discussed below.) The subchamber containing the flutings can itself be divided into natural alcoves or side chambers numbering consecutively Alcoves I-IV from the top to lower left (facing the cave entrance), then V-VII from the lower to top right (see Figure 3). Much of the focus in this paper concerns Alcove I.
Figure 2. Plan of Rouffignac Cave showing the
various chambers (developed from Barrière
Figure 3. Alcoves I-VII in the Fluted
subchamber of Chamber A1 (plan
developed from Barrière 1982: Fig. 275).
The flutings in the subchamber cover much of the 150 square meters of the ceiling and are made into a thin red clay coating the white limestone, cutting through the red to expose the white underneath (Plassard 1999) (see Figure 4). There are large ceiling spaces with few flints protruding, and the ceiling averages about 1.6 meters above the floor (Plassard 1999). The subchamber’s floor comprises red clay (smooth and compacted where frequented), which also goes up the walls to varying heights. No long open wall spaces exist in the subchamber and few flint nodules appear on the floor.
Figure 4. A small portion of the ceiling of the fluted subchamber of Chamber A1.
The Flutings in the Chamber A1
Previous Researchers
Five researchers have previously examined the flutings in
Chamber A1 and published on them. Nougier and Robert (e.g., 1958) introduced
the world to the prehistoric artifacts of Rouffignac Cave, including these
particular flutings. They title flutings in photographs of the ceiling of the
subchamber (what they call the ‘Serpents’ Dome’) with such words as
‘serpents’ and ‘anthropomorphs’ (Nougier and Robert 1958: Figs. 16-18).
Nougier’s Preface to Barrière (1982)
also talks about the cave depicting the battle of the mammoths, including the
battle between the mammoths and the snakes. In yet another place, he writes:
In this inextricable network made with fingers, appear
multiple and systematically made ‘serpentines.’…What is [their] meaning…? Some end in a large round head with a clearly
marked eye, a long bent tongue...[ – ]they are snakes, extremely rare figures
in parietal quaternary art. One of
them is directed toward the entrance of the same large red ceiling (1958:
20-21; KS transl.).
Barrière (1982:
Plassard writes of
a multitude of single, double, or triple lines that zigzag and become entangled in a swirling mass. In any case, such is the first impression for, after a few moments, the body of lines takes on more structure. One could not really talk about organization, but rhythms appear. One discovers the beginning of a line then the end, echoes of lines, some grids or cross-hatchings. By their geometry, they stand out from the mass….Then, from a corner, gradually appear meanders made with two hands at once and forming symmetrical pairs, or true chevrons with sharp angles. At last, some meanders, very carefully executed in two successive gestures, more clearly evoke snakes. One of them even appears to have a head….The presence of several of these more elaborate graphic units does not nevertheless make everything seem clear and, even with such a revelation, the ceiling retains all its mystery. Two facts emerge: the choice of the end of this gallery with its particular shape and form, and the exclusive presence of this form of expression. These primarily raise the question: does the meaning of the lines lie in the gesture or in the result (1999: 76-78; KS transl.)?
Marshack (
has thousands of [them] criss-crossing.…It looks like
‘macaroni’ in the truest sense, a random mélange of interlacing lines running
in every direction. There is neither structure, pattern, image, nor composition
in the accumulation….Different persons, with fingers and print spacing of
different sizes, made meander ‘unit’ marks using one, two, three, or four
fingers (
The fluted subchamber of Chamber A1 presents a complex collection of flutings, with both long and short units, some appearing geometric while others not, and some overlying each other. The beginnings or endings of some lie over or under other lines. No overall pattern or structure is obvious.
Sharpe and Van Gelder (To Appear 2) characterize these flutings by lower-body movement and the use of more than one finger at once. Though some of the flutings are short, many show a lack of constraint (not in the composition, which may employ a restricted range of shapes, but in the use of the space fluted). This involves some upper-body movement but, experiments show, also twisting at the hips, locomotion (some lines extending beyond the arm range of a stationary fluter), or shifting weight (Sharpe, Lacombe, and Fawbert 2002; Sharpe and Van Gelder To Appear 2). Circles and some of the zigzags on the ceiling, for example, required the twisting of the body rather than only of the wrist and arm. There is an overall sense of motion or freedom.
Plassard (1999: 77; KS transl.) suggests that these lines may have been made ‘with a bundle of sticks reminiscent of fingers.’ However, this is refuted by:
· the different starting points of the lines in many of the units;
· the differing line widths between some of the units;
· the lines of some units separating to avoid small obstacles;
· the finger-like cross-sectional shape of the lines;
· no more than five lines existing per unit;
· the fourth or fifth line of a unit, when it shows, looking like the line made by a little finger or a thumb; and
· the often uneven spacing between the lines in the units.
Though they have not been dated directly, the flutings in the flutings in Chamber A1 are considered Paleolithic, for several reasons:
· art in the cave is considered to be so;
· there are line flutings, including zigzags, next to, inside, underneath, and on top of drawn mammoths in other passages of the cave;
· mammoths are drawn in Chamber A near to A1; and
· flutings in other caves date to the Paleolithic.
Age of the Fluters
Two papers by Sharpe and Van Gelder (2004; To Appear 1) suggest and then more firmly establish that many of the flutings in Chamber A1 were probably made by young children, aged 2 to 5. The methodology for this – which builds on the method and results of Bednarik when he argues that juveniles were responsible for the flutings in several caves (e.g., Bednarik 1986) – involved measuring the widths of the three central fingers of flutings by modern people and of the units of flutings found in the chamber, and then comparing the results. This study justifiably assumed that the people who made the flutings were anatomically of a similar same size to modern people.
Given, from this investigation, that this age group for many
of the fluters can be ascertained with a high degree of probability based on
the physical evidence of the flutings, further matters present themselves for
research and other things may be learned about the fluters. For instance, an
aspect of the fluted subchamber of Chamber A1 to notice is the height of the
ceiling above the floor. The ceiling flutings are now in places just reachable
by a
Research Question and Methodology
As mentioned above, the particular issue at the center of this paper and which intrigues most of the casual and professional visitors to the fluted subchamber of A1 concerns the meaning or intention behind the fluter’s activities. Why did the fluters, including the young children, mark the ceiling? The intention question does not equal the meaning one, but is related to it; a meaning can imply an intention but one intention can involve several meanings. Meanings can change or multiply after an event, but the intention was set in history. It is therefore preferable at this stage to seek intentions rather than meanings. To do this, the following will be pursued:
· a consequence of the fluters’ ages;
· some implications as to what was happening in the fluted subchamber;
· the nature of the fluted subchamber in relation to the rest of the cave; and
· a critique of published and other proposals as to the intention (and meaning) of the flutings.
This investigation is part of a research program that bases
its methodology on the flutings themselves (Sharpe 2004; Sharpe and Lacombe
Further Discussion on the Flutings in Chamber A1
Fluters’ Being Carried
An important aspect of the fluted subchamber of Chamber A1
with regard to the flutings made by the young children is the height of the
ceiling above the floor because these flutings are now in places just reachable
by a man of
|
Width |
Height |
Width |
Height |
Width |
Height |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 1. Widths of 3-fingered flutings (measured in millimeters) and their respective heights (in centimeters) above the floor in Alcove I of the fluted subchamber of Chamber A1.
Assuming the floor is much the same height as when the
flutings were created, even the lowest of these heights (
However, is the floor at much the same level as when the flutings were created?
The current floor surface is smooth, undulating, and
probably was rougher and comprised of small piles of partly desiccated clay
when the fluters first entered the chamber. This is now the appearance of the
floor in the alcoves in A
Cave Bears
One way to tell whether the floor is now approximately at its original level would be the presence here of relatively undisturbed cave bear pits. There are no bear pits in this part of the cave, nor are there bear scratches here, which means this indicator of the Paleolithic floor is of no help in this chamber. There are some animal scratches in the clay on the walls at varying heights above the floor, but not many and probably not of the cave bear because they are a smaller size than what be expected from that animal. They therefore lack any value as indicators of prior floor levels.
Clay Deposition
Another approach to the question is to ask when the clay of the floor was deposited relative to when the ceiling was fluted.
Flutings are in clay on the ceiling, which implies that the chamber was completely filled with clay or clay-bearing water at some point prior to the fluting activity. It has since then cleared of some of the clay (and all water) to produce the current accessible passage.
Have there been more recent, post-fluting infills of clay? A high-level mark of clay rings much of the chamber and this could be interpreted to mean a more recent clay inflow filled the chamber to this level. If so, some flutings might continue right down to the high-level mark as if to go under it. (The presence of such a body or bodies of wet clay or water since the ceiling was fluted may have severely affected the flutings (it probably also would have destroyed the flutings where it touched them).) No such flutings have been observed. In fact, one fluted unit was observed going right to the high-level mark and over it (in Alcove VI). This suggests that the clay represented by the high-level mark was deposited before the lines were drawn. The ceiling was fluted after this clay infill, perhaps the most recent of the infills.
Mining
Undulations in the floor of the subchamber (mostly higher at the edges and troughs in the center) as opposed to a flat floor could suggest that considerable amounts of clay were mined from the subchamber since the lines were fluted, perhaps by Iron Age or Medieval peoples. This would make the current floor markedly different from when the flutings were made.
Such mining of the clay from the floor – notably closer to the ceiling before mining than the current floor level – would have required considerable effort both in the excavation and in the transportation of the results to the surface. Thus, it is appropriate to ask whether the quality of the clay in the fluted subchamber of Chamber A1 is that much better for pottery than clay closer to the cave entrance or on the surface nearby. Even if the quality and effort questions were decisively answered favoring the quality of the clay in the fluted subchamber, six evidences of mining might be expected (perhaps three chambers were mined – the fluted subchamber of Chamber A1, Chamber D, and Chamber E (see Figure 2) – and parallel questions can be asked of them):
· Considerable soot on the ceiling from the fires needed to light the subchamber during these extensive operations might be, but are not visible.
· Similarly, large amounts of charcoal might occur on the floor from the fires lighting the mining activities. Only small amounts are visible.
· Marks on the ceilings from the swinging of picks in what would have been a lower ceiling than at present might be, but also are not visible (apart from a couple of recent lines – see Figure 4 – which are probably the result of relatively modern scraping with sticks).
· The miners would probably have marked the ceilings with their graffiti, but nothing like that is apparent. (Medieval markings in Chamber C (as yet unpublished data) look nothing like the flutings in the fluted subchamber of Chamber A1.)
· Evidence of mining tools (broken or otherwise) left by the miners might also be evident, though conceivably elements of some types of tools may have disintegrated or rusted away by now. By all accounts, none have been found here though apparently some were excavated in the entrance chamber of the cave (Barrière 1959; 1973-75).
· It would make sense for the miners to excavate the clay right to the edges of the fluted subchamber rather than only in the center – because the ceilings become lower and lower the further into the subchamber – and so they would not have had to crawl further down the chamber to extend their excavations. However, the depressions are only in the center of the subchamber.
There is, therefore, insufficient evidence to establish that clay was probably mined in the fluted subchamber of Chamber A1.
Floor Undulations
Other, reasonable explanations need to be offered for the observations that could be taken to suggest mining.
The mining hypothesis could be raised because of the undulations in the cave floor, higher at the edges than in the center. It may be thought that the clay (perhaps deposited under a lake) was flat originally and that mining removed clay in the areas that now form the troughs in the floor.
The clay high-level mark on the walls of the subchamber and its neighbors is at an angle sloping down the chamber. This suggests that the clay was not most recently deposited from water in a lake, because the lake would have had a level surface. (It would also have completely drowned the fluted subchamber judging by the higher level in the subchamber immediately closer to the entrance.)
Could the clay have been deposited under water flowing through the chambers? It would have moved deep and fast, judging by the high-level mark of the clay and its angle down Chamber A1, and it is hard to imagine the clay being deposited so deeply under such a rapid flow.
Probably, therefore, the clay gradually mass wasted down the clamber. It probably moved more slowly at the edges or where the floor rose significantly, with friction, viscous tension, and rock-clay attraction holding it closer to the rocks. The surface of the slowly moving clay perhaps, therefore, sunk at the center between the walls or appreciable rises in the rock floor, and remained higher against the walls and these rises.
Other natural processes may also help explain the undulation of the current clay floor. Since the time the clay mass wasted and was deposited, it has slowly dried out (though not completely), shrinking with its dehydration. When it dried on the walls or the ceilings (at places where it did touch the ceiling), it would in time peel and fall off. The edges of the current chamber should therefore be higher because the clay from the walls has fallen onto it. Clay continues to come off the walls not only with peeling, but also with occasional rehydratation and running down. Both of these processes have been observed in the fluted subchamber of Chamber A1. A further potential explanation of the floor undulations is that clay clung to the edges when the middle sections subsided or mass wasted.
Flint Nodules
The mining hypothesis may also be raised because of the relative absence of flint nodules currently on the floor of the fluted subchamber, whereas they occur more profusely on the floors of other subchambers, for instance the prior one. Did humans remove the nodules to clear the floor, perhaps to mine it or in the process of mining?
The relative absence of flint nodules on the floor need not require human activity:
· The ceiling of this subchamber has many fewer nodules protruding than the ceiling of its neighbor. Fewer nodules in the ceiling mean fewer nodules to fall.
· Few nodules fallen into the neighboring chamber probably would roll into the fluted subchamber of Chamber A1 because of its natural floor barrier (about 60 centimeters high) at its entrance (see Figure 5).
In other words, the floor was naturally probably relatively free of fallen flint when the flutings were made. Humans – whether miners or fluters – probably did not clear it.
Figure 5. The barrier marking the entrance into
the fluted subchamber of Chamber A1. Looking toward the cave entrance.
Similar conclusions can be drawn about the ceiling of the fluted subchamber of Chamber A1. Most of it is covered with Paleolithic flutings, and relatively more recent activity – human or natural – on the ceiling is obviously so because of differences in patination. Given that patination, it seems that little flint has fallen since the lines were made and that the ceiling was relatively free of flint when the fluters fluted.
Conclusions
This picture overall suggests there have probably been no more clay infills into the fluted subchamber of Chamber A1 since the time of the fluters and that probably clay was not mined there. Thus the floor of the subchamber that the Paleolithic fluters encountered was probably rougher than at present and comprised what looks like small piles of partly desiccated clay higher on the edges. Its changes to the present probably comprise smoothing and a little compression with walking over the central trafficked area, shrinkage with further dehydration, and perhaps a little higher at the edges from clay further peeling and falling off the walls.
One may conclude, therefore, that the young child fluters were in places probably held aloft by others, perhaps by adults or at least people old enough to carry them with sufficient agility that the children could touch the ceilings. This same practice is apparent in other parts of the cave as well, for example in Chambers E and G (between the junction with Chamber J to that with Chamber F), where young children have fluted above adult flutings (as yet unpublished results).
Movement during Fluting
In what direction did the children face when held aloft? At the forward end of the fluted subchamber of Chamber A1, the small natural wall jutting out from both sides blocks directly accessing the ceiling from the floor (see Figure 5). On the left-hand side when facing toward the entrance of the cave, the ceiling has been fluted by children, the flutings extending further down into the subchamber (as opposed to toward the cave entrance). A child held aloft facing into the subchamber, arms outstretched behind the head, probably could not have fluted the length that exists over the floor rock and toward the entrance; probably the child therefore would have had to have been facing the cave entrance with arms stretched out in front and finger pads upwards (finger nails upward would create different marks than those that appear). In other words, the child probably would have been facing the opposite direction to the carrier, who probably would have faced down the cave in order to see to walk and not stumble on the undulating surface and occasional fallen flint nodule. The child probably would have stretched over the carrier’s shoulder to gain the maximum length of fluting. Facing the opposite direction to the direction of movement may have allowed better control of the fingers on the ceiling.
A number of shells and shell fragments are exposed in the limestone ceiling. In places, 5-50 millimeter shells are missing, some perhaps dislodged when fingers knocked into them. Fingers passing over one shell probably broke it as the two sides remain and the flutings on each side have the same width and number of fingers. Some shells look like they might cut fingers running over them. Of particular help in reconstructing the activities in the chamber may be differences in the marks on either side of an obstacle such as a shell because they might help show the direction of the fluting.
The flutings can help in understanding the movement of the bodies of the fluters or of those holding them up. Looking at the flutings helps visualize the activities that took place:
· Several tight undulations or zigzags appear. The (re)creation of these, standing underneath them, seems to require the movement of the hips as opposed to only the movement of the upper body. The curves of zigzag made by wrist movement differ from zigzag curves made by hip movement. Thus, while long child-made units depend on the walking of the holder of the fluter for where they go, zigzags of the same ceiling height and finger width may have been made while the carrier was standing in one place but twisting at the hips.
· Circles also appear. These require the fluter (or perhaps the person holding up the fluter) to be underneath and to rotate the lower body and the feet.
·
Sometimes,
only two lines appear in a unit. Perhaps the fluter folded down all but those
two fingers, or one would expect in the bumpiness of being carried aloft (or
even of walking and fluting overhead) that at least a third would sometimes
appear.
·
Sometimes,
four fingers appear in two sub-parallel (
·
Series of straight parallel units of flutings
appear. Some of these may most easily be created when standing underneath them
on one spot and rocking forward and backward.
·
In other places, a ‘jog’ appears in a unit,
probably where the carrier or fluter changed angular direction while walking.
They suggest whole body movement, perhaps dance-like activity, but a fuller description of this requires further research.
In principle, some of the movements made during the activity
can be reconstructed from the flutings left behind. The carrier determined the overall shape fluted, so perhaps the
composition – if there be a composition – should be considered a work of the
carrier as opposed to the child’s. Perhaps the children could be considered the
paint brushes or the instruments of the carriers.
Why did those
holding the children (if older people) not flute without using them? The
youngsters could have fluted where they could reach and the holders could have
marked, not only these sections, but also sections where the youngsters could
not reach. Here, however, they sometimes raised the children up to flute.
Further, the low sections of the ceilings that young children could comfortably
flute by themselves usually show few or no flutings. Considerations such as
these lead to asking about the intentions of the fluters.
Choice of the Fluted Subchamber of Chamber A1
Why did the fluters mark the fluted subchamber of Chamber
A1, as opposed to creating the same markings in some other portion of the cave?
This fluted subchamber is a relatively small percentage of Chamber A1, let
alone of the complex of chambers labeled with an A or the cave itself. It is
about a 600 meters into the cave over rough rock fall and not even near the
entrance of Chamber A
· the relative lack of flint nodules on the floor (whose presence would impede walking) in comparison with many other parts of the cave (as mentioned above, the fluters probably did not clear or even need to clear the floor of flint, flint);
· the relative lack of flint nodules in the ceiling (whose presence would interrupt the marking surface) in comparison with many other parts of the cave (as also mentioned above, nodules were probably not broken off the ceiling);
· the lack of bear pits in the floor (whose presence would not only impede walking but the ability to reach the ceiling when down a pit) in comparison with many other parts of the cave;
· the softness of the ceiling clay;
· the red-white contrast of the fluted red clay against the white limestone;
· the height of the ceiling (not too high or too low for children to flute while held up; compare with the portion of Chamber G from the junction with Chamber J to that with Chamber F, for instance, where the height of the ceiling would have been to short in most places); and
· the warm acoustics of the space.
The seven attributes of the space, plus the large amount of marking suggest that the fluted subchamber of Chamber A1 was deliberately chosen for fluting. ‘Deliberate,’ not in the sense that each line was necessarily produced in a particular place according to a thought-out visual design (which offers a question to explore), but in that the space was probably deliberately chosen and deliberately used – which refers back to one of the ‘facts’ Plassard mentions: ‘the choice of the end of this gallery with its particular shape and form’ (1999: 78; KS transl.). The markers possibly scouted through the cave to find a suitable or the best site for carrying out these particular fluting activities. As well, though this offers another subject for investigation, the flutings in the fluted subchamber of Chamber A1 were probably executed at one time.
Intentions behind the Flutings
Intentionality
The selection of the fluted subchamber of Chamber A1 for fluting appears deliberate. The flutings were probably also intentionally made, because of:
· the chamber’s physical nature. As mentioned above, this suggests it may have been intentionally selected for fluting the ceiling by holding children up.
· the lack of animal and tectiform drawings, and the absence of such things as hand prints, finger prods, and triangles. The shapes fluted were deliberately chosen and certain other possible shapes were deliberately excluded.
· the large, striking and very deliberate-looking lines at the junction of Chamber A1 with Chamber A. No other lines appear for many meters either way.
· the use of the geography (shape and texture) of the ceiling. The fluters fluted around shells (as there is no evidence of prizing, they probably did not take out the shells), and frequently filled open spaces without overly crossing other lines.
These imply some intentionality was involved.
Yet there does not appear from investigations carried out so far to be any consistent overall or repeating local structure or order to the lines (the grids appear to be happenstance and the circles unique). For instance, comparing the flutings in Chamber A1 with those in Chamber E (compare Figure 4 with Figure 6) or in the section of Chamber G from the junction with Chamber J to that with Chamber F (see Figure 2), emphasizes the deliberate, structured-looking nature of the latter in comparison with those in the fluted subchamber of Chamber A1. They were all apparently made by the same people (as yet unpublished data).
Figure
6. Flutings from Chamber E, Rouffignac
Cave.
It is a judgment on the part of the informed and experienced observer, but there does appear to be a fundamental difference (besides those of technique; Sharpe and Van Gelder To Appear 2) between the various panels of flutings in Rouffignac Cave (as well as in other caves). On the one hand, there are those where the visual form appears to be the paramount intention (as with flutings of animals and tectiforms, or with panels of vertically fluted, largely separable lines – as in Figure 6). On the other, there are those where the primary intention appears not in the final form but in the act of fluting. These latter panels of flutings involve no consistent shapes and often are a mass of lines sometimes quite entangled. This judgment between the two types of appearances needs further investigation and corroboration, but could prove instrumental in distinguishing between fluters’ intentions.
The flutings in Chamber A1 do not appear to involve consistent shapes and are a mass, though not as entangled a mass as in other sites, such as the Zone of Crevices in Gargas Cave, Hautes Pyrenees, France. The Chamber A1 flutings, therefore, perhaps were made for the act of fluting.
Suggested Intentions
A number of intentions, characterizations, and meanings have been published or suggested for the flutings in Chamber A1 and for flutings in general. (Ideas as to meaning will be taken as intention suggestions in what follows.)
Maynard and Edwards (1971) suggest that the flutings in Koonalda Cave, South Australia, stand for a transitional phase in artistic development from ‘non-art’ to art; they do not think the flutings represent an art form because they appear randomly distributed and void of any preconceived visual impression. (A few of the finger lines form simple patterns, though perhaps unintentionally by the artists; for example, open fingers inscribed two curved sets of parallel lines in two movements of the hand and created a design that looks like a concentric circle.) This is reminiscent of Breuil’s (1952; Breuil, Obermaier, and Verner 1915) idea that flutings and other line markings in part form the first scribbles by humans, though intuitive and random. The fluters recognized images in their lines and, from them, developed the tradition of simple and crude outline figures. This idea is highly speculative. For Rouffignac, the proponent cannot even point to representational drawings in the fluted subchamber of Chamber A1 in attempts to find corroboration and, as will be shown below, ‘emerging shapes’ (anthropomorphs and snakes) do not hold up under close examination. It even appears that the same group of fluters as marked in Chamber A1 also drew obvious animal pictures in other parts of the cave (as yet unpublished data).
Beyond the sense that these are ‘primitive’
and that from them developed representational and symbolic expression, flutings
in Chamber A1 have been thought to be intended as anthropomorphs (Nougier and
Robert 1958), macaroni (Barrière 1982), meanders (Marshack 1977), serpentines
(Barrière 1982), serpents or snakes (Nougier and Robert 1958), or related to
water (Marshack 1977). More generally, flutings are also considered related to
initiation ceremonies (Bednarik 1987-88; Flood 1996) or to shamanistic ritual
(Lewis-Williams 2002), or are considered male symbols (Leroi-Gourhan 1958).
Mulvaney and Kamminga (
Like the Breuil idea, all these suggestions
as to the intentions behind flutings are speculative. Some can be dismissed
without further ado (for instance, that they represent huts, comets
(Leroi-Gourhan
Anthropomorphs
Nougier and Robert (1958: Figs. 16-18; see also pp. 60-61) introduce some of the flutings in photographs of the ceiling of the fluted subchamber of Chamber A1 with the word ‘anthropomorphs.’ They write:
On Oct. 11 and 13, 1956, we found four anthropomorphs at Rouffignac, two of them…in the great red dome of the white streamers [flutings]. All four obeyed the rules of the species, that is, of the anthropomorphic series, that is – no rule at all. They were true ‘grotesques’; with big noses and big mouths, like Perrault’s deceased grandmother….The anthropomorph on the red ceiling of the streamers has a blunt chin, a receding forehead, a jutting nose, and a lively eye. From the point of the chin to the top of the head he measures 45 centimeters (nearly 18 inches). A companion on another part of the roof nearby is more mysterious. Drawn also with a finger, the head is excellent: forehead, nose, mouth, chin – then, going downwards, everything melts away in a shapeless mass. One of us tried to pick out the beginning of a leg and a pretty breast (1958: 60-61)!
Figures 7 and 8 depict Nougier and Robert’s anthropomorphs in their Figures 18 and 19 (1958: op. p. 102).
Figure 7. Nougier and Robert’s (1958: op. p.
102) anthropomorph, Figure 17.
Figure 8. Nougier and Robert’s (1958: op. p. 102) second anthropomorph, Figure 18.
Did the fluters intend these clusters of
flutings to be faces? Admittedly, the clusters (when each is taken to be the
single unit defining the ‘facial’ profile) do look like distorted human faces,
and once people see a face in something, they tend always to see it there. But
why should the two ‘faces’ not respectively be seen rather as a snake poised to
strike (Figure 7 seen from the top-left), or a bulb sprouting or a piece of
fruit (Figure 8 from the right)? There is no preferred angle for viewing these
clusters since they are on the ceiling. It therefore seems inappropriate at
this stage to say that the Paleolithic fluter(s) intentionally drew faces on
the ceiling. Nougier and Robert observed the fluted ceiling through the eyes of
a paradigm that tries to see animals, humans, and familiar shapes, that forces
the lines into shapes within such categories, but that now must be left behind.
(It is instructive to compare the two anthropomorphs with two modern obvious
drawings of heads on the same ceiling (modern because of the fresh state of
their patina as opposed to that of the Paleolithic flutings), drawings that
have in places used the original flutings in their compositions (see Figures 9
and 10).)
Figures 9 and 10. Two modern drawings of heads on the same ceiling as Figures 7 and 8.
Macaroni and Meanders
The flutings in Chamber A1 are sometimes referred to as ‘macaroni’ or ‘meanders.’ Are either of these an adequate characterization and therefore label for the flutings in the subchamber? The New Oxford Dictionary of English defines these terms as, respectively:
· ‘a variety of pasta formed in narrow tubes,’ and
· ‘a winding curve or bend of a river or road.’
The impression of the first term is, for uncooked macaroni, ‘short, straight, and hollow’ (for cooked macaroni, a little bendiness may occur), and ‘long and curvy’ for the second term. The following is suggested as what quantifiably would count as a line being macaroni or a meander (see Figure 11):
·
A macaroni
(singular) fluting is of length at most
·
A meander
fluting is of length at least
They cannot both characterize a collection of flutings as they are mutually incompatible.
Figure 11. A curved fluting showing the angle
of the curve.
Does either of them apply to all or even the majority of the flutings in the Chamber A1?
To answer this, consider all the flutings in a randomly
selected
Number <
Number >
Number <
Number >
Therefore, the flutings in the square FC – and, by extension, in the fluted subchamber of Chamber A1 – come in a variety of lengths, some are curved while others are straight, and neither macaroni nor meanders constitute an overwhelming majority. The fluters probably did not intend, therefore, to draw lines that a person nowadays would classify as macaroni or meanders. These two terms are inadequate labels for the fluting phenomenon found here.
Figure 12. The ceiling square in Alcove I of the fluted subchamber of Chamber A1 used in the macaroni-meander analysis is based on the +.
Serpentines and Snakes
Another pair of terms used of the flutings in Rouffignac is ‘serpent’ (or ‘snake’) and ‘serpentine’ (Barrière 1982: 205), a term meaning snake-like. It can be asked, as with the terms ‘macaroni’ and ‘meander,’ whether this nomenclature adequately depicts the flutings in the fluted subchamber of Chamber A1.
Barrière writes:
Rouffignac has more figures of snakes than all the other
caves put together. Though there are only
They are all made with finger flutings, but use different shapes, especially for the head. The body markedly undulates. The head is round with a large, left-facing mouth (1982: 155; KS transl.).
He elaborates on one ‘small snake’ (his number 161), the one he finds the ‘most interesting’:
On the left, where the ceiling descends, there is only
one drawing. It is of a snake traced with two fingers, the body in an S shape
reaching up, with an oval head, a pointed nose, and an eye. Right profile.
Length
It is undoubtedly a snake of the grass snake type because of its vertical winding. It is one of most characteristic depictions in all of prehistoric art (1982: 88; KS transl.).
Figures
13-15. Barrière’s (
Barrière pictures four of the ‘snakes’ he noticed on the
ceiling of the fluted subchamber of Chamber A1 (see Figures 13-25).
Figure 16-19. Barrière’s (
Figures 20-22. Barrière’s (
Figures 23-25. Barrière’s (
Take, for example, the ‘snake’ that Barrière calls ‘Serpent 164’ (Figures 23-25) and call this Cluster S164. Its ‘head’ (on the left) appears to have an open ‘mouth’ with its ‘tongue’ extended. Closer examination shows that Cluster S164 comprises several flutings that meld into the other flutings in the vicinity. The top of the ‘head’ comprises two flutings, one of which undulates to cross the body near the end of the ‘tail.’ The lack of obvious single-minded action of concept ‘snake’ to fluting depicting a snake casts doubt on its being a snake representation. Further, seen from the right, the ‘snake’ looks like a person sitting down, head turned around, and tongue extended; as with the ‘anthropomorphs,’ there is no preferred angle for viewing this cluster. Similar analyses can be made of the other ‘snakes’; for example, the flutings comprising the head of ‘Serpent 162’ extend above and well below the ‘head.’ With regard to Barrière’s romanticizing over his ‘Serpent 161,’ were there grass snakes (or even snakes) in this region of France when the flutings were made, perhaps during the coldest part of the last major Ice Age (Palmer 2004)?
A case might be built for these flutings being serpentine if many other flutings in Chamber A1 really look like snakes. Apart from many of the units being undulating, none of the thousands of flutings in the subchamber (Fig. 276 in Barrière 1982 covers only a portion of the ceiling in the subchamber and does not include all the flutings in the portion it does cover) really do look like snakes, not even the apparently most snake-like clusters. The case for the collection being serpentines falls. The word ‘serpentine’ also constitutes an interpretative word and so cannot be used innocently as a plain descriptor; it thus ought to be avoided when describing the flutings. The term ‘undulating’ is more appropriate.
If the archaeologist is intent on seeing in the markings in the cave as many animals and repeating motifs as possible, then it is understandable that the terms ‘serpent,’ ‘snake,’ and ‘serpentine’ be adopted for the flutings; snakes can, after all, look like undulating lines when drawn. If this intention is removed from the object of archaeologists looking at the cave, then the uncertainty as to the appropriateness of the term requires it be examined in more detail and, if inappropriate, not be used.
Water Symbolism
Marshack writes:
It was the essentially serpentine form and its associated angles that led me to assume the meander was related to a water mythology and ritual.
If images of plants are to be considered as part of Ice
Age symbolism, then the powerful image of water should not surprise us. It is a
symbol related to the freeze, thaw, and flood, to the migration of salmon, the
seasonal coming of water birds, the lakes, ponds, rivers, and even the water
found deep in caves. It is the source of life at which animals and [people]
congregate (1975: 89; see also Leroi-Gourhan
Apart from the undulations of some of the flutings in Chamber A1, it is unlikely they represent water any more than they represent snakes or meanders in a river. What would vertical undulations close by horizontal ones represent? Waterfalls or rain? But, in these phenomena, the water falls in straight lines. The absence of active water courses in Chamber A1 or even in Rouffignac Cave counts against the association of flutings with water (Bednarik 1985; 1986). Water-intention speculations have no empirical support.
Shamanic
The Lewis-Williams hypothesis of the shamanic origin of prehistoric art – extrapolating from the San art in southern Africa to worldwide – has become increasingly popular as a universal explanation. Is it empirically valid and fruitful in the study of flutings? Lewis-Williams writes:
Upper Paleolithic evidence suggests that parts of the caves, especially the deep passages and small, hidden diverticules, were places where visionary quests took place….In their various stages of altered states, questers sought, by sight and touch, in the folds and cracks of the rock face visions of powerful animals. It is as if the rock were a membrane between them and one of the lowest levels of the tiered cosmos; behind the rock lay a realm inhabited by spirit-animals, and the passages and chambers of the cave penetrated deep into that realm.
Such beliefs and rituals also account for…the various ways in which the walls of numerous Upper Paleolithic caverns were touched and otherwise treated. In some sites,…finger-flutings cover most of the walls and parts of the ceilings to a considerable height….If we allow that Upper Paleolithic people believed that the spirit world lay behind the thin, membranous walls of the underground chambers and passages, the evidence for this and much otherwise incomprehensible behavior can be understood….In a variety of ways, people touched, respected, painted, and otherwise ritually treated the cave walls because of what existed behind their surfaces. The walls are not a meaningless support. They were part of the images, a highly charged context (2002: 208-209).
This hypothesis can be explored for observable consequences. For flutings, the above quotation might suggest that:
· Fingers would go into the walls trying to get as far as possible through the membrane toward the sacred, because the fluters wanted to touch or pass through the membrane. On the other hand, in the fluted subchamber of Chamber A1 of Rouffignac Cave, one of the most extensive and impressive sites of flutings so far found anywhere, there are no finger holes produced by trying to get as far as possible into the surface.
· The cave wall surface would be taken off because it was sacred and to be specially housed, or because it was to be used as body decoration to associate the wearer with the sacred. However, there is no evidence in the fluted subchamber of Chamber A1 that the surface was gouged out as in extraction. Fluting is an inefficient means of obtaining quantities of the medium.
· The fluter shamans would favor low places with closed-in ceilings (as Lewis-Williams writes in the first paragraph of the above quote). However, from this perspective the most inviting portions of the alcoves at the lower end of the fluted subchamber of Chamber A1 are not touched.
· Young children aged 2-5 were probably not shamans (assuming Lewis-Williams thinks that all cave ‘art’ was done by shamans and not necessarily by others from the same culture as the shamans to whom he refers).
With reference to flutings in other chambers of Rouffignac Cave:
· The fluters might feel little concern about the form of the fluting they used because the action of touching was what was essential to them. However, there is considerable concern by fluters of some panels with the form of fluting they used. Some panels in Rouffignac show a ordering and structure (Sharpe and Van Gelder To Appear 2).
· Careful relayering with clay over the flutings does not make sense in the light of the shamanic hypothesis, as with flutings in Chamber E of Rouffignac Cave (as yet unpublished data; see Figure 6).
· Further, if the trances of the shamans in the cave were held in the dark, it is very difficult to imagine they could then create fire to see so they could flute the ceiling (or draw animals), or exit the cave.
Thus, the shamanic hypothesis is probably incorrect in what it says about flutings and does not apply to them – at least not to those in the fluted subchamber of Chamber A1. Layton (2000: 184) writes: ‘The Shamanistic hypothesis is a voracious beast which can all too easily devour the world’s hunter-gatherer rock art.’ Fortunately, the idea does not generalize to all prehistoric ‘art.’ If it is to apply to some sites and not to others, its proponents have to provide and support a means of discriminating.
Phosphenes
The shamanic hypothesis derives in part from people’s experiences of phosphenes (or entopic shapes) (Bednarik 1984; 1986; Bednarik, Lewis-Williams, and Dowson 1990; Hodgson 2000; Lewis-Williams and Dowson 1988; it also relates to the idea of psycho-neurological archetypes (Gallus 1972-74)), and the applicability of this idea to the fluted subchamber of Chamber A1 faces several difficulties parallel to those for the shamanic theory. Another line of reasoning also bites into the phosphene hypothesis. Several phosophene forms (as depicted in Lewis-Williams and Dowson’s (1988) chart of phosphenes) can be found fluted in Chamber A1 (circles; grids; parallel straight, curved, and undulating lines). However, many shapes here are not in the Lewis-Williams and Dowson chart (e.g., 2+2 flutings; heart-shaped parallel lines; meters-long parallel lines with a bend; shapes like the second supposed ‘anthropomorph’). Furthermore, many of the shapes in the chart and its examples are not on the ceiling of the fluted subchamber of Chamber A1 (arcs; arrows; branchings; claviforms; dashes; dots; lines radiating from one point; spirals; triangles). Consideration of a modern mundane setting highlights the force of this argument. Many characters on a U.S. English computer keyboard are phosphene forms (e.g., #, //, O, U, >>), many are not (e.g., Y, B, %, &, @), and many shapes in the phosphene chart and its examples are not on the keyboard. If the Chamber A1 fluters’ intention was to depict phosphenes, then the same logic implies incorrectly that the intention behind writing the words on this page is also to depict phosphenes.
The phosphene explanation for the flutings in Chamber A1 should come, not only from the shapes pictured, but even more so from the flutings’ social and psychological contexts. Probably very little or no evidence exists in the subchamber, however, for a context that can reasonably be considered phosphene related. This explanation should thus be put on hold for lack of convincing evidence. As with the shamanic theory, it is too broad and too inclusive to offer an adequate explanation. Better criteria are still needed for deciding when its application is or is not appropriate.
Initiation Ceremonies and Male Symbols
Mulvaney and Kamminga continue the thoughts of Bednarik and
Flood concerning flutings in caves in southwest Australia:
ceremonial activities for youths are…possible. Fluting
may have been done for decoration or identification, perhaps associated with
rituals, but it remains enigmatic (
The 2 to 5 year-old age of the children fluting the ceiling in the fluted subchamber of Chamber A1 may, however, preclude the interpretation of the site as being associated with initiation ceremonies for children at the age of puberty, or with other youth related activities. Further, as said above, no clay appears to have been removed (no gouging is apparent) for bodily decoration or identification.
The idea that flutings are male symbols is highly speculative, without empirical warrant, and unsupported for the fluted subchamber of Chamber A1 by the now questionable hypothesis relating to initiation of males at puberty.
Tactile and Aesthetic
Maynard and Edwards (1971) think the flutings in Koonalda
Cave may relate to ritual flint mining in the cave, though they concede the
lines may only represent a response to the softness of the walls. Children
respond similarly to finger paint, they say. Mulvaney and Kamminga (
The finger-painting notion needs further exploration. Finger painting could include many intentions: the child (assuming a child made them, though the same would apply to older people) may be intending the resulting lines to constitute a form of notation or symbol, or the depiction of something seen or imagined. Another component of the intention behind finger painting could have to do with tactile sensation, play, and aesthetics. With this, the act of making the marks is important for the finger painters: they want to feel the sensation of running their fingers through the soft medium and, in the case of fluters of ceilings or walls, perhaps also to feel and accentuate the shapes of the surface. It may be, that is, that the intention of the people in the fluted subchamber of Chamber A1 was for the fluters to experience the tactile and aesthetic sensations of, in modern parlance, finger painting.
Does this proposed tactile and aesthetic, the play intention hold up with investigations in the cave? Naturally, such experiences were naturally involved in the fluting, but nothing discovered yet from the flutings suggests this was the fluters’ primary intention; pleasure has not left an imprint, let alone a dominant imprint, on the ceiling of the fluted subchamber of Chamber A1. However, the markings do, as mentioned above, appear to have been made for the act of fluting; no obvious forms or motifs repeatedly occur, for instance. The question asked before as to why those holding the fluters did not themselves flute suggests that they wanted the young children to have the experience of fluting.
The possibility of play calls for further comment. The tactile and aesthetic marking of walls and ceilings could be acts of play, but some could equally be the result of exploration. Flood (1996: 21) comments that the southern Australian flutings ‘may simply mean that juveniles were more adventurous in exploring remote, hazardous places.’ Play could cover a number of intentions. Bednarik (1985) points out, though, that caves with particularly difficult access would rule out play as the explanation. However, what if the play were organized (‘a family outing to allow the children to play – a Paleolithic visit to the local park’), or if the fluters were quite accustomed to walking and clambering over rough terrain outside the cave and doing this at night, and the cave presented them with an exciting challenge?
The flutings in Chamber A1 do seem to have been made with intention. The above proposals as to what the intention is, however, lack evidence or raise counter-evidence, which makes them inadequate. At this stage, the tactile-aesthetic suggestion appears the most probable, but this conclusion is still only provisional. Future discussion may occur in terms of an ‘untranslated’ or ‘untranslatable’ notation, symboling, or iconography (d’Errico); time-factored or time-factoring notation (Marshack); or iconography (an extension of Munn 1973). These may be instructive, but they have not yet been explored for the Chamber A1 flutings, awaiting the more in depth investigations into possible structure. A proponent of any intention must provide evidence for her or his interpretation derived from the flutings themselves and their environment, and must answer potential counter-evidence.
Even if a supported intention be discerned, this does not rule out other ones; the cave could have been used by the same people for multiple reasons.
Conclusions
Many of the flutings in Chamber A1 were probably made by young children held aloft to touch the ceiling and draw their fingers along it. Those holding the children were at times not only walking, but moving rotationally from their hips. The fluted subchamber of Chamber A1 was probably deliberately chosen as the site for the fluting activity by a mixed-age group after reconnoitering the cave.
All suggestions so far proffered as to the meaning of the flutings are highly speculative. What the fluters meant by their handiwork remains unknown; it will probably never be known and should probably not be expected to be known.
What was the intention of the fluters is perhaps a more answerable research question and may help inform suggestions as to meaning. Suggestions made so far are untenable given analyses of the marks themselves. Indication of initiation ceremonies at puberty is ruled out by the age of the fluters. Similarly with the shamanic interpretation: it is probably unreasonable to consider 2-5 year-olds shamans. Other intentions, characterizations, and meanings that analyses of the flutings rule out for the Chamber A1 flutings include: that they are ‘primitive’ in that from them developed representational and symbolic expression; anthropomorphs; macaroni; meanders; phosphenes; serpents or snakes; serpentines; or related to water. Also ruled out for the Chamber A1 flutings are the more general suggestions that flutings were done for decoration or identification, or are male symbols. It is suggested that the act of fluting as opposed to the resultant flutings may be more important in the fluted subchamber of Chamber A1 and that this points to a range of intentions. Perhaps a likely intention, therefore, is that the flutings were intended as play, finger painting – perhaps therefore the tactile or aesthetic reasons may be more important for these fluters. (Intentions should not be claimed unless they can be publicly established as probable from the archaeological evidence, though thoughts about possible intentions may prompt future studies.)
The flutings’ probably illusive meaning should not deter the archaeologist from examining line markings such as those in the fluted subchamber of Chamber A1 because they can offer a rich source of information about the behaviors of Paleolithic people. The examiner ought not to approach the flutings with strident ideas as to what they mean or the types of things they represent (animals, for example), but be prepared to look in depth at the markings as markings so questions can be posed that the lines themselves can answer or that experimentation can elucidate. Flutings tell about the fingers and hands that made them and these tell about the people. With respect to the fluted subchamber of Chamber A1, further answerable research matters await, including (for methodologies underlying research into these questions, see Sharpe and Van Gelder To Appear 2): How many individuals did the fluting? What were their ages? What were their genders? How many fluted in each alcove? Did the same or different people flute each alcove? Is there any structure or are there repeated designs in the flutings in the subchamber?
This approach and similar methodologies have been successfully applied to other flutings, both in Rouffignac and elsewhere. Related work so far suggests that at least three other forms of flutings besides that evident in the fluted subchamber of Chamber A1 exist in Rouffignac (Sharpe and Van Gelder To Appear 2) and work continues on them both here and in Gargas Cave to see if it is possible to provide any more information about the fluters and to elucidate further the behaviors behind the fluting.
Acknowledgements
Several individuals, communities, and institutions have helped in this research:
· Jean and Marie-Odile Plassard, with discussions, support, and permission to work in Rouffignac Cave.
· Séverine Desbordes, Frédéric Goursolle, and Frédéric Plassard, with discussions and guiding in the cave.
· Union Institute & University, with financial support through its faculty research grants.
· Robert Bednarik, Jean Clottes, Francesco d’Errico, Sandor Gallus*, Michel Lorblanchet, Alexander Marshack*, and Hallam Movius Jr.*, with discussions and support over many years (*now deceased).
References
Barrière, Claude. 1959. Grotte de Rouffignac (Résultats des Premières Fouilles 1957-1958). Travaux de l’Institut d’Art Préhistorique 3, pp. 3-8.
_________. 1973-75. Rouffignac: L’Archeologie. Travaux de l’Institut d’Art Préhistorique 15, pp. 1-160; 16, pp. 1-210; 17, pp. 1-83.
_________.
Bednarik, Robert G. 1984. On the Nature of Psychograms. The Artefact 8, pp. 27-32.
_________. 1985. Parietal Finger Markings in Australia. Bollettino del Centro Camuno di Studi Preistorici 22, pp. 83-88.
_________.
_________. 1987-88. The Cave Art of Western Australia. The Artefact 12, pp. 1-16.
_________. 1999. The Speleotherm Medium of Finger Flutings and Its Isotropic Geochemistry. The Artefact 22, pp. 49-64.
_________, J. D. Lewis-Williams, and Thomas A. Dowson. 1990. On Neuropsychology and Shamanism in Rock Art. Current Anthropology 31:1 (February), pp. 77-84.
Breuil, Henri.
_________, H. Obermaier, and W. Verner. 1915. La Pileta a Benaojan (Malaga). Monaco: Institute de Paléontogie Humaine.
Clottes, Jean, ed. 2003. Return to Chauvet Cave: Excavating the Birthplace of Art – the First Full Report. London: Thames & Hudson.
d’Errico, Francesco. 1992. Technology, Motion, and the Meaning of Epipaleolithic Art. Current Anthropology 33:1, pp. 94-109.
Flood, Josephine. 1996. Culture in Early Aboriginal Australia. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 6:1, pp. 3-36.
Gallus, Alexander. 1972-74. A Biofunctional Theory of Religion. Current Anthropology 13:5 and 15:1, pp. 543-568, 92-99.
__________. 1977. Schematization and Symboling. In Form in Indigenous Art, ed. P. J. Ucko (Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies), pp. 370-386.
Hodgson, Derek. 2000. Shamanism, Phosphenes, and Early Art: An Alternative Synthesis. Current Anthropology 41:5 (December), pp. 866-873.
Layton, Robert. 2000. Shaminism, Totemism, and Rock Art: Les Chamanes de la Préhistoire in the Context of Rock Art Research. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 10:1, pp. 169-186.
Leroi-Gourhan, André. 1958. La Fonction des Signes dans les
Sanctuaires Paléolithiques. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française
55, pp. 307-321.
Lewis-Williams, David. 2002. The Mind in the Cave: Consciousness and the Origin of Art. London: Thames & Hudson.
_________ and T. A. Dowson. 1988. The Signs of All Times: Entopic Phenomena in Upper Palaeolithic Art. Current Anthropology 29:2 (April), pp. 201-245.
Lorblanchet, Michel. 1992. Finger Markings in Pech Merle and their Place in Prehistoric Art. In Rock Art in the Old World, ed. Michel Lorblanchet (New Delhi: Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts), pp. 451-490.
Marshack, Alexander.
_________. 1975. Exploring the Mind of Ice-Age Man. National Geographic 147:1 (January), pp. 62-89.
_________.
Maynard, L. and R. Edwards. 1971. Wall Markings. In Archaeology of the Gallus Site, Koonalda Cave, Australian Aboriginal Studies no. 26, ed. R. V. S. Wright (Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies), pp. 59-80.
Mulvnaey, John and Johan Kamminga. 1999. Prehistory
of Australia. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Munn, Nancy D. 1973. Walbiri Iconography: Graphic Representation and Cultural Symbolism in a Central Australian Society. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Nougier, Louis-René. 1958. L’Art Parietal de la Grotte de Rouffignac. Archivio Internazionale di Etnografia e Preistoria 1, pp. 17-33.
_________ and Romain Robert. 1958. The Cave of Rouffignac. Transl. David Scott. London: George Newnes.
Palmer, Douglas. 2004. Big Chill Killed off the Neanderthals. New Scientist 24 January, p. 10.
Plassard, Jean.
Sharpe, Kevin. 2004. Incised Linear Markings: Animal or
Human Origin? Rock
Art Research 21:1 (May), pp. 57-84.
_________ and Mary Lacombe.
_________, Mary Lacombe, and Helen Fawbert.
_________, Mary Lacombe, and Helen Fawbert.
_________ and Leslie Van Gelder. 2004. Children and Paleolithic ‘Art’: Indications from Rouffignac Cave, France. International Newsletter on Rock Art 38, pp. 9-17.
_________ and Leslie Van Gelder. To Appear 1. Evidence
for Cave Marking by Paleolithic Children. Antiquity.
_________ and Leslie Van Gelder. To Appear 2. The Study
of Finger Flutings. Cambridge
Archaeological Journal.