Analysis of Rock Art

Specific approaches to the analysis of prehistoric art are both numerous and varied. Similarly, there are many different ways of classifying rock art analyses. However, at the most general level rock art analyses can be divided into two broad categories - 'Descriptive' and 'Comparative' - and these will be discussed separately. The rationale for making this distinction is that it is a useful device for overviewing a huge literature. The analyses in each general category also share underlying assumptions and problems, and these can be illustrated by a relatively limited number of case studies, rather than an exhaustive (and exhausting) review of the world literature.

DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSES

There are 'problems' in the approach including the fact that all art assemblages have a conventional, stylistic component in representing subjects, and the conventions may differ from those familiar to the researcher (eg. MacIntosh 1977). Because of these uncertainties, some researchers have argued that it is not possible to identify any subjects in prehistoric art (Clegg 1985: 38 cf. Taçon 1988). A more practical and consistent view is that the 'uncertainty principle', inherent in undertaking simple, 'descriptive' analyses based on identification of figurative motifs in prehistoric art, has to be balanced against the value of the results of such analyses in writing about the past.

The second main 'problem' with direct extraction of information from figurative art assemblages is that they are cultural transformations of reality rather than simple windows on the past. They are 'selective' in the sense that they do not portray a random sample of the possible range of subjects: art assemblages tend to emphasise some subjects at the expense of others, and therefore cannot be used as a complete or unbiased record of times past. In fact, while negating simplistic use of the pictorial content of rock art assemblages, these same distortions and biases in what is portrayed and the way it is portrayed, are evidence for past value systems, cognitive systems, beliefs and ideologies. In addition, a major proportion of (rock) art around the world is non-figurative, with no obvious external analogues. Descriptive analyses of such art assemblages are clearly not possible.

Even so, descriptive analyses have proved valuable in providing evidence for the cultural and natural contexts of the artist. In many regions of the world in the degree of composition and attention to figurative detail in rock art assemblages enables documentation of prehistoric fauna, tools, weapons, ornaments, warfare, economic activities and social activities - eg. the Kimberley and Arnhem Land regions of North Australia (Chaloupka 1993; Lewis 1988; Crawford 1968), the Drakensberg region of South Africa (Lewis-Williams 1981; Vinnicombe 1976), the Bhimbetka region of Central India (Neumayer 1983) and the Levant region of Spain (Beltrán 1982). For instance, in the Levant region, Beltrán (1982) is able to describe hats, caps, pendants, feathered head-dresses, bracelets, leg ornaments, belts, loin cloths, breeches, skirts, hair and beard styles, pouches, bags, quivers, bows, arrows, digging sticks, the gathering of plant foods, and the collection of honey. Many of these items and activities are not likely to be otherwise represented in the archaeological record.

Descriptive analyses are particularly useful when the rock art sequence is long and spans major changes in environment, material culture, economy, ideology, etc. For instance, Anati (1976) has used the extensive assemblages of rock engravings found in the Val Camonica area of Northern Italy to reconstruct aspects of the artists' daily life, technological level, weapons, tools, animals, economic activities, religious practices and social life from around 10,000 b.p. to the coming of the Romans in 16 BC. Similarly, in Western Arnhem Land changes depicted in the rock painting sequence include the early presence of boomerangs and their later replacement as a hunting and fighting weapon by broad spearthrowers and composite spears (Brandl 1973: 172, 175); the appearance and disappearance of the fighting pick; and the replacement of the broad spearthrower by the long spearthrower (Lewis 1988). These changes in Arnhem Land cultural context are paralleled by changes in the range of animals depicted (Chaloupka 1993).

As quasi-mechanical facsimiles, stencil art assemblages offer unique potential for the study of prehistoric material culture, communication systems and demographic composition of site occupants. Stencils of tools and weapons can provide excellent data on the range of material culture in a region, especially of organic items which are unlikely to be preserved in archaeological deposits (eg. Beaton and Walsh 1977).

COMPARATIVE ANALYSES

Bias can be demonstrated at many levels in rock art assemblages. A few examples include -

1. The general chronological distribution of art in the human evolutionary sequence is highly patterned - that is, evidence for art, (as well as personal adornment and music) only occurs in the last 40,000 years or so. Possible explanations include an increase in 'human' mental capacity or the fact that greater social and economic complexity required new systems of information exchange (eg Gamble 1982).
2. The geographical distribution of rock art sites across the landscape is not random, but highly patterned in terms of location and cultural context (eg. Jochim 1983; Morwood 1984; Schaafsma 1985: 261). Relevant factors include local geology, the function of the sites, patterns of human territoriality and ideology.
3. Rock art styles can be localised or widespread, while the boundaries between style zones can be clearly demarcated or clinal. Such differences can reflect a range of social, demographic, historical and demographic factors. The extent of style zones may also change over time in response to changes in context. For instance, in the Australian sequence, the continent-wide and relatively homogeneous Panaramitee rock engraving tradition was replaced by many distinct and localised rock art systems (Maynard 1979). Changes in the information requirements of Aboriginal groups over time is one obvious explanation.
4. The distribution of art motifs between sites may be non-random. Although Conkey's (1980a, 1980b) identification of prehistoric hunter-gatherer aggregation sites was based on portable art objects, it is still relevant here. She argued that the range of dietary and artefactual evidence from sites like Altamira and Castillo in Spain strongly suggests that these were Magdalenian aggregation sites. She then predicted that art objects from this site would exhibit greater stylistic diversity compared to the other sites; most design elements of the core Magdalenian engraving repertoire would be present; and some design elements and structural principles would be unique to Altamira. In general these expectations were met.
5. The distribution of art within sites may be non-random. For instance, Leroi-Gourhan (1968) argued for selectivity in the distribution of animal species between entrance, periphery, central, passageway and rear sections of upper Palaeolithic art sites in western Europe. More recently Sauvet and Sauvet (1979) have interpreted non-random patterns of association in European Palaeolithic rock art in terms of it's 'grammar and syntax'.
6. The distribution of motifs within individual panels may be structured - as demonstrated by Lorblanchet for the Black Frieze panel at Niaux. Similarly, Marshack (1977) analysed the structure within panels of European Palaeolithic parietal and mobile art, much of which is non-figurative, by using microscopic and ultraviolet techniques to demonstrate that steps in the production of art panels/objects were often discontinuous, indicating use and re-use of the art in a way that reflects function.
7. The choice of subjects depicted may be non-random. For instance, the eland is emphasised in San rock paintings of the Drakensberg area, South Africa, in a way not explained by the importance of the species in the environment or diet. Vinnicombe (1976) interpreted this selectivity in terms of the ideological concerns evident in San ethnography.
8. Differences between the range of motifs used in different media or cultural contexts are an important structural component of art function. This is well documented in ethnographic rock art systems and clearly apparent in the archaeological record. For instance, all Australian Aboriginal art systems have a figurative and a non-figurative component. In general, art produced in secular contexts has a higher figurative content, while that produced in restricted contexts has a higher non-figurative component (eg. Morphy 1991; Mountford 1976: 66-8).

Clearly, any rock art body offers unique potential for the use of the comparative analyses in defining structural regularities. The point to be reiterated here is that the same basic principle was employed in all the above comparative analyses, despite the fact that each analysis featured different variables and had very different implications. In all cases, the distribution of rock art variables was shown to differ from the pattern expected from random placement. This artistic selectivity was then interpreted in terms of past human behaviour, social institutions, or ideologies - the ultimate aim in any type of archaeological research.

SELECTED REFERENCES

Beaton, J.M. and G. L. Walsh 1977. Che'-ka-ra. Mankind 11(1):46-7.

Beltrán, A. 1982. Rock Art of the Spanish Levant. Cambridge University Press

Brandl, E. 1973. Australian Aboriginal Paintings in Western and Central Arnhemland. A.I.A.S.

Chaloupka, G. 1993 Journey In Time. Reed.

Clegg, J. 1985. Comment on 'The interpretation of prehistoric art' by D. Groenfeldt. Rock Art Research 2 (1): 35-45.

Conkey, M.W. 1980. The identification of prehistoric hunter-gatherer aggregation sites: the case of Altamira. Current Anthropology 21(5): 609-30.

Gamble, C. 1982. Interaction and alliance in Palaeolithic society. Man 17: 92-107.

Jochim, M.A. 1983. Palaeolithic cave art in ecological perspective. In G. Bailey (ed.) Hunter-gatherer Economy in Prehistory. Cambridge University Press: 212-9.

Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1968. The Art of Prehistoric Man in Europe, Thames and Hudson.

Lewis, D. 1988. The rock paintings of Arnhem Land, Australia. BAR International Series 415.

Lewis-Williams, J.D. 1981. Believing and seeing: symbolic meanings in southern San rockpaintings, Academic Press, London.

MacIntosh, N.W.G. 1977. Beswick Cave two decades later: a reappraisal. In P.J. Ucko (ed.) Formin Indigenous Art. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies: 191-7.

Marshack, A. 1977. The meander as a system: the analysis and recognition of iconographic units in upper palaeolithic compositions. In P.J. Ucko (ed.) Form in Indigenous Art. Australian Instituteof Aboriginal Studies: 286-317.

Maynard, L. 1979. The archaeology of Australian Aboriginal art. In S.M. Mead (ed.) Exploring the visual art of Oceania, University of Hawaii.

Morphy, H. 1991 Ancestral connections. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.

Morwood, M.J. 1984 The prehistory of the Central Queensland Highlands. In F. Wendorf and A. Close (eds) Advances in World Archaeology, 3: 325-80.

Mountford, C.P. 1976. Nomads of the Australian Desert. Rigby, Sydney.

Neumayer, E. 1983. Prehistoric Indian Rock Paintings. Oxford University Press.

Sauvet, G and S. 1979. Fonction sémiologique de l'art pariétal animalier franco-cantabrique. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Francaise, 76: 340-54.

Schaafsma, P. 1985 Form, content and function: theory and method in North American Rock Art Studies. In, Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 8, edited by Michael B.Schiffer, Academic Press: 237-77.

Taçon, P. 1988. Identifying fish species in the recent rock paintings of western Arnhem Land. Rock Art Research 5 (1): 3-15.

Vinnicombe, P. 1976. People of the Eland. University of Natal Press, South Africa.