The Production of Ethnographic Records and Their Use in Rock Art Research

Abstract

This chapter explores the characteristics, limits, and diversity of ethnographic records produced and/or used in rock art research. By critically examining the ethnographic archives on rock art available in the global literature, the chapter addresses the conditions and processes involved in the making of these records. The authors argue that analyzing the particular social circumstances of their production is not only a prerequisite for any methodological discussion on how to use ethnographic records in interpreting rock art, but also a way to promote self-reflection about the way that we perceive, experience, interact with, and create knowledge about rock art.

Hand stencils and communal history: A case study from Auwim, East Sepik, Papua New Guinea

“…The second emic category observed, is the social interactions with rock art and/or rock art sites (or images) also provide ethnographic insight (Monney & Baracchini, 2018, p. 535). We have documented this for a range of sites, especially rock shelters, where ancestors resided and which are still being used today.…”

“…Producing and reproducing rock art designs on other shelters and media (e.g., Sullivan, 2012; Tsang et al., 2021), scraping with introduced objects such as steel bush knife (Gabriel & Gorecki, 2014; Gorecki & Jones, 1987a, 1987b), smearing blood through initiation ceremonies, other initiation rites at the sites and depositing important objects at the sites (Edwards & Sullivan, 2008; Gabriel & Gorecki, 2014; Gorecki & Jones, 1987a, 1987b). Thus, in Auwim, the social interactions with pre‐existing rock art sites are inherent in the physical changes to both the site and its rock art (Monney & Baracchini, 2018, p. 535).…”

“…Ethnographic records from various times can be utilised in archaeology and rock art research to understand people's connection to place as well as place‐making. These records are often stories that “explicitly mention people's actual perceptions and/or interactions with rock art” which can involve categories of information about rock art (Monney & Baracchini, 2018, p. 533). In the field, an informed ethnographic approach (e.g., Taçon & Chippindale, 1998) was utilised in producing the ethnographic results.…”

“…In this context, the focus is on the use and role of rock art production through an emic perspective or informed methods. Following Monney and Baracchini (2018, pp. 533–536) we describe four emic categories of information about rock art from people that are directly linked to past or initial rock art creators in a contemporary setting.…”

“…But while these studies are crucial in our attempt to situate the presence of human cognitive and artistic behaviours in time and across landscapes, the social and cultural context of hand stencil production is still not fully understood. This is because one of the great challenges of studying not only hand stencils but also rock art in general is the complex nature of understanding its function and interpreting its meaning/s given its subjective nature (e.g., see Dowson, 2007, 2009; Monney & Baracchini, 2018, p. 530). Ethnography in contemporary settings through local people's knowledge with evidence of associated hand stencil production remains a significant and almost entirely unexplored means to interrogate past‐present rock art practices.…”