AR
Unpublished
AUTHOR(S): K. J. SHARPE & C. E. SHARPE
TITLE: THE UPPER
CHAMBER OF
This manuscript is:
acceptable as it stands
after minor revision
after major revision X
is not acceptable
for publication in the ‘Records.’
As a descriptive account of fieldwork observations, I find this section at times too anecdotal for easy reference. More seriously, certain interpretative comments made are unclear or unsubstantiated:
e.g., page
page
page
throughout: reference to ‘activity areas’ include ‘floor constructions’?, piles of stones, faunal remains, etc., whose human origin would require substantiation, as well as engravings, remnants of torches, etc., which are archaeological findspots. The terminology is imprecise.
throughout: terms such as ‘altar,’ stele,’ and ‘monument’ are unfortunate since they have definite connotations which are unknown in contemporary Aboriginal culture (and would have to be substantiated if claimed for the prehistoric past!). Similarly, frequent reference to the ritual nature of past activity in the cave, though very plausible, would require substantiation in the discussion rather than assumed recognition in field observations.
The discussion of the analysis of the engravings in this section lacks method and rigor. The introductory analogies with European rock art suggest an inadequate background in this field, but are in any case unnecessary, except for reference to Marshack’s work (which is mainly on small objects, and not on cave engravings).
The authors attempt to follow Marshack’s
methods for analyzing non-figurative marks, but fail to follow his
sophistication, both at the practical level of recording and at the analytical
level of identifying grouped markings. Working on relatively hard materials,
Marshack still found it necessary to work at fairly high magnifications (x
Their methods may well be dictated by the rigors of working
in a cave – but the low levels of resolution should at the very least receive
discussion. Similarly the Authors’ apparent confidence in their ability to
identify sequential superposition is surprising since this is generally
considered an exceedingly difficult problem by experienced fieldworkers. Their
lack of awareness of the criteria relevant to field identification of
superimposition sequence leads them to the obvious conclusion (p.
The results of their observations on the engravings are not synthesized or even summarized, and it is difficult for the reader to evaluate regularities of trends. Quantification of observations are totally lacking. The authors fail to demonstrate trends for structured patterning of the engravings, or (as claimed) of the relationship between engraved lines and form of boulder: both or at least either are necessary criteria for the recognition of a visual communication system, i.e. symbols (see. e.g., Munn, quoted by the authors). They have not even fully demonstrated the human origin of the engravings. In view of the highly contentious nature of this question (e.g., see Walsh, whom they quote, but do not discuss or refute), this problem deserves more rigorous examination. Judged from the drawings and photographs, the Koonalda engravings do, in fact, show striking similarities in patterning with those observed in known bear dens of the European Late Pleistocene (e.g., Reguerillo, Rouffignac).
Future Directions:
This section should be omitted. It is both speculative and superficial and reveals the authors’ lack of familiarity with current literature on the Anthropology of art.
The report is clearly the result of much detailed and painstaking work.
The new field observations and plans presented have enormous
potential interest but the authors’ apparent unfamiliarity with modern
archaeological field recording requirements detracts from the value of their
interpreted observations. I find it more difficult to comment objectively on
Part
The report very clearly reflects the authors’ total isolation from current trends in Prehistory and Anthropology.
Being neither prehistorian nor anthropologist, I have no
expertise with regard to much of the content of the report. On the other hand
there is an important physical component in it and I have been familiar with
the site from early
It is my opinion that the report contains important new factual material and interpretation about this important site and on this count basically warrants publication.
The interpretation of the rounding of rockfall by progressive weathering through salt crystallization wedging seems reasonable to me and this is important in differentiating successive rockfalls. This interpretation leads the authors away from their prior conceptions of pathways through the upper chamber and to the idea of probable burial of much surface available at least to early Aboriginal users of the upper chamber. I would probably couch some of the discussion of the natural mechanisms involved in slightly different language but their meaning comes through clearly enough and I do not suggest modification here other than simple stylistic editing.
I also consider that the detailed analysis of the engraving in the second section adds valuably to our knowledge of it. I present this view even though the engravings lie beyond my expertise, because I think evidence is mustered here which helps eliminate origin by natural forces (including non-human animal activity) with which I am concerned professionally.
However I find deficiencies in the account which if corrected would make the report more useful. In particular revision could avoid adverse reaction from skeptics about this prehistoric ‘art.’ I class these revisions as minor in that what I recommend is largely clearing out more debatable aspects and pruning of more speculative sections. The main case is presented clearly and in an effective order.
(a) The
description of the sediments in cavities in the rockfalls, though useful, are very
broad and consequently I am far from convinced by the correlation proposed on pp.
(b) The authors properly make much of the contrast between the rounded and the other surfaces of the rockfall blocks. However, the description of the other surfaces as ‘crystalline surfaces’ seems deceptive to me. It tends to suggest surface deposition of crystalline calcite. My memory is of simple fracture surfaces of the bedrock, irregular and, of course, since some of the limestone is crystalline there can be crystal facets showing. A better description of this kind of surface is necessary.
Two lesser points are associated. On the last line of p.
On page
(c) In
the abstract and on p.
However, it is true that, on p.
Even so if one is to be so precise, some discussion is necessary of the spatial relationships of dated material and art. With R. V. Wright’s material, there is only association between the two, no certain stratigraphic superposition. A degree of uncertainty attaches to this which needs admission.
If it is argued that there is no intention to venture into this matter, then a much broader statement of the age with less certain ascription should be substituted.
(d) The
report would be more valuable if description and interpretation were overlapped
as little as possible. This is put at risk by the use of terms such as ‘stele,’
‘directional,’ ‘altar,’ ‘activity area,’ ‘ritual mining’ from the start. If
neutral terms were employed prior to the case being made for the human activity
associated with features, the argument when it came for this would be the more
cogent. I would ask in particular for the case for ‘ritual mining’; how is it
distinguished from ordinary mining?
(e) More
use could be made of the Marshack engraving analyses to prove that it is
proto-art which is present rather than markings of other origin. They should be
used to
(f) I
see no advantage in the discursive section of pp.