Benjamin Smith writes about past attempts at creating an historical account of the San people that uses strictly indigenous sources without outside influences. For Thomas Dowson, the only way to do this was to use the native rock art. Neither historical records collected and written by non-San, nor interpretations of archaeological remains by the west could be used in this endeavor because they were corrupted by values and preconceptions that were not help by the San.
In 1994 Dowson examined the changing role of shamans through time with three different categories of rock paintings. In these rock paintings, shamans are first depicted as the same as the rest of the people, then small shaman groups are painted more elaborately than adjacent groups, and lastly a single shaman is painted larger and more elaborately than adjacent people. The drawback with this interpretation is that it lacks chronological context. Without dating, there is no way to know the duration of these changes and if they relevant to the contact period.
In 2004 Geoff Blundell continued Dowson’s work on rock art and shamans. He characterized different sets of rock art as ones of translucent spirits, crudely depicted contact animals such as cattle, and significantly differentiated figures. He argued that the San already had developed concepts of individuality and powerful shamans before interactions with other peoples. Although the regional focus was the strength of the study, again the lack of historical context could place the change anywhere within the last few thousand years.
In 2008 Sam Challis used a mix of historical sources, archaeology, and oral traditions to determine the symbolic system used by a particular group. He was able to track the use this symbolism through time. With these varying sources, he was able to balance perspective to produce an insider view into San culture and situate it in a specific time period.
Smith concludes that ultimately, even the rock art is subject to interpretations of the viewer and can’t fully speak for people who are gone. Also unless the artwork can be directly dated, the interpretations must rely on contextual clues for a time period. A combination of sources is needed to ensure that an outsider perspective doesn’t dominate the account. Regardless rock art has an important role to play in the future of inclusive histories.
Smith, Benjamin W. (2010) 'Envisioning San History: Problems in the Reading of History in the Rock Art of the Maloti-Drakensberg Mountains of South Africa', African Studies, 69: 2, 345 — 359
I agree that rock art is likely an important line of evidence in this debate - but why is it any less problematic than, say, written sources, which provide only a partial record of what happened, and even then, filtered through the motivations and interest of those doing the writing (or rock painting)? Do you think there are any ways to circumvent some of these problems? And, ultimately, why does it matter to reconstruct San history from their own perspective (playing devil's advocate here!).
ReplyDelete