Palaeoart and Materiality - ifrao.com · The Scientific Study of Rock Art edited by Robert G. Bednarik, Danae Fiore, Mara Basile, Giriraj Kumar ... Teniendo como objetivo promover

Palaeoart and

Materiality The Scientific Study of Rock Art

edited by

Robert G. Bednarik, Danae Fiore, Mara Basile, Giriraj Kumar

and Tang Huisheng

Archaeopress Archaeology

Copyrighted material: no unauthorised reproduction in any medium

Archaeopress Publishing LtdGordon House

276 Banbury RoadOxford OX2 7ED

www.archaeopress.com

ISBN 978 1 78491 429 5ISBN 978 1 78491 430 1 (e-Pdf)

© Archaeopress and the authors 2016

Cover image: Part of the Huashan site in Guangxi Province, southern China, the largest rock painting site in the world. Photograph by R. G. Bednarik.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise,

without the prior written permission of the copyright owners.

Printed in England by Oxuniprint, OxfordThis book is available direct from Archaeopress or from our website www.archaeopress.com


i

Contents

Contents ......................................................................................................................................................................... i

Relevant Issues for the Design of a Protocol for the Interdisciplinary Study of Rock Art ...........................................1Eugenia P. Tomasini, Mara Basile, Marta S. Maier, Norma Ratto

Superimpositions and Attitudes Towards Pre-existing Rock Art: a Case Study in Southern Patagonia ...................15Anahí Re

Pigments Used in Rock Paintings from the East and West of the Iberian Peninsula Analysed by X-ray Fluorescence: Analogies and Differences ............................................................................................................31A. Martín Sánchez, C. Roldán García, M. J. Nuevo, J. Oliveira, S. Murcia Mascarós, C. Oliveira

The Material Scientific Investigation of Rock Art: Contributions from non-Invasive X-ray Techniques ...................41Jillian Huntley, Clive Freeman Galamban

Methodological Approach to the Materiality of Rock Paintings Based on Their Physicochemical Characterisation. Proposal and Reflections from Their Study in Chile ................................................................59Marcela Sepúlveda

Step Forwards in the Archaeometric Studies on Rock Paintings in the Bogotá Savannah, Colombia. Analysis of Pigments and Alterations ...................................................................................................................73Judith Trujillo T.

What Should We Do or Not Do for the Preservation or Remedial Action in Prehistoric Painted Caves? ................85F. Bourges, P. Genthon, D. Genty, M. Lorblanchet, France, E. Mauduit, D. D’Hulst, E. David, N. Ferrer

Forensic Replication Work with Australian Cave Art .................................................................................................99Robert G. Bednarik, Yann-Pierre Montelle

Experimental Rock Art Studies. Replication of Pictographs from La Primavera Locality (Santa Cruz, Argentina) .113Rocío V. Blanco, Natalia G. Barreto

Measurements and Replications of Hand Stencils: a Methodological Approach for the Estimation of the Individuals’ Age and Sex .....................................................................................................................................129Natalia Carden, Rocío Blanco

Time and Rock Art Production: Explorations on the Material Side of Petroglyphs in the Semiarid North of Chile ......................................................................................................................................................147Francisco Vergara, Andrés Troncoso, Francisca Ivanovic

Taphonomy of the Early Petroglyphs at Daraki-Chattan and in the Region Around It in Chambal Basin, India ....161Giriraj Kumar, Ram Krishna, Robert G. Bednarik

The Tribology of Petroglyphs .................................................................................................................................... 171Robert G. Bednarik

Understanding the Technology of Very Small Cupules in Daraki-Chattan, India ....................................................187Ram Krishna, Giriraj Kumar


ii

Evidence of Collaboration Among Art-Makers in Twelve Upper Palaeolithic Caves ...............................................195Leslie Van Gelder

A Survey of Developments in Dating Australian Rock-Markings .............................................................................205Graeme K. Ward

A New Cold Plasma System for Pictogram 14C Sampling ..........................................................................................217Marvin W. Rowe, Eric Blinman, John C. Martin, J. Royce Cox, Mark MacKenzie, Lukas Wacker

Direct Dating of Bolivian Petroglyphs Using Indirect Microerosion Analysis ..........................................................225Robert G. Bednarik

Use of Theodolite and Photographic Techniques in the Recording and Analysis of the Geographical and Astronomical Entorno (surrounding) ..................................................................................................................235Patricio Bustamante, Ricardo Moyano, Daniela Bustamante


99

Introduction

The relevance of forensic science to the effective study of rock art and portable palaeoart is a relatively recent development. Intuitively the potential of this approach has long been evident, and has been developed by such scholars as Semenov (1957), Marshack (1985) and, more recently, d’Errico (1991). However, such work focused on portable materials, such as stone tools, engraved plaques and other mobiliary palaeoart. The deliberate application of forensic principles to immovable palaeoart involves the need for intensive field work, as in most circumstances the research cannot be limited to laboratory analyses. Montelle’s (2009) dictum that ‘Rock art [research] is forensics, or it is nothing’ is so obviously valid that it should not need to be rationalised. Non-forensic studies of rock art have resulted in a cacophony of untestable pronouncements about meaning, antiquity, stylistic status and so forth, but very little that could be considered to be of scientific standard or relevance.

Forensics, in the narrow sense, defines the science of determining what happened at a crime scene, although its original Latin meaning refers to the forum of presenting evidence at a public hearing. In the application to rock art research, the site is approached as a crime scene, and the central question remains “What happened here?” Methods of assessing evidence resemble those commonly employed in forensic science: the striations

found on a fired bullet that identify the barrel it was fired from become those of engraved grooves preserving properties of the uneven point of the engraving tool; the detection of minute traces, such as blood (and its molecular characteristics) has its parallels in the analysis of rock art paint residues; and the determination of physical aspects of the perpetrator (such as physical size or handedness) also apply to the rock art producer. As predicted by Locard’s Exchange Principle, the universal theory underlying much forensic work, whenever two objects come into contact with one another, a transfer of material will occur. Most of the ensuing reactions occur on a very small scale. Therefore from a forensic perspective, a rock art site must be treated precisely like a crime scene: every modern modification must be avoided, or limited to that occasioned by the forensic scientist. Another aspect shared by forensics and rock art science is the profound importance of the effects of taphonomy (Efremov 1940), just as it is impossible to understand archaeology without the application of taphonomic logic (Bednarik 1994a).

The testability of forensic propositions is generally accomplished by replicative experimentation. Preliminary efforts to use this valuable research tool have been documented for several decades with rock art (McCarthy 1962, 1967; Crawford 1964; Wright 1968; Sierts 1968; Pilles 1976; Savvateyev 1977; Loendorf 1984; Lorblanchet et al. 1990), but to formalise them as

Forensic Replication Work with Australian Cave Art

Robert G. BednarikAustralia, [email protected]

Yann-Pierre MontelleNew Zealand, [email protected]

In an effort to promote the merits of forensic work in rock art science, this paper reports such work conducted in one of the cave art sites of Australia, Ngrang Cave in western Victoria. This relatively small cave contains hundreds of petroglyphs, including sub-parallel sets of grooves and finger flutings. Its entrance chamber contains a large collection of cupules, which are the deepest so far reported anywhere. The cave wall is soft limestone, and many of the holes in it, although weathered, still bear distinct tool traces dating from the time they were made. In order to establish how these deep cupules were made, and with what kinds of tools, detailed forensic and replication studies were conducted. The results are illustrated and reported.

Trabajo de replicación forense con arte rupestre de Australia

Teniendo como objetivo promover perspectivas forenses en los estudios científicos de arte rupestre, el artículo presenta el trabajo realizado en el sitio con arte rupestre denominado Cueva Ngrang (oeste de Victoria, Australia). Esta pequeña cueva contiene cientos de petroglifos, incluyendo series sub-paralelas de surcos y digitaciones. El vestíbulo muestra un gran conjunto de cúpulas, siendo de las más profundas de las documentadas hasta el momento. La pared de la cavidad es una caliza blanda, y muchas de las cúpulas presentan, a pesar de su alteración, evidencias de los instrumentos con los que fueron realizadas. Con el objetivo de conocer cómo fueron realizadas las cúpulas y con qué instrumentos, se han realizado detallados estudios forenses y de replicado experimental que muestra el presente trabajo.


100

Palaeoart and Materiality

a forensic approach has been a more recent development (Bednarik 1998a, 2001, 2006; Weeks 2001). The present paper offers an example of this approach.

Forensics of rock art

A prime example of forensic analysis of rock art, the microscopic study of engraving tool traces, has also been developed only recently (Bednarik 1984, 1986a, 1987/88, 1992a, 1997, 1998a; Kitzler 2000; Alvarez 2001), despite the corresponding criminal forensics technique of matching bullet striae having been in use since Alexandre Lacassagne, professor of forensic medicine at the University of Lyons, introduced it in 1889 (improved by Paul Jesrich in 1898 and Victor Balthazard in 1910). Similarly, any other forensic methods were introduced in rock art research much later than elsewhere, if indeed at all. Occasional attempts to establish paint ‘signatures’ (Clottes et al. 1990; Bednarik and Fushun 1991), the identification of microscopic plant fibres in paint residues (Cole and Watchman 1992), and the nano-stratigraphic excavation of accretionary mineral deposits (Bednarik 1979; Watchman 1993, 2000) all qualify as forensic work. However, the most extensive work of this kind has been applied to the determination of paint composition (Koski et al. 1973; Clarke 1976; Ballet et al. 1979; Moffat et al. 1989; Clottes et al. 1990; Peisach et al. 1991; Clarke and North 1991; Pepe et al. 1991; Petit and Valot 1992; Watchman 1993; Scott and Hyder 1993; David et al. 1993; Morwood et al. 1994; Hyman et al. 1996; Mawk et al. 1996; Scott et al. 1996; Meneses L. 1996; Barker et al. 1997; Ward et al. 1999; Rowe 2001; Ward et al. 2001; Edwards 2004; Edwards and Chalmers 2005; Howell 2005; Valdez et al. 2008; Sepúlveda et al. 2012). The only attempt so far to detect blood residues in rock paintings (Loy et al. 1990), however, has been refuted (Nelson 1993; Gillespie 1997; cf. Scott et al. 1996).

A similar forensic approach targeted at the study of petroglyphs has only been attempted rarely. For instance, a hammerstone used in the production of percussion petroglyphs was found to bear traces of ferruginous patination at the impact-flaked point, which yielded the same chemical signature as the patination into which designs had been hammered nearby (Bednarik 2001: 40). In this case the analysis had the specific purpose of testing the proposition that the hammerstone was used to create rock art at the site, which illustrates the important role of forensics in subjecting interpretations of evidence to falsification attempts.

In comparison to principally chemical work, anthropometric studies of rock art have remained relatively neglected. Both handprints and hand stencils (Freers 2001; Gunn 2006, 2007) can provide such data, and in Australia other human body parts have frequently been stencilled. The endeavours to determine the sex of

hand stencil producers on the basis of the ratio between the 2nd and 4th digits of the human hand (e.g. Guthrie 2005; Chazine and Noury 2006) illustrate that care needs to be taken not to over-interpret such evidence. Finger length ratios can differ considerably among populations (Henneberg and Mathers 1994; Gunn 2006). Hand sizes may offer more robust metrical data through systematic measurement of prints and stencils, and the same applies to finger-stamped patterns on painted plaques (Bednarik 2002) and to finger sizes determined from parietal finger flutings in caves (Bednarik 1986a, 1987/88; 2008a; Sharpe and Van Gelder 2006). Kinetic mechanics in mark production could also be applied in forensic investigation, although the issues involved are too complex for simplistic generalisations or indexation and are in need of much more attention. Both cultural and physiological factors influence kinetic mechanics and they need to be accounted for.

There are numerous further forensic techniques that could be potentially applied to rock art, but this field remains in an embryonic state and has yet to develop a reasonably comprehensive arsenal of methods. For instance it is very likely that specific photographic techniques may profit a forensic investigation of palaeoart; for instance ultra-violet photography can render pigment traces detectable that are not visible to the unaided eye. However, such approaches have only been used rarely so far. Here it is attempted to demonstrate that a comprehensive replication program of forensic method can be profitably employed in testing interpretative propositions in rock art studies.

Forensics in Australian caves

Australia has the third-largest concentration of cave art (after south-western Europe and the very recently discovered corpus of northern Papua New Guinea), which has been studied by the Parietal Markings Project (PMP) since 1981 (Bednarik 1982). This project has developed and applied forensic methods for decades. Australian cave art comprises mostly petroglyphs and is exclusively non-figurative. Over the past three decades the PMP has developed forensic methodology of discriminating between natural and anthropic rock markings in caves (Bednarik 1980, 1986b, 1991a), and of the traceological analysis of engraved line markings (Bednarik 1991b, 1992a, 1994b, 1997).

Geological, radiometric and stylistic evidence and contextual relationship (e.g. superimposed megafaunal scratch marks) suggest that most Australian cave art is of the Pleistocene, although a significant Holocene component has also been demonstrated (Bednarik 1998b, 1999). The following basic types are provisionally identified: finger flutings on moonmilk deposits, deeply pounded and abraded petroglyphs of the Karake genre, apparently non-utilitarian tool markings, deep pits or


101

Robert G. Bednarik and Yann-Pierre Montelle: Forensic Replication Work with Australian Cave Art

cupules, shallow engravings and recent petroglyphs, and pigment stencils. The relative chronological relationships among these classes have only been resolved partially, and the age of the chert mining evidence frequently co-occurring with Australian cave art has not been conclusively established.

Among the specific forensic preoccupations of the PMP have been the determination of the types of tools used in making wall markings, including the recognition of the ‘signatures’ of specific rock types through traceology (e.g. Bednarik 1987/88, 1992a); the determination of the approximate ages of the producers of finger flutings by metric analysis (e.g. Bednarik 1986a, 2008a); the detection of geomorphological events contextually related to the rock art, such as tectonic adjustments, roof falls, subsidences, inundations, speleo-weathering processes or biospheric weathering (e.g. Bednarik 1989, 1999); the reconstruction of superimposition sequences of finger flutings (e.g. Bednarik 1984, 1985, 1986a); the determination of the order of tool applications and their direction to reconstruct wall marking events (e.g. Bednarik 1987/88, 1992a, 2006); and a variety of replicative experiments to test hypotheses.

Other anthropic activities demonstrated to have occurred in Australian caves containing rock art include the mining of sedimentary silica deposits, their use as habitation sites and living quarters, and the exploration of deep passages, especially by young people. The PMP focused specifically on chert mining evidence in two caves and chalcedony mining in a third (e.g. Bednarik 1986b, 1990, 1992b, 1995), which in some cases involved the application of specialised mining techniques and tools, determined through forensic evidence provided by tool marks and impressions of tool points. Pleistocene silica mining is known from one cave site each in Hungary and France (Bednarik 1986b; 1990), and from two alluvial sites in Egypt (Vermeersch et al. 1986). In Australia, extensive traces of subterranean silica mining have been located in nine caves so far, and in six of them they occur close to petroglyphs. The reconstruction of the activities that led to these traces employing forensic methods has provided a basis of distinguishing five basic mining methods at the Australian pre-Historic silica mines.

The deep cupules of Ngrang Cave

Since 2007, the authors have focused on one of the rock art phenomena of one Australian site, Ngrang Cave, used here to illustrate some generic principles of forensic work with cave art. This work involves various levels of analysis (see Montelle 2009):

1. The macro-level: overall setting of the cave, its speleogenesis and establishing how the present evacuational and convacuational spaces developed through time.

2. The medium level: the site formation processes that contributed to the present state of the immediate environment of the cave art (i.e. within a few metres of it).

3. The micro-level: the precise details of the features which the previous levels of investigation have identified as relevant, such as wall markings, weathering details, speleothems, or any form of tectonic, fluvial, phreatic, vadose or biological traces.

4. The microscopic level: the magnified examination of tools, markings, residues, traces and so forth, details which are not visible to the unaided eye.

5. Replication: this refers to the experimental work of reproducing observed outcomes or traces for the purpose of testing specific hypotheses concerning specific observations.

From a scientific perspective it is important to appreciate that in the absence of knowledgeable ‘owners’ or custodians of the rock art in question, any credible understanding of the circumstances of the production of the rock art can only be derived through this procedure, and in combination with an understanding of taphonomic effects and the relative or absolute chronology of relevant events. Ngrang Cave is a fluvial tunnel cave formed by a Pleistocene subterranean stream that very likely drained into the nearby Glenelg River, in the far south-west of Victoria. After the general lowering of the region’s aquifer levels during glacial periods the horizontal tunnel, just a few metres below the surface plain, began to collapse in some places along its course (Figure 1). A part of this tunnel is now accessible in one place, from where it can be followed for about 30 m. The very low convacuational space contains very numerous anthropic wall markings of various types, but here a specific location is considered, a series of 52 tool-made cavities (‘deep pits’ or ‘alveoli’, considered to be a deep

Figure 1. The entrance of Ngrang Cave, south-western Victoria, Australia, overlain by Pleistocene terra rossa.


102


Table 1. The primary characteristics of the forty-five deep cupules in Ngrang Cave, south-western Victoria, Australia.

Extr.pit No.

Max.dia.

Min.dia.

Depth,mm

Orien-tation

Incli-nation

1 cm fromdeepest

pointNotes

EP1 105 69 124 10oL 20oD 35 Extensive groove marks on upper half.

EP2 60 45 42 10ºL 0º 31 Groove markings on top and left; very faint.

EP3 102 88 196 30ºL 5ºD 40 Grooves all around except on floor.

EP4 56 46 65 20ºL 5ºD 20 Fairly cylindrical shape. Faint broad grooves across most surfaces.

EP5 95 70 72 10ºL 10ºU 30 Faint and primarily on top rim. Potential scars of tool tips.

EP6 73 60 72 35ºL 0º 20 Very pointed section with very faint grooving on top.

EP7 112 85 175 20ºL 20ºD 25 Deeply grooved on most surface, including floor.

EP8 60 52 67 30ºL 0º 30 No markings visible.

EP9 70 64 53 30ºL 0º 25 Faint.

EP10 140 90 110 10ºL 0º 10 Amorphic/atypical with very deep grooves. Tool tips in floor.

EP11 120 70 55 10ºL 10ºD 40 One groove on top tunnels along the surface.

EP12 65 42 42 10ºL 5ºU 20 No visible markings.

EP13 155 105 170 30ºL 15ºU 15/20 Very deeply grooved all around. Tool impressions at opening.

EP14 65 50 30 25ºL 20ºU 20 Cupule with pointed floor.

EP15 95 80 65 30ºL 5ºD 15 Some groove marks around the top.

EP16 Amorphic 28 0º 20ºU Amorphic Atypical shape with several tool tip impressions but no grooves.

EP17 Amorphic 28 0º 20ºU Amorphic Several tip marks but no grooves (too shallow).

EP18 90 65 87 20ºL 0º 40 Faint grooving all around + tool tips on floor.

EP19 110 90 165 10ºL 10ºU 40 Groove marks on all surfaces.

EP20 85 75 76 5ºL 0º 35 Faint tool marks on right, fairly corroded.

EP21 95 70 47 0º 5ºU 20 Angular appearance. ‘comet’-like morph.

EP22 88 50 54 0º 5ºU 40 Shows evidence of indirect impact - good grooves around top; flat floor.

EP23 90 68 60 45ºL 5ºU 25 Five parallel grooves on top, faint groovings on bottom. Rounded floor.

EP24 75 75 72 25ºL 0º 15 Floor very pointy with irregular grooves on roof and left.

EP25 80 50 55 5ºL 5ºD 20 Very large groove on top associated with grooves on left. Impact marks.

EP26 70 45 34 10ºL 0º 20 Grooves around the rim.

EP27 75 75 75 10ºL 5ºU 25 Well rounded floor with low grooves.

EP28 90 65 92 15ºL 10ºD 25 Very deep grooves over entire lower half and singular groove on upper rim.


103


version of cupules), up to 20 cm deep and forming a single panel. The research target is to formulate testable propositions, based on the forensics of the site, of how these deep cupules were made.

The present entrance of Ngrang Cave is at a roof collapse proceeding E to W, whose rim retreat rate exceeds the build-up of the cone deposit inside it, facilitating

continued access to the tunnel. The cave remains accessible only because the rate of rim retreat exceeds the rate of sediment deposition below the rim. Because the quantity of the collapsed rock is known from the tunnel’s morphology and size, the contents of the cone slope can be estimated: 32 m3 limestone (c. 78 t) and 14 m3 sediment (c. 25 t), assuming airspaces of about 2 m3. Pleistocene sediment from the exterior descends down

Extr.pit No.

Max.dia.

Min.dia.

Depth,mm

Orien-tation

Incli-nation

1 cm fromdeepest

pointNotes

EP29 65 60 21 0º 0º 45 Shallow and angular with some grooving; possible tool points.

EP30 70 60 28 0º 0º 30 Shallow ‘incomplete’ pit; 1 tool point and impact on floor

EP31 Truncated 75 150/160 5ºL 30ºD 15 Very pointed floor; faint grooves on 3/4 surface; no markings on bottom.

EP32 70 41 30 10ºL 65ºD 15 Three or 4 very distinctive grooves; attempted and abandoned pit.

EP33 120 80 180 0º 0º 55/60 Rounded floor. Distinctive tool points on left. Grooves on most of bottom.

EP34 80 70 85 0º 5ºU 25 No markings, but well-rounded floor.

EP35 105 85 135 0º 5ºU 70 Heavily corroded with no apparent grooves.

EP36 95 90 80 0º 20ºU 75/80 Associated to a linear configuration. No grooves.

EP37 80 55 38 5º 15ºU 30 Shallow corroded groove on top part and several tool marks near it.

EP38 64 62 85 10ºL 15ºD 20 Very pointed floor with very faint grooves.

EP39 60 48 55 0º 0º 25 Faint grooves on upper part of pit.

EP40 55 35 32 5ºR 0º 20 Left-handed? ‘Comet’-like shape.

EP41 80 60 40 10ºL 0º 15 Very angular atypical and amorphic with a sharp floor. Comet-like.

EP42 105 95 140 15ºL 0º 40 No notes reported.

EP43 70 50 35 10ºL 0º 15 Comet-like shape with pointy floor (same as EP41).

EP44 68 54 38 20ºL 20ºU 25 Impacts scars in and around the pit.

EP45 80 75 75 20ºL 5ºU 40 Slight truncation. Broken pieces due to graffiti. Squarish flat floor.

General notes:1. Extensive groove marks on upper half of panel.2. Note the right-handedness implied in all cases except one (EP40).3. Lower pits are downward while upper ones are mostly horizontal.4. EP13 is a good contender for internal analysis of tool marks.5. EP 28 is associated with a singular impact nearby.6. EP32 is situated on a roof below main panel.7. On left of EP20 there are distinct impact marks that are corroded and not associated with grooves.8. Between EP19 and EP22, a number of at least a dozen singular impact marks are clearly visible. 9. Between EP19 and EP22, a couple of short grooves are associated with impact marks.10. Between EP34 and EP35 is an atypical pit which has not been analysed.11. Inclination in degrees up (U) or down (D) is absolute for all cases, while orientation in degrees left (L) or right (R) is relative to panel.


104


the slope and contributes to creating the cone deposit’s stratigraphy. Within it occur dense lenses of evidence of occupation, comprising charcoal, bone fragments, emu eggshell fragments and chert tools. As the rim of the collapse retreats with every new rock fall, the lower limestone strata (the tunnel roof) become similarly unstable and are claimed by gravity. One such event has claimed the northern end of the panel of deep cupules, when a projecting wall portion bearing seven of the deep pits broke off and fell to the ground relatively recently. This study is only concerned with the 45 cupules that have remained in situ (Figure 2, Table 1).

This reconstruction through its geomorphology and tectonic adjustments over time provides a relative timeframe within which the production of the extraction pits on the wall ledge must be situated. A test pit has provided dense evidence of human occupation next to the rock art, embedded in colluvial sediments. Its contemporaneity with any of the rock art activity cannot be demonstrated; in fact the cupules cannot even be related with any of the numerous other tool and finger marks deeper in the cave. They are not related to any speleothem, and only one of them has been truncated by a subsequent mass-exfoliation event. This leaves only one index of relative age, surface retreat by speleo-weathering, but it can be applied in three different ways. First, the Miocene limestone contains tiny marine fossil casts that tend to weather significantly less than the matrix, and at the opening of one of the cupules, one such cast extends 9 mm above the present surface. This would suggest a considerable surface retreat since the cupule was made, but it needs to be assumed that the cast was not protruding some of the distance at that time. Secondly, the cupules contain numerous tool marks, the relative degree of weathering of which is a measure of antiquity (Figure 3). However, several factors complicate the utility of this index: weathering rates differ depending on the depth within the cupule; the detailed morphology

of the tool gouges at the time they were made is unknown and must be assumed (Figure 4); and the type of tool used is not known. These considerations render it desirable to conduct replicative experiments to better deal with these issues.

The third indicator of the age of the cupules is perhaps the most reliable, and the easiest variable to quantify effectively. The rims of the cupules are considerably more rounded today than they can be assumed to have been at the time of manufacture. There can be no doubt that the more acute rims become progressively rounded with time. However, to determine their initial morphology, replication is again required.

Three field campaigns of one week each have provided a series of experiments to establish (a) what tools and what extraction method(s) were most likely to have been used in making the cupules; and (b) what would the rims of the fresh cupules have looked like. For this purpose flat surfaces on blocks of the same limestone forming the cave walls were selected and a dozen holes were created under controlled conditions, using three types of tools: the broken leg bones of kangaroos; pointed chisels of hardwood; and large stone picks freshly knapped from local chert. Each of these artefact types was applied by both direct and indirect percussion, using suitable hammerstones in the latter cases. The stone tools were also experimentally used by direct rotational action. Details of all experiments were recorded by film, photography, measurements and notes. The experimental pits were generally modelled after cupule EP23 (approximate depth 6.5 cm; approximate diameter at rim 7.5 cm).

Results of the Ngrang Cave experiments

The following lithic, bone and wooden tools were created for the experiments (Figure 5):

Figure 2. Panel of 45 deep cupules in Ngrang Cave. Figure 3. Deep cupules, Ngrang Cave; the central specimen showing distinctive tool marks.


105


L1: (manufactured by YPM) of brownish chert, distal tip shaped as a point, proximal end fully rounded, length 18.7 cm, width 8.5 cm at centre, weight 609.2 g, bifacial (Figure 6).

L2: (manufactured by RB; retouched by YPM) bicolour greyish chert, distal tip shaped as a chisel, proximal end only partially worked, length 21.3 cm, width 10.5 cm at centre, weight 795 g.

B1: (manufactured by YPM) aged macropod tibia, distal tip fractured and shaped as a tube, proximal end

unmodified, length 18.9 cm, width 2 cm at centre, weight 84.3 g.

B2: (manufactured by YPM) aged macropod tibia, distal tip shaped like a flat chisel, proximal end unmodified, length 21.0 cm, width 3 cm at centre, weight 100.3 g.

W1: (manufactured and retouched by YPM) Eucalyptus sp., distal tip shaped as a point, proximal end left

Figure 4. Deep cupules EP13 and EP7; note tool marks and rounded rims.

Figure 6. Brownish chert tool L1 used in creating three experimental cupules by, from left to right, indirect

percussion, gouging and rotation.

Figure 5. Hardwood and bone tools used in creating experimental cupules in Ngrang Cave.


106


with bark, length 46.5 cm, width 3 cm at centre, weight 135 g.

W2: (manufactured YPM; retouched YPM and RB) Eucalyptus sp., distal tip shaped as a chisel, proximal end left with bark, length 44.9 cm, width 4 cm, weight 160 g.

The following experimental cupules were created, and the details of each experiment were recorded as follows (Figure 7):

PMP2 - 23.1Rotational movement using lithic implement L1, manufactured in the shape of a pic.Manufacturing time 2:30 mins.Horizontal surface, rim and shape are too perfect relative to deep cupules.Parsimonious diameter.The floor is systematically conical.The tool marks are characteristically circular (by-products of rotation).

PMP2 - 23.2Gouging movement using L1.Manufacturing time 4 mins.Horizontal surface, rim shows minimal and faint tool marks.Characteristic breakages on the rim due primarily to a kinetic pattern analogous to leverage and could potentially be used as signatures.The overall diameter was easily controlled during manufacture.Of the three pits 23.1, 23.2 and 23.3, 23.2 was the easiest to control in terms of overall layout (shape, diameter, angulation).The floor shows characteristic erratic features which are similar to some of the deep cupules.

The floor shape can be easily controlled in terms of shape (conical or flat).Tool marks clearly defined on the rim as leverage tool marks.Beyond the rim, erratic tool marks are visible but faint.

PMP2 - 23.3Indirect percussion using L1 and a hammerstone (chert).Manufacturing time 3:30 to 4 mins.Horizontal surface.As a general note, this particular mode of manufacture did not allow the operator to control the outcome.Rim shows characteristic irregularities which cannot be found in the deep cupules.Tendency for convexity to appear on the floor (extraction forms distinctive patterns on the floor).Tool marks best defined on rim but becoming almost completely absent past mid-point.

PMP2 - 23.4Indirect percussion using bone implement B1 with a tip in the shape of a smooth circular breakage and a hammerstone (chert).Manufacturing time 3:30 mins.Horizontal surface.Tool marks (impressions) clearly visible around the rim, but faint to invisible on the actual wall surfaces.A very flat and round base.There seems to have been no difficulty maintaining vertical extraction during manufacture.Leverage plays a key role in the overall configuration of this pit.

PMP2 - 23.5Indirect percussion using bone implement B2 with a tip shaped with a broken and bruised pointy edge (chisel) and a hammerstone (chert).Manufacturing time 2 mins.Horizontal surface.Manufacturing was easier than 23.4 due primarily to the nature of the distal point.Rim not as regular as other experimental pits, showing more distinctive features (breakages and grooves).Base is flat.Note: grooves might be the best forensic evidence when comparing the experimental pits with the archaeo-cupules.

PMP2 - 23.6Gouging movement using bone implement B2.Manufacturing time over 5:30 mins.Horizontal surface.Occasionally some very deep tool marks (levering impressions) on the rim.Considerable energy expenditure.Verticality of walls not maintained and base characteristically rounded.

Figure 7. Some of the experimental cupules created in Ngrang Cave in 2008.


107


Note: the time factor and the exhaustive biomechanical requirements make this manufacturing process unlikely.

PMP2 - 23.7Direct percussion using a lithic tool with a tip manufactured in the shape of a chisel (L2).Manufacturing time 1 to 1:30 min.Pit was made by horizontal strokes on a vertical surface.The rim shows flaking as a by-product of impact of L2 on rim.No leverage needed (hence no leverage signature marks on rim).The floor is noticeably flat and the operator has a great deal of control over the floor’s shape.Some noticed similarities in terms of kinetic process with pit 23.2.Tool marks are clearly detectable from rim to floor.Important note: production of the pits would have been greatly facilitated by using a tool which would bear a distinct curvature in its profile.

PMP2 - 23.8Direct percussion using bone implement B2.Manufacturing time 6 mins (with only approximately half of the pit manufactured).Vertical surface.Characteristically rugged rim.Complete absence of discernible tool marks.Flattish floor (would eventually become progressively more conical).Note: the manufacture of this pit would have become increasingly harder as pit becomes deeper.

PMP2 - 23.9Indirect percussion using a wood implement with a tip shaped as a point (W1) and a hammerstone (chert).Manufacturing time 2 mins approx.Horizontal surface.Erratic rim with an absence of leverage marks.Tool marks distinctively noticeable on rim but quickly becoming faint at mid-section.The walls are non-parallel.Floor has a typical pointed shape (between a V shape and a U shape).

PMP2 - 23.10Indirect percussion using a wood implement with a tip shaped like a chisel (W2) and a hammerstone (chert).Manufacturing time 3 mins approx.Horizontal surface.Variable definition of the rim (noticeably well-defined in some places).Limited amount of discernible tool marks running from rim to floor and characteristically flattish.Some control over the layout of the pit due primarily to a certain control of the directional impact of the tool.Flattish but somewhat erratic (undulating and uneven) floor.

PMP2 - 23.11Gouging movement using W2.Manufacturing time over 2:30 mins.Horizontal surface.Rim shows distinctive leverage marks; tool marks are well defined,Walls are sloping and asymmetrical.No noticeable characteristic tool marks; some potential faint traces would be quickly weathered.Floor is sub-conical.

PMP2 - 23.12Direct percussion using W2.Manufacturing time 2:30 mins.Vertical surface.Sharp rim with isolated impact marks.Walls are almost parallel due to the fact that tool point is asymmetrical and rotating the tool creates parallelism in the overall layout.Steepness can be easily maintained.Tool marks extend from rim to floor and are very distinctive.Floor has noticeable uneven shape with prominent uneven ridges.

Therefore the following techniques were applied:

Rotation: 23.1Gouging: 23.2, 23.6, 23.11Indirect percussion: 23.3, 23.4, 23.5, 23.9, 23.10Direct percussion: 23.7, 23.8, 23.12

Preliminary analysis of the results

Preliminary discussion of the results of these experiments led to the designation of seven defining categories:

1. Steepness of wall of experimental cupule2. Overall configuration of walls3. Tool marks4. Floor topography5. Operator control in implement application6. Manufacturing time7. Relative energy expenditure

After further discussion it became clear that of these categories, 5, 6 and 7 — while genuinely important — were significantly affected by context, operator skill and manufacturing choices that might or might not have been under consideration for the deep cupules. Therefore the following five attributes were selected as the most suitable for empirical assessment unbiased by possibly subjective choices:

1. WC: wall configuration, defined on a scale from 1 to 10 as parallel (1) to conical (10).

2. CR: configuration of rim, from fully circular (1) to irregular (10).


108


3. TM: tool marks, from highly visible (1) to virtually invisible (10).

4. FL: floor morphology, from flat (1) to conical (10).5. CSO: cross section opening, from parallel (1) to

divergent (10).

In order to compare the twelve experimental cupules with an identical number of deep cupules, the twelve most suitable of the latter were selected for analysis. These were selected on the basis of two criteria: apparent degree of completion, and clarity of the variables being considered. This led to the selection of the following twelve deep cupules for detailed in-situ analysis (see Table 2): EP23, EP24, EP19, EP13, EP28, EP33, EP34, EP35, EP37, EP39, EP42, EP36.

As indicated in Table 2, the averages for the experimental cupules were WC = 4.75, RC = 5.41, TM = 5.91, FL = 4.83, CSO = 1.00. Those for the deep cupules were WC = 2.75, RC = 6.33, TM = 3.91, FL = 6.41, CSO = 1.25.

The averages of all attributes in Table 2 are 3.8 for the three gouged experimental cupules, 4.6 for the five made with indirect percussion, and 3.86 for the three made with direct percussion. The average of all cupules made with lithic tools were 5.4; of those made with bone tools they were 3.3; and those made with wood tools averaged 4.6. Table 3 shows the average ratings relative to the three tool materials.

Conclusion

This study has not yielded conclusive forensic evidence to determine the tool type used in creating the deep cupules in the entrance chamber of Ngrang Cave. However, there are several factors in support of the use of fractured long-bone in conjunction with a stone hammer (Figure 8):

1. Breakage for marrow would result in an appropriate tool point, including chisel shape.

2. Bone elasticity is more efficient than wood for equal diameter.

3. Significantly less effort is required in preparing the tool.

4. During operation the hollow tube of the long-bone acts like a core drill, in that the hollow accommodates limestone particles that can be shaken out periodically.

5. Such bones are likely to occur on site and be readily available for use.

6. In cases where the impression of a tool point has survived in a deep cupule it is distinctly circular (Figure 9).

7. Most importantly, many of the deep cupules bear wall markings that signify the use of a narrow but sturdy, elongate instrument of relatively small diameter. This excludes a lithic tool and renders wood less likely.

Table 2. Comparison of five key morphological attributes of twelve experimental cupules (23.1 to 23.12) with a

sample of twelve deep cupules (EP), Ngrang Cave.

WC RC TM FL CSO

23.1 1 1 10 10 1

23.2 1 4 4 4 1

23.3 1 10 6 8 1

23.4 2 3 4 1 1

23.5 4 5 4 5 1

23.6 8 6 2 3 1

23.7 2 10 10 5 1

23.8 2 3 7 4 1

23.9 7 8 4 7 1

23.10 6 7 6 4 1

23.11 6 3 8 4 1

23.12 4 5 6 3 1

Average 4.75 5.41 5.91 4.83 1.00

EP23 6 10 1 7 1

EP24 6 8 2 8 1

EP19 1 7 2 8 3

EP13 2 9 1 9 1

EP28 3 5 4 8 1

EP33 1 3 3 5 2

EP34 4 4 9 7 1

EP35 1 6 8 3 1

EP37 4 9 2 9 1

EP39 3 4 3 8 1

EP42 1 8 4 4 1

EP36 1 3 8 1 1

Average 2.75 6.33 3.91 6.41 1.25

C: Wall configuration - parallel (1) to conical (10)RC: Rim configuration - circular (1) to irregular (10)TM: Tool marks - visible (1) to invisible (10)FL: Floor - flat (1) to pointed (10)CSO: Cross section opening - parallel (1) to divergent (10)

Table 3. Attribute ratings for the three tool materials used in creating the experimental cupules in Ngrang Cave.

Attribute Lithic Bone Wood

WC 5.6 4 2.2

RC 8 4.2 5.7

TM 6.6 4.2 4.5

FL 5.6 3.2 4.6

CSO 1 1 1


109


The use of wooden tools emerges as the second-most likely possibility, and the use of stone tools cannot be ruled out conclusively for the more shallow cupules. Therefore the application of different tool materials used in the production of the whole assemblage is not conclusively refuted by this replication project. However, many of the tool markings observed and the occasional occurrence of walls faintly converging towards the opening demand the use of a relatively thin but sturdy, elongated tool, and this applies particularly to the ensemble of deeper pits (≥75 mm, n=16, or 35%). These cases imply a motivation to drive the holes as deeply as possible, yet maintaining the smallest possible opening diameter. This characteristic can be frequently detected in cupules on any lithology (Bednarik 2008b), but it is certainly most succinctly expressed on the softest rock types. The brittle and relatively porous Tertiary limestone of Ngrang Cave, which is of hardness 1 on Moh’s Scale, permits the creation of the deepest cupules recorded so far, up to almost 20 cm depth. The hardness of the rock is a function of its moisture content: it tends to be slightly harder if the rock is dryer. There are no silica nodules in the Miocene rock within the cave.

Due to the erosive nature of the support, the Ngrang Cave deep cupules have failed to provide unequivocal collective evidence for the tools used in their creation.

Future research will need to focus on the kinetics involved in pit configuration, rim details and parallelism of walls, to be able to refine the results of this analysis to a point where a higher degree of confidence could be achieved. Another factor being subjected to continuing study are the effects of accelerated weathering on the surface aspects of the experimental cupules and their rims.

References

Alvarez, M. 2001. The use of lithic artefacts for making rock art engravings: observation and analysis of use-wear traces in experimental tools through optical microscopy and SEM. Journal of Archaeological Science 28: 457–464.

Ballet, O., A. Bocquet, R. Bouchez, J. M. D. Coey and A. Cornu 1979. Étude technique des poudres colorées de Lascaux. In Lascaux Inconnu, pp. 171–174. XXIe Supplément, Gallia Préhistoire.

Barker, B., K. Sale and A. Watchman 1997. Authentication of rock art in the Whitsunday Islands, Queensland, Australia. Rock Art Research 14: 113–123.

Bednarik, R. G. 1979. The potential of rock patination analysis in Australian archaeology – part 1. The Arte-fact 4: 14–38.

Bednarik, R. G. 1980. On natural cave markings. Unpubl. MS, AURA Archive.

Bednarik, R. G. 1982. The Parietal Markings Project. Bulletin of the Archaeological and Anthropological Society of Victoria 3: 3–4.

Bednarik, R. G. 1984. Die Bedeutung der paläolithischen Fingerlinientradition. Anthropologie 23: 73–79.

Bednarik, R. G. 1985. Parietal finger markings in Australia. Bollettino del Centro Camuno di Studi Preistorici 22: 83-88.

Figure 8. Point of fractured macropod tibia B2 after creating three experimental cupules.

Figure 9. Floor of deep cupule showing the clear impression of a circular tool point.


110


Bednarik, R. G. 1986a. Parietal finger markings in Europe and Australia. Rock Art Research 3: 30-61, 159-70.

Bednarik, R. G. 1986b. Cave use by Australian Pleistocene man. Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 17: 227-245.

Bednarik, R. G. 1987/88. The cave art of Western Australia. The Artefact 12: 1–16.

Bednarik, R. G. 1989. Perspectives of Koongine Cave and scientistic Archaeology. Australian Archaeology 29: 9-16.

Bednarik, R. G. 1990. About Pleistocene chert mining. Sahara 3: 113-115.

Bednarik, R. G. 1991a. On natural cave markings. Helictite 29(2): 27-41.

Bednarik, R. G. 1991b. Comment on d’Errico 1991. Rock Art Research 8: 89–91.

Bednarik, R. G. 1992a. Base pour des études de pointe des débuts de l’art. L’Anthropologie 96(2/3): 609-611.

Bednarik, R. G. 1992b. Early subterranean chert mining. The Artefact 15: 11-24.

Bednarik, R. G. 1994a. A taphonomy of palaeoart. Antiquity 68: 68–74.

Bednarik, R. G. 1994b. On the scientific study of palaeoart. Semiotica 100(2/4): 141–168.

Bednarik, R. G. 1995. Untertag-Bergbau im Pleistozän. Quartär 45/46: 161-175.

Bednarik, R. G. 1997. An engraved slate fragment from Wal yunga, Western Australia. Records of the Western Australian Museum 18: 317–321.

Bednarik, R. G. 1998a. The technology of petroglyphs. Rock Art Research 15: 23–35.

Bednarik, R. G. 1998b. Direct dating results from Australian cave petroglyphs. Geoarchaeology 13(4): 411-418.

Bednarik, R. G. 1999. The speleothem medium of finger flutings and its isotopic geochemistry. The Artefact 22: 49-64.

Bednarik, R. G. 2001. Rock art science: the study of palaeoart. Brepols, Turnhout (2nd edn 2007, Aryan Books International, New Delhi).

Bednarik, R. G. 2002. Paläolithische Felskunst in Deutschland? Archäologische Informationen 25(1–2): 107–117.

Bednarik, R. G. 2006. The methodology of examining very early engravings. Rock Art Research 23: 125–128.

Bednarik, R. G. 2008a. Children as Pleistocene artists. Rock Art Research 25: 173–182.

Bednarik, R. G. 2008b. Cupules. Rock Art Research 25(1): 61–100.

Bednarik, R. G. and L. Fushun 1991. Rock art dating in China: past and future. The Artefact 14: 25–33.

Chazine, J.-M. and A. Noury 2006. Sexual determination of hand stencils on the main panel of the Gua Masri II Cave (East-Kalimantan/Borneo — Indonesia). International Newsletter on Rock Art 44: 21–26.

Clarke, J. 1976. Two Aboriginal rock art pigments from Western Australia, their properties, use and durability. Studies in Conservation 21: 134–142.

Clarke, J. and N. North 1991. Pigment composition of post-estuarine rock art in Kakadu National Park. In C. Pearson and B. K. Swartz (eds), Rock art and posterity: conserving, managing and recording rock art, pp. 80–87. Occasional AURA Publication 4, Aus-tralian Rock Art Research Association, Melbourne.

Clottes, J., M. Menu and P. Walter 1990. New light on the Niaux paintings. Rock Art Research 7: 21–26.

Cole, N. and A. Watchman 1992. Painting with plants. Investigating fibres in Aboriginal rock paintings at Laura, north Queensland. Rock Art Research 9: 27–36.

Crawford, I. M. 1964. The engravings of Depuch Island. In W. D. L. Ride and A. Neumann (eds), Depuch Island, pp. 23–63. Western Australian Museum Special Publication 2, Perth.

David, B., E. Clayton and A. Watchman 1993. Initial results of PIXE analysis on northern Australian ochres. Australian Archaeology 36: 50–57.

d’Errico, F. 1991. Microscopic and statistical criteria for the identification of prehistoric systems of notation. Rock Art Research 8: 83–93.

Edwards, H. G. M. 2004. Forensic applications of Raman spectroscopy to the non-destructive analysis of biomaterials and their degradations. In Forensic geoscience: principles, techniques and applications, pp. 159–170. Geological Society, Volume 232, London.

Edwards, H. G. M. and J. M. Chalmers (eds) 2005. Raman spectroscopy and art history. RSC Analytical Spectroscopy Monograph, Cambridge (UK).

Efremov, J. A. 1940. Taphonomy: a new branch of paleontology. Pan American Geologist 74(2): 81-93.

Freers, S. 2001. The hand prints at CA-RIV-114: a forensic and anthropometric study. American Indian Rock Art 27: 319–332.

Gillespie, R. 1997. On human blood, rock art and calcium oxalate: further studies on organic carbon content and radiocarbon age of materials relating to Australian rock art. Antiquity 71: 430–437.

Gunn, R. G. 2006. Hand sizes in rock art: interpreting the measurements of hand stencils and prints. Rock Art Research 23: 97–112.

Gunn, R. G. 2007. The interpretation of handedness in Australian Aboriginal rock art. Rock Art Research 24: 199–208.

Guthrie, R. 2005. The nature of Paleolithic art. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago/London.

Henneberg, M. and K. Mathers 1994. Reconstruction of body height, age and sex from handprints. South African Journal of Science 90: 493–496.

Howell, E. G. M. 2005. Case study: prehistoric art. In H. G. M. Edwards and J. M. Chalmers (eds), Raman spectroscopy in archaeology and art history, pp.


111


84–97. RSC Analytical Spectroscopy Monographs, Cambridge (UK).

Hyman, M., S. A. Turpin and M. E. Zolensky 1996. Pigment Analyses from Panther Cave, Texas. Rock Art Research 13: 93–103.

Kitzler, L. 2000. Surface structure analysis of runic inscriptions on rock. A method for distinguishing between individual carvers. Rock Art Research 17: 85–98.

Koski, R. A., E. H. McKie and D. H. Thomas 1973. Pigment composition of prehistoric pictographs of Gate cliff Shelter, central Nevada. American Museum Novi tates 2521: 1–9.

Loendorf, L. L. 1984. Documentation of rock art: Petroglyph Canyon, Montana (24 Cb 601). Department of Anthropology and Archaeology Contribution 207, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks.

Lorblanchet, M., M. Labeau, J. L. Vernet, P. Fitte, H. Valladas, H. Cachier and M. Arnold 1990. Palaeolithic pigments in the Quercy, France. Rock Art Research 7: 4–20.

Loy, T. H., R. Jones, D. E. Nelson, B. Meehan, J. Vogel, J. Southon and Cosgrove 1990. Accelerator radiocarbon dating of human blood proteins in pigments from Late Pleistocene art sites in Australia. Antiquity 64: 110–116.

McCarthy, F. D. 1962. The rock engravings at Port Hedland, north-western Australia. Papers of the Kroeber Anthropological Society 26, University of California.

McCarthy, F. D. 1967. Australian Aboriginal rock art (3rd edn). Australian Museum, Sydney.

Marshack, A. 1985. Theoretical concepts that lead to new analytic methods, modes of inquiry and classes of data. Rock Art Research 2: 95–111.

Mawk, E. J., M. F. Nobbs and M. W. Rowe 1996. Analysis of white pigments from the Olary region, South Australia. Rock Art Research 13: 31–37.

Meneses Lagé, M. C. S. 1996. Análise química de pigmentos de arte rupestre do sudeste do Piauí. Revista de Geologia 9: 83–96.

Moffatt, E. A., P. J. Sirois, S. Young and I. N. M. Wainwright 1989. Analysis of wall painting fragments from Dunhuang. Canadian Conservation Institute Newsletter February 1989: 9–10.

Montelle, Y.-P. 2009. Application of forensic methods to rock art investigations — a proposal. Rock Art Research 26: 7–13.

Morwood, M. J., G. L. Walsh and A. Watchman 1994. The dating potential of rock art in the Kimberley, N.W. Australia. Rock Art Research 11: 79–87.

Nelson, D. E. 1993. Second thoughts on a rock-art date. Antiquity 67: 893–895.

Peisach, M., C. A. Pineda and L. Jacobson 1991. Nuclear analytical study of rock paintings. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 151: 221–227.

Pepe, C., J. Clottes, M. Menu and P. Walter 1991. Le liant des peintures paléolithiques ariégoise. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences Paris 312: 929–934.

Petit, J. and H. Valot 1992. A propos de peinture préhistorique. La Recherche 23: 744.

Pilles, P. J. 1976. Appendix I: Consultant’s report on the petroglyphs of the ash disposal area. In D. R. Keller and D. M. Goddard (eds), Final report for the Cholla power plant expansion: ash disposal area impact mitigation studies, pp. 1–10. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flag staff.

Rowe, M. W. 2001. Physical and chemical analysis. In D. Whitley (ed.), Handbook of rock art research, pp. 190–220. Altamira Press, New York and Oxford

Savvateyev, J. A. 1977. Zalavruga, cast’ II. Stojanki. Nauka, Leningradskoe otdelenie, Leningrad.

Scott, D. A. and W. D. Hyder 1993. A study of some Californian Indian rock art pigments. Studies in Conser vation 38: 155–173.

Scott, D. A., M. Newman, M. Schilling, M. Derrick and H. P. Khanjian 1996. Blood as binding medium in a Chumash Indian pigment cake. Archaeometry 38: 103–112.

Semenov, S. A. 1964. Prehistoric technology (transl. by M. W. Thompson). Cory, Adams and Mackay, London.

Sepúlveda, M., E. Laval, L. Cornejo and J. Acarapi 2012. Elemental characterisation of pre-Hispanic rock art and arsenic in northern Chile. Rock Art Research 29(1): 93–107.

Sharpe, K. and L. Van Gelder 2006b. Finger flutings in Chamber A1 of Rouffignac Cave, France. Rock Art Research 23: 179–198.

Sierts, W. 1968. How were rock engravings made? South African Journal of Science 64: 281–285.

Valdez, B., J. Cobo, M. Schorr, R. Zlatev and L. Cota 2008. Characterisation of materials and techniques used in Mexican rock paintings. Rock Art Research 25: 131–136.

Vermeersch, P. M., E. Paulissen, C. Gijselings and J. Janssen 1986. Middle Palaeolithic chert exploitation pits near Qena (Upper Egypt). Palëorient 12: 61-65.

Ward, I., C. Patterson and A. Watchman 1999. The environment and condition of multi-layered Abori-ginal paintings at Kennedy-A in the wet tropics, north Queensland. Rock Art Research 16: 25–35.

Ward, I., A. Watchman, N. Cole and M. Morwood 2001. Identification of minerals in pigments from Aboriginal rock art in the Laura and Kimberley regions, Australia. Rock Art Research 18: 15–23.

Watchman, A. 1993. Evidence of a 25 000-year-old pictograph in northern Australia. Geoarchaeology 8: 465–473.

Watchman, A. 2000. Micro-excavation and laser extraction methods for dating carbon in silica skins and oxalate crusts. In G. K. Ward and C. Tuniz (eds), Advances in dating Australian rock-markings, pp.


112


35–39. Occasional AURA Publication 10, Australian Rock Art Research Association, Melbourne.

Weeks, R. 2001. Indirect percussion: fact or fiction? American Indian Rock Art 27: 117–121.

Wright, B. J. 1968. Rock art of the Pilbara region, north-west Aus tralia. Occasional Papers in Aboriginal Studies 11, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.

Robert G. Bednarik, Convener’s office, International Federation of Rock Art Organisations (IFRAO), P.O. Box 216, Caulfield South, Melbourne, VIC 3162, Australia; [email protected]

Dr Yann-Pierre Montelle, 140A Condell Avenue, Papanui, Christchurch 8005, New Zealand; [email protected]


Documents

Palaeoart and Materiality - ifrao.com · The Scientific Study of Rock Art edited by Robert G. Bednarik, Danae Fiore, Mara Basile, Giriraj Kumar ... Teniendo como objetivo promover