Ritual indicators

In this section, I outline the ritual indicators used to examine Dynamic Figure art which informed each of the results chapters (Chapters 6-8) and provided the structure for the discussion chapters (Chapters 9-10).

Table 4.1 outlines the ritual indicators according to Ross (2003) and Bell (1997). They are listed in the order in which each researcher presented them, despite their overlaps. In the discussion of the ritual indicators, I also draw upon Rappaport (1999) and Ross and Davidson (2006). Bell (1997:138-139) noted that the definitions of these indicators are intertwined as certain attributes of ritual relate to many of the indicators. This observation is very true of Dynamic Figure art, as I will argue that certain attributes could be associated with various indicators, e.g., therianthropes relate to sacral symbolism and ritual time (Chapter 9; see also Johnston 2017). The discussion of ritual indicators below follows Bell’s (1997) headings as her study has a broader research base and allows for a more encompassing discussion of ritual practice and Dynamic Figure art. However, I discus both sets of indicators here and in Chapter 9.

Table 4.1. Ross’s and Bell’s indicators of ritual

Ross (2003:55; see also Rappaport 1999:27-54; Ross and Davidson 2006:312)

Bell (1997:138- 164)

Invariance Formalism

Repetition Traditionalism

Specialised time Invariance

Specialised place Rule governance

Stylised behaviour/stylised form Sacral Symbolism

Performance and participation Performance

Form which can hold and transfer a canonised message

Although a tautological observation, it is telling that according to Bowie (2000:26), Bell (1997) primarily discussed world religions (e.g. Islam, Hinduism, Christianity) and rituals from the cultures associated with them; while Ross (2003) focused upon a traditional religion (localised Aboriginal mythology). Despite this, their indicators are very similar (and must be) to support a structuralist interpretation of ritual practice. Bell (1997:139-141) defined formalism as a restricted and codified set of repeated attributes or ways of doing things (style), this includes activities, speech patterns and material culture. This style is defined as distinct from a ‘casual’ ways of doing these same things. Rappaport (1999:33) described this formal style as ritual decorum and juxtaposed it with a ‘casual’ manner of doing something also. Bell (1997:139-141) argued that while formalism indicates ritual practice it also bolsters the effectiveness of the information communicated and unifies people to accept the communicated message. However, formalism also limits the range of messages that ritual can communicate; this she argued was evident from investigations of actual ritual practice (e.g., Bloch 1986).

Formalism encompasses two of the indicators Ross (2003:55) identified; specialised space and stylised behaviour/stylised form, it is also closely linked with ritual messaging and canonical messages (Rappaport 1999:52-55). Each indicator is pertinent to the key research question but formalism is directly relevant to the subsidiary research questions concerning ritual places and material culture that is associated with ritual. Bell’s second indicator is traditionalism (1997:145), which corresponds with Ross’s (2003:55) repetition. Traditionalism is the repetition of activities and practices from the

less fixed’ attribute to ritual practice. Each acknowledges that ritual does change over time as people and their world changes but within ritual practice people actively seek to continue conducting specific activities from the past.

The indicators discussed so far demonstrate the overlap between these terms and each researcher’s nomenclature. Bell’s formalism and traditionalism are Ross’s repetition,

specialised place and stylised behaviour/stylised form. They culminate into ritual being identifiable by the repetition of formal activities that use specific sets of appropriate language, action and attire conduced at specialised places.

Both researchers use the term invariance (Bell 1997:150; Ross 2003:55), defined in similar terms to formalism but emphasising ‘…usually seen in a disciplined set of actions marked by precise repetition and physical control’ (Bell 1997:150). Bell (1997:150) emphasised that invariance, unlike formalism, specifically ‘ignores the passage of time’. Ross (2003:225) found that invariance was linked with repetition

within her study of rock art assemblages, specifically through specific recurring motifs. As an indicator of ritual, the examination of recurring motifs in Dynamic Figure art provides insights into actual oppose to imaged ritual practice behaviour and iconographic art systems and mechanism (see Chapter 10).

Bell (1997:155) described rule governance as presenting the acceptable actions and behaviours appropriate to ritual practice. Her discussion focused upon how rule governance legitimised the power relationships within a group and disparages challenges to the status quo (Bell 1997:155). Rappaport (1999:52) described the same attribute of ritual as self-referential messaging and described it functioning in a similar fashion. Following this, Ross and Davidson (2006:313) noted that in some ritual contexts a senior custodian is the primary participant in the performance and the ritual helps to reinforce their status (see also Rappaport 1999:52; Taylor 1996:9). The rule governance ritual indicator is a prime example of how examining the degree of significance of a ritual indictor can inform about the people who painted Dynamic Figure art (see also Bell 1997:93-94). For instance, if rule governance is present and routinely manifests as indicating initiated and uninitiated or defined gender relationships, it would suggest that initiation ceremonies may have been significant at this period. Rule governance addresses the key research question and is also significant for examining the subsidiary research questions which form much of the discussion in Chapter 10.

Bell’s sacral symbolism directly correlates with Rappaport’s (1999:38) argument that the rituals are attained by supernatural powers and contain canonical messaging (see also Ross 2003:54,56-57). Although, all aspects of a religious person’s life are influenced by their belief in the supernatural (e.g., Insoll 2004:8-9); rituals are specifically identified as coming from supernatural beings. Bell (1997:159) discussed the symbolic meaning behind ritual and the concept that activities and things within ritual practice are more than they are; similarly, this concept is described by Rappaport (1999:52-55) as canonical messages (see also Ross 2003:56-57). Specifically, canonical messages are those which indicate how the world is (Rappaport 1999:52-55) and, therefore, relate in part to aspects of Bell’s rule governance. Pertinent to this thesis, Taçon and Chippindale (2001a) have already discussed the numerous depictions of supernatural therianthropic beings in Dynamic Figure art. As with rule governance the degree to which sacral symbolismis present in Dynamic Figure art has implication for understanding the people who created this art and I have begun to explore some of these implications (see Johnston 2017).

Finally, both argued performance is a key indicator of ritual (Bell 1997:159-60; Ross 2003:55). Ross (2003:55) stressed that ritual practice must have an active performance (ceremony) aspect conducted by participants of the real world. Bell (1997:161) argued that performance creates a simplified concept of the world, where concepts can easily and coherently be communicated beyond the chaos of human experience. In this way, Bell tied performance with ritual formalism, rule governance and sacral symbolism.

Examining performance in static depiction of rock art is not directly possible, however, Dynamic Figure art is highly figurative and I argue that artists have attempted to include performance in their scenes (see also Johnston 2017). The performance indicator is pertinent to exploring actual oppose to imaged ritual.

Both Bell (1997:164) and Rappaport (1999:26) observed that the attributes of ritual practice are not unique to ritual. However, Rappaport (1999:26) and Ross and Davidson (2006:312-313) argued that all attributes must be present to identify the association between ritual practice and the investigated material culture. Ross (2003:56) noted that rock art is largely absent from Rappaport’s discussion of ritual and this thesis follows her research by exploring the association between rock art and ritual in the past.

is present in the Dynamic Figure art of Jabiluka. The discussion in Chapter 10 explores the prominence or degrees of significance of specific indicators and the insights they have for understanding the artists who created Dynamic Figure art. This discussion is supported by ethnographic analogy and the validity and value of this method is discussed in the next section.