AR
Copyright © 2004 by Kevin Sharpe. All rights reserved.
Rock Art Research 21:1 (May 2004), pp. 78-84.
by
Kevin Sharpe
The Graduate College, Union Institute and University, Cincinnati, Ohio,
USA
Harris Manchester College, Oxford University, Oxford, United Kingdom
Address:
kevin.sharpe@tui.edu
www.ksharpe.com
See ‘Responses to Kevin Sharpe, “Line Markings: Human or Animal Origin?”’
The original paper is ‘Line Markings: Human or Animal Origin?’
My response will focus on
Robert, the editor of this journal, must be a big person to
publish a paper challenging him to take his work further. However, his magnanimity
does not excuse the groundless personal and professional attack he writes in
his response. My rejoinder will not reply in kind – this is not an attack on
Robert himself – but will try to correct the mis
The question is not whether I can tell animal scratches from
humanly engraved lines, because in most cases I think I can. The issue is not
whether Christine Whitehead and I were correct in our
My paper arises from the educator side of me as much as from any other. A person recently approached me about a cave in the US that is filled with lines. His photographs, to my eyes, look suspiciously like animal scratches and I want to help him discriminate between the scratches of an animal and the engraved lines of a human.
My paper thus attempts to continue the road to the systematization of knowledge concerning animal and human line markings, the road that Robert admirably started. I do not have sufficient expertise of the wide range of subjects required to take the project a lot further along – no individual probably does – nor do I have the breadth of Robert’s experience. He has been fortunate to visit and study lines in a thousand caves, many orders of magnitude more than most of the rest of us, and probably more than anyone else. He has gained considerable expertise from this experience and he shares this through his writing, speaking, organizational efforts, and editorial work. The challenge of the paper is for him to continue to elucidate the differences between animal scratches and human engraved lines – including assembling and publishing the work he has already done – so that the inexperienced might be able to make this differentiation. It is insufficient to just say that experience is the only requisite. Given the difficult and often insurmountable political, time, and financial realities of gaining access and going to caves with human markings, no one in the future will probably have the opportunity that Robert has had. I invite him to continue elucidating his learning and produce his ‘clear guidelines for making the distinction.’
Besides the educational reason, making the distinction clearly
is important for it helps define what is in the corpus of human artifacts and
what isn’t. Figures
The following replies paragraph by paragraph to Robert’s responses that attack me personally and professionally (the numbers refer to the paragraphs in Robert’s response and the italicized pieces in quotes are Robert’s words). Following this, I will reply to his substantive comments.
1. ‘Sharpe’s primary concern here is that my assessment of the Koonalda boulder markings he…mistakenly described as petroglyphs…“ought not to stand merely on rhetoric or subjective interpretation.”’ That is not my primary concern; it is, as I write in the abstract, to seek ‘a balanced, systematic, communicable and empirical way to determine [the] origin’ of lines that may be human or may be animal.
However, to return to these sentences in Robert’s comments, I do not think anyone’s assessment ought to stand on rhetoric or subjective interpretation. This includes Robert. It also includes me, and that is why I wrote in this same paragraph in the paper, ‘Sharpe accepts that some of the lines are of animal origin; how can he tell the difference?’ This discrimination between animal and human marks has become a habit – at least for me, and probably for Robert too – and not necessarily a good one, but certainly a useful one for it limits the amount of data I focus on as human artifacts in a cave. The challenge for all of us is to develop guidelines for making the distinction, and this paper is an attempt to continue the process of doing so.
Let me emphasize that I do not believe Robert’s conclusion for the Upper Chamber boulder lines only relies on rhetoric or subjective interpretation. The problem I address in the piece Robert refers to is that his objective reasons are not forthcoming in his publications mentioning these lines. His readers are expected to accept his judgment on faith. It is commendable that he has so much experience in caves and with animal scratches, but that has not as yet produced publications that systematically express his learning from all this research in clearly discriminating criteria. His research is not a ‘subjective approach’ but, until he communicates his research adequately, his readers cannot, even in their minds eye, consider his decision as objective; it is in danger of being an ‘accept my word because I say it’s so.’ This is why I ask for his ‘clear criteria.’
I ought also to clarify my stance with respect to the origin of the lines on the Upper Chamber boulders. I would be willing to accept the judgment of Robert about all the lines on all the boulders (I emphasize the two ‘all’s here) if he could provide repeatable empirical methodologies and results for all the types of lines found there showing they are more than likely animal. Robert has not yet made an adequate case for their all having an animal origin, and I am not yet convinced that they are all animal made (I could be convinced otherwise). I do think, on the other hand, that many of them are animal scratches.
2. ‘Sharpe has in
In the
The markings I considered were mainly on Rockfall C, not D as Robert writes.
‘In the decades
since then he has not returned to the site to re-examine these markings.’ I
returned to the site in
‘He still cites
Marshack’s
‘He has never conducted analytical or experimental work with claw markings.’ I agree that I, or other people, could do or do more experimental work on this subject. The above paper is intended as a prompt and prelude to further work both experimentally and theoretically.
3. ‘Dr Sharpe is primarily a theologian.’ True, I am a theologian, though I do not use that term of myself. My training is in the sciences; my first doctorate is in mathematics and my education to then focused on it and physics. Many of my key interests are still in physics. But I am really an interdisciplinarian, interested in foundational questions of meaning and origin. My second doctorate was from a program entitled, ‘Science, Philosophy, and Religion,’ and my humanities leanings are on the philosophical side (philosophy of religion in particular) on the border where scientific and spiritual questions meet. My formal archaeological training was at Harvard University under Hallam Movius, Jr. I could be characterized, in no particular order, as a mathematician, philosopher of religion, archaeologist, and educator.
‘…which may account for the contradiction contained within the title of his paper….For me, a scientist, all cave markings by creatures capable of locomotion are animal markings.’ Of course humans are animals; there is no ‘theological’ input into my stance. The difference that my ideology – whatever it is, though Robert seems to think he knows – produces from Robert’s is miniscule in comparison with the quibble over semantics that he raises from my paper’s title. ‘Animals’ in this context of course means ‘non-human animals.’ (Note that, under Robert’s definition, marks that robots might make inside caves would be animal because they would be included under ‘anything else that crawls, walks, flies, or swims.’)
4. ‘He writes that the Orchestra Shell Cave
markings are similar to those in Cutta Cutta Cave.’ I did not write this.
This piece in the paper that Robert refers to is a quote from John Mulvaney and
is meant in its historic context. John would probably not make the same comparison
now – neither would I – especially given Robert’s work in the Orchestra Shell
Cave. In the quote from John, I refer to Robert’s work in the cave by adding, ‘but see Bednarik
‘No one who has examined [the markings] in [Cutta Cutta Cave] has suggested that they are anything other than nonhuman markings.’ W. P. Walsh has examined them and he writes, as quoted in my paper, that he can find no ‘satisfactory explanation of these abundant cave markings.’ He is inclined to conclude that they are animal scratches, but he expresses enough caution to contradict Robert’s claim. In any case, I am not suggesting that they are human; I am merely recounting the historical context for some of the discussion on human versus animal markings.
‘He is also
mistaken in stating that there are sets of markings on Koonalda boulders
comprising up to eight lines….In addition, there are no sets that “branch” from
others.’ I took my data from work that Christine did in
‘Sets that cross
over other sets will often occur…and to describe them as ‘grids’ falsely
ascribes intentionality.’ The five instances of the use of the word ‘grid’
in the paper are: a quote from the historical
‘Sharpe mistakenly claims that only what he calls Rockfall C exhibits line markings. …But in principle they can be found in all parts of the massive talus formations (i.e. in his Rockfalls A to E).’ This offers another empirical matter. I say that the lines of relevant size only appear on the smoothed boulders not on the jagged more recent rock falls. I intentionally searched the latter rock falls for them and failed to notice any.
‘They are equally
common along the walls of the cave, a point he failed to notice in
5. ‘Nonhuman markings are thousands of times more common in caves than are linear incisions made by humans…. [Therefore,] the onus is on the researcher to show that this is not a nonhuman mark.’ I agree that the chances of lines being made by animals rather than humans is in many circumstances much higher. However, given that only a few of us work on prehistoric ‘art’ in caves, it makes little sense to divide into ‘animal origin’ protagonists and ‘human origin protagonists,’ and battle it out. It makes much more sense for us collectively to develop a literature and set of working criteria on the issue so that each of us can draw on and contribute to our collegial knowledge and expertise to come to a provisional conclusion. That is why I wrote this paper. It is not helpful to the field to state (whether by Robert or by me) that one side needs to prove the other wrong.
‘Sharpe, who has long been trying to interpret Koonalda markings as a form of writing, will need to falsify the proposition that his “streams” on the boulders in that cave were made by animal claws before he can validly think about their epigraphy.’ I ceased thinking of all the lines on the boulders as human made years ago and so stopped trying the make sense of them all as writing. Robert was instrumental in my changing my perspective. I am still open to the possibility, though, that some of the humanly made lines may be a form of writing. But I am a long, long way from being able to establish this with any prehistoric line markings let alone humanly engraved lines on boulders. Again, the issue is not whether all the lines on the boulders in the Upper Chamber are animal or human made; the issue is how in general to make the distinction.
Further, I did not use the word ‘stream’ at all in the
paper. So to what is Robert referring to as ‘“[Sharpe’s] streams”’? I deliberately stopped using that word and
instead talk about ‘units,’ as other recent papers of mine do, because ‘stream’
may incline the reader toward a water interpretation of the lines (for
instance, Sharpe and Van Gelder In Press).
6. ‘Sharpe mistakenly thinks that I omitted to
list the engravings of Koonalda in my
‘Sharpe
misinterprets his own
‘He cites Bednarik
(
8. ‘Is it possible to comply with Sharpe’s key demand that the “field needs the formalization …”.This is not possible within the academic context he probably has in mind.’ Perhaps some of the fine points of distinguishing animal scratches from human engravings cannot be learned from a book. But much might be, and that is why Robert tried to contribute to this knowledge with his various papers on the subject. The discussion on the basis of suggested criteria, as I suggest, is both part of the professionalization and continued development of the scientific approach of the discipline, and not to suggest that all knowledge on the subject can be written down.
A danger in arguing that the distinction can be made only on the basis of experience is its nonscientific and exclusivist possibilities. Very few people – and probably even fewer in the future – do or will have the opportunity to study marks of different origin as Robert has. I and probably he would not want the knowledge restricted to an initiated few as if it were a secret and private society.
‘“Inexperienced researchers” such as he.’ This snide comment is uncalled for. Nowadays, I spend four to six weeks per year working in caves on line markings, probably nowhere as much as Robert spends annually in caves, but certainly enough to allow me some experience and expertise.
9. ‘Sharpe’s demands are those of naive empiricism, confusing science with scientism.’ How little Robert knows my thinking and publications; I would be the last to espouse or seek a scientistic or naively empiricist approach.
‘He seems to think that the reason why there are so many animal scratch marks in caves is that certain species seek out such sites to perform some “daily activity.”’ I do not think this.
‘The reason for such concentrations is of course taphonomic.’ I truly appreciate the taphonomic reasons for what exists still in caves, Robert having done much research on this. I teach the importance of this to my students.
‘Sharpe still does not seem to appreciate that if some of the Koonalda finger flutings precede the most recent rock-fall events, then the boulders on top of these rock-falls must be more recent then the finger flutings that are concealed by them.’ This is a ludicrous and unfounded accusation.
‘Sharpe also seems to assume that the cave’s entrance accessibility was always as it is today, which is almost certainly false.’ I do not assume that the entrance was always as today but that, in the time period we are considering, if there were an entrance, it was probably more-or-less where it is today.
‘His second
“cliff” is a talus slope averaging not much more than
‘The entrance of Koonalda Cave is not a doline, but a sinkhole.’ I appreciate this correction.
‘I also reject
many of his descriptive details of Koonalda, for instance his “Directional
Stele”…is a figment of his imagination.’ I was not the only writer of this
10. ‘The “paths” often referred to by Sharpe,
too, are a result of his subjective perception.’ The same applies to these
comments. I considerably revised my understanding of the cave from my second
visit; gone is talk of paths. The issue is not about whether Christine and I
were right in
13. ‘Assuming that some of the marks were made [with a severed paw]…would it imply that the marks were some kind of writing system?’ To suggest that I would think that humanly held paw scratches were automatically a writing system is to impugn a motivation to me that I lack. If I were to look for meaning for such lines, I would need to consider a number of different possibilities, a writing system perhaps being one of them.
15. ‘Sharpe needs to appreciate that the purpose of this [triangulation] model was not to discriminate between human and other animal markings.’ Point taken. However, I did not think this was primarily his intention, but that, given its presence in his paper discussing this subject, it did seem a good place to start trying to systematize knowledge on making this distinction. Robert has made a very good beginning to the study. He rightfully remarks that there is a lot more to do; his remarks here are a long way from his saying above that my trying to pursue this challenge he offers is ridiculous (‘not possible within the academic context,’ ‘parody of the ability of tracking,’ ‘naive empiricism,’ and ‘scientism’ are some of the words and phrases he uses of the program I suggest).
17. ‘If [the severed paw idea’s] sole purpose is to
save Sharpe’s hypothesis that the boulder markings in Koonalda were made by
humans it is merely frivolous.’ It is not my purpose to use this mechanism
to uphold Robert’s erroneous version of my intention. To repeat (yet again): I
do not think that humans made all the lines on the boulders of the Upper
Chamber of Koonalda; the intention of this paper is not to establish that
humans made all these lines.
18. ‘There
is a simple way to resolve the issue Sharpe canvasses here.’ What issue is
this meant to resolve? Robert seems to think that I believe it is whether or
not he (and other members of the Parietal Markings Project) can tell animal
scratches from human engravings. But this is not my issue; it is to encourage
such people as Robert to write down in a systematic way their knowledge of how
to make the distinction and to point toward directions for research.
19. ‘The main issue he seems to be concerned with, to show that the boulder markings in Koonalda’s Upper Chamber could have been made by humans.’ Despite what Robert writes, this is not my main issue…it is not an issue for me at all. My intention is not, in Robert’s words, to ‘restate [my] superseded views of three decades ago.’ I honestly intend what the paper’s abstract states, as I quoted above, to seek ‘a balanced, systematic, communicable and empirical way to determine their origin.’ Robert misunderstands the object of the paper, perhaps because it challenges what he wrote previously, asking him to take it further. It does not call his work ‘rhetoric and subjective interpretation’; it asks for the ‘clear criteria’ Robert alludes to so that the decision not be thought to be on the basis of ‘rhetoric or subjective interpretation.’ I am sorry he jumped so quickly and defensively to interpret what I wrote as he has because I think the force of his response undermines his own efforts to make the study of rock art more objective. What do I base my paper on and where do I suggest as the starting point for taking his work further? On the great work he has already done.
Now to turn to the parts of the responses that actually respond to the issue and help the discussion advance:
13. ‘It would be possible with a hand-held animal
foot to produce markings that would be almost indistinguishable from genuine
animal scratches….Similarly, we cannot guarantee that…whatever we excavate from
an archaeological layer have not been planted there by a skilled person trying
to mislead us.’ I appreciate Robert’s apparent skepticism about the severed
paw possibility. It still is, of course, a possibility, and one that would need
refutation or corroboration – if possible – for particular lines.
14. ‘He would prefer to see ‘location’ included
as a further dimension, but in a cave, present location often does not equate
with past location.’ I also appreciate Robert’s comments about location as
another variable to augment his three. Yes, present location does not equate
with past location. But, despite such possible error and the difficulty of
knowing the past relative location of particular line markings, it still might
16. ‘It is surprisingly difficult to draw on a
coarse rock surface several single lines in such a way that they appear to have
been made in unison, in a single sweep of a multi-pronged tool.’ These are
important comments and the sort of results that help further the research. It
would be good to see the detailed results of his study of this in print.
17. The six questions. I did not intend that no answers exist at present for them, but for them to be some points around which existing and new research might be gathered to help construct a matrix.
‘Internal
striations.’ This point Robert makes carries over also from the previous
paragraph (‘if the individual lines were
drawn with stone, they would be readily recognizable micro-morphologically’).
The issue is not whether flint-made grooves contain striations, as much of the
literature Robert provides is about, but about the absence of striations in
marks made with claws. Robert also writes about this and quotes it in his
comments (‘animal scratches typically
bear no striations’), but further
research is needed to cover a broader variety of animal species and the
occasions for when they might create striations.
‘Internal branches or cross-overs.’ This did not mean that branches or cross-overs just occur randomly as one would expect to happen occasionally (I assume Robert means this with his ‘yes’ as an answer to my question). If branches or cross-overs occur in larger numbers than what would be expected randomly, would a human origin be suggested?
‘What would frantic scratching…look like?’ It is great that such results have been published for wombats. What about for many of the other animals?
‘Stretching scratches.’ I did not suggest that Robert included this. It is something frequently suggested by some French cave guides when trying to explain why cave bears scratched the walls of caves (bears stretching after hibernation).
‘Scratches differ that a species makes for different reasons.’ Again, this rhetorical question is meant to lead to collecting existing data on this with more research suggested.
‘The paws of dead animals.’ I agree with Robert for the need of ethnographic or archaeological evidence of such use before really seriously pursuing this option. In case Robert has the slightest doubt, I am quite dubious of the idea that humans used the paws of animals to make the lines that I have examined (and probably to make many others as well!). It is a possibility raised in the literature and needs answering. Robert continues by saying that he might be able to tell the difference. Wonderful. Even more wonderful if he would conduct this experiment and, from his invaluable experience, share with the rest of us the reasons he finds for the difference.
Neither Robert, Geoffrey, Ben, nor myself are mammalogists or zoologists and yet we are trying to comment on the behavior of mammals and other animals. I have roused the interest and expertise of a mammalogist in my continuing exploration of the issue and we will see what that produces. So far, it appears that mammalogists have little knowledge of the scratching behavior of their subjects.
Geoffrey’s
I point out near the beginning of the paper, however, that it concerns human engraved lines not finger flutings, but Geoffrey appears not to have noticed this and writes as if I am only considering flutings. The condescending tone of his final paragraph (‘I would recommend Sharpe be more aware of the difference between humanly made cave petroglyphs and animal scratches’) is therefore misplaced. I am fully aware of differences between animal scratches and finger flutings. Even so, the distinction between flutings and animal scratches is not the issue; it is to develop a systematic means by which we might distinguish between animal scratches and engraved lines made by humans. It is not about my ability to make the distinction.
Ben’s comments offer quite a different tone to Robert’s and
to Geoffrey’s. Rather than Robert’s pounding the dead horse of my decades’ old
understanding and, to add another equine metaphor, continually to chastise me
for a straw horse of an idea that he knows or ought to know I no longer hold,
Benn gets the point. With Ben, I too look forward to further work on this
issue. (See the most recent issue of the journal Préhistoire
du Sud-Ouest (No.
I wrote at the beginning of this rejoinder that Robert the editor must be a big person to publish a paper challenging him to take his work further. Hopefully, that big person will become an even bigger person by dropping the distracting false-issue response and turning once more to the real work at hand.
Sharpe, C. E.
Sharpe, C. E.
Sharpe, K. in
prep. The
Upper Chamber of Koonalda Cave, South Australia: its rockfalls, their
weathering and use. See www.ksharpe.com.
Sharpe, K. and
L. Van Gelder
Sharpe, K. and
L. Van Gelder in press. Trois formes de tracés digitaux (ou Sevérines) en Grotte de Rouffignac,
France. Préhistoire du Sud-Ouest. See
www.ksharpe.com.
Wright, R. V. S.