AR65. 5 May 2004

Responses to ‘line markings: human or animal origin?’

Origin of line markings in caves ascertainable

By GEOFFREY D. ASLIN

Kevin Sharpe’s interesting paper stimulates our minds to the subject of marks executed on cave surfaces dense enough to preserve such marks through the ages.

The question many people ask me, and which Sharpe used as his heading, is ‘are they of human or animal origin?’ The answer is in the interpretation and in being able to distinguish between the two. On closer examination and understanding of the marks, the difference between them is easily established (Bednarik 1986b, 1994a).

I have examined thousands of animal markings since the mid-1950s in over 400 caves, sinkholes and similar places, mainly in the lower South-East of South Australia and in south-western Victoria whilst exploring these places for early human occupation evidence and petroglyphs (Aslin and Bednarik 1984a, 1984b; Aslin et al. 1985; Aslin 1991). Generally, animal scratch markings in the majority are simply thin and sharp, whilst human-made finger marks are wide and shallow. I think it is a fallacy that early people used animal claws to scrape at the walls, especially in Mount Gambier cave art. 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 man could have made them and my interest in them is piqued. (I have not had the good fortune to examine and view the markings in Koonalda, Kintore and Cutta Cutta Caves. I therefore cannot fully comment on the markings in those caves.)

In nearly all of my observations of comparing humanly made marks to those of animals, the differences are generally easily recognised by an experienced researcher.

The best guideline an archaeologist, or anyone else, needs to help distinguish between human and animal-made marks is experience, examination and comparison of all marks. Practically all caves I know with entrances open to the surface contain some specimens of animal claw marks. In the Mount Gambier region we have identified forty parietal cave petroglyph sites. It has taken the examination of hundreds of caves to arrive at this figure and this would give a researcher a whole lot of experience and knowledge of all markings in caves, be they animal or human. I agree with Bednarik that a great variety of animal species can be identified from their claw marks and ‘that a reliable separation can be achieved by an experienced observer in nearly every instance’ (Bednarik 1993: 83; cf. 1991: 38). One must back one’s judgement with the knowledge that the marks being viewed belong to a species of animal that had inhabited the district. The back-up of palaeontological evidence in bones uncovered at the site or in near proximity is important in helping to identify the animal species.

Once gaining the experience and knowledge from the markings in caves, one would confidently be able to differentiate between human and animal-made markings. The cavities, ledges and high water levels all add to the make up of the caves’ passages and chambers. On close examination we soon learn what type of mark one would expect to see on the various walls, ceilings, ledges and alcoves. Claw marks often occur near old high water levels suggesting that when an animal falls into a cave it has usually been attracted by the smell of water. If it accidentally entered it, it would soon become disorientated in the dark and try to claw its way out until it grew too weak and eventually died in its watery grave. Its remains would then sink to the bottom. Later, with the lowering of the aquifer, the bones become exposed, laying there for an archaeologist to make the discovery. A few metres above its resting place would be the claw marks the animal left in its desperate attempt to escape the water.

On the first contact with a wall, the claws are splayed and will dig deeply into the surface, gradually tapering off, becoming more shallow marks and quite often the animal will dig its claws in deep for one last grasp at the wall just above the water line. On rock faces, patterns and density of claw marks are uniformly similar in caves, so when researchers enter a cave, they would expect to see, through experience and knowledge, the same repetition of marks.

The entrance to McEachern’s Cave in Victoria is a typical solution tube-like entrance and an excellent animal trap. All animal species’ entry into this cave would have been accidental. As it contains valuable palaeontological remains (Tideman 1967; Wakefield 1967), the evidence points more to the marks being of animal origin than human. A climbing ladder is necessary for a human to enter this cave.

The scratches found in several locations within Tantanoola Cave are shallow-penetration claw markings on ledges and walls and are very common to all similar claw marks found in all 400 odd known caves within the Mount Gambier region. These markings are unquestionably and typically animal, being fairly recent and of a smaller species, e.g. possum. The first person to interpret these marks did so with no experience and knowledge of the differences between human and animal marks. One needs to familiarise oneself with both types of marks before arriving at the conclusion of how they were made. That person today, with new experience and knowledge, would now come to the same conclusion. Gunn (n.d.) reports ‘[O]n the 7th. Feb., 1981, a party led by E. Hamilton-Smith met at the cave to examine recently noticed wall marks’. He goes on to say ‘[A]ll markings have the same internal colour and texture of the surrounding wall’ and he remarks further that ‘[F]lowstone has encroached over at least four sets of markings’. This does suggest that some markings are very old. In conclusion, Gunn writes that all of the wall markings are the result of ‘ramblings of animals across the wall surface’. The marks in Tantanoola Cave were examined by myself (in September 1982) on the invitation of the then Cave Manager, John Callaghan, and then later with R. G. and E. Bednarik (in 1985), and we came to the same conclusion as Gunn ¾ that these marks were not of Aboriginal origin.

The first diagnosis of those markings was obviously incorrect. Imagine the confusion and frustration if, in my local area, I began to arrive at the conclusion that all markings I saw in caves were made by humans, using the Tantanoola Cave as a guide. It would be an incorrect interpretation. The markings in the Tantanoola Cave are so obviously animal, they do not warrant further discussion on how they were made.

The Tantanoola Cave structural build-up began as a solution cave in dolomite. This dolomite is altered Miocene bryozoan limestone and usually underlies the Gambier limestone. The cave is on the Tartwaup fault-line, which has experienced vertical movement. This formed cliffs on the south-west side of the ancient Mount Burr volcanic range and Pleistocene Mount Burr beach. During the Pleistocene, the cliff was cut back by marine wave action and entrances to the cave were breached. Marine sediments entered first through cracks and solution tubes until a larger breach occurred, probably near the present entrance. This is how the marine-washed pebbles were deposited there. The pebbles then formed a bar, which helped in blocking the entrance off again. The final stage of the cave’s development is calcite infill by speleothems, which is indicative of the cave being sealed for a relatively long period. Included is flowstone, which has covered some of the marine deposits (pebbles) and old ancient entrances, long before the first humans roamed this part of south-eastern South Australia.

A further indication that the entrance to Tantanoola Cave was open during the Pleistocene period but not in recent times is the absence of evidence of dingoes. No doubt carnivores, like the dingo, would have preyed on smaller animals and they would have inhabited the cave, but there has been no evidence noted of dingo remains. The entrance to the cave was therefore sealed before the arrival of the dingo and not reopened until after the dingo was extinct in the district.

The late Mr Boyce Lane, who discovered the small entrance to Tantanoola Cave on 28 March 1930, was a personal friend of mine. He gave me the pleasure of several interviews with him, which were recorded on tape in the mid-1980s. Boyce described to me how he discovered the cave while hunting rabbits with a ferret:

While waiting for the return of my ferret from a rabbit burrow, I dislodged some stones, which in turn made the hole larger. I then could see it went into a larger cavity. By wriggling through, I discovered I could stand up, but on dislodging a rock and hearing it bounce down the slope to the bottom I beat a quick retreat out. The next day I, with my brothers Clarrie and Ron, made the entrance hole larger (B. Lane, taped pers. comm.).

They took a photograph of the freshly opened entrance, which Boyce gave me permission to use in my collection (Fig. 1). It shows the small entrance with a dolomite rock-face above and canvas laid on the ground to enable the explorers’ easier access.

Whilst interviewing Boyce, he described to me how he assisted Norman Tindale in the excavation and the exploration of many caves and anthropological excursions to local Aboriginal sites of significant importance (Tindale 1933). Boyce said to me during the interviews that I was the first person to actually ask him in depth, to describe these early happenings. As far as I know I am the only person to record this on tape before his passing.

Thus the late Boyce Lane, looking for his ferret, which had disappeared down a hole, discovered Tantanoola Cave in 1930. He and his brothers were the first people to enter the cave, and it showed no evidence of any previous human habitation. Tantanoola Cave was then a complete darkened cave system and as animals entered it via a burrow or hole, they became trapped in the darkness. They would no doubt claw at the walls in an attempt to escape. Importantly, in the cave is a deposit of Pleistocene chert and dolomite pebbles showing no signs of disturbance or impact fractures by humans. If the ancient people had entered the cave, would they not have used these pebbles for their flint implements as they had in several nearby caves? Does this not prove that man had not previously entered this cave and that all marks had been made by animals? Silica mining during the late Pleistocene era in the caves was a prime purpose of entering them, especially as there was no surface chert available at that time (Bednarik 1992b).

The majority of the scratch marks are in the back of the cave on ledges which are now one metre or less from the path (floor) and are typical marks left by trapped animals trying to claw their way out. Over the years the surface of the path has been disturbed and altered. It has been lowered in some places and raised in others, thus making the original levels harder to ascertain.

The Tantanoola Cave is special to me as it is in my research area. I hope this RAR Comment will show that the markings in the cave are not human and will bring the discussion on the marks in that cave to a close. Many naturally made marks on rock-faces could sometimes look like scratches. Water is a powerful component and by trickling constantly over the same place it can cause tiny marks that could be construed as animal scratches.

Recently I led members from the Archaeological and Anthropological Society of Victoria on a weekend field trip to a variety of early people’s occupational sites in the Mount Burr range, north of Mount Gambier. We viewed and had discussions on early people’s parietal finger markings and chert mining within Prung-kart Cave, Gran Gran Cave and other sites where we familiarised ourselves with the difference between finger flutings and animal marks. We also visited and viewed the markings in Tantanoola Cave. It was a unanimous decision that the markings were of animal origin, not human.

Over the genre one can easily distinguish between marks made recently (in the last 200 years) which look considerably older. Animals dig in with their claws, their marks being sharper, and usually leave a fairly uniform space between individual claws, not coming together as human fingers do. Animals mainly leave marks in vertical or near-vertical positions. They are unable to scrape sideways for any length of time. Humans can go in all directions, horizontal, vertical and circular.

I have recorded ancient bones of animals in several caves. Some embedded in the walls, ceilings and floors and others lying in situ. Some of these 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 approximately 18 mm apart. Above these are smaller sets of claw marks noticeably different from the lower ones.

In Sharpe’s conclusion he states ‘[I]nvestigators may also wish to isolate other physical characteristics of the marks’ etc. His list is self-explanatory:

· Marks made by a frantic animal would be short and deep.

· Climbing scratches are deeper on impact than ‘stretching scratches’.

· Forelimb: vertical.

· Hindleg: slant off vertical.

In general, scratches differ in all species and I consider that over 90% of scratches found in Mt Gambier caves would be assessed as animals that have been trapped and leave claw marks behind in their desperate attempts to escape.

What will future researchers read into markings on cave walls? Will they interpret them as we have? Maybe with the advancement of technology they will see them in a different light.

Lastly I would recommend Sharpe to be more aware of the difference between humanly made cave petroglyphs and animal scratches. Further practical fieldwork in caves would be beneficial to the study of the origin of line markings.

Geoffrey D. Aslin

4 Perriam Street

Mt. Gambier, S.A. 5290

Australia

Tel. and Fax No. (618) 8725 0005

RAR 21-000

Aslin, G. D. 1991. Kongorong from land to sea – An early history. Millicent Print, Millicent.

Aslin, G. D. and R. G. Bednarik 1984a. Karlie-ngoinpool Cave: a preliminary report. Rock Art Research 1: 36-45.

Aslin, G. D. and R. G. Bednarik 1984b. Karake Cave ¾ a preliminary report. The Artefact 8: 33-5.

Aslin, G. D., E. K. Bednarik and R. G. Bednarik 1985. The ‘Parietal Markings Project’ ¾ a progress report. Rock Art Research 2: 71-4.

Bednarik, R. G. 1992b. Early subterranean chert mining. The Artefact