Symbols of Power: The Firearm Paintings of Madjedbebe (Malakunanja II)
Symbols of Power: The Firearm Paintings of Madjedbebe (Malakunanja II)
Sally K. May 0 1 2 3 4
Daryl Wesley 0 1 2 3 4
Joakim Goldhahn 0 1 2 3 4
Mirani Litster 0 1 2 3 4
Brad Manera 0 1 2 3 4
Sally K. May 0 1 2 3 4
Daryl Wesley 0 1 2 3 4
0 School of Cultural Sciences, Linnaeus University , 391 82 Kalmar , Sweden
1 Department of Archaeology, Flinders University , Adelaide, SA 5042 , Australia
2 Place, Evolution and Rock Art Heritage Unit (PERAHU), Griffith Centre for Social and Cultural Research , Gold Coast campus, Southport, QLD 4222 , Australia
3 Anzac Memorial , Locked Bag 53, Darlinghurst, NSW 1300 , Australia
4 Archaeology and Natural History , School of Culture , History and Language , The Australian National University , Canberra, ACT 0200 , Australia
Depictions of firearms in Australian Aboriginal rock art provide a unique opportunity to archaeologically explore the roles that this type of material culture played in times of culture contact. From the earliest interactions with explorers to the buffalo shooting enterprises of the twentieth century-firearms played complex and shifting roles in western Arnhem Land Aboriginal societies. The site of Madjedbebe (sometimes referred to as Malakunanja II in earlier academic literature) in Jabiluka (Mirarr Country), offers the opportunity to explore these shifting roles over time with an unprecedented 16 paintings of firearms spanning the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. This rock art provides evidence for early firearms as objects of curiosity
-
Firearms are one of the most universally recognized symbols of power, conflict and
status in Western society. During periods of culture contact between so-called Western
and Indigenous cultures, they represent not simple one-directional power relationships,
but complex interactions, shifting value systems, and unexpected engagements with
introduced technologies. In this paper we use a newly documented rock art assemblage
of firearms painted at one of Australia’s oldest occupation sites—Madjedbebe
(formerly Malakunanja II), to explore the complex role that firearms played in Aboriginal
society and the artist’s possible motivations for depicting them in large numbers at this
particular place.
From a global perspective, there are some well-investigated depictions of weaponry
in rock art (including recent firearms) that represent encounters, especially during
transition periods (e.g., Challis 2012; Dowson 1993; Keyser 1992, 2004; Wesley
2013). This rock art can provide rare insight into the lives of the artists and their
communities and a Breverse gaze^ from, for example, Indigenous people to colonizer/s
and invaders (Ouzman 2003: 253), as with the famous Battle of the Little Big Horn in
1876 (e.g., Keyser 2004; Keyser and Klassen 2001; McCleary 2008; Michno 1997;
Sundstrom 1989, 2004), but it is clear that in some instances cultural protocols within
particular societies have limited how far artists could stray from the normative values of
their society to further personal aspirations (e.g., Black Elk and Neihardt 1988; May
2008; Nabokov 1982). Other examples have highlighted how rock art can be extended
to ideology and propaganda. For example, in his analysis of Bushman contact rock art
in South Africa, Ouzman (2003: 11) suggests that Bnone of the 102 known
rockpaintings of inter-group conflict from this area can be interpreted as the Bushmen
losing the fight and in at least 60 of the conflict clusters the Bushmen are clearly shown
as the victors.^ These examples illustrate the complexity of trying to ascertain historical
truths from even the most recent of rock art.
A common thread weaving together depictions of weaponry in rock art traditions
throughout the world is that novel technologies seem to attract the attention of artists.
Frequently these technologies are depicted with great detail allowing for identification.
Consequently, archaeologists working with rock art have used depicted weaponry not
only to explore the historical contexts and outcomes of cultural encounters, but also to
establish rock art chronologies through comparative methods (i.e., Abbott and
Anderson-Whymark 2012; Anati 2004; Goldhahn 2015; Jones 2015; Keyser 2004;
Keyser and Klassen 2001; Lewis 1988; Sundstrom 2004).
Many, if not all, of these rock art assemblages were created in turbulent times and
contexts when value systems were being transformed. In many parts of Europe, for
example, the introduction of copper and bronze technologies during the latter part of
the third and the beginning of the second millennium BCE resulted in realistic and to
scale depictions of weaponry in areas such as Valcamonica, Galicia, the British Isles,
and Scandinavia (Goldhahn 2015, p. 115–119). As this weaponry became more
common, the nature of the depictions altered or they disappeared. The tradition of
depicting bronze weaponry on the British Isles, for example, was short-lived and
limited to specific high status places and areas, such as Stonehen (...truncated)