AR09. 4 August 2004
Copyright © 2004 by Kevin
Sharpe. All rights reserved.
Rock Art Research 21:1 (May 2004), pp. 57-84.
LINE MARKINGS:
HUMAN OR ANIMAL ORIGIN?
by
Kevin Sharpe
The Graduate College, Union Institute and University, Cincinnati, Ohio,
USA
Harris Manchester College, Oxford University, Oxford, United Kingdom
Address: 10
Shirelake Close, Oxford OX1 1SN, United Kingdom
kevin.sharpe@tui.edu
www.ksharpe.com
See also, ‘Responses to Kevin Sharpe,
“Line Markings: Human or Animal Origin?”’
And my, ‘Rejoinder to Comments by
Geoffrey D. Aslin, Robert G. Bednarik, and R. G. Gunn.’
ABSTRACT. The origin – whether human or animal
– of line marks found in a cave has obvious implications for what used the cave
and whether or not the prehistorian shows interest in the site. Some line marks
are obviously human, some are obviously animal
scratches, some are obviously geological and, from among the remainder, some
could have a human or an animal origin. This
paper focuses on markings in the last category and it seeks a balanced,
systematic, communicable, and empirical way to determine their origin.
KEYWORDS. Animal scratches,
Robert Bednarik, engraved rock incisions, Koonalda
Cave, prehistoric art.
Any
line marks found in caves face a question: Did or did not humans make them? For
instance, lines on floor boulders in the Upper Chamber of Koonalda Cave, South
Australia, provoke a spectrum of reactions:
·
Some are
human. Sharpe (Sharpe and Sharpe 1976:
125; see also Sharpe 1982) describes one set as ‘some half-dozen
deeply-engraved parallel lines…at a slight angle to the vertical, at [25 millimeter] distances from each other, and
[12 to 20 centimeters] long. The strokes [are] vigorous and
emphatic.’ Many such lines –
though not all of them –
he considers humanly made and he attempts to refute the attribution of all to
animals such as bats and owls, by pointing to
(Sharpe and Sharpe 1976: 126-127):
- the
presence of ‘horizontal lines and grids’;
- vertical
lines that often ‘follow the lower surface of a convex boulder to near its
base’;
- lines
that ‘appear on the underside of overhanging ledges’; and
- lines
that sometimes appear ‘around and in very small
holes ([25 millimeters]
in diameter).’
·
Perhaps
they are animal. John Mulvaney (1975: 280)
portrays the lines as ‘thin parallel [lines], suggestive of animal
claws.’
·
Definitely
animal. Robert Bednarik
(1992: 233) writes: ‘literature offers numerous
examples of erroneous identifications of rock markings [including]…the
description of animal scratches in caves as
petroglyphs,’ and he refers to the above two papers by Sharpe as examples.
Bednarik, in fact, considers the markings ‘mostly of non-trogloxenes which are
unable to cope with an environment they are driven into by circumstances, such
as the promise of water as indicated by increasing air humidity’ (Bednarik 1991: 40).
(A trogloxene is an animal species that
habitually enters caves.)
(Note that the human marks being discussed are not finger
flutings, but incised with a sharp object like a flint or piece of broken or
sharpened bone; the difference between flutings and scratches or incisions (in
their cross-sections, for instance) is usually obvious and needs no further
discussion here.)
Prior to his two papers referred to above, Bednarik
identified six classes of Australian cave petroglyphs, including finger flutings,
tool marks, and shallow engravings (Bednarik 1990:
64-66). The last of these he describes as ‘incised with
usually single strokes of a pointed tool’ and he omits Koonalda
Cave as one of the Australian sites
that contain them.
The most extensive statement of Bednarik’s opinion against
the human origin of the Koonalda Upper Chamber marks appears in his 1991 definitive paper on the subject of animal
scratches. There he writes:
The scratch markings in Koonalda
Cave commence as soon as the
threshold of discernible light is passed. On the walls they generally
reach to about 1.5
m in height….Many of the floor boulders are also marked by sets
of incisions (Sharpe and Sharpe 1976)….The
boulder markings include no configurations or groove characteristics demanding
a human origin. They closely resemble marks I identify as mammalian
elsewhere, and I would in fact find it remarkable if, of all the suitably
endowed caves, Koonalda Cave would be the
only one lacking animal scratch marks − particularly as
it is such an outstanding animal trap, with
its enormous sinkhole entrance. I believe that a human origin should only be
postulated if an animal origin can be ruled
out with confidence. In my view, this has not been proven here, nor has it been
attempted to refute an attribution of the marks to animals.
No researcher who is familiar with parietal wall markings as a general
phenomenon (i.e., who has studied them thoroughly in more than 100 caves!) would support
the proposal (Bednarik 1991:
38-39, emphasis added).
In general, Bednarik believes that
certainly more than 99.9
percent…of wall or ceiling marks [that we have seen in the 320 or so caves we have studied]…are natural
marks. Most commonly they were produced by animals,
with their claws, wings, or bodies, and even with their horns or antlers…. [We
have established] clear criteria for identifying animal
scratch marks. Although we recognize a great variety of them, the most common
being those of bats, cave bears, opossums, and extinct Australian megafaunal
species, we believe today that a reliable separation can be achieved by an
experienced observer in nearly every instance (Bednarik 1993: 3;
see also Bednarik 1994b: 65).
Bednarik contributes extensively to work on animal
and natural markings (for instance, Bednarik 1991;
1994a-c; 1998) and he writes assuredly, but his
above generalized statements about the markings in Koonalda
Cave ought not to stand merely on
rhetoric or subjective interpretation. Where are Bednarik’s ‘clear criteria’?
On the other hand, Sharpe accepts that some of the lines are of animal
origin; how can he tell the
difference?
The question is how systematically and scientifically rather
than subjectively to distinguish in general between animal
and human line markings. Researchers who have seen line scratches or incisions
in many caves may feel confident that they can distinguish between human and
animal ones. Their subjective decision is
based on experience, itself based and consolidated from successive subjective
judgments. It can become comforting to ignore particular lines because they are
assumed to be of animal origin; it makes the
assimilation of what’s left as human an easier task. Habit can become ease,
which can become bias and dogma. What though of lines whose origin is
uncertain, where the experienced honestly find themselves unsure? What basis is
there for making such a decision? The field needs the formalization
of the experience of researchers so that decisions can be made on lines of
uncertain origin, so that inexperienced researchers can learn, and so that
debate and decision can be made on potentially incorrect guesses or
experience-based interpretations. The field needs communicable criteria,
reliable guidelines, and more objectivity. So, in an ideal world, what
distinguishes markings of a human origin from those of an animal
origin?
This paper extends previous publications on the subject and
offers avenues to explore that might result in more objective criteria for
distinguishing between animal scratches and
similar human line markings. A conclusive test for origin is not yet proposed,
though suggestions are gathered from which one might emerge. Bednarik himself
writes: ‘Discriminating the two types of marks is the crucial precondition for
any informed assessment of the rock art
component and, having studied such markings in about one thousand caves, I have
developed a healthy respect for the complexity of the subject’ (Bednarik 1994a: 37;
see also Bednarik 1991: 28).
Several sites in Australia
contain line markings similar to those on the boulders in the Upper Chamber of
Koonalda Cave. Four will be used to elaborate the research question and for
comparison with Koonalda.
Kintore and Cutta Cutta Caves, Northern Territory
W. P. Walsh initially discovered lines in the Kintore and Cutta
Cutta Caves
in 1963 (Bednarik 1985: 83;
Flood 1997: 51-55;
Layton 1992; Walsh 1964: 87-90). The majority of the markings occur in a
characteristic grouping of from three to five sub-parallel lines. At Cutta
Cutta, line width varies from 3.5
to 5.0
centimeters, length from a few centimeters to meters, and depth
from 0.2 to 2.0
millimeters depending on rock hardness. These sets often occur
so densely that they become inseparable. The marks occur on ceilings, walls, on
floor boulders, and from the entrance to the depths of the cave. The lines in Kintore
Cave resemble those in Cutta Cutta.
A film of clay, which in places contains a high-water mark of vegetation
debris, covers many marks in both caves (Flood 1997: 53;
Layton 1992).
Geological processes did not cause the markings (Flood 1997: 54),
but animals provide many potential line
makers. The bent-winged bat inhabits both caves. Walsh (1964: 89-91) suggests, though, that it is ‘too small
to cause the markings arranged in the observed pattern.’ The False vampire bat,
which inhabited Cutta Cutta
Cave until recently, would scratch
lines of the correct size and spatial distance (Walsh 1964). However, it apparently never inhabited Kintore
Cave and no markings appear in the
section of Cutta Cutta
Cave with abundant remains of the
species (Flood 1997). The support
for bats making the lines is weak.
Walsh (1964)
suggests that, though goannas venture into caves up to 0.4
kilometers from daylight, they cannot climb up to ceilings or on
over-hanging walls. Dingoes venture into the dark areas of caves as well, but
could not make the high markings. This may also apply to the little northern
native cat, echidna, bandicoots, and possums. Ben Gunn (n.d.: 3-4)
disputes this and suggests that possums, lizards, and snakes could reach high
positions, overhanging walls, and ceilings.
Can animals scratch
ceilings (Jones 1925)?
Bednarik affirms Gunn’s standpoint and claims that ‘animal
marks commonly occur on flat cave ceilings’ (Bednarik 1987-1988:
2). Elsewhere, Bednarik (1994a: 24)
illustrates a marking on the ceiling of Robertson Cave,
South Australia, and adds:
Most observers would identify it as an engraving,
particularly as it has been said in Australian archaeological literature that
animal species do not mark cave ceilings. This
marking was in fact produced by an extinct megafaunal species.
In case it appears that scratches on cave ceilings are
common, it should be noted that Bednarik found only one cave bear scratch on
the ceiling of Grottes des Endrevies, France
(Bednarik 1991; 1994b: 62).
Perhaps several animals
made the Kintore and Cutta Cutta lines: bats marking the ceilings and various
animals marking the boulders and lower walls.
Walsh thinks, though, that the relative similarity of the markings refutes this
suggestion. In conclusion, he can find no ‘satisfactory explanation of these
abundant cave markings’ (Walsh 1964:
90).
Walsh raises the possibility that humans made the lines, but
rejects this because he can see no motive, no representational forms in the
lines, and because the marks do not correspond to already accepted types of
Aboriginal rock art. Clearly, he prefers an animal
origin and he writes: ‘the most conclusive evidence would be provided by searching
for bone material in all the known sites and attempting to locate the relevant
common faunal element’ (Walsh 1964:
91).
McEachern’s Cave lies in the southwestern corner of Victoria.
A. G. Link (1967)
discovered lines inside the cave and describes them as grouped in sets of four
and covering the walls, the ceiling, and fallen rocks. The lines’ depth and
width vary between sets, though the width of lines remains constant within
sets. Lengths vary from 5 to 30
centimeters and some younger sets overlay older sets.
Link (1967:
137) favors an animal
origin for the marks. J. N. Jennings (1968:
52), attributing his
conclusions to the work of N. A. Wakefield (1967),
suggests that wombats scratched the lines when the floor level was considerably
higher than at present. He offers this interpretation for the markings in
Kintore and Cutta Cutta
Caves as well.
Link’s reference to the animal origin of the marks
originates from E. Troughton’s work (1957:
24; see also Jones 1925). Troughton writes that the
yellow-footed marsupial mouse, which nests in rock crevices and sandstone
caves, can create line marks. Its ridged footpads and long claws enable it to
climb about trees and vines and, he claims, to run upside-down over cave roofs.
This requires more thought and observation, however; the clinging to a roof by
a stationary or running animal would probably
not produce lines but pricks in the rock surface.
Tantanoola Cave, South
Australia
Bednarik, along with Geoffrey Aslin and Elfride Bednarik,
studied the extensive markings of Tantanoola
Cave, 20
kilometers southwest of Mount
Gambier (Aslin, et al. 1985). The lines here generally have a
V-section and occur on all exposed wall surfaces, though not on the ceiling.
Most appear in sets of two to five parallel lines, each set usually deeper at
one end and becoming shallower and narrower until disappearing. The larger
lines occur as vertical marks and are generally deeper. Few of the lines are
straight and the only geometric shapes comprise grids of separate sets of
markings.
Earlier excavations by Norman Tindale (1933) in the cave revealed evidence for a
variety of fauna: bats, possums, rats, water rats, bandicoots, wombats,
Tasmanian devils, seals, giant kangaroos, and native cats. Gunn (n.d.) studied
the markings and thinks that the floor level has not changed and, he adds, at
least several of the species could reach the marked areas of the cave and have
the capacity to scratch the lines. He thus concludes that the marks are of animal
origin. Further, he writes, no positive evidence supports
a human origin. Bednarik agrees, and adds:
None of the line arrangements differ appreciably from
those studied at about 200
sites of the general region. Complexity of the ‘designs’ is in fact quite
moderate in comparison to that at some other sites where a human involvement is
precluded, but claw spacing is above the averages of other sites: a sample of 17 identifiable sets provided a mean line
spacing of 18.8
mm (Bednarik 1991:
40).
Gunn’s logic does not convince:
·
The lack of change in floor level requires
evidence.
·
The lack of discernible motifs or intentionally
produced geometric shapes need not obviate a human origin. Lines that mean
nothing to present-day westerners, or even present-day Aborigines, might have
possessed a wealth of meaning for the local prehistoric inhabitants, and we can
only grasp this hypothetically and tentatively (Bahn 1998). (Grids of separate sets of markings do not
imply deliberate construction.)
·
The markings appear on the dolomite bedrock and
on solidified sediment deposit. Both of these are very hard and a fingernail
cannot make an impression. Are claws sufficiently strong to scratch these
rocks? In addition, out of the many species listed, do any scratch rocks?
Sliding could produce vertical lines, but why would these animals
be sliding? How would sliding produce horizontal marks?
Aslin’s (2003)
unpublished description of the improbability of human access to Tantanoola
Cave until recently makes the
animal origin case all the more probable.
An animal origin for the lines in the above four sites – Kintore, Cutta Cutta,
McEachern’s, and Tantanoola caves, based on published notes, seems probable,
but not firm.
History of the Confusion
Confusion between the human versus animal
origin of markings such as those in Koonalda surfaced some time ago. When
Alexander Gallus studied Koonalda during the 1950s
and 1960s, he fought to
establish the human origin of the finger flutings at the rear of the Upper
Chamber (Flood 1997).
Comments Bednarik (1987-1988: 1;
see also Bednarik 1993: 1):
Gallus…aroused [considerable skepticism] when he
announced that wall markings in Koonalda Cave, up to three hundred meters from
the entrance, were made by humans in the late Pleistocene….What made his claims
even more incredible was his insistence that early Australians had engaged in
systematic underground mining of [flint].
Later, Mulvaney’s book, The Prehistory of Australia (1975: 279-280; see also Mulvaney and Kamminga 1999: 365),
accepts the human origin for the flutings and ‘V-sectioned linear grooves.’
Gallus no longer need fight this battle.
Markings in other caves lead to similar confusion. Frederick
McCarthy includes Kintore and Cutta Cutta
Caves in his survey of the Aboriginal antiquities of the Northern
Territory because he thinks the lines have a human
origin. Under ‘Rock Engravings,’ he writes:
In the Kintore and Cutta Cutta caves, groupings of from 3-5
sub-parallel lines, from a few centimeters to several meters long, like human
or animal limbs, and some appear to be human
figures, are [cut] in soft rock surfaces or in mud coatings on the walls; some
very faint markings are [cut] in the hard rock or in secondary calcite
(McCarthy 1970: 58).
Mulvaney (1975:
280) notes the general
association of human petroglyphs with ‘thin parallel [lines], suggestive of animal
claws.’
Similar markings are present in darkness in two caves
near Katherine, Northern Territory,
including Kintore. Sylvia Hallam recorded similar markings on the roof of Orchestra
Shell Cave,
near Perth. Curiously, no animal
or reptile is thought capable of marking the walls or ceiling in some most
inaccessible places, and there are indications that the [lines] are of some
antiquity. There is a possibility, therefore, that the markings were made
through human agency by using claws as an engraver [but see
Bednarik (1987-1988: 2-11)]. However, W. P. Walsh informs
me that in the Northern Territory,
a bat species may cause the markings and he is collecting data.
Unlike McCarthy, Mulvaney appears
undecided as to the human as opposed to the animal origin of the ‘thin parallel
[lines].’ Other writers have decided. Walsh’s (1964: 87)
original paper on these two caves underplays the Kintore and Cutta Cutta
markings as human artifacts, but their exclusion from lists of human
petroglyphs is now commonplace (Flood 1997:
55). Bednarik (1991; 1994a)
assuredly says that animals made them. He
writes that he has seen markings that only animals could make and, by comparing
the marks, he concludes that the Kintore and Cutta
Cutta Caves’
lines are animal scratches. After all, in Frank’s (1980: 146)
words, ‘animals including birds, bats,
possums, kangaroos, wombats, wallabies, goannas, and dogs can leave quite a
variety of markings on a soft cave wall.’
Koonalda Cave,
South Australia
Within Rockfall C in the Upper Chamber of Koonalda Cave lie
smooth and rounded boulders cut with lines, as mentioned above (see Sharpe and
Fawbert In prep.; Sharpe and Whitehead In prep.). They occur on the boulders,
on walls meters above floor level (where the question of a change in floor
level does not apply), and down to floor level on the boulders (Sharpe
and Fawbert In prep.). They occur under overhangs (see also Sharpe and Sharpe 1976: 127)
and in tunnels and floor holes in Rockfall C such as ‘Chadwick’s Hole’ (Sharpe
and Whitehead In prep.: 17-18), where some of them are large in size.
These lines are perhaps the most controversial potential
petroglyphs in Koonalda. Plates 1-3 provide examples. Were they all made by animals
or were at least some of them made by humans? At least six types of prehistoric
line markings may occur in the Upper Chamber:
1.
scratches that animals
cut with their claws;
2.
scratch-like lines that humans cut with a
severed animal paw or a comb (Marshack 1977:
310);
3.
lines that humans incise with a flake of flint;
4.
lines that humans score with a stick;
5.
lines that humans mark with a piece of bone; and
6.
flutings that humans draw with their fingers.
(Note the difference in terminology between scratches
(animal claw marks), incisions (lines humans make with flint), scorings
(lines humans make with a stick), bone marks (lines humans make with a
bone), and flutings (lines humans draw with their fingers) (Sharpe and
Van Gelder To appear). Note also that a unit
is a set of (near- or sub-) parallel lines that appear to have been made by one
hand or paw movement, and a cluster
is a group of units that exhibit a unity, for instance because they overlay
each other. To develop a more precise method for distinguishing the origin of
the line marks requires a more precise nomenclature.)
This paper develops a way toward distinguishing between fine
lines of Type 1, 2, and 3.
Plate 1. Rocks D2-a
and D2-b in Rockfall C, Upper
Chamber, Koonalda Cave, South
Australia.
Plate 2. On Rock E5-a
in Rockfall C, Upper Chamber, Koonalda Cave, South
Australia.
Plate 3. Rock E6-a
in Rockfall C, Upper Chamber, Koonalda Cave, South
Australia.
Information from an initial examination of several clusters
in the Upper Chamber suggests:
1.
Some lines are deep and some shallow, ranging in
length from 1 to 33
centimeters.
2.
In cross-sections, the lines vary from a sharp V
to a broad and shallow U, and some have a squared-off cross-section.
3.
The number of lines in the units on the boulders
varies from between one and eight.
4.
The average number of lines in the units is
between three and four.
5.
Units of more than one line vary from 0.2 to about 4
centimeters in width.
6.
Lines within a unit tend to wander together and
apart.
7.
The length of a unit does not appear to
correlate directly to the separation between the lines in the unit.
8.
Units, in general, do not appear in mirrored
pairs.
9.
Horizontal units exist (see also Sharpe and
Sharpe 1976: 126-127).
10. Lines
within some units branch and some cross over and back.
Other Mechanisms
Line markings can result from other actions than animal
scratching and prehistoric human engraving.
Rudy Frank (1980:
145) includes geological
along with animal sources in his comprehensive summary of non-human line-making
agents:
Weathering of joint and bedding features especially in
dolomites can etch out nice ‘incised’ grids and triangular patterns. Solutional
features such as fine anastamosies and karren can form a variety of intriguing
patterns.
Did geology or vegetation form the boulder lines in the
Upper Chamber of Koonalda Cave (Bednarik 1994a
provides a thorough overview of such processes)? Geological process can
certainly change lines once made, such as those that affect moonmilk, in which
many finger flutings occur (Bednarik 1994b:
51-52). Did they create the boulder lines? Are the lines
solution tubes, for instance? Solution tubes abound at the entrance to the
cave. However, they are larger than the boulder lines, have a different
cross-section, and do not appear in sets of, say, two to five parallel marks.
They also disappear into the limestone surface as tubes, a characteristic
absent from the lines (Sharpe and Sharpe 1976:
126). This geological
mechanism is, therefore, probably not responsible for the boulder lines (see
also Bednarik 1991: 30-31).
Neither do the boulder lines appear to be the Rillenkarren that Bednarik (1994a: 29;
see also Bednarik 1991: 29) illustrates, or any of the other
geological and vegetation mechanisms he describes in his paper.
Frank (1980:
145-146, emphasis removed) continues his survey:
Some modern activities may unintentionally leave
confusing markings in caves. Hobnailed or tricounied boots can leave [line]
marks on quite hard rocks. Any works that have been undertaken such as guano
mining, tourist cave development, gating and digging for new caves, including
the use of explosives, may also leave their mark, not to mention any casual
marks as a result of routine visitation….These include [by] the blatant
graffitist intent on naming his [or her] activities wherever possible, the
casual doodler who has just found a nice medium to indulge in, and also the
intrigued discoverer who having found some engravings proceeds in the name of science, to make his
[or her] own set to work out how the originals were made.
None of these sources are likely to have produced the bulk
of the markings on the Koonalda boulders. This leaves, as possible sources, animals
and deliberate prehistoric human action.
Human Origin?
Do these markings themselves display any peculiarly human
characteristics? Obvious geometric or otherwise recognizable motifs do not
appear. Are there other signs of human use? Humans used Rockfall C. Wood (often
as small twigs and often now crushed to powder) and charcoal (small, burnt
stubs and large pieces of burnt wood) litter many parts of the floor and sit on
some rocks. Some of the bone remains of larger animals
show cut marks. A number of pieces of bone, including a set of vertebrae, lie
under floor slabs, together with small, lined pieces of limestone (Sharpe and
Fawbert In prep.; Sharpe and Whitehead In prep.: 10). Some floors appear cleared of stones that have
been placed on the floor’s peripheries; stones set up against one lined surface
produce such an enclosure (see Plate 3).
A flint flake perhaps used as an engraving tool (Sharpe and Whitehead In prep.:
23; Sharpe and Fawbert In
prep.) was uncovered in an area of the Upper Chamber where flint does not occur
naturally. As well, line markers –
if human – may have
used the cut pieces of bone.
Hand marks and flutings obviously of human origin exist on
the soft portions of the wall further into the Upper Chamber (Faulstich 1992). Present also are abraded grooves,
large humanly made line markings. They and the boulder lines occur together near
the Squeeze end of the Upper Chamber (Maynard and Edwards 1971: Plate 25;
Sharpe and Fawbert In prep.). (The three
sorts of markings – boulder lines, abraded grooves, and flutings – resemble
each other, though they differ in their tools of execution and their media.)
Rockfall C with its boulder lines probably continues the same floor as at the
Squeeze with its boulder lines, where the finger flutings and abraded grooves
appear on the walls and ceiling (see Sharpe and Fawbert In prep.), with more
recent rockfall debris covering the floor between. Further, climbing under the
surface rocks between Rockfall C and the Squeeze leads to marked boulders,
twigs, and charcoal similar to those in Rockfall C.
This conclusion about the cave floor answers one of Bednarik’s
(1991: 38) objections to the human origin of the
boulder lines. He thinks that the visible scratch-like lines
are more recent than the huge roof falls that have
taken place here….They, and the wall scratches, refer to the most recent level
of the talus. Since the finger flutings in the same passage (Gallus 1968) precede the most recent rockfalls,
the marked clastics cannot be chronologically compatible with them.
The boulder incisions (‘the marked clastics’) – if human – may well be ‘chronologically
compatible’ with the flinger flutings.
Two obvious features of the markings may count, however,
against a human origin and for an animal
origin: the lines occur in units of parallel lines that look like animal
scratches, and the density of the markings is so great in places that
separating out units or individual lines becomes impossible. On the other hand,
abraded grooves and flutings usually also occur in units or (sub)parallel lines
and their origin is human. The flutings, too, are dense in places.
Animal Origin?
Turning to discuss a potential animal
origin for the boulder lines, several matters emerge from the literature and
from investigations.
The literature on the fauna of the present and prehistoric Nullarbor
Plain (in which Koonalda
Cave lies) helps form a list of
potential line makers. Bednarik (1991:
38-39) lists the animals
represented by remains inside the cave: Sarcophilus, four genera of Dasyuridae, Peramelidae, and Macropodidae, including
possibly Macropus rufus. Note the difference when considering the
occurrence of species in the cave between the Gallus Site and the Upper Chamber
sections of the cave; presence in the former does not imply presence in the
latter, especially given the cliff between them. The list can omit animals
of insufficient size.
An investigation of the behavior and scratchings of species
on the list can be undertaken (see Sharpe In prep.). Some potential animal
line-markers may have frequented the cave regularly. The Tasmanian devil
probably used the Gallus Site area of the cave as a lair (Thorne 1971: 46;
Walter and Pledge 1967: 43). It may have also used the Upper Chamber,
though, unlike the Gallus site, the Upper Chamber lies in total darkness. Do
the bone remains in Rockfall C show signs of gnawing by this animal? Does this
animal mark its territory with its claws or
otherwise scratch rocks? The Tasmanian wolf was evidently also active in
Nullarbor caves.
Humans and animals have had access Koonalda
Cave through the current entrance
probably for tens of thousands of years. Explorations have turned up no other
entrance to the cave or indications of one. (An entrance may have existed at
times of lower sea levels from other caves via channels now flooded beneath the
lakes of the current upper water table.) However, access to the Upper Chamber
from the Nullarbor Plain requires the ability to
traverse three substantial cliffs: the doline, the entrance incline, and the
slope from the Gallus Site to the Upper Chamber, the last in darkness. Could
non-climbing megafauna such as kangaroos access the chamber by themselves?
An animal able to see in
limited light might sharpen its claws on or otherwise scratch the rocks,
especially a trogloxene that might use the Upper Chamber as a lair. Given
Rockfall C’s location in pitch-blackness, its difficulty of access, its depth
within the cave, and the freely available rock on the surface of the Nullarbor
Plain, however, it seems most unlikely that a non-trogloxene would
go there to perform some daily activity that requires clawing. The same applies
to scratches resulting from non-trogloxene animals
casually wandering around. Their presence in the Upper Chamber suggests,
therefore, their being carried in there, or their climbing in to escape danger,
or their falling into the cave by accident and climbing to the Upper Chamber.
At least a proportion of the animals
would not have escaped the Upper Chamber and would have died there. The remains
of larger animals in Rockfall C and, more generally, in the Upper Chamber
comprise dispersed vertebrae, crania, and cut bones (all perhaps of large
kangaroos). What do these bones say about how they were deposited here? A
scavenger may have removed much of the remains of any trapped and dead animals.
The animal candidates’
continuous use of the cave suggests another line of inquiry. Unlike Rockfall C,
the most recent rockfall, Rockfall E, contains no markings, bones, or torches.
Why did the animals whose habitat remained
much the same not mark this rockfall as well as Rockfall C? Rockfalls A, B, and
D are also unmarked. Only the smooth rounded boulders show the large number of
markings. Perhaps the other rockfalls (A, B, D, and E) occurred after the line
marker, for instance the Tasmanian devil, became extinct on the mainland of Australia.
Alternatively, perhaps geological processes have removed the lines from the
rockfalls, though this probably requires an unrealistic time scale (see Sharpe
and Fawbert In Prep.). Further, the presence of bones within the unmarked but
rough rocks of Rockfall D requires an explanation.
If an animal fell down the
first or second of the access cliffs (unlike these two, the third cliff
requires climbing upwards), this may imply something about its condition once
inside the Upper Chamber. Perhaps frightened or injured animals
made the lines in frantic attempts to escape the cave. Perhaps sliding and
trapped animals made many marks in multiple
attempts to scramble up rocks (Bednarik 1994a:
36-37). Is franticness apparent in the lines?
Some of the above ten points about the lines on the boulders
also further the animal-related discussion:
·
Two paws could have made those units with more
than five lines.
·
Units in mirrored pairs suggest that execution
at the same time by the left and right paws of an animal.
·
While a multiple animal-origin
(or a multiple swipe by the same animal) may
explain branches and line crossings within a unit – slashes a second time
creating the crossings or branches – those that appear as a single movement
lend support to a human origin.
This preliminary study of the Koonalda boulder lines remains
inconclusive and shows the need for further research. Some matters may count
for an animal origin and some may count for a
human origin. Neither ought one to assume that all the lines were made by animals
or all by humans (Flood 1997:
48). Perhaps animals
scratched the finer ones and humans the coarser ones. Just visually – referring to Plates 1-3
– perhaps Plates 1 and 3
may show human markings while Plate 2
may show animal scratches. In this case, human
and animal lines would mix with each other in
this area of the cave, as occurs with bear scratches and human line marks in
many European caves.
What made the lines in caves like those on the Koonalda
boulders: animals or humans or both? The
discussion on Koonalda is inconclusive, but how could one definitively
distinguish between the lines that different agents make? A definite,
methodical, and objective method ought to be the aim (Clegg, et al. 1977).
Bednarik promised ‘clear criteria for identifying animal
scratch marks’ (Bednarik 1993:
3). An examination of his writing on the subject
shows, rather, a lack of conclusiveness, though he moves in the right
direction. His case and the critique are as follows.
Lines that only animals
could make are a key in Bednarik’s case. Princess
Margaret Rose Cave,
South Australia, was, he
believes, inaccessible to prehistoric humans (Bednarik 1991) and the marks in it, therefore, must be
animal made. Aslin provides evidence that humans could and did not enter Tantanoola
Cave as well, at least until modern
times. The lines there, therefore, he says, should be taken as animals
scratches.
Alsin provides other criteria for distinguishing animal from
human lines (alluded to as well in the writings of Walsh and Bednarik):
If…marks occur with very easily identifiable
petroglyphs, i.e., circles –
divisioned, barred, or concentric –
and parallel grooves, etc., then one will need to examine the markings more
closely [because they may be human]. If the markings are on the wall alone and
there are no other visible signs of floor surface habitation of early people,
then the marks should not be taken as human markings (Aslin 2003: 1).
In other words, if not obviously human then they are
probably animal. Aslin continues:
Invariably claw marks occur near old high water levels
suggesting that when an animal falls into a
cave it usually goes down to the smell of water, a natural instinct for
survival. It becomes disoriented and tries to claw its way out of its watery
environment until it grows too weak and eventually dies in its watery grave….A
few meters above its resting place would be the claw marks of the animal
left in its desperate attempt to escape the water….On the first contact with
the wall, the claws are splayed and will dig deeply into the surface, gradually
tapering off, becoming a more shallow mark and quite often it will dig its
claws in deep for one last grasp at the wall just above the water line (Aslin 2003: 1).
Find an environment where it makes sense that animals
would scratch, examine those marks and use them to typify animal
scratches.
The markings on the boulder, as being low down, suggests
they would be animal….On rock faces, patterns and density of claw
marks are uniformly similar in caves so when a researcher enters a cave, they
would expect to see, through experience and knowledge, the same repetition of
marks (Aslin 2003:1).
The same principle might apply to human marks:
I have not seen any scrapings that could be attributed
to an animal in places that they could not
have reached either by standing upright or jumping from a ledge or rock. If it
was on a sheer, vertical wall, above animal
height but in reach of a human then perhaps [a person] could have made them and
my interest is piqued (Aslin 2003:
1).
Not only can Bednarik tell through such means that
particular lines were animal made, but
sometimes he can also tell what species made them. ‘Species differentiation is
often possible between markings, partly because they permit inferences
concerning the substantially varying climbing abilities’ (Bednarik 1991: 38).
Expanding on this, he writes (1991:
40):
Tentative species identification from claw marks is
often possible, and occasionally definite identification, by a detailed
assessment of factors such as: line spacing between individual sets;
configuration of claws at point of commencement; height (where the former floor
level can be reliably inferred); inferences regarding mobility of fore leg and
shoulder; indications of body size (by spatial restrictions); and impressions
of paws on soft or soot-covered surfaces.
Then we might consider the reason why an animal
might scratch. Aslin (2003:
3) writes:
Scratches can be differentiated from each other and
there are many variations. 1) Frantic Scratches. These are a lot
deeper. In some caves I have seen where the limestone walls have been turned to
powder from repeated clawing at the walls. 2)
Climbing Scratches. Usually long.
Shows deep impact to the wall, gradually tapering and becoming shallow. In most
cases animal claw marks are deeply cut, but
some can be shallow. In both cases the mark is vee-shaped at the end of it….Animals,
using their paws to make marks, leave marks from all claws leaving a set of
claw marks.
Scratches extend to 5.5
meters above the present floor in Princess
Margaret Rose Cave.
Bednarik suggests that they may relate to desperate attempts by animals
to escape, or they may indicate former cave floor levels. Scratches even higher
up exist in Robertson Cave
and, in Gran Gran
South Cave,
he found a marked shaft, 18 meters deep.
Animal claw marks can
be found at most levels, but they are particularly dense wherever upward progress
was impeded –
especially in an aven about 10 m from the floor. The
numerous distinct claw scratches on the perfectly flat, horizontal underside of
a block measuring about 1 m across, located some 9 m
above the floor, bear witness to an incredible climbing ability (Bednarik 1991: 35).
Bednarik wants to ascertain three things – what he calls
‘Species,’ ‘Vehicle,’ and ‘Motivation’ –
about a unit or a cluster of marks:
1.
Species: the animal
species that made it.
2.
Vehicle: the part of the animal’s
body that made it. And
3.
Motivation: the purpose or reason why the animal
made it.
He adds (Bednarik 1991:
39): ‘I submit that the
status of an animal-made mark is determined by
[these] three co-ordinates….The essential characteristics of each animal
mark are determined only by these three factors.’ Bednarik probably intends
that each coordinate of values for these three variables provides a unique set
of scratches. Details for this series of points to create the triangulation of
the three coordinates will, Bednarik claims, lay the ground for claiming or
discounting an animal origin for particular
lines. If certain marks make sense within a particular triangulation, then the
animal species that the triangulation
represents did scratch them. He even claims that it renders animal
scratches ‘self-evident’ (Bednarik 1991:
28). Humans may have made the
others.
This method of triangulation requires further thought and
work. Certain marks suggest that a specific activity for a specific reason by a
specific animal’s specific body part occurred
at that place. If so, does that behavior there seem reasonable? For instance,
certain marks high up in a chimney may all suggest scaling to escape. Do these
same marks appear on a flat rock in the daylight portion of an easily accessed
cave and, if so, do they also really suggest scaling to escape? The challenge
facing Bednarik is whether he can be so consistent about scratches that
Species/Vehicle/Motivation forms a self-contained and predictable
triangulation, a science; Bednarik appears to think so, but he has yet to
establish and publish this.
Isolating the species provides a range of possible
scratches. The vehicle reduces this range. And the reason reduces it even more.
But room for ambiguity still exists. Perhaps the three factors need the
addition of another, such as location of the scratches, to produce a more
adequate matrix of variables. For a
pair of units, suppose research narrows them down to the forelimbs of Macropus titan, an extinct giant
kangaroo. Bednarik’s triangulation would now provide a range of reasons for the
animal to scratch the marks including, say,
fear (thus trying to escape) and claw sharpening. Another factor, perhaps
location of the markings, would help further narrow down the range of possible
reasons. Do the scratches appear 18 meters up a pitch-dark
shaft or two meters up a wall in the lighted portion of a cave that the
macropus titan can easily access? The answer to this type of question offers
another coordinate to form of matrix of factors that helps Bednarik’s original
triangulation more adequately describe animal
marks.
A fuller discussion of these four variables follows.
For a particular cave, a list of potential animal
scratch makers needs to be compiled.
1.
Which animals inhabit(ed) the cave, the region, or
caves in the region? (Note that many marks may be megafaunal marks (lines that
large extinct species made) (Bednarik 1991).)
2.
Have excavations
locally or in this cave uncovered the remains of any animals?
If so, which ones? Excavations may add other information
as well, for instance whether bones remain near certain lines may influence the
answer as to what made them. Aslin (2003:
3) writes:
Some…bones have been
identified being those of the extinct Protemnodon
(giant wallaby) and Sthenurus
(kangaroo species). These bones lay under claw marks on the walls, made by the
animal when it became trapped. The marks are
near the lower part of the walls and floors and are quite deep and spaced
approx. 18 mm apart. Above
these are smaller sets of claw marks
noticeably different from the lower ones.
The list of species so produced needs to be narrowed down:
3.
In a stable environment, the scratching behavior
by the same species would probably remain constant over time – with old and new
markings visible – demonstrating a continuous use of the cave for similar if
not the same reasons. Thus, marks stopping at a particular time may imply that
animal’s local disappearance and this may help narrow down the list of potential
line makers.
4.
Because the concern has to do with humanly made
lines similar to animal scratches, many bat
and bird species are too small to consider (Bednarik 1991: 31-32).
It may be possible then to roughly prioritize the remaining
list by the likelihood of the species having been in the cave:
5.
Which local animals
venture(d) at times into caves, and
which ones into the darker regions of caves?
6.
What species have been identified from excavations in this cave?
7.
If the cave is such that animals
might fall into it, what animals
might do so?
8.
If an animal’s