ROCK ART PAPER - No 1. - PAGE 3
Maarten van Hoek December 2003| HOW TO DRAW ATTENTION
ANOMALIES IN ANIMAL ORIENTATION: METHOD AND MEANING IN ROCK ART STUDIES Text and graphics copyright by Maarten van Hoek 3. REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION Of course, an anomaly is only an anomaly when it forms a clear (statistical) exception to the norm. This brings me to discuss the third step in the method proposed here to determine the level of directional anomaly in rock art. Especially when completing an inventory of a certain rock art region, statistics of numbers and orientation should be included in order to establish what the standard position of animals is. Only when this information is available it may be concluded whether a different orientation truly is an anomaly. This will be demonstrated by briefly and hypothetically comparing the animal engravings from two rock art regions in northern Africa, the Haut Atlas in Morocco and part of the Aïr Mountains in Niger. As I have not had the opportunity to survey those areas myself, I will make this comparison on the basis of two published works. The one dealing with the Haut Atlas is by Alain Rodrigue (1999), whereas the Aïr area is covered by Henri Lhote (1987). Both works only illustrate the individual engravings of those regions without stating, however, the slope of the engraved rock surface. But fortunately both authors decided to illustrate the animal engravings as they appear to the observer. Therefore it was possible to compare the two regions statistically. It must be emphasised here that I do not wish to present the results as data that are absolutely correct. I merely wish to present a model with which, I think, it will be practicable to compare rock art regions, so that it will be possible to decide how many instances truly represent directional anomalies. To get a clear picture, all engravings doubtful as animal were eliminated, as well as all animals that are of no use in determining anomalies. It proved that only very few images had to be excluded. All remaining suitable animals were then counted and labelled according to the rotation model (Figure 2). Immediately one conspicuous regional discrepancy emerged. A small majority (56 %) of the animals of the Aïr Mountains proved to be of the L-type (Figure 4, graph 2), whereas the great majority (86 %) of the animals in the Haut Atlas is of the R-type (Figure 3, graph 2). The same discrepancy is evident with the animals that show a deviant position (Figures 3 and 4, graph 3). A second important discrepancy concerns the absolute numbers. Disregarding the difference in square kilometres between the two study areas, the Aïr Mountains rock art region, with many more animal engravings (Figure 3 and 4, graphs 1A, stating the absolute [A] numbers), still has less examples of animals showing a deviant directional position (Figure 3 and 4, graph 1B). This discrepancy is also clearly evident in relative numbers (Figure 3 and 4, graph 4). If we only look at animals with a deviant position (D), further discrepancies emerge. The Haut Atlas notably has more variation in the possible deviant positions than the Aïr Mountains (Figures 3 and 4, graph 5, 6, 7 and 8). Also, true anomalies (90º, 135º, 180º, 225º and 270º in Figures 3 and 4, graph 7 and 8) occur more in the Haut Atlas (27 examples; and again the first discrepancy rules: 25 examples are of the R-type and only 2 of the L-type), whereas the Aïr Mountains have less true examples (22; the division of the R-types and L-types again reflecting the general division: 12 examples of the R-type and 10 of the L-type). In relative numbers, anomalies in the Haut Atlas comprise 29 % of the L-type and 44 % of the R-type. For the Aïr Mountains, those percentages are 44 % for the L-type and 45 % for the R-type. This model may be extended by taking the animal species into account. This is briefly demonstrated for giraffe only. Rodrigue (1999: 67) states that there are two joined giraffe-engravings in the Haut Atlas, but that combination comprises three grooves only and I find it impossible to detect two giraffes in those lines (1999: 306). Whatever these lines represent, they are of no use to determine directional anomalies with. The Aïr Mountains area on the contrary has a large number of giraffe-engravings (235 examples), and 16 of them have a directional deviation, ten of which are of the L-type (Figures 3 and 4, graph 9). In conclusion, animal imagery in the Haut Atlas clearly shows a preference for animals orientated to the right and the region shows more variation in directional deviation. Although the Haut Atlas has more examples featuring a directional anomaly, it can be concluded that it is the Aïr mountain area where an animal showing directional anomaly represents a greater anomaly, because it is a greater exception to the rule. In the Aïr Mountains the graphical anomaly then simultaneously is a geo-graphical anomaly. FIGURE 3 (left): Statistical information concerning animal engravings of the Haut Atlas, Morocco. FIGURE 4 (right): Statistical information concerning animal engravings of the Aïr Mountains, Niger. Key to graphs in Figures 3 and 4: Graph 4: N (stippled) = percentage of animals with a normal position; D (blank) = percentage of animals with a deviant position. Both percentages are taken from the total (=A, see Graph 1A). The key to Graphs 5 and 6 is the same as the keys for Graphs 7 and 8. |
 |
|
|
RETURN TO PAGE 1 OF THIS PAPER RETURN TO PAGE 2 OF THIS PAPER
|
||
 |
This Webpage has been created using the my connected community (mc2) Webpage generator. my connected community (mc2) is funded by the Victorian Government and coordinated by VICNET |