Materialien für einen Rekonstruktionsversuch der religiösen und kulturellen Stratigraphie des altertümlichen Swat

CONTENTS General map...........................................................................................................I Map 1....................................................................................................................II Map 2 (by E. Morigi)..........................................................................................XI Map 3 (by E. Morigi).........................................................................................XII General Photos A-H (by L.M. Olivieri and C. Primangeli)...............................XV PREFACE......................................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION Rock Art in Swat-Malakand and Surrounding Areas: the State of the Art..........5 The Painted Shelters of Swat- Malakand...............................................................8 Topographical Setting...........................................................................................9 Documentation Techniques.................................................................................11 The Problem of Dating........................................................................................12 METHODOLOGY The Painted Shelters as Privileged Spaces: Landscape Archaeology.................15 Informed Methods for a ‘Visual Art’...................................................................17 A Question of Style...............................................................................................21 Cognitive Archaeology and Rock Art: Exploring the Meaning..........................26 DEFINITIONS Physical Setting.....................................................................................................29 Organization of the Paintings................................................................................30 Interpretation of the Figures..................................................................................31 Others Terms.........................................................................................................33 DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECTS PICTOGRAMS 1\. Human Figures..............................................................................................35 1.1 Warriors and Archers 1.2 Horseback riders 1.3 Hunters 1.4 Dancers 1.5 Farmers and Shepherds 2\. Anthropomorphs............................................................................................41 2.1 Super-human Beings 2.2 Therio-zoomorphs 3\. Deities.............................................................................................................45 3.1 Heroes 4\. Wild animals...................................................................................................47 4.1 Monkeys 4.2 Felines 4.3 Caprids 4.4 Other ungulates 4.5 Canids 5\. Domestic animals...........................................................................................49 5.1 Equids (Horses) 5.2 Bovines 5.3 Ovines 5.4 Canids 6\. Structures........................................................................................................51 6.1 Buddhist Architecture 6.2 Other Architectural Features 6.3 Geometric Patterns and Grid-like Designs 7\. Objects............................................................................................................57 7.1 Tools and other items 7.2 Headgear and Clothes 7.3 Weapons IDEOGRAMS 8\. Ideograms and Icons......................................................................................59 8.1 Grid-like Designs 8.2 Symbols and Tamğas PSYCHOGRAMS 9\. Psychograms.................................................................................................61 9.1 Dots 9.2 Association lines 10\. Body modifications.....................................................................................64 10.1 Modifications of the Head and Torso 10.2 Modifications of the Arms and Hands 10.3 Modifications of the Legs and Feet ADDENDUM 1: Charts I-IX (Typologies)..................................................................68 I. Human Figures II. Body Modifications III. Animals IV. Structures and Geometric Patterns V. Tools and Headgears VII. Weapons VIII. Psycograms, Ideograms, Deity or Kings IX. Main Actions ADDENDUM 2: Graphics I-X (Percentage of occurrence).........................................76 I. Major groups of figures II. Human Figures III. Animals IV. Structures V. Main Actions CATALOGUE Introduction.........................................................................................................79 Key Gazetteer.............................................................................................................81 ADDENDUM 3: Chart X...........................................................................................104 X. Correspondence Chart DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................107 Elements of Continuity and Discontinuity........................................................108 A Homogeneous Physical Setting Recurring Physical Features Elements of Lexical and Synctactical Continuity/Discontinuity Evidence for Chronology...................................................................................113 Structures Horseback Riding Horsemanship Gears Triśūla-like Ideograms and Associated Figures Deities and Heroes Other Chronologically Relevant Information Further Archaeological Evidence.......................................................................124 Direct Associations Indirect Associations External Associations Different Types of Painted Shelters....................................................................130 Topographical Constraints Description and Interpretation Comparisons Syntax, Style and Meaning.................................................................................143 ‘Sanctuary’ Complexes ‘Hermitage’ Complexes Deliberate Private Place Complexes Public Painting Place Complexes Casual (and Short-term) Place Complexes ADDENDUM 4: Charts XI- XIII.................................................................................157 XI. Distribution Chart according to the major themes or groups of figures XII. Distribution Chart according the physical site features XIII. Lexical and synctactical continuity/discontinuity CONCLUSIONS Preliminary Summary........................................................................................163 Marginality and Acculturation: Space and Time...............................................165 On the Existence of a ‘Tribal Belt’...................................................................180 Subsistence and Role of the ‘Tribal Belt’.........................................................185 Who were the Makers of the Painted Shelters?................................................195 Post- scriptum1...................................................................................................202 ADDENDUM 5: Chart XIV.......................................................................................205 XIV. Distribution Chart according the major recognized cultural horizons APPENDICES 1\. Toponomastic Lexicon..................................................................................209 (Matteo De Chiara) 2\. Die Felsmalereien von Tanawal (Manshera District)...................................211 (Gerhard Payr) Vorbemerkungen Geographische Lage und Bevölkerung Geschichte Diskussion der Felsbilder Schlussfolgerungen 3\. The painted shelters of Chargul (Mt. Karamar N, Swabi District)...............221 (L.M. Olivieri/A. Nasir Khan) A Brief History Recent Documentation Conclusions 4\. Post scriptum2: Painted shelters in and around Mt. Ilam...............................227 (L.M. Olivieri) Introduction The shelter nearby Amluk-dara, Mt Ilam N (Serai site, Swat District) The shelters at Marghan, Mt. Ilam S (Buner District) LIST OF PLATES......................................................................................................233 PLATES Graphic Documentation: Pls. 1-49.....................................................................239 (Drawings by L.M. Olivieri, M. Vidale, F. Martore, and R. Micheli) Photographic Documentation: Pls. I-CXXII......................................................265 (Photographs by L.M. Olivieri, M. Vidale and C. Primangeli) Swat- Malakand..................................................................................................267 Tanawal.............................................................................................................309 Chargul..............................................................................................................317 ABBREVIATIONS Reference Abbreviations...................................................................................324 Other Abbreviations..........................................................................................328 REFERENCES............................................................................................................330Preamble In the last ten years 59 painted shelters were documented in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province. These rock-art sites were mostly discovered in the upper Kotah valley, in the Swat-Malakand region, at an average height of 1,000 m asl (49 sites). To this group have to be added other 10 analogous sites documented in 2010 in Swabi and Manshera Districts. 1) The painted shelters discovered are similar in regard to their location, techniques utilized, style and subjects. Therefore, they have been considered physically as a relatively homogeneous group. 2) The rock shelters are situated on bare eroded crystalline rock on the edge of steep sloping ground or ravines. The paintings are hosted within natural cavities. The rock shelters rise to approximately the same absolute height, and are sometimes located in the vicinity of major mountain passes, springs, or along ancient paths. 3) In general, it is difficult to ignore the impression that most sites were chosen due to their visual dominancy. The rocks, boulders or pinnacles, which host the paintings rise as landmarks and are visible from a considerable distance. The painted walls are often not easily accessible or visible. For the painter as well as visitors and onlookers, access to most of the shelters was always quite difficult. Arriving to them often necessitated climbing, sometimes painstaking sliding, and then in some cases required one to lie on one’s back. In these cases, the ceiling and other paintings had to be observed from a short distance, only a few centimetres from one’s face, and only one painter or onlooker at a time would have been able to enter the shelter to observe the figures. In general, it is evident that the paintings had been traced, and had been observed, by individuals or very small groups, sitting or crouching. 4) All the paintings were made utilizing mineral pigments made with base metals. Tests performed did not reveal the existence of organic substances such as casein, for example, which should have been present in the composition of the pigment. The ochre tints utilized are listed in order of their frequency: carnelian red, crimson red, orange red, scarlet red, white, and cadmium yellow. The latter color is used at only a single site. 5) The application of color was most likely done with the artist’s fingers. In all cases, the breadth of the application is similar to and differs only slightly from the average width of a finger; in one case, signs of fingerprints were documented. In no case was there evidence of the use of brushes or sticks. 6) All of the figures within each individual painting appear to be part of a complex: apart from few exceptions, one does not have the impression that the figures were added gradually. There is very few evidence of the overlapping of colors or shapes, or of additional layers of colors. Methodology of the research 1) The paintings were contact-traced onto transparent polyethylene sheets using permanent markers, then reduced to the necessary scale. Digital color calibration of the photograhic documentation was carried out when necessary. Thanks to this, in many cases it was possible to integrate the contact copies made on site, where color spectrum was not distinguishable from the rocky surface. 2) To some extent the study of rock art is actually an anomalous sub- discipline of archaeological science. This is true, at least with regard to two aspects: it is the only field where the site is not potentially subject to a destructive analysis (which is after all the final result of digging), and it deals with only the meaningful data itself, which, due to its nature has escaped the analogical-inferential process that characterizes the interpretation of data from an excavation: a dozen beads and fifty pottery fragments do not make up a workshop per se, but only thanks to the associative ability of the three-dimensional mind of their excavator. One important aspect to consider is that while an excavation is a complex site consisting of numerous multi-formed data or objects (ceramics, minor finds, coins, etc.), a rock art site is both a site and an object in itself, no more or less than a vase, painting or a sculpture. From the art history point of view, in contrast to a sculpture or a vase, a cave painting is always contextualized. In this sense a rock art site can provide us with a subject for experimental study, endowed with its testability. However, it is a potential testability. As the site conditions are maintained intact, the conditions exist for reversibility and repeatability of the experimental inquiry. At the same time, however, the nature of experimental investigation lies in the field of interpretation. The broader horizon, which we would like to be able to capture from the data presented, namely the reconstruction of the human landscape, the psychological ratio of the phenomenon of the painted shelters of Swat-Malakand, obviously has its limits. Beyond the rare cases when it has been possible to cross direct/indirect archaeological data with the rock-art evidence, the consistency of this study is based mainly on its logic, which is a parameter which is only partially objective, in and of itself it is, alas, an interpretation. 3) Attempting to interpret rock art not only as a manifestation of self-experience, but also as a mode of communication (especially visual), means trying to recognize semantic patterns which are more or less specialized. As with semantic patterns, where possible, the distinction between pictograms, ideograms and psychograms is useful. This is the case, of course, if by pictogram one intends an objective representation of an object, and by ideogram one intends a more complex, conceptual representation. For example, a central cruciform shield which dominates a scene with warriors armed with shields, is an ideogram, while shields which have been taken up are pictograms; an anthropomorph which is larger than the human figures which surround him, even if not dissimilar to the symbol ‘man,’ could be an ideogram. Instead, a psychogram is a sign that no longer represents an object as much as an action, or a modification of both (as can be said of adjectives and adverbs): an abstract element that is introduced as a visual sign on the rock. Generally, enigmatic symbols such as points, sinuous lines, zigzags, etc.. represent the most common vocabulary present in psychograms. These observations permit us to utilize terms such as ‘lexicon,’ ‘syntax’ and so on, which would otherwise be ambiguous. The interpretation of individual design types (in terms of semantic elements) is briefly reviewed in the following index. Discussion 1) The rock-paintings cultural phenomenon in Swat-Malakand, Swabi and Hazara is comprised within the chronological limits of 2nd Millennium BCE and the first-half of the 1st Millennium CE. The location of the shelters is not associated (inside or outside) with satisfactorily preserved archaeological deposits. One likely consequence is that their dating will depend primarily on the study of the material culture portrayed in the designs themselves, as well as the study of comparative stylistic considerations, and the analysis of topographic contexts. In general any rock art site tends to retain many elements of doubt, which are more numerous than the confirmed facts. The privilege that is accorded to internal chronological stages, or a relative chronological history where detectable, for example in the overlapping of asynchronous paintings on the same medium, often represents the only answer in determining the timing of a site. In Swat, after nearly fifty years of excavation and archaeological research in a geographic basin, which is quite small, it is not absurd to indirectly attempt to cross the archaeological data with the logical deductions suggested by the visual analysis of the painted complexes, even though initially decontextualized. The following summary is based on the visual evidences provided by the paintings. a) Active Buddhist buildings did not exist in Swat either before the 2nd century BCE or after the 10th century CE. Paintings containing representations of Buddhist architecture should probably fall within this period, and more precisely between the 1st and the 4th to 5th centuries CE. b) No representations of horses are present in Swat before second half of the 2nd millennium BCE. Horses are represented with an increased frequency in Swat only after the first half of the 1st millennium; however, representations of horseback riders do not appear before the end of the same Millennium. Vice versa, representations of horses with crenellated manes and covered tails, which are present in some paintings, should not be dated from later than the 4th to 5th centuries CE. Consequently, the representations of horses in the concerned paintings were without doubt produced within a period, which began after the 5th century BCE and terminated within the second half of the 1st Millennium CE. However, in 5 Sites, besides the presence of agricultural ideograms, there are also indicators of horsemanship and breeding, figures of heroes and large anthropomorphs, and the absence of Buddhist structures. All of these Sites are characterized by the physical characteristics of ‘Hermitages’ or ‘Sanctuaries’. The majority of the other Sites, have in common the presence of Buddhist architecture, horsemanship, war scenes, hunting, breeding/livestock/farming and sheep- farming; and the forms are enriched with body modification. Among these, 4 Sites contain representations of triśūla-like ideograms; in two cases they are associated with representations of Buddhist architecture. 2) In Swat-Malakand the rock-paintings area probably corresponded to the living area of the local human communities and/or to their subsistence space. It appears possible that, even if our paintings do not represent not a culture in itself, they none-the- less represent a widespread phenomenon in time. It is found to be parallel to or to fall within a chronological arc characterized by a series of cultural macro-phenomena, all of which have been archeologically documented: (a) The existence of the of small agricultural settlements and centers of exchange, which relate culturally to a period contemporary to the Late Harappan phase (Localization Era; Swat Period IV c. 2nd millennium BCE); (b) the so-called ‘Gandhara Grave Culture’ (henceforth: the ‘graveyards’; end-2nd millennium BCE - mid-1st millennium BCE); (c) the progressive intrusion of Buddhism with its cultic foundations, from 3rd century BCE, that reached its peak, both in quantitative terms and spatial distribution from the 1st to the 4th-5th century CE; (d) urban settlements created and linked to the same local power system described above (end-2nd century BCE - 5th century CE); (e) the foundation of Brahmanic cultic centers under the Shahi dynasties (7th century- 11th CE). All these macro-phenomena had an evident and recognizable impact on the social history of the antiquity of the Swat valley and represent phases of acculturation. Acculturation phases might coexisted with phases of cultural marginality (or late persistence of earlier cultural forms) in remote areas of Swat. These macro-phenomena obviously do not represent a totality of ancient Swat and its chronological arc. In fact there is no direct trace of these macro-phenomena in the iconography of our paintings if we exclude Buddhist architecture, and hypothetically ideograms and deity of the Brahmanism of late antiquity. For a moment, let us hypothesize that the community which we credit with the paintings lived in the main valley, far from the area where the painted shelters are, and the shelters were visited by the valley community for ritual purposes. This possibility is not currently supported, in that we have noted that there are irrelevant points of contact between the lexicon of the painting and the graphic and ideological heritage of the cultures that lived in the main valley. On the contrary, we believe that the painted shelters are an expression of communities, which were peripheral or subordinate to the cultures of the main valley; however segregated to the living space of the middle and upper valleys of Kandak, Kotah and Thana. The same context would seem to be applicable to the rock paintings in the areas of Swabi and Mardan as well as for those found in the Tanawal in Hazara. The ecological space available coincides with the economic areas dedicated to hunting and gathering, pastoralism/sheep-farming, and subsistence farming: in fewer words, with the wild. This situation, mutatis mutandis, is similar to that present in Swat. Until today (but the si