AR
Copyright © 1980 and
THE BOULDER KOONALDA CAVE , SOUTH
AUSTRALIA
by
Christine E. Sharpe
and
Kevin J. Sharpe
The Graduate
College, Union Institute and University, Cincinnati, Ohio
Harris Manchester College, Oxford University
Oxford Institute for Science and Spirit,
kevin.sharpe@tui.edu
www.ksharpe.com
ABSTRACT.
This paper attempts to place the boulder line engravings
in the Upper Chamber of Koonalda Cave, South Australia, in the context of
similar Australian and European traditions, and in the context of commentators
on these traditions. An analysis of a few of the boulder engravings from
Koonalda after the suggestions of
KEYWORDS.
Engravings,
CONTENTS.
A Preliminary
Investigation into Non-Representational Prehistoric Art
The
Analysis of Non-Representational Prehistoric Engraving
Aim
and Method of the 1976 Expedition
Results
of the 1976 Expedition
Conclusions
Resulting Directly from Observations Taken During the 1976 Expedition to
Koonalda
The engravings on boulders in the Upper Chamber of Koonalda Cave introduced in
Sharpe and Sharpe (
In general, the Koonalda marks seem to have been made by a sharp instrument, possibly a chalcedony flake. We are assuming that the marks we studied are of human origin. No pattern is obvious in the engravings, but there is a degree of care and skill evident in their execution, and some degree of consistency, a certain ‘style.’ They vary from a simple arrangement of two parallel lines to a complex mesh-upon-mesh which is as tangled as the lines on elephant hide.
These engraved marks are referred to as an art form, because, although they show no inclination towards representation, they are deeply expressive, and seem to be made with careful intent. Along with the meander tradition of Europe, it may be that they form the beginning of visual expression; they are our first ‘abstract’ art if you like.
But the boulder engravings form only one of the three types
of art found in Koonalda Cave, the other two being the two dimensional
engravings and the three dimensional sculptures. The two dimensional art
consists of finger markings on the cave walls in the area surrounding the ‘squeeze,’
and wall markings which appear to have been made by a sharp object and which
sometimes form recognizable patterns (Edwards and Maynard
Plates
At first, the engraved boulders appeared to be placed along
pathways in the Upper Chamber (Sharpe and Sharpe
The intent of this paper is to present a description and
analysis made from the
A Preliminary Investigation into Non-Representational Prehistoric Art
The Koonalda engravings are not unique in Australia as the only examples of non-representational prehistoric markings, for there are others just as mysterious in meaning and origin.
Cave Petroglyphs
Most of these are petroglyphs on cliff faces, boulders, or slabs of stone, and they are found in all parts of Australia. Not all petroglyphs are prehistoric (some with depictions of horses or sailing ships are obviously of post-contact origin), but most are impossible to date, and the meanings of their symbolisms are lost.
In general, petroglyphs are very different stylistically
from those in Koonalda, but there are some examples that are from a similar
tradition. The fine engravings on limestone inside the Kintore and Cutta Cutta
caves in the Northern Territory (Walsh
W. P. Walsh (
The Orchestra Shell Cave near Perth, Western Australia,
contains roof markings similar to the wall marks around Koonalda’s Squeeze
(Hallam
Plate
Cylcons
Cylindro-conical stones, or cylcons, are portable Aboriginal artifacts that may bear surface engravings reminiscent of Koonalda’s. The stones are mainly cylindrically shaped, and either taper to a point or are rounded. The surface may be either plain or incised with lines, bird or kangaroo tracks, pittings, herringbones, crosses, apical rings, multiple encircling rings, spiral radiate, barred circles, crescents or boomerang shapes, ovals or animal-like figures.
Most decorated cylcons are found near the Darling River
Valley in western New South Wales. Their use is unknown; the Darling River
Aborigines are extinct and no records of their culture were made. Some theories
as to the cylcons use include their being seed-grinding top stones, grave
markers with a number of burials recorded on them, fight challenge stones, used
in the ‘bora’ initiation ceremony, rain making stones, phallic stones, used to
increase the number of snakes, and as death bone pointers (Black
Incised Stones
Incised stones resemble Koonalda engravings more closely than do the cylcons as they lack the ‘symbols.’ Most have been discovered in South Australia from Peddlers Creek near Moana to Morowoure Waters. They have a natural, usually water-polished shape. As for the markings:
Generally, the patterns are composed of three different
forms of incisings, (a) long transverse lines, more or less parallel, sometimes
in spaced groups, and (b) and (c) very short longitudinal or transverse
markings. The usual designs are (a) long transverse lines alone, and (b) long
transverse lines combined with one or more groups of short longitudinal or
short transverse lines. Some stones also carry incisings upon the reverse side,
in additions, these reverse markings being invariably short and either
longitudinal or transverse or both. All specimens examined bore the
characteristic long transverse lines upon one face but no case occurred
where these had been incised on both sides of the same stone. Similarly,
short lines never occurred alone on both sides (Cooper
More recently found incised artifacts have been excavated in
the Devil’s Lair in Western Australia (Dortch
Incised implements are known but very few of these have been found. Two of the few documented are a scraper from Peddlers Creek and a millstone from northeastern Queensland. The former has crisscrossed short groups of two, three, and four parallel lines on one side and two bird tracks on the other, and the latter has one side covered with evenly spaced parallel lines. Both of these marking styles are to be seen in Koonalda.
The Analysis of Non-Representational Prehistoric Engraving
This section will review briefly earlier writer’s attitudes and theories on non-representational prehistoric engravings in Europe, and introduce the ideas of Marshack, an important recent investigator on the subject whose work has great bearing on Koonalda. It will also examine the theories of Lesley Maynard and Alexander Gallus who have been working with Australian examples including the engravings of Koonalda Cave.
Engravings that appear to pre-date representational art
forms and symbolic motifs; for example, the tectiforms are represented in
Europe by the so-called Macaroni. Originating in the Aurignacian period, this
work is drawn by fingers into wet clay and some examples resemble quite closely
the finger scrawls near the Squeeze in Koonalda. The transition from marking to
representation can be seen in the European examples, but not in Koonalda.
Macaroni at Gargas is usually composed of single lines and sometimes form
animal-type outlines; but the finger tracings of Altimira are denser and more
like Koonalda. Lascaux has incised line work that, like Koonalda’s boulder
engravings, seems to have been cut into the limestone with a sharp hard tool,
possibly flint (Giedon
Breuil and Leroi-Gourhan
When Henri Breuil was confronted with these
non-representational marks, he did little else but describe them and make
comparisons with the work of living indigenous peoples. It was he who coined
the name Macaroni for the Aurignacian finger scrawls (Breuil
André Leroi-Gourhan attempted a statistical study of those
signs found on and around representational works. Their relationship to each
other and positions in the cave was studied and described as male/female,
central, or subsidiary. The serpentine meanders he classifies as subsidiary,
masculine signs (Leroi-Gourhan
Both of these writers take the meanders as being almost iconographic, snake-like for Breuil, phallic for Leroi-Gourhan, based on superficial recognition of the form of the markings.
Maynard and Gallus
Little written on Australian Aboriginal art has relevance to
Koonalda. For example, Lesley Maynard (
She is concerned that writers on Aboriginal art use a common
terminology, so in reference to Koonalda we find that it is merely classified
and under petroglyph techniques as engraved ‘with the finger(s)
or other tool in soft limestone wall’ (
Gallus, on the other hand, has much to say on the Koonalda engravings, not extensive descriptions, however, but more on their possible nature and function, especially as being symbols.
He explains the evocative power of symbols in terms of
engrams (stored representations in the nervous system which parallel the innate
patterns in insects and animals enabling them to reproduce such things as webs
and nests); a symbol taps the information in the engram and brings it into
consciousness. For Gallus, ‘mythic symboling’ is the process of making these
symbols, not consciously constructing them. Art is only one of the vehicles by
which the symbol structure of the myth can be externalized, the others being in
ritual, mime, dance and language. In Gallus’s words (
Gallus’s work gives us a means of explaining ‘aesthetic
response,’ that which one feels when one ‘enjoys,’ ‘gets something from,’ is
‘reached’ by a piece of art. Romantically speaking, art can trigger off that
within a person that is ageless, inherited, external, unknowable, cannot be
spoken about or rationalized, but is a common experience to all human beings.
When art is non-iconic then we are closer to this essential ‘moving element.’
Thus, the Koonalda art, which includes the engravings, is the symboling or
expression of universal, biological, subconscious states (but compare with
Gallus’s earlier approaches to the Koonalda markings in
Marshack’s Method of Analysis
Whereas many authors have speculated on the meaning behind
the prehistoric rock art that depicts realistic bulls and other animals, the
Aurignacian non-representational work has been largely ignored. Marshack has
shown great interest in this, however, and we have based most of our recent
Koonalda investigations on his work (
Traditionally the marks on bone or stone fragments have been
called ‘tally marks’ and thought to represent the number of animals killed by a
certain hunter. By careful microscopic observation, Marshack has discovered
that the tools used to make the marks differ from mark to mark or group of
marks to group of marks. This, he feels proves that the marks were made over a
period of time, or perhaps by different people. The marks tend to form sets,
each an obvious unit in itself, possibly differing in number of marks from
other sets. These ‘sets’ Marshack describes as ‘mythic’ rather than
‘arithmetic.’ That is, like the symbols described by
How can this relate to Koonalda? The usual approach to the Koonalda marking is to look for symbols, groups of lines forming definite shapes which are repeated and which may mean something. Now with Marshack’s mythic sets, we perhaps need not construct the Koonalda line groupings into symbols, but instead see each line as a separate entity in a ‘set of lines’ which, taken together, could be a mythic representation. That is, parts of the concept are still being shown, but the jump to ‘true symbolization’ has not yet been made, and the line set is still being read like a picture. So we may be able to see the Koonalda line groupings as a whole and read them off as visual symbolic unit, even though they are composed of a number of marks, each possibly with its own meaning. This form of notation (in terms of Jung and his theory of archetypes) is less specific than writing, and leaves the mind free after initial stimulation in the direction indicated by the signs, to build, imagine and form images. According to Jung, poetry has this effect and the images so stimulated emerge from the unconscious; in Koonalda they are archetypes in the form of myths. An exciting implication of Marshack’s work is his claim that these early marks may reveal something of the prehistoric person’s cognitive powers.
As well as giving us a different way of thinking about the Koonalda engravings, Marshack also provides us with specific tools to set about the intricate and time-consuming task of recording the lines in a way that may be helpful in their interpretation. He suggests that the first thing we have to do is find out how the lines were made, in what order they were laid down, and ascertain whether they were drawn by a number of people over a period of time. One way of doing this is to identify ‘streams’ through the mass of lines; by careful recording and observation of which lines overlie others, we can separate the mass into ‘layers.’ This process can be aided by observing changes in ‘style,’ or the way in which the marks were made.
Marshack feels that by analyzing the images’ internal structure more information could be gathered. The study of the cognitive processes involved in the formation of an image involves a study of the sequence of making an image or composition, the way the surface is used. Marshack adds force to this idea by studying representational portable engravings that are often over-engraved by different tools. He feels that rather than being additional recognizable forms, they are a sort of shorthand participation in the use of the image.
Aim and Method of the 1976 Expedition
An aim during the
Firstly, a suitable sample of engravings was chosen, one relatively clear and easy to ‘read’ (some areas are so heavily engraved that the lines are virtually impossible to sort out). The work was then undertaken with a strong side light (gas), and hand-held candle, which could be moved across the streams until the light, was thrown directly into each line. This eliminated the shadows thrown by the sidelight and allowed a look into the lines with the aid of a magnifying glass, to establish the contour of their cross-sections.
It was possible to establish which
groups superimpose others by examining the junction at which they crossed.
These results can be seen in Figures
However,
this is subject to a number of circumspections. Because the above hypothesis
itself and the method of drawing the lines evolved during the examination of
the lines themselves, there are inaccuracies in the figures and the method of
representation, which cannot be rectified without further examination of the
lines in situ (the hypothesis, however, still seems well established).
For instance, some lines are given the same level in the overlay structure, and
so represented by the same symbol when this is not ascertainable since they
have no crossing or touching with other lines. Some lines have been given the
same level of overlay when they do meet or cross one another, meaning their
relative overlaying was not looked for. And thirdly, some sets of lines have no
crossings or meetings at all and yet an overlay structure has been given to
them. The method of representation used thus has its drawbacks and in further
investigations should be modified (Marshack’s method of drawing the lines –
Results of the 1976 Expedition
From
Figure
Plate
The
central section (see Figure
Cluster
Cluster
Cluster
Figure
Plate
The lines from the lower portion
of the above boulder are shown in Figure
Four lines (Stream
Figure
From
From
Figure
Plate
Superimposition is obvious in the first example (see Figure
These three general aspects are similar to the lower cluster
on boulder F
Figure
Plate
The second example from this
boulder is a complex patterned surface immediately below the first (Figure
There is a vague similarity between the two systems in that in both, two separate streams slant from the lower left to the upper right and two more slant through these from the upper left to the lower right. Perhaps this shows some left-right symmetry.
Figure
Plate
From
Figure
7 .
Engravings on Rock D6 -e.
For key, see Figure 1 .
Plate 8 . From Rock D6 -e. See Figure 7 .
The next engraving to be describes
was found on the rock D
The most interesting aspect of this
cluster is the intimate association of the engraved lines with the natural
structure of the limestone. Streams
Figure
Plate
The final area of lines to be
described is located on the lower stone of the two at the entrance to the
‘cavern,’ D
Conclusions Resulting Directly from Observations
Taken During the 1976
Expedition to Koonalda
In brief:
1. Cross-sections seem consistent across a stream of lines.
2. Cross-sections range from a sharp V to a broad, shallow U
3. There is a direct relationship between natural features of the boulder surface and some engraved lines. For instance, small pits or holes are joined by lines, or have lines passing through or coming out of them. Long cracks are imitated by lines engraved parallel to them. And large holes are often indicated by a complex of a number of streams converging on the holes.
4.
Some engraved surfaces are badly cracked and threaten
to scale off.
5. Fine-line groups tend to underlie thicker ones.
6. The majority of parallel lines are in groups of four. This is consistent with the finger markings (presumably executed with the four fingers).
7. Marshack (pers. comm.) mentions groups of parallel lines, overlapping each other and moving systematically down the rock face or wall. We noticed no structuring similar to this in Koonalda.
8. The engravings on the lower boulders of the ‘cavern’ are distinctly different from the others, which were studied. They are mainly parallel and move uniformly up and down the face. They are also emphatically drawn and thus possibly related to the striking form of the ‘cavern.’ In general, it appears that engraving patterns associated with outstanding ‘hole’ formations such as the ‘cavern’ have a distinctly different form from other boulder engravings; they are clear, vertical lines with fairly even spacing and lack any underlying mesh of lines. Perhaps this definite change of style in engraving implies that different sets of lines have different purposes or meanings.
9. In some systems of streams there is rough left/right symmetry.
10. A number of clusters contain V-shapes of streams bisected to the apex by other streams.
Future Directions
Where do we go from here? There are many avenues one could explore and which could contribute to the understanding of the markings and art in Koonalda Cave. We do not intend to present a comprehensive survey of these ideas here, but it is worthwhile briefly to set out some of the directions, which could possibly be followed.
Firstly
there is symbolism itself. What kind of symbols do we find in Koonalda Cave?
Does it correspond to levels of symbols in prehistoric European art? An
in-depth study of traditional writers’ work on this subject would be
worthwhile. Are there different levels of symbols in Koonalda Cave, and if so,
do they represent levels in the development of the symbol? Marshack (
Marshack’s mythic notation, mentioned before is another worthwhile direction; could these simple meanders act as memory joggers for entire mythic constructs?
The art in Koonalda has remained relatively undisturbed and in its original context. Ritual, artistic and mining activities are all there, giving the possibility of building up an overall view of the activities within the cave. It is important to explore possible relationships between all apparent activities. How do boulder markings relate to ritual mining, or to the stone circle and activity area formations. Could contemporary Aboriginal use of stone formations and ground drawings help to shed light on these aspects?
Perhaps we should consider the powerful symbolism of the human hand so evident in Koonalda’s finger scrawls about the squeeze. It might be that a study of the role of the hand in contemporary Aboriginal society would be of use.
There
is also the question of superimposition: what is the significance of the findings
of the
Are
there direct parallels in the mythologies of the Koonalda people and Aboriginal
society today? The fascination with holes: lines drawn emanating from natural
limestone holes (see for example, Gallus
The ritual of touching: Jennifer Webb
(in Gallus
The bearings a study of some twentieth-century artists may have on Koonalda art is another direction. Is abstract expressionist art able to elicit universally similar responses and is Koonalda art ‘abstract expressionism’? Sculptors such Aep, Miro, and Brancusi became intensely excited by natural stone forms; they felt that stones had inner lives. Is this reaction close to that felt by the Koonalda miners when they found the animal-shaped concretions and set them up as statues guarding their mining trenches?
The early surrealist movement influenced by the then new study of psychology in the work of Jung and Freud, may open up interesting directions for comparison with Koonalda; for example, the ‘stream of consciousness’ drawings of Paul Klee.
The boulder engravers had a sculptor’s feel of form, for the engravings enhance the rock forms just as skillfully as Henry Moore has with his sculptures. There are even Moore’s ‘pierced’ forms.
Psychology may also be able to contribute to this study from a number of directions. The study of a person’s doodles can tell something of his or her state of mind; if the Koonalda lines were to be considered as doodling, such an analysis might tell us of the prehistoric doodlers’ states of mind.
On the other hand, one could parallel the development of the human mind with that of a human/individual, and in particular seek a correlation of the Koonalda line makers’ mental development with a childhood stage in modern human beings. Art is a particularly useful tool in deciding on the developmental stage reached, as the work of Piaget attests. A third line from psychology, which might be worth pursuing, has been mentioned already in the work of Gallus as he develops it from Jung. Can our reaction to the Koonalda engravings be genetically linked; that is, can our reaction be correlated with that expressed originally by the engravers because it is motivated by the same biological-psychological mechanisms?
A line of investigation, which Kevin Sharpe follows, looks for further structural analysis of the lines themselves following from a Marshack-type analysis. It might be considered, for instance, that the engravings are a form of writing, a written record of what was being recited in the myths told in the Upper Chamber. One should expect then to find further consistencies in the way the lines are made and grouped and look for clues by which they might be translated.
However, these are only a few ideas, which could be followed, in the continuing investigation of the Koonalda lines. No one method will hold the truth, but it is felt they can all contribute worthwhile pieces to be inserted into the jigsaw puzzle which is our understanding of the art and lines of Koonalda Cave.
Summary and Conclusions
In
The Koonalda lines are not unique in
Australia and it may be that there may be many more sites to be discovered
here. We have found Marshack’s approach the most promising of many
contemplated, including those of Breuil, Leroi-Gourhan, and (in
Acknowledgements
Many people were involved in the
·
For financial
·
For supplying gear, sponsorship, and other
·
For permission to enter
·
For accompanying Sharpe on this visit: Neil
Chadwick, Sandor Gallus (nominated by the
· For hospitality while at Koonalda: Cyril and Mrs. Gurney.
·
For stimulus and
·
For information and comments in the preparation
of the report: Robert Bednarik, Sandor Gallus (including his permission to use
Neil Chadwick’s, Smith, Cooper, and Ross’s
· For assistance in the preparation of the manuscript itself: Alf Armstrong, Sandra Myer, and the Universities of Auckland and Otago.
· Most of all, the author expresses his great debt to the late Sandor Gallus.
Plates are by Kevin Sharpe.
References
BLACK, L.
BREUIL, H.
Broughton,
O. M.
Cooper, H. M.
DORTCH. C. E.
EDWARDS, R., and MAYNARD, L.
GALLUS,
A.
_________.
_________.
_________.
_________.
Giedon, S.
Goede, A.;
Murray, P.
Hallam, S. J.
Leroi-Gourhan,
A.
_________.
LINK, A.
MARSHACK, A.
_________
_________
_________
_________
_________
_________
_________
MAYNARD, L.
_________.
_________ and EDWARDS, R.
Munn, N. D.
Reser, J. P.
SHARPE, C. E.
_________ and SHARPE, K. J.
WALSH, W. P.
Referees’ Comments
A file on this site, AR66.htm, contains referees’ comments on the original version of this paper, many of which may still apply the paper above.