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.
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.
Verdict: Petroglyph of a Marine Turtle date unknown but possibly
Pleistocene.
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
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.
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
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
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment