Being Human 4: Stone tools and cut-marked bones 2.6 years old from the Siwaliks of Northwest India

I referenced this paper by Dambricourt Malassé, et al.,: Anthropic activities in the fossiliferous Quranwala Zone, 2.6Ma, Siwaliks of Northwest India, historical context of the discovery and scientific investigations (1) some time ago when writing about the stone tools from Lomekwi (see Here), but didn’t have time to review the paper thoroughly at the time, so here goes:

 Here’s the abstract:

“The Siwaliks came to be known worldwide since the discovery in 1830 of a great ape in the Miocene molasses of the Potwar. One century later, pebble tools, flakes and handaxes attracted Prehistorians. A re-reading of the Yale-Cambridge Expedition in India (1935), during which Ramapithecus brevirostris was discovered, reveals that stone tools were discovered in the Upper Pliocene gravels of the Soan Basin. Since 2003, the National Museum of Natural History (France) and the Society for Archaeological and Anthropological Research (India) have conducted fieldwork in the northwestern Indian Siwaliks. The Quranwala Zone of Masol, the core of the Chandigarh anticline (Punjab), is well known for its Late Pliocene fauna rich in Hexaprotodon, Cholossochelys, Stegodon, bovids and Hipparion with the occurrence of Equus and Elephas. Fifty hectares have been surveyed during eight field seasons (2008 to 2015) with the discovery of choppers and marks on bones of the Quranwala

Zone faunal assemblage, all collected on recent outcrops of the Latest Pliocene. This paper presents the historical context and the rigorous scientific process, which has led to the acknowledgment that some bones, dating back to the Latest Pliocene, present intentional and precise cut marks made by sharp edges in quartzite and an intelligence, which knew the anatomy of the bovid carcasses. Our pluridisciplinary works support anthropic activities 2.6 Ma ago in the sub-Himalayan floodplain and the probability of finding hominin fossils in the Quranwala Zone. This discovery is of immense importance to maintain the efforts of numerous generations in order to develop the prehistory of the Siwaliks and its contribution to the understanding of the hominization process between the Indus Basin, High and East Asia.”

First of all what are the Siwaliks?

I won’t try to reinvent the wheel so I’ll give you the best delineation of the area I found on the interweb (2):

“Siwalik Range, also called Siwalik Hills or Outer Himalayas, [is a], sub-Himalayan range of the northern Indian subcontinent. It extends west-northwestward for more than 1,000 miles (1,600 km) from the Tista River in Sikkim state, northeastern India, through Nepal, across northwestern India, and into northern Pakistan. Though only 10 miles (16 km) wide in places, the range has an average elevation of 3,000 to 4,000 feet (900 to 1,200 metres). It rises abruptly from the plain of the Indus and Ganges (Ganga) rivers (south) and parallels the main range of the Himalayas (north), from which it is separated by valleys. The Siwaliks are sometimes considered to include the southern foothills of the Assam Himalayas, which extend eastward for 400 miles (640 km) across southern Bhutan to the bend of the Brahmaputra River. The range proper, to which the name Siwalik (from Sanskrit, meaning “Belonging to [the God] Shiva”) was formerly restricted, is the 200 miles (320 km) of foothills in India extending from the Ganges River at Haridwar, Uttarakhand state, northwestward to the Beas River.”

 

Location of the site:

 

As the authors’ point out this area is a key one in the human story of dispersion across the globe. If we presume that a primary route of migration Out of Africa was via the Arabian Peninsula and subsequently along the coast of the Indian Ocean, then humanity of whatever species must have, at some time reached the Indus delta. Here, one must assume, the migrants turned inland successively occupying the productive riparian habitats. Eventually the savannah grassland and open temperate forests along the face of the Himalayas were reached. When this was is the focus of this paper.

The authors’ explore detail signs of human presence in the region. These include:

 

 

·         The 1837, discovery by Falconer and, Cautley of the first fossilized ape (Sivapithecidae) ever seen in Mainland Asia and indeed outside Africa (4)

·         1929–1930 Lieutenant Todd, stone tools from the Potwar region including a core of the plateau at Pindi Gheb and in the Southeast at Chitta

·         1931 Helmut de Terra, Jaketta and Christopher Hawkes, and Edward Lewis new tools from Chitta and Pindi Gheb (see Hawkes et al. (5))

·         1932-1937 Lewis (6) collected a right upper jaw of an ape in the Nagri Formation (Late Miocene). He created the taxon Ramapithecus brevirostris to distinguish it from the Sivapithecus because of its facial morphology and proposed to make it an ancestor of the human lineage.

·         1933 de Terra, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and Thomas T. Paterson. Found stone tools in the Soan basin, at the locality of Kund. These De Terra and Teilhard observed in pockets of gravel in a Boulder Conglomerate, these were of the form of rolled chopping tools described as “pre-Chellean” (7). These were regarded as quite problematic in that they appeared to be of extreme age and stratigraphic position.

In the month the three spent surveying more results of puzzlingly old tools were to follow: One other site in the Soan basin, Chauntra, south of Kund, Two sites:

Chauntra 15: stone tools in quartzite with polished removal surfaces. Paterson described them: ‘the oldest is very worn and one or two handaxes very primitive, probably Abbevillian; cores which mostly take the form of large pebbles crudely struck at random, one or two massive flakes with large plain platforms, resembling those of Boulder Conglomerate and few smaller flakes’.

Chakri, section 16

This site shows that in all probability that stone tools of the Indus Upper Basin dated back to the Latest Pliocene. Chipped pieces of quartzite were collected in the gravel at the bottom of the ravine. Also flakes and cores were collected among patinated cobbles under the loess. Also fossils of “Mastodon, Merycopotamus and Hipparion, clearly indicate their Pliocene age” (Ref 7 p291). Also noted were older artefacts such as wide and massive fragments of quartzite, with small retouch obtained by brutal fractures on cobbles. They were sometimes related to Elephas namadicus whose occurrence follows closely the Plio/Pleistocene transition. De Terra named these very old industries ‘Pre-Sohan’. Two other later lithic typologies were reported, one to the Acheulean tradition and the second to the ‘Soanian’ rich in chopping tools. De Terra and Paterson considered having highlighted different evolutionary stages of this new industry, the Early, the Middle and the Late Soanian.

·         1951 Prüfer and Sen collect first tools were on the terraces of the Sirsa near Nalagarh

·         1953, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and the new Panjab University in Chandigarh collected flakes and chopping tools on the Sohan and Sirsa terraces.

·         1960, a geologist of the Punjab University (Lahore, Pakistan) discovered a locality in the Salt Range at Jalalpur, with nine tools in a conglomerate containing quartzite cobbles attributed to the Early Soanian (8).

·         1960, Sahni and Khan mapped the Chandigarh anticline, and identify successively Boulder Conglomerate, a narrow fringe along the dun, and also in a geological ‘buttonhole’ at Masol. One sector turns out to be particularly fossiliferous; they call this formation “Quranwala Zone”, the name of a local village (16-17)

·         1970-1975 R.V. Joshi, Director of the Prehistory Branch of ASI, intensifies research in the Siwalik Front range of northern India. A total of ten sites including Haripur and Dehra Gopipur are discovered, with choppers, discoid, scrapers, cores, numerous flakes and localities with handaxes (15).

·         1976 Rishi and Bhardwaj explored the southern fringes of the SFR and discovered Acheulean tools in the bed of a choe, at Atbarapur (18).

·         1978 Indian workers publish the first syntheses of the Lithic Industries of the Siwaliks (19): the oldest industries were discovered on the terraces of the Beas and the Sutlej. The Indian prehistorians found again the gradation of Terra and Paterson: the Early Soanian composed of large rolled choppers, Late Soanian and Evolved Soanian (20-23). In Sirsa, the Late Soanian is clearly linked to the Middle Palaeolithic: “The Pinjore-Nalagarh dun lithic industry belongs to the pebble tool tradition like that from the Soan Valley in the Potwar, Beas Valley in Kangra and the Jammu region. The character of this industry is seen in its peculiar typology and technique which are quite distinct from those of the Chelles-Acheulean tradition” (24).

·         1981-1985. Work by Rendell and Dennell completely discounts De Terra’s stratigraphic sequences (9 and 10). Commentary: “The evidence put forward by De Terra and Paterson fails to sustain the evidence of any link whatsoever between Pleistocene river terraces and Palaeolithic sites. Terrace sequences in the middle Soan valley appear to be highly fragmented, and for the most part, erosional features” (9). Also: “Terra mistook uplifted exposures of Middle and Upper Siwalik (Pliocene to Early Pleistocene) conglomerates for terraces. In places, he constructed an idealised composite sequence of what he thought had happened but which had little correspondence with what was observed at that locality”.

·         1983. In 1983, the British Archaeological Mission to Pakistan discovered the Riwat locality, a conglomerate below a cliff, including fossils, a cobble with 8 or 9 flake removals in three directions with good flake scars (R001), and about 50 m away, a flake in situ, with a positive bulb of percussion on one side and a negative one on the other (R88/1) (11-13). Paleomagnetic and structural geology contributed to situate the conglomerate in the geochronology. The polarity indicated the negative Matuyama Chron which begins at 2588 Ma ± 0.7 ka. The last one has two positive sub-chrons, the first at 1.8 Ma (Olduvai) and the second at 2,14–2,15 Ma (Reunion). However the synclinal structure of the Upper Siwalik dates back to between 2.1 and 1.9 Ma and the conglomerate is prior to folding. As no positive inversion is observed in the series covering the conglomerate, tools are clearly under the sub-chron 2,14–2,15 Ma (Dennell et al., 1988). The authors did not hesitate to conclude that some tools were extracted from the fossiliferous strata over 2 Ma: “many of which are believed to be derived from fossil-bearing deposits and may thus be up to two million years old”.

·         From 1986 to 1990 the ‘British Archaeological Mission to Pakistan’ continued its investigations on the left bank of the Jhelum, in the Pabbi Hills where the Upper Siwalik is exposed from 2.5 Ma to 500 ka: 40,000 fossils and 600 artefacts (cores and flakes) were collected on the surface (14).

·         1991 Bhardwaj collected new Acheulean artefacts in Himachal Pradesh (25).

 

The Indo-French Missions in the Siwaliks 2003-2015

Between 2003 and 2006, Singh, Dambricourt Malassé and Gaillard visited all the productive sites previously identified with significant lithic assemblages. Although a few Acheulean tools were collected again in Atbarapur no really significant finds were made. As the authors’ state “The program of research was therefore refocused on the initial paleoanthropological objectives. The strategy consisted in finding fossils as close as possible to quartzite cobbles in stratigraphy”. The area around Masol village was visited in November 2007 and the first significant find made on the first of February 2008.

 

First significant find of the Indo-French Siwalik Mission, an in situ cobble tool. Dambricourt (1) original caption: Fig. 8. The first chopper in the Quranwala Zone at Masol 1 collected by Mukesh Singh in February 2008 on Tatrot silts below local dismantled Late Pliocene

sediments (C3 and C4 of the stratigraphic log).

 

In March 2009, Dambricourt, and colleagues found numerous bones of Colossochelys visible in the nearby small cliffs of the Qurawala Zone. Several fossils, a few quartzite cobbles, choppers and flakes in quartzite were collected on the surface in the perimeter of the butte. Thirty meters further, Manjil Hazarika collected a fragment of diaphysis on the eroded outcrops of a small cliff from the Quranwala Zone. This was identified as a bovid tibia, referenced R10084. The highly mineralized bone presented various traces on the cortical surface; some of them, by their size, morphology, spatial organization and trajectories around a crest for aponeurosic attachment, evoked a fine butchery activity, which needed a complete investigation to be rejected or confirmed.

Photos of the bovid tibia from Dambricourt (1) original caption:  Fig. 9. A. The palmar face of the tibia R10084 with cut marks collected in the Quranwala Zone at Masol 1 in March 2009 by Manjil Hazarika.

B and C. The two mineralized extremities and the crystallization of the medullar canal, demonstration in Dambricourt Malassé et al., 2016 (photo A. Dambricourt Malassé).

Geomorphology and stratigraphic placement of the bones and tools

The authors explain the exact site of the initial find of the bovid bone and associated quartzite cobbles thus:

“The fossil species correspond to the associations observed during the Latest Pliocene and lie under the Gauss/Matuyama boundary, they come from fluvial, swampy environments and semi-arboreal savannah. At Masol, the Latest Pliocene appears in the form of an eroded dome, drawing a geological ‘buttonhole’ of 80 hectares, in which the lowest layers of the Quranwala Zone begins about 130 meters below the Gauss/Matuyama.

The plateau on which the first chopper and the tibia with cut marks have been collected corresponds to the summit of the anticline while the small fossiliferous hills, which covered it, belong to the lowest layers of the Quranwala Zone. The massif is isolated to the south by the Patiali Rao, to the east by a deep ravine in the oldest Masol Formation poor in fossils, to the west by the Pichhli choe basin in the youngest one, i.e. the complete sequence of the Quranwala Zone, and, to the north by the lowest layers of the Quranwala Zone. This geomorphology makes impossible any contribution of the Pinjor Formation (Pleistocene). This first paleonto-archeological locality was named Masol 1, stratigraphically situated about 130 meters below the Gauss/Matuyama reversal, thus the fossils dated back to more than 2.588 Ma.”

So the bone and tools pre-date 2.588 Million years old.

The site could not have Pleistocene tools or bones redeposited by erosion due to the landform shape and their positioning at the top of an ancient anticline.

To further confirm that the bovid bone and cobble tools discovered on the surface of debris eroded from Quranwala Zone sediments the authors searched for in-situ cobbles with associated fossils. In the 8 field seasons between 2008 and 2016 they discovered the following:

“..thirteen localities have been identified, one because of its significant stratigraphic and geological data (beds of cobbles in place) and twelve with fossils and stone tools,  three providing new paleontological data with Hipparion, (tooth, Masol 3), Merycopotamus dissimilis (Anthracotheriidae) (tooth, Masol 5) and a felid (hemimandible, Masol 6).”

 

“In 2011, a bone splinter similar to the bovid diaphysis R10084 of Masol 1, was collected in its very close perimeter, and then in 2013, a second splinter collected in the same conditions, was reassembled with the diaphysis.”

Reassembling the bovid tibia from Masol 1 in Paris, after excavation, cleaning and transport from Dambricourt (1). Original caption: Fig. 14. Reassembling of a splinter on the tibia R10084 by Anne-Marie Moigne in 2013. Inset, the splinter of 2011.

“The mineralized edges and the proximity of the three bones indicate that the tibia stayed in the slopes after the bone broke naturally (Dambricourt Malassé et al., 2016, this issue). Its stratigraphic origin has been identified by comparing the fossilization with the lithostratigraphy of the small cliff, and, with the fossils collected at the top the silt C3 (Fig. 11), and in the slopes on which the bovid diaphysis has been uncovered.”

Thus in situ position of the bovid tibia was confirmed.

The authors also undertook an excavation of two trenches in a stratigraphically linked area nearby: Surface finds included choppers and flakes associated to Large Mammals fossils scattered over 20 meters all along a cliff being eroded. These included broken tusk, Proboscidean scapula, long bones, fragmented skull of Hexaprotodon, splinters of fossilized ivory. At the same stratigraphic level as the original tibia was recorded, three cobble tools and one flake were recorded with fossil bones.

Therefore the authors have proved that fossils and stone cobble tools appear in situ together in this area

In total 1469 fossils and 260 tools have been catalogued. The fossils included Hexaprotodon (the best represented), numerous fossil of Stegodon insignis associated to Elephas, Equus associated to Hipparion, and Merycopotamus.

 

 

 

Other human modified bones collected
Two other bovid bones showed similar marks, the splinter R10298 of Masol 13 and a metacarpal R10286 from the small terrace T2 of the Pichhli choe.

 

Another human cut-marked bone from Dambricourt (1). Original caption:

Fig. 18. Cut marks made by a sharp edge in quartzite on the bovid metapodial R10286 (Pichhli choe). The negative surface of a bone flake (A and C) and two incurved and superposed marks among other cut marks (B and D) (photo A. Dambricourt Malassé, demonstration in Dambricourt Malassé et al., 2016).

 

 

Origin of the marks on bones

The paper states: “All the marks were made before mineralization. We have made experimentations with quartzite cobbles collected at Masol, in India on a recent skeleton of a wild cervid, and in France on a foot of Sus scrofa, then compared the results with the fossils and the collection of animal marks of the “Institut de paléontologie humaine”, Paris. Thirty years of experience in major sites such as La Caune de l’Arago (France), Zafarraya (Espagne), Sangiran dome and Song Terus (Indonesia), Yunxian (China) and South Corea strengthen the conclusion (see the references of Moigne in Dambricourt Malassé et al., 2016). Their shape and profile have been described in details, they correspond exactly to the type of cut marks made by the sharp edge of a chopper, or a flake in quartzite, and cannot be confused with natural scratches, teeth of crocodile, hyena or felid.”

Analysis of cut marks on bovid tibia from Dambricourt (1). Original caption: Fig. 16. Cut marks on the tibia R10084 which have been analysed at the micron scale, A and B, palmar face, C and D, dorsal face. Scale: 1 cm, demonstration in Dambricourt Malassé et al., 2016 (photo A. Dambricourt Malassé).

Experiments conducted on Pig foot and a comparison with fossil Metapodial from the site, from Dambricourt (1). Original caption: Fig. 20. Comparison between the fossilized cut marks on the bovid diaphysis Masol 1 R10084 from the Late Pliocene Quranwala Zone, Upper Siwalik, and the experimentation on a foot of Sus scrofa. A and C. Some fossilized cut marks A4, A6 and A7. B. Experimental butchery activity with a cobble quartzite of the Quranwala Zone: A’1, A’2, A’3 and A’4 (photo A. Dambricourt Malassé, see more in Dambricourt Malassé et al., 2016).

While poorly written and badly cross-reference to the supporting papers detailing the analysis of the cut marks (25), the authors have clearly demonstrated that the cut-marks were caused by the lithic tools at the site, presumably wielded by some species of hominin.

 

On dating

Whilst the authors have confirmed that the tools and cut-marked bones pre-date 2.588 Million years old, no definitive dates are given even though ESR (Electron Spin Resonance) dating was allegedly carried out on sediments from around the in situ fragments of the bovid tibia from Masol 1. As far as I can ascertain, nowhere in the suite of published papers is this information given. This is highly disappointing.  

So who were these hominids?

At the minimum age given by the authors the only widespread hominids with presumed upright walking capability were Australopithecines. Age ranges for the various species are given in Brown et al. (27). Here is their figure 2.5:

 

Ages of various Australopithecine species from Brown (27), original caption: Fig. 2.5 Temporal distribution of Australopithecus species. The bar for A. bahrelghazali is shown in grey; it is based on biochronology and a 10Be/9Be age determination. The bottom part of the bar for A. afarensis is shown with a dashed line for the time interval where no specimens are known, with the record for Fejej filled in grey to emphasize the importance of confirming the taxonomic attribution of those specimens.

 

Because of their widespread distribution, including in the past month a location East of the Rift Valley (28) and well understood morphology including upright locomotion, therefore the most likely candidate is Australopithecus afarensis.

 

Conclusions

1. The bone and tools pre-date 2.588 Million years old.

2. The site could not have Pleistocene tools or bones redeposited by erosion due to the landform shape and their positioning at the top of an ancient anticline.

3. The authors have proved that fossils and stone cobble tools appear in situ together at the site.

4. The authors have clearly demonstrated that the cut-marks were caused by the lithic tools at the site, presumably wielded by some species of hominin.

5. No definitive dating was achieved

6. The most likely candidate is hominid using and making the tools and butchering animals was Australopithecus afarensis.

 

References

1. Dambricourt Malassé, A., et al., Anthropic activities in the fossiliferous Quranwala Zone, 2.6 Ma, Siwaliks of Northwest India, historical context of the discovery and scientific investigations. C. R. Palevol (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crpv.2015.06.004.

Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292077679_Anthropic_activities_in_the_fossiliferous_Quranwala_Zone_26Ma_Siwaliks_of_Northwest_India_historical_context_of_the_discovery_and_scientific_investigations

2. Britannica online retrieved from:

http://www.britannica.com/place/Siwalik-Range

3. Falconer, H., and Cautley, P. T., 1836. Sivatherium giganteum, a new fossil remnant genus from the valley of the Markanda in the Sivalik Branch of the Sub-Himalayan Mountains. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 5:38-50

4. Cautley, R T., and Falconer, H., 1837. Notice of the remains of a fossil monkey from the Tertiary strata of the Siwalik Hills in the North of Hindustan. Transactions of the Geological Society of London 5:499-504.

5. Hawkes, J., Terra de, H., Hawkes, C.F.C., 1934. Yale North India Expedition:

Palaeolithic Human Industries in the Northwest Punjab and Kashmir and their Geological Significance. Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 8, Mouton, The Hague.

6. Lewis, G.E., 1937. Taxonomic syllabus of Siwalik fossil anthropoids. Am. J. Sci. 234, 139–247.

7. Terra de, H., Paterson, T.T., 1939. Studies on the Ice Age in India and associated

Human Cultures. Carnegie Institute of Washington Publications.

8. Marks, P., 1961. Palaeolithic artefacts from Jalalpur, Salt Range. Geol. Bull.

Punjab Univ., Lahore, Pakistan, 66–67.

9. Rendell, H.M., Dennell, R.W., Halim, M.A., 1989. Pleistocene and Palaeolithic

Investigations in the Soan Valley, Northern Pakistan. B.A.R. International Series, Oxford.

10. Dennell, R.W., 2014. Hallam Movius, Helmut de Terra, and the line that never was; Burma 1938. In: Boyle, K., Rabbett, R.J., Hunt, C. (Eds.), Living in the landscape: Essays in Honour of Graene Barker. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, pp. 11–34.

11. Dennell, R.W., Hurcombe, L.M., 1992. Paterson, the British Clactonian and the Soan Flake Industry: a re-evaluation of the Early Palaeolithic of northern Pakistan. In: Jarrige, C. et al. (Eds.). In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference of South Asian Archaeologists in Western Europe, Paris, July 1989. South Asian Archaeology 1989, pp. 69–72.

12. Dennell, R.W., Rendell, H., Hailwood, E., 1988. Early tool-making in Asia:

two-million year-old artefacts in Pakistan. Antiquity 62, 98–106.

13. Hurcombe, L., Dennell, R., 1993. A Pre-Acheulean in the Pabbi Hills, northern Pakistan? In: Jarrige, C. (Ed.). In: Proceedings of the International Conference of South Asian Archaeologists in western Europe, Paris, July 1989, pp. 133–136.

14. Hurcombe, L., 2004. The lithic evidence from the Pabbi Hills. In: Dennell, R.

(Ed.), Early Hominin landscapes in northern Pakistan. Investigations in the Pabbi Hills. B.A.R. S1265, Oxford, pp. 222–291.

15. Deshpande, M.N., 1975. Indian Archaeology 1966–67, a Review. Archaeological

Survey of India, Government of India, New Delhi.

16. Sahni, M.R., Khan, E.J., 1964. Boundary between the Tatrots and Pinjaurs.

Res. Bull. Panjab Univ. 12, 263–264.

17. Sahni, M.R., Khan, E.J., 1968. Stratigraphy, structure and correlation of the Upper Shiwaliks, East of Chandigarh. J. Palaeontol. Soc. India 5–9, 61–74.

18. Kumar, M., Rishi, K.K., 1986. Acheulian elements from Hoshiharpur region (Punjab). Man Environ. 10, 141–142.

19. Joshi, R.V., Rajaguru, S.N., Badam, G.L., Khanna, P.C., 1978. Environment and Culture of Early Man in Northwest India – a reappraisal. J. Geol. Soc. India 19, 83–86.

20. Mohapatra, G.C., 1981. Acheulian Discoveries in the Siwalik Frontal Range.

Curr. Anthropol. 22 (4), 433–435.

 21. Mohapatra, G.C., Singh, M., 1979a. Prehistoric Investigations in a Sub-

Himalayan Valley, Himachal Pradesh, India. Curr. Anthropol. 20 (3), 600–602.

22. Mohapatra, G.C., Singh, M., 1979b. Acheulian Discoveries in the Siwalik Frontal Range of western Sub-Himalayas. Res. Bull. Panjab Univ. Chandigarh, India 10 (1–2), 65–77.

23. Mukherji, A.B., 1979. Choe terraces of the Chandigarh Siwalik Hills; a morphogenetic analysis. Rev. Geomorph. Dyn. 25, 1–7.

24. Karic, B.S., 1985. Geomorphology and Stone Age Culture of southwestern

India. Sundeep Prakashan, Delhi.

25. Bhardwaj, V., 1991. Dharmsala: an Acheulian site in Himachal Pradesh. Panjab Univ. Res. Bull. (Arts) 22, 2.

26.Dambricourt Malassé, A., et al., Intentional cut marks on bovid from the Quranwala zone, 2.6 Ma, Siwalik Frontal Range, northwestern India. C. R. Palevol (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crpv.2015.09.019

Retrieved from:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292209224_Intentional_cut_marks_on_bovid_from_the_Quranwala_zone_26_Ma_Siwalik_Frontal_Range_northwestern_India

27. Brown, F. H., Ian McDougall, I and P. N. Gathogo. 2013. Age Ranges of Australopithecus Species, Kenya, Ethiopia, and Tanzania. in The Paleobiology of Australopithecus, Reed K, Fleagle A and R. E. Leakey (Eds). Springer

28. Mbuaa E, 2016. Kantis: A new Australopithecus site on the shoulders of the Rift Valley near Nairobi, Kenya Journal of Human Evolution Volume 94, May 2016, Pages 28–44 Retrieved from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248416000208

DOI: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2016.01.006

 

The Other Megafaunal Extinction - More Aboriginal depictions of extinct Australian Megafauna

After doing the research for my last post (see here) on extinct Australian Megafauna, I have become quite enamoured of all the Aboriginal styles of rock art. I have therefore looked into the subject further and found quite a number of beautiful images, particularly of the Thylacine, or marsupial wolf. I therefore present some more images and a little commentary on the fierce controversy that the subject excites amongst Australian scientists.

An interesting paper with some remarkable Thylacine depictions is that by Taçon et al. (1). In attempting to correctly interpret some recently discovered rock art they use the physical characteristics as agreed upon by previous researchers, thus:

“The thylacine is a marsupial with dog-like appearance. It has “a long, narrow muzzle, short ears, and a long tail tapered from the hindquarters and generally carried lower than the animal’s back” (Wright, 1972: 16). It has front and hind limbs of equal length, unlike macropods which have shorter front limbs. The head and body length range from 100–130 cm, while the tail is usually 50–65 cm (Rounsevell, 1991: 2). Measured from head to tail, some thylacines grew close to 2 m long. Vertical stripes on thylacine backs and sides, especially on the rear half of the body, is a diagnostic feature as these markings are unlike those of other marsupials, with the barred bandicoot and the numbat having fewer, less pronounced stripes arranged in a different pattern. The thylacine is generally considered to have become extinct in mainland Australia perhaps 3000 years ago (Archer, 1974), but not less than 2000 years ago (Rounsevell, 1991: 83).”

The site was discovered thus:

“The Arnhem Land site lies in the Wellington Range, south of Goulbourn Island, within the traditional clan estate of Maung-speaking people of which Ronald Lamilami is the current senior traditional owner. ..In the process of documenting Lamilami’s most significant rock art site, Djuliiri (Taçon et al., 2010), the site containing the panel with superimposed striped creatures was located a few hundred metres away.”

 

 

 

 

 The authors produced a drawing of the rock art panel. Original caption: Figure 6. Drawing of the two superimposed Arnhem Land thylacines. Drawing by K. Mulvaney.

 

 

 

Rock art as seen in nature from the Wellington Range (1). Original caption: Figure 5. The Arnhem Land rock panel with overlapping Thylacine-like creatures. Photo: M. Langley.

The overlapping images were separated producing an image for each individual painting, my figure is adapted from Figs.6-8. Original captions for the left and right hand images respectively: Figure 7. Drawing of the Arnhem Land large Naturalistic thylacine. Drawing by K. Mulvaney. and Figure 8. Drawing of the Arnhem Land Dynamic Figure thylacine. Stripes are not indicated in the drawing because the original artist incorporated the stripes of the Large Naturalistic thylacine into the Dynamic depiction. Drawing by K. Mulvaney.

On dating: “The older Wellington Range painting, stratified under the Dynamic thylacine, is potentially 13,000 or more years of age (Flood, 1997: 322–323). It is one of the older surviving depictions of a thylacine from Arnhem Land.”

Another interesting paper by Bednarik (2) shows a range of rock art of both painted and engraved varieties. This paper is quite extraordinary, the author disputes EVERY authors’ conclusions about the rock art’s authenticity and dating. He is unstintingly sceptical, sometimes scathing and at other times sneering about any Pleistocene aged Australian rock art. With such views allowed into print I just had find out more about Robert Bednarik.

From his Wikipedia (3) profile:

“Bednarik, who considers himself an autodidact, is expert for research on rock art and paleolithic portable art on the ice age. He is doing experimental archeology and is editor of four scientific journals. According to Bednarik he published more than 1300 scientific articles since 1965. He is professor at the International Centre of Rock Art Dating (ICRAD) at the Hebei Normal University in Shijiazhuang (China).

Bednariks main research interest is in the origins of the human ability to create constructs of reality. Therefore the beginnings of art, and language, and technological developments are in the focus of his research.” I could not actually find any details of his level of education even on his own website.. Does this man hold a PhD or even a Bachelor’s degree in a relevant scientific subject?

One Australian scientist, Jack Pettigrew (4), has explained the situation thus:

“A Culture of Underestimation:

The present rock art Australian culture is at its worst concerning the contentious issue of the age of Bradshaw rock art, estimates of which cover a very wide range.  Different estimates of the age of the same art cannot all be correct, but the point is not that some estimates must be wrong. Rather, this closed culture lacks both the motivation to open up discussion on the contested dates, as well as lacking a suitable conducive medium for the discussion..  A major offender in this area is Robert Bednarik, who occupies a powerful, censorious position in Australian rock art by virtue of his control of the only specialist journal in the field. Bednarik is afflicted by a strong bias toward underestimation of rock art age that stems partly from his “eye-balling” methodology, one that eschews analysis. ..The problem became international when Bednarik underestimated the age of some Portuguese rock art that was destined to be flooded by the building of a dam. The Portuguese archaeologists mistakenly calculated that their chances of stopping the dam would be enhanced by the opinion of an international expert in rock art, little realizing the underestimation bias. Last minute frantic work in Europe was able to give the art its appropriate age and value, so the dam was averted. In the process, a part of Australian archaeology became notorious, and mentioning the name of this Australian rock art consultant in European circles now excites a vigorous negative reaction.

I mention this episode to put a little gentle pressure on the protagonist, like the unfair, censorious, pressure that he has applied to some Australian rock art researchers who have tried to get their work published in “his” journal, behaviour that is the antithesis of the open structure needed by the field.”

So let us consider these contentious images!

 

The Crocodile Rock Engraving Panaramitee North

Original source Mountford (5)

Bednarik: Figure 1. Mountford’s recording of the complex motif at Panaramitee North, Yunta, South Australia, and his comparison with the skull of a saltwater crocodile (Crocodylus porosus).

Bednarik’s commentary: Mountford compares the petroglyph to a diagram of a skull, Bednarik assumes that this indicates that Mountford believed the petroglyph to represent a crocodile skull. This assertion is impossible to check as Mountford’s paper was published in 1929 and therefore no online copy is available. If one considers the timeframe and the fact that in all probability Mountford, did not have a suitable image to hand, using a drawing of a skull was all he could do. Bednarik then takes his assumption further and gives his opinion that in representing a skull rather than a living creature , the engraver was showing the crocodile in ‘X-ray’ style - a much more recent style and that the petroglyph is therefore of recent origin. This, in my opinion is a false chain of reasoning based on Mountford’s use schematic skull as a comparison. This seems somewhat fallacious. Unlike Bednarik, who could easily have made a comparison by showing a photograph of a Saltwater Crocodile for comparison, I have done so below:

Comparing Mountford’s drawing with that of a live specimen we see unmistakeable similarities in skin texture, snout shape, eye shape and head shape.

Why Bednarik didn’t carry out such a comparison is perhaps telling.

In fact, after having offered weak criticisms of Mountford’s original conclusion we see Bednarik’s real objection is in fact to the Pleistocene date attributed to the petroglyph by Mountford and Edwards (6): “the fact that the nearest sea-going crocodile is, at the present day, at least a thousand miles north of the rock engraving, suggests that the engraving must be of considerable antiquity. It is extremely unlikely that any aboriginal could have engraved a design having so many points of resemblance with a living creature if he had not known it intimately”

Thus we have a weak set of opinions, based on a false assumption used to discredit a petroglyph because Bednarik finds the date uncomfortably early.

Perhaps even more telling is his commentary from his 2014 paper (7): “Mountford (1929) and Mountford and Edwards (1962) thought that a complex maze at the Panaramitee North site near Yunta depicts the head markings of a saltwater crocodile. That species has never existed in southern Australia, however, and Berndt (1987) subsequently secured an indigenous interpretation of the complex petroglyph, which in fact depicts a magic object.”

Bednarik accompanies his commentary by the following image:

Petroglyph in present condition from Bednarik (7). Original caption: Figure 2. Petroglyph from Panaramitee North, supposed to depict a crocodile head, but in fact depicting a yarida magical object.

So which is it ‘an x-ray style crocodile head of recent origin’ - 2013 or a ‘maze’ or a ‘magic object’ both from the same 2014 paper!

Overall I believe Bednarik’s bias against finding Pleistocene rock art discussed above is the reason he attempts to put any, but the obvious interpretation on this fantastic representation of a crocodile. The only really cogent argument he makes is that the current range of the Saltwater Crocodile does not include the area where the petroglyph was found. However what their range was in the Pleistocene is unknown and the areas where fossils could be found have since the early Holocene been underwater. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

To decide whether the Salt Water Crocodile’s range could have extended close to the Panaramitee area in the late Pleistocene one needs to understand the regional climate. Roberts et al (9) in their work on the timing of Australia’s Megafaunal Extinctions have this to say with regard to the climate in the late Pleistocene Australia: “Much of the 60- to 40-ka interval was marked by generally wetter conditions than at present in both eastern Australia and southwestern Australia using the revised chronology for Devil’s Lair. But monsoonal activity may have been variable with short-lived climatic oscillations, in keeping with evidence from deep sea cores of climate instability.” Furthermore the wider implications of this change in Australia’s climate at this time is made explicit in a summary piece from the Australian Museum (10): “At the end of the last ice age, Australia's climate changed from cold-dry to warm-dry. As a result, surface water became scarce. Most inland lakes became completely dry or dry in the warmer seasons. Most large, predominantly browsing animals lost their habitat and retreated to a narrow band in eastern Australia, where there was permanent water and better vegetation.”

Therefore it seems entirely possible that the Saltwater Crocodile’s Pleistocene range could have included southern Australia at the time Mountford claims that the petroglyph was made.

Verdict: Petroglyph of a Saltwater Crocodile head date unknown but possibly Pleistocene.

Marine Turtle (and eggs?)

Original source: Mountford and Edwards (8).

 

 

Bednarik (2) Original caption: Figure 3. Mountford and Edwards’ (1962) recording of an apparent zoomorph at Yunta Springs, South Australia, which they ‘identified’ as a marine turtle.

Bednarik commentary: The objections to this petroglyph being of Pleistocene age centre around Mountford and Edwards’ distance given to the sea and the aboriginal insistence that it was engraved by distant mythic ancestors. He gives the following on the identification: “It was ‘identified’ as such by John Mitchell, then the Curator of Reptiles of the South Australian Museum.” Why Bednarik put the identified in inverted commas is uncertain as he does not explain why he doubts the opinion of Australia’s pre-eminent herpetologist of the era.

 

Comparison with a marine (Green) turtle from life: Note the similarity of the carapace shape: ovoid with the rear portion narrower, the position of the front flippers and general head shape. Photo credit: N Barden.

Once again the original paper is unavailable to me and I can therefore not check the Bednarik’s interpretation of the facts.

Verdict: Petroglyph of a Marine Turtle date unknown but possibly Pleistocene.

 

Genyornis newtoni tracks
Original source: Hall (11).

Bednarik original caption: Figure 4. Presumed tracks of Genyornis at Eucolo Creek, near Woomera, South Australia (after Hall et al. 1951).

Bednarik commentary: His dismissal of these tracks revolves around their overlarge size, in that they are bigger than the actual bird’s (reconstructed) foot size. Bednarik also seems to deliberately complicate and hence lesson the clarity of his argument by conflating different sets of large bird prints. Part of his argument is quite interesting: “As already noted, the size of a track is not necessarily a reference to naturalism, it can have a variety of alternative meanings, much in the same way as when in a group of anthropomorphs one individual is depicted much larger, not because one of the people was a giant, but because he was the leader, or the artist, or a deity etc. Thus size of a figure in rock art may have many meanings other than a reference to real size.”

I suggest the most parsimonious explanation for the size of the engraved images is the enormous importance of Genyornis as a food item for initial Aboriginal colonisers of the continent. (see my post here). If we put ourselves in the mind-set of stone age people and think what would ‘loom large’ in their daily thought patterns, a reliable, easily obtained and highly nutritious food source such as Genyornis eggs would certainly come top of their list. Therefore the commemoration of this species by engraving its feet into rocks seems quite likely.  Given the celebrated propensity of Aborigines to pass down history in the form of an oral tradition, perhaps depicting these bird feet in this way is simply a continuation of the ‘mythic’ food source story passed down as rock art.  Why Bednarik doesn’t include this as a possible explanation of the ‘larger than life’ footprints is a mystery.

Verdict: Likely representation of Genyornis footprint, age uncertain but possibly of Pleistocene age due to the extinction date of this species (ca. 45,000BP), however see below on dating applied to rock art in southern Australia

Bednarik on Petroglyph dating

“Before reviewing these many postulated identifications of zoomorphs and apparent animal tracks as relating to Pleistocene species it needs to be emphasised that none of them are supported by direct or scientific dating, and that their basis are the perceived iconographic properties of the rock art. These claims are without exception circumstantial, and their number is no substitute for a single testable proposition. Their only scientific support comes from the analytical data provided by Dorn (Nobbs and Dorn 1988; Dorn et al.1988; 1992), who subsequently withdrew all his rock art dating claims (Dorn 1996a, 1996b) after they were refuted (Watchman 1992a, 1992b, 1992c).”

As is usual with Bednarik this paragraph falls far short of the full story. The dating technique used by Dorn was Cation-Ratio Dating. This technique is based on cation exchange processes in the rock varnish that coats many petroglyphs in arid regions such as the Australian outback. These processes leach out mobile trace elements (notably potassium and calcium), through capillary action, more rapidly than less mobile trace elements, particularly titanium. It is argued that, over time, the proportion of the sum of the formers’ values decreases relative to that of the latter, so that a lower cation-ratio indicates an older age for varnishes. Therefore deeper varnish layers should have lower ratios. One drawback however is that the technique needs to be calibrated for each region either by inclusions of AMS datable carbon compounds (as in this case) or by reference to independently dated control surfaces in the same region dated by other methods.

The dates obtained by Dorn from Mean CR ages of 24 selected petroglyphs from the Karolta 1 site ranged from ca. 1400 to ca. 31, 500 years BP. Thus some of the petroglyphs were of Pleistocene age. Later tests by Watchman (13) Measurements on five varnish samples from within pecked depressions of a circular petroglyph at the same site produced cation-ratio ages that were substantially older 44,760 +/- 3390 years BP. Five samples from off-art varnishes adjacent to the petroglyph 13,140 +/-2950 years. Watchman argued that these results invalidated Dorn’s. The debate raged over a long sequence of papers. With Dorn countering with a more precise of variables to be controlled for, strict field sampling techniques and sample preparation process.

However the ultimate reliability of both Dorn and Watchmen’s results is hard to assess and in fact Dorn and Dragovich, had themselves, expressed caution regarding the use of the technique in Australia:

‘‘for a varnish date to reflect the true age of the landform requires a condition of no erosion for the microsite where varnish was sampled. Also, a requirement of the cation-ratio dating theory is that the varnish itself must form continuously as a synsedimentary deposit, but this is contradicted by only sampling and analysing the basal varnish. Uninterrupted deposition is frequently not the case in Australia’’

In the end Dorn (15) did concede that his results were unreproducible in the Karolta context whatever the source of error. Whether the technique as employed by Watchman was flawed or whether Dorn’s application of it in Australia was, we will never know.

Recently however Cation-Ratio dating has enjoyed something of a renaissance as detailed by Whitley (16). Whitley states: “Regardless of the cause for Watchman’s repeatedly published failure, the more relevant point is that many research groups have replicated CR dating, worldwide, both before and after his failed Australian effort Included in these is my own replication, fully independent of Dorn and his lab, in southern Africa. In addition to multiple replications, the technique has also been successfully subjected to petroglyph dating blind tests.”

I therefore believe that the Bednarik’s claim that the Pleistocene dating by Dorn of the petroglyphs at Karolta has been refuted, does not stand up to careful scrutiny. Furthermore, some of these petroglyphs purporting to show extinct Australian Megafauna may have been created contemporaneously with these species’ existence in the Pleistocene.

 

Large bird-foot petroglyphs from the same site as discussed above, illustration adapted Franklin 2011 (12).

Original caption: Figure 2. Rock engravings at Karolta 1, Olary Province, showing the range of motifs found at Panaramitee Tradition sites.

Additional Genyornis newtoni track from Bednarik (21) original caption: Figure 16. ‘Large bird tracks’ at Deception Creek Site. Photograph by Livio Dobrez.

Other petroglyphs

Bednarik adds an aside regarding some other petroglyphs. Firstly he mentions Edwards’ discussion (18) of possible Procoptodon - a large macropod seemingly only because the tracks are large (and almost identical to those discussed above) from Tiverton south of Panaramitee and because Edwards allows the possibility of them being of a mythical being. Secondly he has this to say about a pair of papers by McDonald (19 & 20) “Similarly, McDonald (1983) concluded from her examination of the large petroglyph site Sturts Meadows, north of Broken Hill, that an apparent macropod track with a single toe possibly depicted the track of Procoptodon goliah. However, in her subsequent analysis of the site’s macropod track motifs (1993) she makes no mention of this notion and does not cite the 1983 paper, having apparently abandoned her megafaunal claim.” This is a gross representation of the 1993 paper, as McDonald illustrates Megafaunal tracks in her Fig. 7.

 

In her conclusion she states:

“The discovery that the classification of macropods based on pes morphology divides the family into two groups is extremely useful on a broader archaeological scale. This separation, not previously recognised in the literature, can be observed both zoologically and archaeologically. Support is given by these results to the underlying assumption of this research, that engraved Panaramitee depictions of macropod tracks are naturalistic. Such a strong correlation between nature and the archaeology indicates profitable areas of research, such as the investigation of both the presence and distribution of particular species and their importance to the artisans who produced the engravings. At other Panaramitee sites across Australia it should be possible to make a similar division involving the local species of macropods.

The value in identifying species and in investigating the presence, preferential use and distribution thereof, is exemplified.. As well as interpretations relating to economic or cultural significance, the recognition of mega-faunal depictions also seems possible. Engravings outside the acceptable modem range of variation within the macropod track assemblage may well be interpreted as such following appropriate analysis.”

So despite Bednarik’s pronouncement that McDonald had recanted her opinion regarding the presence of Macropod Megafauna such as Procoptodon at the site we see the exact opposite is true, i.e.:

• Extinct Megafauna ARE represented at the site
• These are engraved to a naturalistic size
• The type of analysis carried out can be extended to the whole Australia’s petroglyphs

Also of note is that dates from 1986 by Dragovich indicate that many of the petroglyphs were of 10,000BP as a minimum. About the only thing missing from the paper is the actual name Procoptodon goliah.But then again, she didn’t need to, as her Fig. 7 contained the well-known shape often attributed to Procoptondon footprints (see below).

Bednarik (21) original caption: Figure 18. ‘Large macropod tracks’, among several found at the Tiverton main site [Identified in text the as Procoptodon - possibly the same as mentioned above i.e. from Edwards (18)].

Procoptodon reconstruction with Aboriginal hunter-gatherer to show comparison with 5’6” human. Image credits Russell Gooday and Australian Aboriginal Ecology (24) respectively.

I can therefore see Bednarik had good reasons to downplay this paper, as it strongly contradicts many of his pre-conceptions. Additionally I might mention the fact that McDonald’s 1993 paper was one of the few cited by Bednarik that is available on the net and that I was thus able check his interpretation of. That I found his interpretation misleading is perhaps telling. Has he done the same with papers from long ago that are almost completely inaccessible to a digital-age readership?

 

Possible Diprotodon - giant Marsupial Koala

Original source: Trezise (17).

 

Bednarik original caption: Figure 5. Quadruped image from the Laura region, north Queensland, and Trezise’s recording (upper right) of what he believed to represent a Diprotodon; and on the lower right a reconstruction of that animal. Note differences between all three images.

No explanation of what the alleged ‘differences’ is given.

Bednarik commentary: “Palorchestes is a genus of the order Diprotodontia, and a subsequent proposition that a Diprotodon has been depicted in a rock painting came from Cape York Peninsula (Trezise 1993). This claim was presented at the First AURA Congress in Darwin, in 1988, and immediately raised considerable scepticism, primarily because Trezise’s recording (Fig. 5) showed many anatomical features that are incompatible with Diprotodon.”

This is hardly surprising as Robert Bednarik is the “Permanent Chairman of the AURA Congress”. So perhaps that sentence should have read: “This claim was presented at MY First AURA Congress in Darwin, in 1988, and immediately raised MY considerable scepticism, primarily because I am completely against the very notion that Pleistocene representations of Megafauna exist!”

Also of note no list of ‘anatomical features that are incompatible with Diprotodon’ are given and no papers are cited detailing Diprotodon anatomy are cited. Shoddy just shoddy!

Key reasons for rejection of any and all Pleistocene Megafaunal depictions

Later on in the paper is the key piece of reasoning by Bednarik dismisses ALL purported depictions of Australian Megafauna: “Similarly, the ‘identifications’ of iconographic rock paintings as images of Palorchestes, Zaglossus, Diprotodon, Thylacoleo and Genyornis are without exception contradicted by a variety of factors, some of which their proponents do consider. These taxons are all deemed to have become extinct well before 40 ka ago, as indicated by direct dates from fossil remains (Roberts et al. 2001; Grün et al. 2009; Prideaux et al. 2010), contrary to the Cuddie Springs claims. Cores from Lynch’s Crater in northern Queensland indicate that Sporormiella fungus spores, deriving mainly from the dung of mega-herbivores, disappear from the sedimentary record by 41 ka bp, implying that the large herbivores vanished about that time (Rule et al. 2012). There are no zoomorphs known in the world’s rock art older than 40 ka, and no rock paintings have been shown to have survived from the Pleistocene out of caves, or unprotected by silica or oxalate skins (these are henceforth referred to as ‘vulnerable’).This does not mean that such examples will not be found in the future, but the presently available data are unambiguous. Interestingly the claims made for Pleistocene zoomorphs in Australia refer generally to megafaunal species, which illustrates the circular reasoning: they are of large species, therefore they must be Pleistocene, which justifies their identification. No zoomorphs attributed to smaller species are being claimed to be of the Pleistocene, which confirms that these proposals are all based on perceptual biases.”

 

To be fair the erosion problem for painted representations of Megafauna is a cogent point to make. However as Jack Pettigrew (23) points out some of the rock art may have a self-protection mechanism in the form of organic living biofilm:

“Carbon 14 Dating Is Inappropriate for Bradshaw Rock Art: In a recent radio interview I heard June Ross express our affectionate attachment to C14 as a dating technique. It has certainly proved useful when there has been some organic material to date, but it gives completely misleading results when applied to Bradshaw rock art. This is because Bradshaw rock art is alive, in contrast to other, ochre-containing rock art that can be found close by, such as art of the Wandjina series and Other Aboriginal art.

The C14 technique relies on the fairly constant level of the Carbon 14 isotope in the environment, setting aside rare spikes in its concentration, like the effects of Chernobyl, which complicate recent measurements. After equilibrating with the C14 in the environment, living organisms that die now undergo a gradual, precise decay in C14 determined by its radioactive half-life of about 5.7 thousand years. Because the pigments of Bradshaw art are derived completely from living microorganisms and there is no ochre to be found except in very late, Clothes Peg, versions, C14 will continue to be at equilibrium with the environment. The young dates that have been obtained from Bradshaw art are slightly greater than zero, around 3 thousand years, and may deviate from the expected zero because of sticky, long-lived exopolysaccharides which are secreted outside the microorganisms, by both the rock-adapted fungi and the red cyanobacteria, to aid adherence to the rock and resistance to dehydration.”

How widespread this phenomena is across Australia and how much protection it gives to rock art that Bednarik categorises as ‘vulnerable’ remain to be seen.

 

 

Bednarik original cation: Figure 6. Basedow’s depiction of a petroglyph he thought represents a Diprotodon track, and the tracks of the extant wombat.

Here I tend to agree with Bednarik, the footprint, if that is what it is, too ill-defined to be designated to any species. However a 5 minute internet search revealed 5 papers from Price (25-29) which could have made his point more secure. Why he chooses not to base his arguments in solid scientific reasoning instead of saying ‘doesn’t look like it to me’ is telling.

 

 

Palorchastes - the Marsupial Tapir

Original Source: Murray and Chaloupka (30)

 

 

Bednarik original caption: Figure 10. Comparison of another reconstruction attempt of Palorchestes, this one by Murray and Chaloupka (b), with their recording of a pictogram they suggest depicts that genus (b).

Bednarik commentary: “Although Murray and Chaloupka’s review of the image they suggest may be of Palorchestes lists many pros and cons of that reading, there are more significant obstacles. As they note, this genus is most inadequately known, and any palaeontological reconstruction involves a good deal of guesswork. From its naming by Richard Owen in 1873 to 1958, Palorchestes was thought to have been a giant macropod, until Woods (1958) noticed that it lacked a masseteric foramen in the dentary. His find led to the destruction by the Australian Museum, to lessen any possible embarrassment, of a 3-m-high ‘reconstruction’ it had made shortly before this discovery (Fig. 9). This provides an example of how incomplete the knowledge of many extinct animals is, and how any reconstruction needs to be regarded as provisional, especially in such details as soft tissue, hair and colouring. The precise anatomical and especially visual characteristics of most Australian megafauna are either poorly known or unknown, and that applies particularly to such species as Palorchestes..” and “The reconstruction of the first species offered by Murray and Chaloupka (1984: Fig. 11; here reproduced as Fig. 10a) provides hundreds of details, most of which are fictional, and it is not a reliable basis to begin from in any attempt to identify rock art imagery. But even if it were, and ignoring that this image was drawn in a pose to persuade the reader that it matches the form of the rock art image, the elements matching anatomically would be so minimal that it would not be justified to claim that the resemblance is adequate to identify an animal that is assumed to have become extinct long before the time the earliest ‘vulnerable’ pictograms can be demonstrated to have survived from..”

One again Bednarik is critical of the anatomical comparisons made by the authors’ without giving us a list or references. I could carry out a search for relevant papers as Bednarik should have done and I have done above but I’ll leave that to the enquiring reader. He then again uses his ‘it’s a vulnerable piece of rock art’ argument again to say it can’t be Palorchestes because that would make the rock art Pleistocene and I can’t accept that. See comments above on ‘Key reasons for rejection..’.

 

Verdict: Likely representation of Palorchestes, age uncertain but possibly of Pleistocene age
 

The rest of the paper is quite repetitive, in that it looks at prominent papers on Thylacoleo (Marsupial Lion), Thylacine and Genyornis newtoni and treats them in much the same manner. As I have covered Thylacoleo (Marsupial Lion), Thylacine and Genyornis newtoni in another post (here), I’ll leave it up to you to delve further if you are so inclined.

 

Overall verdict:
 

1. Taçon et al. (1) Wellington range Thylacine probably 13,000BP+ in age.

2. Some of the petroglyphs covered in Bednarik’s paper could be up to 40,000BP, furthermore he makes misleading statements about papers and thus draws erroneous conclusions and dismisses Megafauna footprints in particular

3. Bednarik uses his ‘vulnerable to weathering’ argument and therefore NOT Pleistocene for all rock art covered in this paper

4. Concerning rock art paintings Bednarik states, without references to published literature that various Megafauna cannot be those species that the authors assign them to on anatomical grounds - he simply states his opinion without a cogent argument - therefore they are NOT Pleistocene

5. Bednarik dresses up his assessments as scientific reasoning but they seem to me, to be just thinly vailed bias. In fact he seems to have just one idea: deny the possibility of art rock art being Pleistocene

 

References

1. Taçon, Paul S. C. 2011. Changing perspectives in Australian archaeology, part XI. Rare and curious thylacine depictions from Wollemi National Park, New South Wales and Arnhem Land, Northern Territory. Technical Reports of the Australian Museum, Online 23(11): 165–174.

2. Bednarick, R.G. 2013. Megafaunal depictions in Australian Rock art. Rock Art Research 2013 - Volume 30, Number 2, pp. 197-215.

3. Robert Bednarick profile. Retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Bednarik

4. Pettigrew, J. January 2016. Dysfunction of Professional Rock Art Science in Australia. Retrieved from: http://www.uq.edu.au/nuq/jack/Dysfunction.html

5. Mountford, C. P. 1929. A unique example of Aboriginal rock engraving at Panaramitee North. Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of South Australia 53: 243–248.

6. Mountford, C. P. and R. Edwards 1962. Aboriginal rock engravings of extinct creatures in South Australia. Man 62(174): 97–99.

7. Bednarik, R. G 2014, Review: Pleistocene Paleoart of Australia. Arts 2014, 3, 156-174; doi:10.3390/arts3010156arts

8. Mountford, C. P. and R. Edwards 1962. Aboriginal rock engravings of extinct creatures in South Australia. Man 62(174): 97–99.

9. Roberts, R.G et al. 2001. New Ages for the Last Australian Megafauna: Continent-Wide Extinction About 46,000 Years Ago. Science Vol. 292: 1888-1892.

10. Florek, S 2015. Megafauna extinction theories - patterns of extinction. The Australian Museum. Retrieved from: http://australianmuseum.net.au/megafauna-extinction-theories-patterns-of-extinction

11. Hall, F. J., R. G. McGowan and G. F. Guleksen 1951. Aboriginal rock carvings: a locality near Pimba, S.A. Records of the South Australian Museum 9(4): 375–380.

12. Franklin, N. R. 2011. Rock Art in South Australia, Analysis of Panaramitee Tradition Engravings and paintings, in Issues in South Australian Aboriginal Archaeology. (Roberts, A and Walshe K. eds.) Special Edition: Journal of the Anthropological Society of South Australia. Volume 34 - June 2011

13. Watchman, A., 1992a. Investigating the cation-ratio calibration curve: evidence from South Australia. Rock Art Res. 9, 106–110.

14. Dorn, R.I., Dragovich, D., 1990. Interpretation of rock varnish in Australia: case studies from the arid zone. Austr. Geogr. 21, 18–32.

15. Dorn Ronald I. 1996a. Uncertainties in 14C ages for petroglyphs from the Olary province, South Australia. Archaeology in Oceania 31: 214-215

16. Whitley David S. 2012. Rock Art Dating and the Peopling of the Americas. Journal of Archaeology Volume 2013 (2013), Article ID 713159,  http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/713159

Retrieved from: http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jarchae/2013/713159/#B128

17. Trezise, P. 1993. Dream road: a journey of discovery. Allen and Unwin, Sydney.

18. Edwards, R. 1965. Rock engravings and incised stones: Tiverton Station, north-east South Australia. Mankind 6: 223–231.

19. McDonald, J. 1983. The identification of species in a Panaramitee style engraving site. In M. Smith (ed.), Archaeology at ANZAAS 1983, pp. 236–272. Western Australian Museum, Perth.

20.McDonald, J. 1993. The depiction of species in macropod track engravings at an Aboriginal art site in western New South Wales. In J. Specht (ed.), F. D. McCarthy, commemorative papers (archaeology, anthropology, rock art), pp. 105–115. Records of the Australian Museum, Supplement 17, Sydney.

21. Bednarik Robert G. 2010. Australian Rock Art of the Pleistocene. Rock Art Research Volume 27, Number 1, pp. 89-113

22. Robert Bednarik profile at AURANET. Retrieved from: http://www.ifrao.com/robert-g-bednarik/

23. Jack Pettigrew. Carbon 14 Dating Is Inappropriate for Bradshaw Rock Art. Retrieved from: http://www.uq.edu.au/nuq/jack/Bradshaw.htm

24. Australian Aboriginal Ecology. Retrieved from: http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~rfrey/220aboriginal_ecology.htm

25. Price, Gilbert J. and Sobbe, I.H. 2011. Morphological variation within an individual Pleistocene Diprotodon optatum Owen 1838 (Diprotodontidae; Marsupialia): implications for taxonomy within diprotodontoids. Alcheringa: An Australian Journal of Palaeontology. 35: 21-29.  doi:10.1080/03115511003793553

26. Price, Gilbert J. and Piper, K.J. 2009. Gigantism of the Australian Diprotodon Owen 1838 (Marsupialia, Diprotodontoidea) through the Pleistocene. Journal of Quaternary Science. 24: 1029-1038. doi: 10.1002/jqs.1285

27. Price, Gilbert J., Zhao, J.-x., Feng, Y.-x. and Hocknull, S.A. 2009. New records of Plio-Pleistocene koalas from Australia: Palaeoecological and taxonomic implications. Records of the Australian Museum. 61 (1): 39-48. doi: 10.3853/j.0067-1975.61.2009.1518

28.  Price, Gilbert J. 2008. Is the modern koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) a derived dwarf of a Pleistocene giant? Implications for testing megafauna extinction hypotheses. Quaternary Science Reviews 27: 2516-2521. doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2008.08.026

29.  Price, Gilbert J. 2008. Taxonomy and palaeobiology of the largest-ever marsupial, Diprotodon Owen 1838 (Diprotodontidae, Marsupialia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society of London 153: 389–417. doi:10.1111/j.1096-3642.2008.00387.x

30. Murray, P. F. and G. Chaloupka 1984. The Dreamtime animals: extinct megafauna in Arnhem Land rock art. Archaeology in Oceania 19(3): 105–116.