03 Mguni 2004 Understanding Formlings Enigmatic Motif in the

181

Cultured representationUnderstanding ‘formlings’, an enigmatic motif in the rock-artof Zimbabwe

SIYAKHA MGUNI

Rock Art Research Institute, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa

ABSTRACTA rock-painting panel in the Matopo Hills, Zimbabwe, illustrates thedistinctive features of the formling motif, a striking peculiarity ofZimbabwean San (Bushman) rock-art. The debate regarding thederivation and meaning of this motif has proceeded unabated untilvery recently. The motif has been interpreted variously as depictingnatural and cultural material phenomena. In contrast to previousinterpretations, this paper advocates an approach that considers Sanart imagery as cultured representations, which is a notion that fore-grounds the understanding of San image-making principles, the Sanworld-view and the concomitant knowledge system of beliefs. Finally,the paper provides a precise definition of the features of formlingsthat can be tied in with a particular subject.

KEYWORDSabstraction ● cultured ● formling ● Matopo Hills ● picturing purpose● representation

Journal of Social Archaeology A R T I C L E

Copyright © 2004 SAGE Publications (www.sagepublications.com)ISSN 1469-6053 Vol 4(2): 181–199 DOI: 10.1177/1469605304041074

03 4(2) Mguni (ad/d) 10/3/04 11:38 am Page 181

www.sagepublications.com

182 Journal of Social Archaeology 4(2)

■ THE FORMLING MOTIF

From the Matopo Hills, Zimbabwe (map in Figure 1), I preface mydiscussion with a description of a panel (Figure 2), in which the mainelement is a formling, as an illustration of the complexity of these motifs.It also serves to demonstrate why it is essential to analyse their contextualparameters in order to understand the symbolic significance of their associ-ations. For years this panel was neglected, while another, less elaborate,panel (Figure 3) about 60 metres to the right in the same shelter was repeat-edly reinterpreted (Garlake, 1995). Yet, the first formling carries moreinformation through its particular complexity.

The motif comprises 14 vertical cores. The midsections of most cores aredarker and they merge with one another in parts, while at the top andbottom they have clearly distinct interstices. Around the cores is a thick

Figure 1 A map of southern African showing places mentioned in the paper,the circled areas show distributions of regional rock-art concentrations and,for Zimbabwe, the triangles show the environs where formling sites arelocated (prepared by Wendy Phillips)

03 4(2) Mguni (ad/d) 10/3/04 11:38 am Page 182

183Mguni Cultured representation

outline, on the bottom right edge of which emerges a plant form with multi-furcating shoots. This association of arboreal forms with formlings isrepeated at many other sites. On the left of the formling, a leafless tree,with two giraffe (Giraffa Camelopardalis) underneath, is painted on ahorizontal line or ‘ground level’ that connects to the formling. Next to thetwo giraffe, two vertical funicular lines extend above and below the ‘groundlevel’ line. Another partially faded line continues from outside the formlingand terminates near the middle of the cores.

A finely detailed polychrome giraffe with retiform marks is superimposedon this formling. Kudu cows (Tragelaphus stepsiceros), identifiable by theirelongated slender necks and large ears, are below and within the motif. Alittle below the formling is a tsessebe (Damaliscus lunatus). A partially fadedline descends from the formling and then goes behind the leg of one kuducow and a partial human figure to link with the tsessebe. Superimposed overthe right side is a multiple-legged blue wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus)and under its forelegs are 20 oval flecks. A final notable feature on the panelis a partial, large and turgid zoomorphic outline image and hippo-shaped –which superimposes the formling.

What does this panel represent and how does one begin to understandits symbolic significance? I consider, first, the earlier views about the form-ling motif and, second, I explore a new approach to understanding them.

This paper, focusing on an enigmatic motif in San rock-art, develops away to approach this motif through, first, understanding the general San

Figure 2 An intriguing panel showing a central form enmeshed with arange of powerful animals, partial human figures and arboreal motifs (tracedand redrawn by S. Mguni, J. Lewin and R. Pickering)

03 4(2) Mguni (ad/d) 10/3/04 11:39 am Page 183


image-making principles, and second, analysing its formal attributes inorder to tie it to a particular subject. Formlings are a peculiarity ofZimbabwean rock-art and the Matopo Hills (Cooke, 1969; Hall, 1911;Tredgold, 1968) abounds with fine examples. In the whole of Zimbabwethey are estimated to number several thousand (Garlake, 1990: 17; Walker,1996: 32, 60). From a casual judgement based on their visual dominanceand elaborateness, formlings appear to have been a significant motif for theZimbabwean San artists (Walker, 1987, 1996). Formlings are rare outsideZimbabwe (Cooke, 1969; Frobenius, 1930; 1931; Garlake, 1995; Goodall,1959; Walker, 1996; Willcox, 1984). They occur in low frequency in northernSouth Africa (Hampson et al., 2002; Mguni, 2002) and in western Namibia(Lenssen-Erz and Erz, 2000; Mason, 1958: 357–68; Pager, 1989), seldom ifever in other areas. Although formlings have pervaded the literature as asubject, uncertainty has lingered as regards their interpretation.

■ PREVIOUS FORMLING INTERPRETATIONS

Uncertainty begins at the level of definition as, regrettably, the term‘formling’ has for many writers become synonymous with any nebulous

Figure 3 In the same shelter as Figure 2 is this formling, comprising 13near-vertical cores, oval-shaped flecks, animals and three human figures withtheir equipment, and a possible transformed figure in the middle of the flecks(traced and redrawn by S. Mguni)

03 4(2) Mguni (ad/d) 10/3/04 11:39 am Page 184


form. Understanding what formlings depict has been a vexed issue from thetime they were first published. Some formling interpretations were topo-graphical in nature. Richard Hall (1912), the first writer to recognize thisas a distinctive motif, also proffered the first interpretation of a formling inMatopo, which he said depicted the Victoria Falls. Later other writersargued that formlings represented granite boulders (Breuil, 1944, 1966;Cooke, 1969; Frobenius, 1929, 1930, 1931; Goodall, 1959; Lee andWoodhouse, 1970; Mason, 1958). Many writers in the first phase of rock-art research approached formlings with preconceived, often erroneous,ideas about San art and culture. As we shall see, the formling motif is fartoo complex to be explained in these terms.

Apart from landscapes, formlings were also said to be the ‘king’s monu-ments’ and ‘pietas’ that decorated ancient tombs (Frobenius, 1931) or cere-monies for the dead royals (Cripps, 1941; Goodall, 1959). These views,based on dubious ethno-history (Taylor, 1927), were inherently flawed.First, the burials in question were not contemporary with the art (Garlake,1992: 58; Walker, 1996: 64); second, the Shona made these comparativelyrecent burials, whereas the San made the art.

Formlings were also said to represent cultural and natural phenomena:animal skin karosses (Goodwin, 1946), villages or mud huts (Rudner andRudner, 1970), cornfields, quivers, mats, xylophones (Cooke, 1969), grainbins (Holm, 1957), and beehives (Cooke, 1959; Crane, 1982; Woodhouse,1982). Others inferred thunderclouds (Rudner and Rudner, 1970) or,specifically, strato-cumulus clouds (Lee and Woodhouse, 1970) and waterpools or rainwater (Breuil, 1966). These interpretations, guided by thewriters’ own perceptions, were based on weak resemblances betweenspecific motifs and what they were asserted to depict.

All this was consistent with understanding San art in terms of thephysical world those San communities inhabited. Because formlings did notseem closely to resemble physical subjects – like the kudu and giraffe depic-tions – they did not make much sense to most researchers. They were thusconsidered as representations of unrecognized subjects, or perhaps abstractimages. By contrast, the revelatory developments in San rock-art studiesthat began with the work of Patricia Vinnicombe (1976) and David Lewis-Williams (1981a) led us instead to learn from San ethnography, to expectacross the art representations that go beyond physical subjects of thephysical world, and specifically to take notice of San notions of supernaturalpotency (Garlake, 1995).

Notions of supernatural potency from San ethnography allowed theidentification of honey-gathering practices in rock-art (Guy, 1972; Pager,1971, 1973) and placed this view within San life and belief. ThomasHuffman (1983: 50–1) links some formlings with bees, particularly the ideathat San people are able to acquire the potency of the bees. This view thatsome motifs depict honey-gathering activities is indeed plausible, especially

03 4(2) Mguni (ad/d) 10/3/04 11:39 am Page 185


in the Drakensberg region of South Africa, where the imagery explainedin this way bears close correspondence with bees’ nests and honeycombs(Lewis-Williams, 1983: 6). These motifs, however, fall outside the formlingcategory found across Zimbabwe. By contrast to the view that formlings inFigures 3 and 4D depict honey-gathering activities, a closer examination oftheir characteristic features that I describe subsequently and their contexts,reveals that they derive from a different model.

Another explanation is that formlings represent the gebesi – a Ju/’hoan(formerly !Kung San) word for the human abdomen – and specifically theliver and spleen (Garlake, 1995: 96) as the fountain of potency. Garlake(1990: 19) argues further that formlings could even be dancers or trancersthemselves. This interpretation draws from the association of one impres-sive panel depicting a human figure with a formling core superimposedaround its abdomen. Close by is another less elaborate figure that hassimilar, but elongated ovals attached to its body. This interpretation isplausible considering that the Ju/’hoansi say that potency in people residesin the stomach. A common feature of San religious revelations and theirart is an idiosyncratic element and this remarkable and most unusual imagemay not reliably be taken as a guide to understanding the whole broad classof the formling motif.

Another view elevates the former literalist landscape interpretation toa metaphorical level: some formlings are interpreted as metaphorical‘maps’ (Smith, 1994) of transcendental journeys made by San trancers. Inthis explanation, trance and supernatural potency are regarded as crucialin the understanding of these motifs. By comparison to earlier interpre-tations, this view, like the gebesi explanation (Garlake, 1990, 1995),correctly places the formling motif within a category of San religious life,thought and belief.

While these new explanations have usefully advanced this study heuris-tically, several aspects of the formling motif remain unexplained. Even so,the broader project from which this paper derives, has incorporated thesenew ideas concerning the association of formlings and supernaturalpotency. Apart from the suggestive associated images in the paintedcontexts of formlings it is essential that the primary model of formlings beascertained in the same way that we strive for correct species identificationin the animal images before searching for their true significance in Santhought and belief. Until we have identified precisely the formling subjectmatter, the aspects of San ethnography we may turn to may not be the rightones. Evidently, the lack of fulfilment of this point in previous formlinginterpretations has led to the idea that the subject matter of these motifsis beyond precise diagnosis, which takes them into a quasi-abstractcategory.

03 4(2) Mguni (ad/d) 10/3/04 11:39 am Page 186


■ CULTURED REPRESENTATION

The issue of whether or not there is an abstract element in San art requiresclose consideration. The Western art tradition, on which so many of ournotions about non-Western art silently depend, has long and usefullyworked with notions of realism and abstraction. But the relevance of thesenotions to the study of San rock-art is dubious for several reasons. On theone hand, realism or mimesis is to be judged by the closeness of matchbetween the image and the physical form of the thing depicted, in anapproach finally realizing perfection in photographic realism (and then inits painterly derivative, painted ‘hyper-realism’). Abstraction, on the otherhand, deals with other things, especially those entities that lack recogniz-able physical forms.

This is not a good starting-point from which to approach San rock-art, forthe art was not depictive in the sense of striving to produce accurate (in thesense of quasi-photographic realism) representations of natural subjects. Norwas it abstract, in the sense of making images of things which did not exist.Instead, San rock-art can better be understood in its own terms – as acultured representation of the San world as the San people knew it to be.Eland, as is well known, are ‘over-represented’ in San art of the southeast-ern mountains (the Malutis and Drakensberg) and the Cederberg mountainsof South Africa (Map 1), and they are ‘oversized’ in relation to other animals,and the heavy shoulders and swaying dewlaps of the eland bulls are ‘exag-gerated’. But only ‘over-represented’ and ‘oversized’ and ‘exaggerated’ fromthat viewpoint of photographic realism; and certainly not abstract either.

The art in a cultured system works by a set of principles, which expresscultural judgements and priorities in what the art does and does not repre-sent, and in how it chooses to represent various things. And the principlesof San art, like those of all other art traditions, are coherent with other traitsin the larger San cultural world. There is thus a systematics of San rock-art,archaeologically evident to us in the material images we see and of whichthe logic of the formlings is part and which will be consistent with the largerpattern of San society and the San experience. Hence, the imperative of ‘aninsider’s understanding of the conventions implied’ (Parkington, 1989: 16),in various ways they depicted their subjects. Working from this fundamentalis the starting point for the search of the significance(s) of difficult San artdepictions.

■ A DIFFERENT APPROACH TO THE OLD PROBLEM

Difficult depictions in San art, such as the formlings, can only be under-stood through sensitivity to the San experience of the physical world. As

03 4(2) Mguni (ad/d) 10/3/04 11:39 am Page 187


a corollary, ascertaining the identity of formling subject matter mustnecessarily proceed from, first, a reconsideration of how San artists madetheir images and their governing principles and, secondly, an analysis offormal attributes of formlings and their painted contexts. The principalmethodological problem in interpreting formlings concerns what theydepict. Formerly, writers erroneously approached San art with the beliefthat it conveys its subject matter on a one-to-one basis and in a readilyrecognizable and apprehensible manner. If an image seemed to lack arecognizable subject, it was designated non-realistic or abstract (Mason,1958). For San art – and for rock-art in general – we do not have a reliablecategory that can be defined as abstract. All we have are, first, a categoryof images for which we think we can recognize the subjects and, second, aresidual category we do not recognize.

Recognizing formlings is confounded by this problem of allowingabstraction in San art. Hence, there has been a search for superficial resem-blances between formlings and a range of subjects without an understand-ing of a compendium of features characteristic of this motif. Resemblanceor mimesis was not a necessary condition for representation in San art.Symbolism lay neither with the naturalism of a depiction nor with itsaesthetic quality, although the beauty and naturalism of much San art isbeyond dispute. As others have argued for San art, a consideration ofcontent and composition can help us understand the intention of the artist(Parkington, 1989: 16). Therefore, a useful approach to this art, specificallyfor those images with subjects that appear to be intractable and unrecog-nizable, will begin with sensitive understanding of San image-making prin-ciples and the purpose(s) of the art.

Complexity is the hallmark of this art and it is partly a result of the factthat subject matter in San art may be non-physical as much as it may bephysical. This is expected, because the visions of the spirit world seen bySan trancers and which inform the rock-art, just like our dreams, are oftenderived from every-day experiences. Some motifs, however, such as the so-called ‘infibulation’ (Breuil, 1948; Willcox, 1978; also known as ‘penisemblem’ (Garlake, 1995: 49–50) or penis additament (Walker, 1996: 89;Willcox, 1978)) lack material correlates. It is not useful to regard this motifas abstract because, to the San, it may have been a straightforward depic-tion of a metaphysically informed subject, as real as eland depictions.

Another example is a motif often called the ‘thin red line’, which mayalso to the outsider look abstract. This motif is so-called because it is usuallypainted in red pigment, with a thickness of not more than 5 mm, and it isoften fringed with minute white dots, usually 2 mm in diameter. This linemotif appears in various contexts linking different images across paintedpanels and in some cases it seems to be emerging and entering crevices andnooks in the painted rock surfaces. As we shall see, with a careful consider-ation of this motif in the light of the notion of cultured representation

03 4(2) Mguni (ad/d) 10/3/04 11:39 am Page 188


within the San worldview, it begins to make sense. Previous abstracted orodd elements in San rock-art, similarly approached with regard to the Sanknowledge system – antelope-headed human figures, trance buck and othersimilar images – become understood. Formlings are the last big San rock-art category that looks, and has largely been treated as, abstract. ‘Infibula-tion’ is perhaps another remaining class waiting to be unpacked. San art isan integrated tradition, both internally consistent and necessarily congru-ent with the experience and worldview it derives from. Now that other‘abstract’-looking elements have been made non-abstract sense of inrelation to San knowledge, it is even less probable that formlings are in anyway abstract.

To avoid placing foreign values and judgements upon San art and toperceive the subject of formlings I highlight, first, a general problemencountered in making and apprehending images; that is, the complexityof transforming a subject with volume into a 2-dimensional shape of itspicture. This process is necessarily reductive, as some features of the subjectmust be lost in its image. Artists choose what information to retain andwhat to lose. Different cultures deal with this problem in various ways.However, depiction also allows the addition or emphasis of features. In Sanart, usually small but significant subjects can be made bigger, whilepowerful things can be omitted or dealt with in a special way. Importantly,as is equally true for all other rock-art traditions, the process of makingdepictions is dictated by the purpose(s) (Smith, 1998: 213) that the Sanartists intended to achieve, all operating within an understood frameworkof conventions.

These conventions or picturing norms can be defined as the principlesgoverning the logical choices that artists make in turning a real subject intoa picture. With the understood metaphoric intent of San art, depictionswere often ‘contorted’ in various ways or painted in ‘odd’ ways to empha-size significant aspects in known subjects with symbolic value. Eland depic-tions, for instance, usually have grossly exaggerated dewlaps. Although thedewlap is a distinctive feature of eland, it was also important to the San dueto the large amounts of fat that it contains. In San thought, fat is a powerfulsubstance imbued with supernatural potency. The dewlap also connoted theanomalous nature of eland relating to this antelope’s sexual ambivalence(Dowson, 1988: 122–4): eland are the only antelope where bulls have morefat than cows (Lewis-Williams, 1981a: 72). The big dewlap is indeed ‘exag-gerated’ in terms of the principles of a quasi-photographic realism; whenglimpsed in a manner that is more sympathetic to a San world-view, thesedewlaps are instead of fitting true size.

In San rock-art animals are not only depicted statically in lateral- orfront- or end-views, for the symbolism in the imagery lay in emphasizingspecific features of significance. Often, in the southeastern mountains ofSouth Africa, these features relate to the dying metaphor of trance – the

03 4(2) Mguni (ad/d) 10/3/04 11:39 am Page 189


lowered head, crossed legs, extended hind leg, lifted tail, defecation, exuda-tions from the snout (Dowson, 1988; Lewis-Williams, 1981a). Ethologicalstudies illuminate various aspects of animal behaviour that lead us tospecific areas of San life, beliefs and rituals; those animal behavioural traitsare again congruent with the San cognitive system and the artistic conven-tions.

The embellishment and exaggeration of features in San art often wentbeyond the essential identifying traits of particular species. Consider theuse of colour in the paintings of kudu cows in some parts of southernZimbabwe and northern South Africa (Figure 1), where the inner parts oftheir ears and the genital areas were accentuated in red pigment. In reality,the vulvas of kudu cows do become slightly swollen and acquire a reddishtinge during oestrus (Eastwood and Cnoops, 1999: 114). The artists herewent beyond conventionalized depictions – the large rhombic ears andelongated necks for cows, the twisted horns and thickset necks attended byexaggerated manes for bulls – to use colour in emphasizing aspects of kudusymbolism. This kudu symbolism concerns a unified complex of beliefs andfemale gender concepts about fertility and marriageability among the Sanhunter-gatherers of the Shashe-Limpopo area of Zimbabwe and SouthAfrica.

The manner in which images are embellished shows that the repertoireof San artistic skills was not restricted to reproducing typical views orphoto-perfect naturalism in depictions. Artists embellished their depictionsusing salient subject features that would not normally be visible from theplane of observation used in the rest of the picture; in some cases thesefeatures were non-physical in character. The common thin red line motifalluded to is now understood to depict San beliefs about ‘threads of light’and shamanic journeys (Lewis-Williams et al., 2000: 131). This line motif isembellished with white dots on the edges, probably to capture the essenceof the non-physical, but neurologically generated, entoptic phenomena of‘endless chains of brilliant white dots’ (Lewis-Williams et al., 2000: 133) thatare integral to these, ethnographically reported, worldwide shamanicpreternatural pathways. As for rock-art imagery, more examples of Sanways of depicting difficult subject matter can be drawn, but I now return toformlings with a caution against guessing at their subject based on anoutsider world-view and expectations of how representations should look.

The dictum cannot be overstated that San art is not necessarily mimeticin intent and that the picturing purpose is rarely as simple as a desire formere iconic representation. If one acknowledges the fundamentalmetaphoric intent of San art, one realizes how complex San image-makingwas. It is true that side-on and top-down animal viewpoints are dominantin most rock-art traditions of pre-literate societies including the San,because they convey the most ‘typical’ views of the subjects (Deregowski,1995). But not always: these often-encountered planes can be said to be

03 4(2) Mguni (ad/d) 10/3/04 11:39 am Page 190


‘normal’ (Clegg, 1987; Smith, 1998), but not universal. Usually it was notthe general appearance or body shape that was key to recognizing adepicted subject, but certain species-specific traits which are emphasized(Smith, 1998: 215, citing Lewis, 1986). Immediate subject matter is some-times deliberately disguised in depictions (Smith, 1998: 215). To illustratethis point, consider Chewa Nyau or Chinamwali rock-art traditions ofeastern Zambia and some parts of Malawi, where, for particular purposes,subject recognition is not desired. Encoded messages are esoteric and theart is designed so that the uninitiated or outsiders cannot read the depictedimagery (Smith, 2001). Therefore, the picturing purpose, itself operatingwithin an understood cultural framework of conventions, allows symbolicaspects of the subject matter to be highlighted or hidden.

San rock-art should be approached with this caution as its imageryserved various purposes. The artists’ wish to communicate symbolism influ-enced their choices of viewpoints of specific traits in selected natural modelsfor depiction. It is in these choices that the significance of formlings is found.Mindful of the complexity of the relationship between the shape of thesubject and the shape of the depicted image, even the way an image isoriented can make it hard for outsiders to recognize the depicted subjectmatter (Chippindale, 2001: 261). What do formlings depict? In depictingthat subject, which traits were chosen and from which viewpoint or orien-tation? Within the scope of this paper, I focus on the definition of observ-able traits of formlings, which, in a formal analysis, require to be tied inwith a particular natural subject. Defining the formling motif is funda-mental in the understanding of the subject that we are dealing with.

■ DEFINING FEATURES OF FORMLINGS

The definition of the formal attributes of formlings has previously beentackled at a superficial level. In the full study (Mguni, 2002), from whichthis paper derives, I have covered comprehensively the compendium offormling features, their typical shapes and embellishments in order toclarify their definitive variables. In contrast to most San depictions, form-lings depict their subject deviously. Even the term ‘formling’ is notself-explanatory. Coined originally by Leo Frobenius (1931), the English-German word ‘formlinge’ is a nominalization of the English word ‘form’using regular German grammar (Lenssen-Erz, 2000, pers. comm.) todescribe a specific range of composite motifs based on certain distinctivefeatures, to which I turn shortly. While the word ‘form’ is abstract, the suffix‘-ling(e)’ means a thing or object with a ‘shape’ that is hard to specify.Because of their complexity and diversity, formlings were considereddifficult to define, but, as will be clear now, a precise definition is a

03 4(2) Mguni (ad/d) 10/3/04 11:39 am Page 191


prerequisite in the study of their derivation and significance. Variability isa feature of formlings, and indeed of all other classes in San art imagery,but within the variability of the formling motif abounds elements of unityand constancy. Here I define the motif under two headings, shape andembellishment, and I subsequently deal with each in turn.

Figure 4 This diagram illustrates four examples of formlings: (A) Thisformling comprises five prominent crenellations at the top end and contains acombination of dot and fleck motifs placed on the vertical cores withelongated caps (redrawn from Garlake, 1995: Fig. 102). (B) A similar motifshowing a more rounded outline than the first one comprises five verticalcores with elongated caps, two crenellations (and a possible tapering orifice atthe top) and dot motifs (redrawn from Garlake, 1995: Fig. 103). (C) Thisformling comprises five horizontal cores without caps, seven crenellations, anoval outline and a faded orifice with a human figure approaching it fromoutside and an ethereal long-tailed figure in the interior (redrawn fromGarlake, 1995: Fig. 33). (D) This formling is ‘composed’ in a similar way to motifC but has six horizontal cores with light coloured caps on the middle ones,then dot motifs on these caps, an oval-shaped outline, and oval-shaped flecksaround this outline.The outline has an orifice out of which issues oval flecksthat transform into forms that have appendages, then swirl next to a humanfigure holding an object in what was formerly interpreted as a honey gatherersmoking bees out of their nest (Pager copy in the RARI archives)

03 4(2) Mguni (ad/d) 10/3/04 11:39 am Page 192


Shape and embellishment are essential variables that can enable theidentification of depicted subjects in San (and indeed any other) rock-arttradition. Among various observable characteristics in depictions, shape isprimary; we recognize subjects from their distinctive shapes. Yet, it is theknowledge of the artistic conventions of a particular culture that helps usdiscern these shapes. How shapes are decorated or embellished may alsobe crucial; the considerable selectivity in what is depicted and what ischosen to be depicted and embellished, what is left out or undermined mayhold the key to our recognition of the painting’s significance and purpose.

There are nine defining features of formlings which place this motif inits proper imagery category in southern African San rock-art. I deal withshape first and end with embellishment or decoration.

Shape

The overall shapes of formlings range from oval, circular to oblong forms,sometimes inferable more from the arrangement of the features than byoutlines (Figure 2). Although varying in size and colour, formlings havediscrete cores as their basic ‘building blocks’. These cores are usuallyoblong or elliptical (sometimes oval) depending on type, with the longi-tudinal sides nearly parallel. Cores rarely occur singularly, but are oftenfound in clusters of up to ten cores, or more, per single formling. Cores areexecuted as sets, placed in a line vertically, side-by-side, or stacked hori-zontally, one above the other (Figures 2 and 3). Formlings are therefore,by definition, ‘composite type of forms’ (Goodall, 1959: 62) comprisingstacks or sets of cores. This is the sense in which the term ‘formling’ wasoriginally intended. A single core cannot be a formling; it is only a part orunit thereof in isolation.

Very often, sets or stacks of cores are separated by narrow spaces orinterstices in between. Although cores are kept distinct, sometimes they arejoined in a single pigment wash. This merging of cores may result fromfading that blurs their edges or pigments washing into each other. Yet, someregional variants lack interstices, with the bases of cores clearly merged,but becoming distinct as they rise to give a villiform appearance (i.e. theirshapes resemble the forms such as in the mammalian intestinal villi) (foran illustration of this formling variation, see Mguni, 2002).

Formlings often have outlines comprising a single line, occasionallymultiple lines, defining formling shapes as outlines enclosing interiorfeatures, such as the cores and interstices (Figure 4). Some motifs haveweathered outlines or the outlines were never painted at all, but theirinterior cores remain curved or tucked in a similar manner to the ones withoutlines. Formlings tend to be symmetrical in structure. Formling variabil-ity falls within this limited range of shapes, and these basic forms remainconsistent in all areas (Garlake, 1995: 92). A motif may carry most or all of

03 4(2) Mguni (ad/d) 10/3/04 11:39 am Page 193


these features, but usually only a few are selected and depicted. Sometimesthe lack of some features could be due to poor preservation in most sitesexposed to weathering.

Embellishment

These basic formling shapes and their other features are embellished inparticular recognizable ways. Formling outlines occasionally have singleorifices or openings projecting outwards. These distinctive orifices canprotrude in the manner of a nozzle or the spout of a teapot. The outer edgesof formling outlines are sometimes decorated with triangular or linearspiked crenellations (Figure 4). These crenellations may occur all aroundthe outlines, or only at the tops of cores or at the base of formlings; theyare not depicted at all in some cases.

Very common is the interior embellishment of formling cores compris-ing grids or lines of regularly spaced microdots (Figures 3 and 4). These areusually standardized in size and are often painted in white; they also occurin dark red, particularly where the background cores are of a lighterpigment. Microdots in South Africa are found with the ‘thin red line’ motif(Lewis-Williams, 1981b; Lewis-Williams et al., 2000), therianthropes,human figures, trance buck, animals, and also some types of geometrics(Dowson, 1989). Similar to but different from microdots are flecks (shortstrokes), which also occur with formlings. Flecks found with formlings areof two types. The usual form is based on short strokes or dashes of pigment.Unlike the microdots, these flecks are irregularly placed on formlings,usually covering wider areas beyond the cores. This type also occurs witha range of other subjects. The other kind of fleck is oval-shaped, often clus-tering on parts of or around the periphery of formlings (Figures 2–4). Thisfleck type is occasionally executed as a trident motif or winged form. Oval-shaped flecks, stroke-flecks and microdots are allied in formling contexts.In contrast to early writings where flecks and microdots are grouped as onecategory, I argue that they are forms, which depict different things.

Formling cores often appear as domed or rounded in their extremitiesbecause of the semicircular, and occasionally elongated, caps at their ends(Figure 4; Garlake, 1987a: 23; see also Garlake, 1995, for what he describesas cusps of ovals). These caps also appear in the same monochromaticpigments as the rest of the cores. Occasional rectangular shapes result fromthe fading of these caps leaving the nearly parallel-sided middle parts. Semi-circular caps or cusps are also repeated in a series placed on top of form-lings.

Although formlings may not have all these decorative features, someelements – such as microdots – are almost invariably present. Their consist-ency is evidence that formlings are a distinct imagery category. Preciseformling shapes and embellishments vary, but variation is a hallmark of San

03 4(2) Mguni (ad/d) 10/3/04 11:39 am Page 194


rock-art; even animals are painted differently in different areas althoughtheir defining features remain constant. The underlying emphasis of thiscomprehensive description of formlings is that, undoubtedly, this is acoherent image category. It is now possible to turn to the question of theirorigin, what they represent.

If we accept, as I argue we must, that formlings have a primary model,which is a physical constant from which they originate, then this subjectmatter must be precisely demonstrated and not merely asserted. Thevarious features of formlings that I have outlined – their overalloval/circular shapes, outlines themselves, internal cores, interstices, orifices,microdots, flecks and crenellations – are distinctive and they need all to beaccounted for in terms of their derivation. In probing their origin differentpossibilities must be considered and, through elimination, discover thesubject that replicates closely the specified morphology of formlings. Sandepictions contain symbolism that derives from natural creatures orphysical objects acting as their models (Mguni, 2002). Likewise, conflatedelements in the depictions of fantastic creatures such as trance-buck, theri-anthropes (part-human/part-animal figures) and rain animals derive fromphysical phenomena. Similarly, we should expect formlings, as elements ofthe same San rock-art tradition, to follow just this pattern.

An examination of formlings reveals that their features are notconsistent with the previously suggested subjects – rocks, waterfalls, clouds,rain pools, corn fields and skin karosses. In these former views, there hasbeen insufficient attempt to demonstrate the precise areas of correspon-dence between the formling motif and the various phenomena they wereasserted to depict. By contrast, the broader component of this studyexplored possible subjects and consequently demonstrated feature-by-feature those areas of correspondence between formlings and their primarymodel (Mguni, in preparation). Formlings indeed possessed a naturalbiological model that informed their richly nuanced symbolism. But, whatif the artists chose to depict an aspect of this subject which is not usuallyvisible in ordinary circumstances, so it does not signal its natural cognateto an uninformed viewer as, say, an antelope in clear side profile does?Perhaps we have difficulty in recognizing formlings because their depictiondrew attention to an unfamiliar view of the subject, itself projected in adevious orientation. Importantly, formling depictions were conditioned lessby the desire to produce facsimile copies of the subject than by the wish tocapture those often hidden elements of the subject that had deepersymbolic meanings. My approach to the study of formlings takes heed ofthis caution in exploring, in practical terms, ways of perceiving and under-standing these motifs. In a forthcoming paper, I explore specifically thesubject matter of formlings (Mguni, in preparation).

03 4(2) Mguni (ad/d) 10/3/04 11:39 am Page 195


■ CONCLUSION

In sum, the approach that I advocate here works with San rock-art imageryas cultured representations, a notion that foregrounds the San artists’world-view and their system of beliefs. Within this framework, rock-art asits integral part was guided largely by understood principles and rules thatdictated what was depicted and what was ignored according to the artists’intended purpose(s) and how graphic representation was executed. Inanalysing the formling motif, one of the last categories that writers couldnot make sense of and thus classified as abstract, I proffered a precise defi-nition of their characteristic features that can, at any rate, be isolated andtied in with a natural model displaying the same distinctive features.Combined with an ethnographic analysis, this approach allows the probingof associated San beliefs in order to penetrate formling symbolism. If theformlings are consistent with the San world-view, other things in San rock-art and the manners in which they are depicted, their elucidation shouldnecessarily begin with an understanding of the insiders’ cultural perspec-tive.

Acknowledgements

The University of the Witwatersrand and in particular, the Rock Art Research Insti-tute are gratefully thanked for their support and provision of resources and also theRARI staff, particularly Professor David Lewis-Williams, Dr Benjamin Smith,Geoffrey Blundell and Jeremy Hollmann, David Pearce and students who havehelped in various ways in this project. I thank The Swan Fund, Oxford University,for their generosity in funding this research. I extend special thanks to Dr Christo-pher Chippindale who has helped in many respects throughout this project and amalso grateful to Dr Janette Deacon for her encouragement. Finally, I thankProfessor Lynn Meskell for encouraging the publication of this work.

References

Breuil, H. (1944) South African Rock-Paintings: Landscapes of the Soul (trans. M.E.Boyle). Prologue for an Exhibition by Walter Battis.

Breuil, H. (1948) ‘The White Lady of the Brandberg, South-West Africa, herCompanions and her Guards’, South African Archaeological Bulletin 3: 2–11.

Breuil, H. (1955) The White Lady of the Brandberg. London: Trianon.Breuil, H. (1966) Southern Rhodesia: The District of Fort Victoria and Other Sites.

Paris: Singer-Polignac Foundation/Trianon Press.Chippindale, C. (2001) ‘Studying Ancient Pictures as Pictures’, in D.S. Whitley (ed.)

Handbook of Rock-art Research, pp. 247–72. New York: AltaMira.Clegg, J. (1987) ‘Human Picturing Behaviour and the Study of Prehistoric Pictures’,

Rock Art Research 4(1): 29–35.Cooke, C.K. (1959) ‘Rock Art of Matabeleland’, in R. Summers (ed.) Prehistoric

03 4(2) Mguni (ad/d) 10/3/04 11:39 am Page 196


Rock Art of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, pp. 112–62. Salisbury:National Publications Trust.

Cooke, C.K. (1964) ‘Animals in Southern Rhodesian Rock Art’, Arnoldia 1(13):1–22.

Cooke, C.K. (1969) Rock Art of Southern Africa. Cape Town: Books of Africa.Crane, E. (1982) The Archaeology of Beekeeping. London: Duckworth.Cripps, L. (1941) ‘Rock Paintings of Southern Rhodesia’, South African Journal of

Science 37: 345–9.Deregowski, J.B. (1995) ‘Perception – Depiction – Perception, and Communication:

A Skeleton Key to Rock Art and its Significance’, Rock Art Research 12: 3–22.Dowson, T.A. (1988) ‘Revelations of Religious Reality: The Individual in San Rock

Art’, World Archaeology 20: 116–28.Dowson, T.A. (1989) ‘Dots and Dashes: Cracking the Entoptic Code in Bushman

Rock Paintings’, South African Archaeological Society Goodwin Series 6: 84–94.Eastwood, E.B. and C. Cnoops (1999) ‘Capturing the Spoor: Towards Explaining

Kudu in the San Rock Art of the Shashe-Limpopo Confluence Area’, SouthAfrican Archaeological Bulletin 54: 107–19.

Erwee, D. (1999) ‘Galleries and Paintings – Contrasts in Zimbabwe Rock Art:Hlombamesiluma Headwaters, Matobo, Zimbabwe’, Occasional SARARAPublication 4: 331–71.

Frobenius, L. (1929) ‘The Mystery of South Africa’s Prehistoric Art: Newly Discov-ered Rock-Drawings of Divergent Style – The Problem of the Age andAffinities’, The London Illustrated News: 333–5.

Frobenius, L. (1930) ‘Prehistoric Art in South Africa: “The King’s Monuments” –a Unique Series of Rock-Drawings Recently Discovered in Southern Rhodesia’,The London Illustrated News 1 March: 338–44.

Frobenius, L. (1931) Madsimu Dzangara, 1963 edn. Graz: Akademische Druck.Garlake, P.S. (1987a) The Painted Caves. Harare: Modus.Garlake, P.S. (1987b) ‘Structure and Meaning in the Prehistoric Art of Zimbabwe’,

Hans Wolff Memorial Lecture. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Garlake, P.S. (1990) ‘Symbols in the Paintings of Zimbabwe’, South African

Archaeological Bulletin 45: 17–27.Garlake, P.S. (1992) ‘Rock Art in Zimbabwe’, PhD thesis, School of Oriental and

African Studies. London: University of London.Garlake, P.S. (1995) The Hunter’s Vision: The Prehistoric Art of Zimbabwe. London:

British Museum Press.Goodall, E. (1959) ‘The Rock Paintings of Mashonaland’, in R. Summers (ed.)

Prehistoric Rock Art of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, pp. 3–111.Salisbury: National Publications Trust.

Goodwin, A.J.H. (1946) Exhibition of Prehistoric Art in Southern Africa, CapeTown: The South African Association of Arts and The South African Archaeo-logical Society.

Guy, R.D. (1972) ‘The Honey Hunters of Southern Africa’, Bee World 53: 159–66.Hall, R.N. (1911) Rhodesia Museum, Bulawayo: What Visitors Can See, to which is

added The Bushman Paintings at Maatesjemshlope and Hillside, NearBulawayo. Bulawayo: Philpott and Collins.

Hall, R.N. (1912) ‘The Bushmen, the First Human Occupiers of Rhodesia’, Proceed-ings of the Rhodesian Scientific Association 11: 140–50.

03 4(2) Mguni (ad/d) 10/3/04 11:39 am Page 197


Hampson, J., W. Challis, G. Blundell and C. De Rosner (2002) ‘The Rock Art ofBongani Mountain Lodge and its Environs, Mpumalanga Province: An Intro-duction to Problems of Southern African Rock Art Regions’, South AfricanArchaeological Bulletin 57(175): 15–30.

Holm, E. (1957) ‘Frobenius’ Cigars’, South African Archaeological Bulletin 12: 68–9.Huffman, T.N. (1983) ‘The Trance Hypothesis and the Rock Art of Zimbabwe’,

South African Archaeological Society Goodwin Series 4: 49–53.Lee, D.N. and H.C. Woodhouse (1970) Art on the Rocks of Southern Africa. Cape

Town: Purnell.Lenssen-Erz, T. and M.-T. Erz (2000) Brandberg: der Bilderberg Namibias.

Stuttgart: Thorbecke Verlag (Speläothek 5).Lewis-Williams, J.D. (1981a) Believing and Seeing: Symbolic Meanings in Southern

San Rock Paintings. London: Academic Press.Lewis-Williams, J.D. (1981b) ‘The Thin Red Line: Southern San Notions and Rock

Paintings of Supernatural Potency’, South African Archaeological Bulletin 36:5–13.

Lewis-Williams, J.D. (1983) ‘Introductory Essay: Science and Rock Art’, The SouthAfrican Archaeological Society Goodwin Series 4: 2–13.

Lewis-Williams, J.D., G. Blundell, W. Challis and J. Hampson (2000) ‘Threads ofLight: Re-Examining a Motif in Southern African San Rock Art’, South AfricanArchaeological Bulletin 45: 123–36.

Mason, R.J. (1958) ‘New Prehistoric Paintings in the Brandberg, South West Africa,and the Waterberg, Northern Transvaal’, Lantern 7: 357–81.

Mguni, S. (2001) ‘Research into the Formlings in the Rock Art of Zimbabwe’,Antiquity 75: 807–8.

Mguni, S. (2002) ‘Continuity and Change in San Belief and Practice: Some Aspectsof the Enigmatic “Formling” and Tree Motifs from Matopo Hills Rock Art,Zimbabwe’, Unpublished MA thesis, Archaeology Department, University ofthe Witwatersrand.

Mguni, S. (in preparation) ‘The “Kings’ Monuments”: Re-Examining the FormlingMotif as Cultured Representations in Southern African San Rock-Art’.

Pager, H. (1971) Ndedema. Graz: Akademische Druck-und Verlagsanstalt.Pager, H. (1973) ‘Rock Paintings in Southern Africa Showing Bees and Honey

Gathering’, Bee World 54: 61–8.Pager, H. (1976) Stone Age Myth and Magic: As Documented in the Rock Paintings

of South Africa. Graz: Akademische Druck.Pager, H. (1989) The Rock Paintings of the Upper Brandberg, Part 1: Amis Gorge.

Cologne: Heinrich Barth Institute.Parkington, J. (1989) ‘Interpreting Paintings without a Commentary: Meaning and

Motive, Content and Composition in the Rock Art of the Western Cape’, Antiq-uity 63: 13–26.

Parry, E. (2000) Legacy on the Rocks: The Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers of theMatopo Hills, Zimbabwe. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Petie, H.P. (1974) ‘Bees or Birds?’, Rhodesian Prehistory Society 6: 2–3.Rudner, J. and I. Rudner (1970) The Hunter and his Art. Cape Town: Struik.Smith, A.B. (1994) ‘Metaphors of Space: Rock Art and Territoriality in Southern

Africa’, in T.A. Dowson and J.D. Lewis-Williams (eds) Contested Images:

03 4(2) Mguni (ad/d) 10/3/04 11:39 am Page 198


Diversity in Southern African Rock Art Research, pp. 373–84. Johannesburg: Wit-watersrand University Press.

Smith, B.W. (1998) ‘The Tale of the Chameleon and the Platypus: Limited andLikely Choices in Making Pictures’, in C. Chippindale and P.S.C. Taçon (eds)The Archaeology of Rock-Art, pp. 212–28. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Smith, B.W. (2001) ‘Forbidden Images: Rock Paintings and the Nyau Secret Societyof Central Malawi and Eastern Zambia’, African Archaeological Review 18(4):187–211.

Stow, G.W. and D.F. Bleek (1930) Rock Paintings of South Africa. London:Methuen.

Taylor, M. (1927) ‘Did Pharoah Necho’s Minstrels Visit South Africa?: UniqueRock-Paintings Discovered in Southern Rhodesia, Including a SupposedEgyptian Band’, The Illustrated London News 10 December: 1058–9.

Tredgold, R. (1968) The Matopos. Salisbury: Federal Department of Printing andStationery.

Vinnicombe, P. (1976) People of the Eland: Rock Paintings of the DrakensbergBushmen as a Reflection of Their Life and Thought. Pietermaritzburg: Universityof Natal Press.

Walker, N.J. (1987) ‘The Dating of Zimbabwean Rock Art’, Rock Art Research 4:137–49.

Walker, N.J. (1995) Late Pleistocene and Holocene Hunter-gatherers of the Matopos.Uppsala: Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis.

Walker, N.J. (1996) The Painted Hills: Rock Art of the Matopos. Harare: MamboPress.

White, F. (1905) ‘Some Rock Paintings and Stone Implements, World’s View’,Proceedings of the Rhodesian Scientific Association 5: 7–10.

Willcox, A.R. (1978) ‘So-called “Infibulation” in African Rock Art’, African Studies37: 203–17.

Willcox, A.R. (1984) The Rock Art of Africa. Johannesburg: Macmillan.Woodhouse, H.C. (1982) ‘Bees as Bushmen Saw and Thought Them’, Lantern

December: 30–37.Woodhouse, H.C. (1989) ‘Bees and Honey in the Prehistoric Rock Art of Southern

Africa’, The Digging Stick 6: 5–6.

SIYAKHA MGUNI is Research Officer at the Rock Art Research Insti-tute, South Africa, where he also completed an MA degree on the rock-art of Zimbabwe. He did his honours degree at the University of CapeTown, and his thesis applied Harris matrices in the analysis of superposi-tioning in the rock-art of the Western Cape. He is currently a PhD candi-date at the University of the Witwatersrand.[email: [email protected]]

03 4(2) Mguni (ad/d) 10/3/04 11:39 am Page 199

Documents

03 Mguni 2004 Understanding Formlings Enigmatic Motif in the