I have been thinking lots about scarification (or cicatrisation) as of late, I think prompted by seeing a very cool body modification conference that had a few scarification seminars and involved some really skilled artists. I hold a very deep appreciation for this art form and its (super far reaching!) roots.
Scarification is really deeply ingrained into so many different cultures worldwide. Sometimes it's done as art, sometimes as a right-of-passage or commemoration of an event, sometimes ritualistically, and sometimes as a sort of test of one's strength. It's been dated back to about 2000bce. Here in Australia, it was fairly common among Aboriginal groups. Some groups in Arnhem land still practice, and call it bolitj. There, its done by cutting and burning lines into parts of the body, marking the skin, and by extentsion the person. As far as I know, this group does it as a sort of coming of age ritual.
It was also practiced in parts of Africa, Amazonia, Asia, and some island nations. Scarification was often chosen over tattoo in groups with darker skin, presumably because natural pigments didn't show up too well. There were a few ways of doing it, namely cutting and burning. Sometimes cuts would be packed with ash or clay to encourage raised healing or keloiding, or discolouration of the resulting scar tissue.
In the modern day, there are three main ways that artists will go about creating a scar; cutting, strike branding, and electrocautery. Strike branding uses a heated piece of metal to press a desgin into the skin all at once, while electrocautery uses a hot electrical tool to draw burns onto the skin. Sometimes the scars are redone multiple times to get the desired effect. Occasionally cuts will be rubbed with ink, giving them colour and making them kind of look like tattoos. They are still different to tattoos though, as the skin will heal with a different texture!
Some argue that modern scarification is appropriation of those old cultural practices, some say it is appreciation, some think it is entirely its own thing and has no relation to any older traditions. I think this last group is wrong. Scarification can be either (or both) appreciation, and appropriation, depending on the person performing, the person receiving, the desin being done, and the setting in which it is done. For some, it's nothing more than means to an aesthetic end, a stone along the path of creating the body they want. This is a completely and totally valid reason in my eyes, but it's where a lot of people will claim appropriation, because yeah, it kind of is. This view doesn't always put the experience itself in focus.
The alternative to this is the kind of scarification done as a modern day ritual, for lack of a better phrase. Creating a scar for the sake of the creation, still often valuing the look, but also valuing the pain or the healing or the transformation or some other piece of the process. I've heard people equate this this self harm/mutilation in the past, and sure, in some cases it can be, but I think there is more nuance to it than that. To have an intentional scar, one must undergo intentional pain, so by the most dumbed down definition of self inflicted harm, sure. I see it as no different to being at the gym. I could make an unfunny joke about 'no pain no gain', but I will refrain. Both scarification and exercise connect a person to their body, forcing them to be aware of it and its needs in order to reach some sort of goal. Both will cause someone pain or discomfort. Some also view their scarification as healing, or transitional in a way, as many do with their fitness or strength journeys; One person before, caring for themself, then a new person after.
All in all, beautiful artwork, beautiful history, beautiful practice, and I promise that some day I will write more in depth about more aspects of it. Just a little taster today. My favourite artists at the moment are Kevin Jump and Marita Wikstrøm Svěrák.