Interpreting Rock Art
Dr. Bhuvan Vikrama[1]
Rock art which includes etchings, bruising, engravings, drawings with different pigments separately or in combination, often defined as global phenomenon, go onto establish that the creativity is an inherent behavioural pattern which got expressed as and when certain auxiliary conditions were fulfilled. Although it is called a global phenomenon, yet it varies radically in terms of time and space; and, content and style; apart form geology and geography in the global context.
Rock art is without doubt one of the most striking and apparent testimonies of the past while at the same time remaining more mysterious than the tangible remains retrieved from the excavations, which probably is due to the more or less complete lack of contextual frame.
Most of the rock art sites of which we have any knowledge are in the remote forested and secluded areas. The caves and shelters are mostly difficult to access and are not very large or spread out spacious accommodations. In most cases they are small niches on the face of the rocky cliff or a burrow-like hollow cavity in the womb of the rock. Though there are exceptions like Bhimbethaka.
The rock art study in
Use of different colours has also been forwarded as a criterion for relatively dating the painting, though it appears that in different time frames, people used the colours which were perhaps easily available or which were easy to prepare. There seem to be no colour preference for any given period or for any given motif.
The study of rock art should aim to recreate the perception and use of the images of the peoples of ancient times which requires proper interpretation, understanding and holistic appreciation of the rock art.
Interpretation is of course fraught with difficulties, subjectivity (due to observer) is one of them, still sufficient amount of objective filters and schedule can be placed and it can be made more testable and nearer the truth.
Interpretation is always dependent upon faithful documentation of all the available facts and evidences. It is a process involving observation, recognition, identification and the final analysis of the three leads to a worthwhile meaning which is interpretation. It reflects an inquisitive tendency to explore the Why? What? Where? How? And last but not the least the When? of a particular phenomenon. It is this basic instinct that has forced man to innovate and evolve and has propelled his progress so far.
Interpretation is not simply attaching a description to a depiction. As in most cases depictions are very graphic and able to convey their meaning. It comes in the realm of what? Interpretation is rather a systematic approach towards understanding the creativity in its totality. As a systematic approach the focus lies on –
(1) Context
(2) Composition; and
(3) Content.
The context, both at macro level and at the micro level, of the rock art is the single most important factor in the study and understanding the creative expressions of our ancestors. At macro level it is the spacio-(temporal) relationship of the rock art and the rock shelter or cave to the immediate ecology and geography; and, food and water regime. Immediate ecology and terrain defines the vulnerability of the shelter or in other words the degree of protection that the particular shelter provided. It also helps in the study of the accessibility of the shelter, periodicity of occupation.
As evidence of human activity rock art cannot be accepted as such in isolation. No study of rock art can be complete until and unless the immediate ‘universe’ of those men is taken into account. I use the term ‘universe’ here to emphasis the fact that the movement area or the interaction zone or the catchment area or the area from where that man derived his knowledge about self, existence, survival and protection, etc. was limited.
So a genuine attempt to establish the ‘universe’ is very essential to the study of the rock art. It focuses the context of that rock art.
At micro level context has a role in studying the composition. Composition is the canvas of the man. On the same rock surface lot many compositions are rendered, in different technique. At times the earlier figures in the back ground are also visible, i.e. overlap and superimposed. It means the same canvas has been used in different time frames.
At time either to avoid superimposition or due to other constraint the artist tilts the canvas i.e. he shifts the orientation of his creation. It is important to establish the base line orientation of a composition it helps to estimate the earnest desire to make that piece of ‘art’ which actually required the artist to remain in some precarious position.
It has been observed that in a scene animals are shown in near their natural form while the human beings in that very scene are in animated form. Why so? Was this dichotomy due to some woodoo belief. Similarly the selection of a canvas to some almost unreachable or difficult-to-access location in the shelter was to avoid the ‘totem’ painted or carved there being touched or distorted by others.
The subject matter depicted and the method in which it is depicted on the canvas is content. Etching, bruising, engraving or painted drawings etc. are the methods of translating the creativity while the animals, men, vegetation and the abstract signs or shapes form the subject matter. Depictions involving animals, men and vegetations do directly communicate the mind of the creator as to what he was trying to make. However, the question as to why he created that composition is not so easy to comprehend. For whatever reason he created such scenes like organized hunt, game chase, etc. they are generally treated as narrative scenes, but they may not be so simple. Chandigarh slab depiction is a classic example where two suns have been shown.
The most enigmatic are the ones which depict the composite animals (features of two animals shown in one body) or use certain abstract symbols or patterns. Certain patterns when repeated to convey the same meaning they become motifs and when motifs persist over the centuries and are accepted they tend to acquire a simpler form loosing their original form and now they become a symbol. Transformation of a shape with likeness to some other thing into a symbol for that thing makes an interesting study. Such transformations lead to simplicity and standardization and in the economy of expression, be they graphic or linguistic. Idioms and phrases are linguistic examples while abstract symbols are the graphic example.
A rock surface painted or decorated with various scenes actually is a multi-temporal canvas with recordings of different time periods or frames. One composition represents one time frame while the other composition on the same surface is certainly earlier or later than the other one, whatsoever may be the time lapse.
If the total occupancy time of a rock shelter is computed using the existing parameter or the commonly used chrono-cultural terms and the number of compositions is taken into account, interesting pictures may come up. A tentative estimation of the frequency of the ‘creative urge’ can be had. Chances are that the number of occupancy years equal, if not outnumber, the number of composition.
At several rock art complexes where more than one shelters are available it is generally found that the distribution of compositions are not equal nor the depicted content is the same.
When the ‘universe’ of the shelter is compared with the contents of the compositions in the rock art complex, there appears that only a very small part of the ‘universe’ finds expression on the walls. It appears that the artist was not free to paint his fancy on to the surface of the rock shelter he invariable shared with his fellow men. Some kind of social acceptance and preferences guided the depictions on the walls.
No comments:
Post a Comment