Dynamic Figure scenes

The scenes in which Dynamic Figures are engaged is one of their most significant and informative attributes as these narrative compositions provide information about ritual practice as well as material culture absent from other archaeological data sources (e.g., Johnston 2017; May et al. 2017a). However, not all rock art is depicted in scenes and it is worthwhile to consider how scenes are understood in rock art studies and how they are examined with this research.

The broadest definition of a scene, as relates to rock art, is that a scene is a collection of motifs (animals, human figures, lines, dots etc.) that are painted in a narrative composition and observed as a whole – a scene is the sum of its component motif parts (e.g., Dobrez 2011:75). Dobrez emphasised and argued that ‘a scene implies doing’ and a sense of space (Dobrez 2011:75,82-83). In this way, scenes depict action and imply an element of time and space. Bahn (1998:195) argued that in the right contexts researchers can distinguish between motifs that are painted close to each other and those that are intentionally composed into a narrative scene – I, after Brandl, argue that in Dynamic Figure art the skill of the artists to paint figurative compositions make identification of intended scenes possible (Brandl 1988:173; see also Chaloupka 1993:106; Chippindale et al. 2000; Johnston 2017; May et al. 2017a; Taçon and Chippindale 2001a). However, Dobrez argued that understanding the original meaning or intention of rock art, in this case the purposeful creation of a scene and the information it intended to convey, is extremely difficult, even to people present at its creation; he argued that during the process of painting aspects of the intention may have change or developed and this uncertainty is exacerbated the further removed one is from the time of painting (Dobrez 2011:71). He argued identifying associated motifs is inherently subjective and therefore defined a scene as ‘the observer’s perception of something happening’, he implied that rock art researchers should not attempt to identify scenes in rock art (Dobrez 2011:81- 83). Dobrez also concluded [conceded] that:

It is true that in many cases, and not least that or rock art, access to it [original meaning/intention] may be severely limited. But it is certainly there in the artefact. (Dobrez 2011:71)

To this end, Dobrez argued that researchers should not be fixated on the concept that ‘full meaning = original meaning’, as an understanding of part of the meaning of a scene is still very important and possible. Similarly, Bahn argued that ‘…what one can

certainly do is to put forward observations, interpretations, and hypotheses about the images, which can be evaluated and eventually discarded when something better comes along’ (Bahn 2002:92). Therefore, this thesis has a clear method of how scenes were described and interpreted (see also Chapter 8) and presents analysis that can be evaluated in future. The discussion of the rock art scene at Injalak hill, described in Section 4.5, is a telling example of the observation analysis possible of west Arnhem Land rock art. The Aboriginal painters and researchers both identified more and less, respectively, of the intention of the rock art scene and due similar but differently informed conclusions about the scene (May and Domingo Sanz 2010).

Following May and Domingo Sanz (2010), I recorded scenes as one or more human figure or therianthrope motifs ‘performing a common action, usually with a defined time and certain internal coherence, that can be described even if the meaning is unknown’ (May and Domingo Sanz 2010:37; see also May et al. 2017a). This definition allows for scenes to be interpreted as instances of art production as well as narrative compositions.

Scenes form the second level of the hierarchical recording framework (see Figure 5.4). Therefore, the scene data pertains to each of the motifs within that scene, e.g., animals involved in the scene, activity being depicted, associated stencils, etc. Other categories relate to the whole scene, e.g. number of motifs per scene, range of headdresses etc. The most significant categories of the scene recording form were the activity, range of headdresses or hairs adornments and Scene action indicators, which were used to answer the final subsidiary research question (see Table 5.3 and Figure 5.7). The total number of motifs category reflected scenes where I could observe the presence of additional human figures but could not record them in a meaningful way, e.g., only the legs remained.

131

Table 5.3. Dynamic Figure scene recording form (example from I1007)

Site label Scene number

Description of scene Dynamic Figure description Number of individual Dynamic Figures Number of partial Dynamic Figures Figures per scene Associated animals Activity hand stencils Material culture stencils Stencil superimposition Range of Headdresses or hairstyles Headdre ss types Scene action indicators (dots, fires etc.) Superimposition I1 0007 5 Three Dynamic Figure motifs and one partial motif with an emu. Smaller less detailed Dynamic Figures 3 1 4 Emu Hunting 3MF RH, RH, LH Symmet rical boomera ng

FALSE TRUE oval, rectangl e, leaf

FALSE Under Emu

Figure 5.8. Photograph of a Dynamic Figure panel, I10007:5, motifs are labelled and enhanced with D-stretch (crgb setting - see Section 5.3.6). Labels: motifs (1,2), another scene’s motif (Sc 1), stencil

1 2 P 3M Sc 1 Emu

The most interpretive aspect of the recording form is the activity category. To mediate inconsistency as much as possible, I applied descriptive categories developed from the literature review and initial observations of Jabiluka Dynamic Figure art. The activity is only one category that does not influence other parts of the recording form. Also, as noted in the theoretical framework, Dynamic Figure art is highly figurative and, as I have argued, interpreting broad activities from these scenes is not beyond the bounds of an uninitiated observer.