AR95. 19 June 2006
Copyright © 2006 by Kevin Sharpe and Leslie Van Gelder. All rights reserved.
To appear in a festschrift for Alexander Marshack.
Four Forms of Finger Flutings
as Seen in 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.
Building from Marshack’s method of internal analysis, four forms of finger flutings are isolated and illustrated from Rouffignac Cave, France: Mirian, Evelynian, Rugolean, and Kirian. They are respectively characterized by lower-body movement by the fluter while fluting with more than one finger, lower-body movement and fluting with one finger, standing still and fluting with more than one finger, and standing still and fluting with one finger. Initial thoughts are provided as to where this analysis might lead.
KEY WORDS.
Evelynian Form, finger flutings, Kirian Form, Mirian Form, prehistoric art, Rouffignac Cave, Rugolean Form, severines.
CONTENTS.
Distribution
in Rouffignac Cave
Further
Description, Distribution in Rouffignac Cave, and Comments
Distribution
in Rouffignac Cave
Distribution
in Rouffignac Cave
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; flutings of this type, along with similar engravings, are termed
‘severines.’
Lorblanchet (
Little is written and known about them, however. Clottes and
Courtin (
The reason for this, Marshack continues, ‘is that there has
been no theoretical basis for internal analysis or interpretation of form, no
technology for its study, and no means for relating these forms to the
recognizable animal images with which they are often associated.’ Or, as Clottes and Courtin (
Speculation as to their meaning, therefore, can run unchecked;
they are seen, for example, as representing such things as water (Marshack
·
Breuil (
·
Using statistics, Leroi-Gourhan (
·
Marshack (
· Bednarik (1986a: 35-36) distinguishes three styles of European flutings: the oldest, what he calls ‘digital fluting,’ comprises ‘complete finger sets (i.e., usually of four digits) running a predominantly rectilinear course’ and which are short (less than half-a-meter long). More recent is the style he calls ‘conventional macaroni.’ Here, ‘serpentine, curvilinear, and conjunctive elements are a characteristic, as is the frequent use of less than four fingers.’ Sets tend to be longer than those of digital flutings, reaching several meters. Sometimes ‘iconic representations are incorporated into the arrangements of macaronis, or are obviously intentionally associated with them.’ The third style in Europe that Bednarik isolates, but which does not occur in Rouffignac, comprises ‘finger paintings produced by the application of a pigment onto a hard surface with fingers of one hand.’ With this three-fold style analysis, Bednarik takes the study of finger flutings a little further, though his parallel investigations into such things as the geomorphology of the media fluted (e.g., Bednarik 1999) has added much more.
·
Lewis-Williams (
In some instances, it seems as
if people were trying to penetrate the surfaces, to reach through the walls; in
other instances, people were simply touching – and leaving evidence for their actions on – the walls. Why did they
do this? [For Upper Paleolithic people,] the walls, ceilings, and floors of the
caves were…little more than a thin membrane between themselves and the
creatures and happenings of the underworld. The caves were awesome, liminal
places in which to be: Literally, they took one into the underworld….Perhaps
one could say that the caves were the entrails of the underworld….What people
believe[d] about the walls influence[d] those who made the images [on the
walls] (Clottes and Lewis-Williams
All such speculations need putting aside until proof for any of them can be found; nothing as yet can reasonably arbitrate between them. The chief problem is that investigators bring to their study preconceived, modern western notions as to what is meaningful or ought to be meaningful in this context, and what constitutes a pattern. They impose what they consider is the meaning of the severines and how the various forms of prehistoric ‘art’ relate to each other. Previous investigations try, Marshack writes,
to recognize or interpret images or signs on the basis
of what the modern eye sees or on what historic cultures might offer for
analogic comparison….to seek for the origins of ‘art’ in the recognizable
image, recognizable to us. Because recognizable images such as animals are
occasionally found among the [severines], it was assumed that it was out of
random marking that representational art was eventually born (Marshack
Should or can nothing therefore be said about severines? Ucko (
Rather, it is instructive to say with Lewis-Williams (
Marshack helps develop a way to investigate the severines themselves. He talks of them as intentional systems of markings:
[I proceed] from an assumption that in the Upper
Paleolithic the recognizable image was not derived accidentally from random
[severine] marking, first because the [severines] are not random but, more
important, because the ability to see an image in a random cluster (or a rock
or wall formation) requires culture. It is part of a process of description,
classification, comparison, and naming. It is a human, cultural activity. In
this regard, the ability to initiate and maintain an image system, such as the
[severine], requires naming and language….[This] is, of course, [in addition to
the] basic cognitive, kinesthetic, non-linguistic component in image-making and
recognition (Marshack
Though he defers to his predecessors, he also pioneers strategies for this type of research. He writes:
I tried to develop techniques and a theoretical basis
for the intensive internal analysis
of the Upper Paleolithic symbolic materials….My effort was…directed toward…a
study of the cognitive processes
involved in the formation of an image, a study of the sequence of making an image or a composition or the sequence of
accumulating images on a surface….This enquiry was…functional and psychological
(Marshack
However, by placing his idea of the development of forms onto the forms themselves, and by expounding water as the meaning of the markings, Marshack retreats from the above grounded analysis and methodology to speculation, and does so without clearly differentiating between the two approaches. The core of his methodology needs adopting and developing, and his speculations as to meaning and the evolution of ‘art’ need putting aside.
This paper continues to develop Marshack’s more objective and
experimental approach to the lines (Sharpe 2004; Sharpe and Lacombe
Terminology
The following terminology may help when discussing flutings:
· As said above, the word fluting refers to a line drawn with a finger.
· The term severine is suggested for line markings that do not participate in the figurative part of a definitive figure or demonstrable symbol or sign, equivalent to Marshack’s term ‘meander’ but without the restrictive overtones of this word. Thus, the category ‘line markings’ not only comprises flutings and engravings but, coextensively, also severines, figures, and symbols.
·
The phrase graphical
unit (or, abbreviated, the word unit) refers to flutings drawn with one sweep
of one hand or finger (Marshack
·
The word hand
(as an alternate to ‘unit’ for finger flutings) refers to the marks
sometimes called fingers that the
fingers of one hand flute at the same time; so, one can talk of a (left or
right) hand of (
· The word cluster labels an isolatable group of units that exhibit a unity, for instance because they overlay each other.
· The word panel refers to a collection of clusters that appears geographically or otherwise distant from other clusters or on a surface of reasonably uniform orientation.
·
The phrase ideational
element (or, abbreviated, the word element)
refers to flutings that together form a basic element of meaning for the
fluters, equivalent to Marshack’s term, ‘iconographic unit’ (Marshack
The term fluting applies to line markings made with fingers, and the term engraving refers to line markings made with a tool. Within engravings, a difference exist between scratches (animal claw marks), incisions (lines that humans make with flint or other piece of rock), scorings (lines that humans make with a stick), and bone marks (lines that humans make with a bone).
Rouffignac Cave
As mentioned above, this paper will continue in the line of Marshack’s more objective and experimental approach to the lines, by differentiating different forms of flutings and illustrating them from Rouffignac Cave (see Figure 1).
Figure
Figure
A brief introduction to the geography of Rouffignac Cave will
help identify its chambers mentioned below in reference to particular flutings.
To avoid possible inferred interpretations of flutings and figures, the names
Barrière (
Four Forms of Flutings
Marshack distinguishes several styles among the severines of La Pileta Cave:
These include idiosyncratic individual ‘styles’ made in
various contemporary traditions….[Some are] meanders and additions made by one,
two, or three fingers using a yellow ochre. These are in the early,
‘primitive,’ basic style. Although many of the markings present a double or
triple marking, each is a ‘unit.’…The style is clear: there is a basic,
‘central’ meander and then branches or additions are attached or are arranged
in proximity. In some panels…the meander is associated with animals: ibex,
bull, and ‘rhino’ or bear….A later, more evolved meander usage [also exists] in
which a more formal style begins to give a geometric appearance to the linear,
carefully drawn [severine] structure…[of a] core meander consisting of doubled
lines and additions….[, for example of] attached lateral branches, crossing marks,
and linear extensions of the serpentine form (Marshack
In developing a parallel instrument to Marshack’s suggested set of styles, the term ‘form’ is preferred to ‘style.’ The latter may imply a cultural difference between the fluters of different styles, whereas ‘form’ may relate not only to that possibility, but also to differences caused by differences between the media fluted, the geographies of the places fluted, or the fluting techniques. Four forms of finger flutings are suggested: ‘Mirian,’ ‘Evelynian,’ ‘Rugolean,’ and ‘Kirian’ (words coined from the names of people the authors know but who have nothing to do with fluted sites or this field of study, thus avoiding possible interpretative inferences). These are the four possible manifestations of two variables: whether fluters moved their lower bodies during fluting and whether they used one or more than one fingers to flute. The sections below will further define these forms and describe them as they occur in Rouffignac Cave.
Before embarking on that, though, a more fundamental and theory-oriented question arises. How might one adequately establish the relevance of these four forms of flutings to the study of flutings, say in Rouffignac Cave? To do so perhaps requires:
(a) describing the four forms and differentiating them one from another;
(b) pointing to the existence in Rouffignac Cave of lines satisfying the four descriptions;
(c) raising research questions from the form analysis for investigation; and
(d) pointing to information about the fluters that the analysis might provide.
The sections below will address this series of points.
Mirian Form
Definition
Two things define a unit of finger flutings as being of the Mirian Form: lower-body movement on the part of the fluter (as opposed to the fluters only moving their upper bodies), and the unit comprising more than one line. ‘Lower-body movement’ means that the people who create these multi-finger units of flutings walk or otherwise move their legs while fluting (thus the lines may extend beyond the arm range of a stationary fluter), or else move their bodies from their hips by, for instance, bending, twisting, or shifting their weight.
The flutings in Chamber A
Figure
Figure
Further Description
Besides lower-body movement, several attributes of the Mirian lines in Chamber A1 sometimes stand out (Sharpe and Van Gelder 2004):
· Zigzags or undulations can occur, units that move back and forth from one side to the other down their length.
· Circles and spirals can occur.
· Units can extend some distance, up to several meters.
· Units can lay one over the other, obliterating the underlying ones.
· Young children made many of the units, though some evidence of adult-sized hands also occurs (Sharpe and Van Gelder 2004).
Distribution in Rouffignac Cave
Chamber A
Comments
The word ‘undulating’ could apply to those Mirian lines that
undulate; indeed, as mentioned above, other publications call the chamber of
Rouffignac Cave that contains the flutings characterizing the Mirian Form the
‘Chamber of Undulating Flutings,’ the ‘Macaroni Room,’ and the ‘Serpentine
Room.’ The word ‘serpentine’ (or any version of the word ‘snake’), however,
suggests too broad a set of meanings for the flutings (that they represent
snakes, literally or metaphorically), though the original namers of the room
may not have intended this (see Sharpe, Lacombe, and Fawbert 2002). Further,
the term ‘macaroni’ frequently refers to finger flutings in a more general
context than the nomenclature ‘Mirian Form’ intends, and to too diverse a set
of referents to restrict it to the Mirian Form. Some authors prefer the term
‘meander’ (Plassard
An important issue, one that other papers address (for
instance, Sharpe and Van Gelder 2004), concerns the age of the fluters that the
sizes of the flutings suggest. Many of the units occur in three fingers and
measuring across them (when held together) provides an indicator of the
fluter’s age. Many three-fingered measurements made in Chamber A1 are around
Evelynian Form
Definition
Two things define a unit of finger flutings as being of the Evelynian Form: lower-body movement on the part of the fluter and the unit comprising only one line. The people who create these one-finger units of flutings walk or otherwise move their legs while fluting, or else move their bodies from their hips.
Further Description, Distribution in Rouffignac Cave, and Comments
Figure 3 shows some Evelynian Form flutings amidst Mirian lines
(not the white, much more recent scratches, probably from sticks held up by
modern visitors). So far, no concentrations of Evelynian flutings have been
found in Rouffignac Cave. However, they do appear in two types of places: among
Mirian lines, for example in Chambers A1 and G, and as the outline of several
of figures, which are fluted with a single finger and require the movement of
the lower body to execute.
Rugolean Form
Definition
Two things define a unit of finger flutings as being of the Rugolean Form: the fluter standing in one spot while fluting the unit, and the unit comprising more than one line. The people who flute in the Rugolean Form stand still, move their upper bodies, and mark with more than one finger at a time. The fluter may move between making units, but stands stationary for each unit.
The units within and to the right of the two facing mammoths in
Chamber G of Rouffignac Cave (Mammoths
Figure 5. Rugolean
Form flutings in Chamber G (the right side of the two facing mammoths (Mammoths
Figure 6. Rugolean
Form flutings in Chamber J (on the right side of Barrière’s ‘Panel of the
Patriarch’ (Barrière
Further Description
Besides the fluter standing still and using multiple fingers, several attributes of the Rugolean lines in Chambers G and J sometimes stand out:
· They are vertical moving downward, with an occasional diagonal unit also moving downward.
· A few appear fluted by small (children’s) fingers; however, adults appear to have made most of them.
· They tend to lie from shoulder to waist height, the reach of a stationary fluter determining any arcs made.
· They tend to appear on walls, not ceilings.
· They are rarely multi-layered, not usually lying over top of one another in a jumble.
· They appear neat, decisive, and methodically executed.
Distribution in Rouffignac Cave
Rugolean lines appear in many chambers of the cave, often on
walls of Moonmilk under bands of flint nodules. Particular concentrations of
them occur within and to the right of the two facing mammoths
Comments
The idea of finger flutings may automatically raise the image
of Rugolean markings. As with other forms of flutings, however, it is easy and
often mistaken to lump all Rugolean flutings together. For instance, the
Rugolean lines in Figures 5 and 6 tend not to lie over top of each other in a
jumble, whereas most of the flutings in Koonalda Cave, South Australia – while they are also
probably Rugolean lines –
form a mesh of overlying and frequently inseparable lines (Maynard and Edwards
Kirian Form
Definition
Two things define a unit of finger flutings as being of the Kirian Form: the fluter standing in one spot while fluting the unit, and the unit comprising only one line. The people who flute in the Kirian Form stand still and mark with one finger.
The left side of the step-down in the ceiling of Chamber E in Rouffignac Cave typify flutings in the Kirian Form (see Figures 7 and 8).
Figure 7. The right hand half shows Kirian Form flutings in Chamber E.
Figure 8. Further
Kirian Form flutings (the verticals) in Chamber E (with horizontal stick
scratches).
Further Description
Besides the fluter standing still and using one finger, several attributes of Kirian lines in Chamber E sometimes stand out:
·
They often occur in clusters of six or seven (or
· Their fluters appear to have retouched some of them or added to them with clay smears and stick scorings.
· They can include motifs such as spirals, circles, interweaving lattices, and uni-centric arcs (arcs with a common starting point) (not all the lines need be parallel or semi-parallel).
· They do not appear multi-layered, not lying over top of one another in a jumble.
· They were probably fluted by adults.
Distribution in Rouffignac Cave
Besides in Chamber E, as mentioned above, clusters of Kirian lines do not frequently appear in Rouffignac Cave.
Comments
Were the Kirian lines in Chamber E made in the Neolithic or in medieval times (Barrière 1982)? This casual suggestion merits elucidation by dating the charcoal deposited in some Kirian lines from the ends of burned sticks scraped over and under them. Further, Kirian and Mirian flutings occur side-by-side in Chamber E (Figures 4, 7, and 8) with little or no apparent difference in weathering and patination.
Discussion
The key distinguishing factors used here to define the Mirian, Evelynian, Rugolean, and Kirian Forms are the fluter’s lower-body movement, and whether her or she used one or multiple fingers. Several matters arise from these definitions and the presence of such lines in Rouffignac Cave:
1. Forms coexist in some chambers in the cave (for instance, in Chamber E), sometimes intermingling on a room’s wall or ceiling (see Figure 9). One can imagine fluters occasionally using one finger when they usually used more than one in that panel, or not overly concerning themselves about where they marked in a particular form in relation to whatever other marks were present. The coexistence of forms is of little importance if the different forms are seen as primarily leading to different questions that can be asked of them based on their means of manufacture.
Figure 9. Rugolean
(on the left) and Mirian Form flutings (on the right) next to each other in
Chamber A
2. Thus, the lack of a concentration of Evelynian flutings in Rouffignac Cave (at least the fact that investigations to date have not found one), as opposed to merely their presence in figures or among Mirian lines, need not place a question over the usefulness of the form differentiation as a methodological starting point for investigating the flutings in this cave.
3.
Some features of the flutings are potentially a
byproduct of their form; for instance, Mirian flutings can extend longer
(several meters) than Rugolean flutings (about
4. How can one objectively ascertain the difference between flutings made by a fluter moving her or his lower body and those made by a fluter standing still? It may appear obvious when a unit moves way beyond any stationary person’s reach or with a unit that starts vertically and then moves sideways as the fluter moved. However, other circumstances may be more complex. The issue requires further investigation, but probably it needs the isolation of further indicators that relate to the fluter moving or standing in one spot. One avenue that may prove fruitful is to seek what might be called ‘jogs’ in Mirian lines, where the continuity of the fluting is interrupted when the fluter takes a step while fluting. As another example, certain shapes (for example a circle on a ceiling) require hip, if not leg and feet movement, rather than only movement of the upper body.
5. Marshack’s and Bednarik’s classifications of flutings are based on temporal if not developmental or evolutionary schemes, but the differences in flutings that they try to explain need not follow this type of relationship. Rather, the differences could result from different means of manufacture: Bednarik’s ‘styles,’ for example, represent the Rougolean Form (his ‘digital fluting’ style) and the Mirian Form (his ‘conventional macaronis’ style). Further, no temporal relationship between the two styles or forms has been convincingly noticed in Rouffignac and hence a strict temporal relationship between the forms cannot be authenticated.
Several questions for further consideration and research remain:
1. Other forms besides Mirian, Evelynian, Rugolean, and Kirian – based on variables of manufacture other than lower-body movement and the number of fingers used – may occur, and further investigations may help to isolate them.
2. Is the means of manufacturing flutings (that is, the form division) more helpful in cataloguing and analyzing them than are consistencies in the resulting appearance? The above-mentioned indicator of fluter age (Sharpe and Van Gelder 2004) may promise an affirmative answer. Perhaps, however, after manufacturing techniques are taken into account, consistent differences in appearance may help make further sense of the flutings; wavy lines within some of the drawn mammoths, for instance, may indicate some further useful differentiation (see Figure 10).
Figure 10. A mammoth with flutings in Chamber G, ‘Frieze of the Five
Mammoths’ (Barrière
3. Further investigations into the factors underlying the forms may yield questions – beyond that of the fluter age – for further investigation.
4. Why do different forms exist in concentrations as opposed to there being only one form or always a thorough mixture of forms? Perhaps the forms relate to different cultures or traditions, each advocating a different way to flute cave walls. Or perhaps the different forms relate to different behaviors, or to fluters employing different forms for different purposes or meanings, or in response to different needs. On the other hand, does the physical geography of the room, its position in the cave, or the medium employed more directly relate to the fluting form(s) used in it?
5. This four-form analysis may at present make sense for Rouffignac Cave, but might it also make sense for other caves, locally in the area of Les Eyzies or further away, within southern France and northern Spain, or further afield? Is it universal? It may or may not shed light on the flutings in other caves and establish a useful platform for understanding the fluting phenomenon in general.
6. The division of flutings by fluter lower-body movement and the use of one or more fingers may hopefully prove a useful tool for the study of flutings in Rouffignac Cave. This hypothesis may, however, prove more confusing than helpful. Time will tell.
Conclusions
Referring to the points raised above concerning the methodological relevance of the analysis of flutings into four forms, this paper has:
(a) described each of the four forms (Mirian, Evelynian, Rugolean, and Kirian) and differentiated them one from another;
(b) pointed to the existence in Rouffignac Cave of lines satisfying the four descriptions;
(c) raised research questions from the form analysis for investigation; and
(d) pointed to information about the fluters that the analysis might provide.
The paper, therefore, probably establishes the existence of different forms of finger flutings in Rouffignac Cave, and that this differentiation has merit as a means of categorizing flutings – at least it provides a starting point for mining data regarding the fluters. This steps toward understanding the phenomenon of finger fluting.
Research now needs to turn to:
· studying flutings of each form in more detail;
· comparing clusters of the same form in detail;
· seeking relationships between clusters of different forms;
· pursuing further what each of the two variables that define the forms might say about the fluters; and
· investigating flutings in caves other than Rouffignac.
Perhaps this form analysis and knowledge of the fluters that comes from it may even help crack the issue of fluter intentionality.
Acknowledgements
Thanks are due to those who have helped support this research:
· Jean and Marie-Odile Plassard, for their support and for permission to work in Rouffignac Cave.
· The guides while in the cave: Séverine Desbordes, Frédéric Goursolle, and Frédéric Plassard.
· Union Institute & University, for financial support through its faculty research grants.
· Robert Bednarik, Jean Clottes, Francesco d’Errico, Sandor Gallus (now deceased), Michel Lorblanchet, Alexander Marshack (now deceased), and Hallam Movius Jr. (now deceased) for discussions and support over many years.
References
Aslin, G. D.,
E. K. Bednarik, and R. G. Bednarik.
Barrière, Claude.
Bednarik,
Robert G.
_________.
_________.
_________.
_________.
_________.
_________.
_________.
_________.
_________.
_________. 1999. The Speleotherm Medium of Finger Flutings and Its Isotropic Geochemistry. The Artefact 22: 49-64.
Breuil, Henri.
Clottes, Jean,
and Jean Courtin.
Clottes, Jean,
and David Lewis-Williams.
d’Errico,
Francesco.
_________.
_________.
_________.
_________.
_________.
_________.
_________,
Christopher Henshilwood, and Peter Nilssen.
Gallus,
Alexander.
Leroi-Gourhan, André.
Lewis-Williams,
David.
Lorblanchet, Michel.
_________.
_________.
_________.
Marshack,
Alexander.
_________.
_________.
_________.
_________.
Maynard,
Lesley, and Robert Edwards.
Plassard, Jean.
Sharpe, Kevin. 2004. Line Markings: Human or Animal Origin? Rock Art Research 21 (1): 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
Ucko, Peter J.