AN ANALYSIS OF LINEAR MARKINGS AS A FORM OF WRITING
Kevin J. Sharpe
Introduction
Across the
world
at least firmly represented in Europe and Australia is a tradition from
Pleistocene times of marking objects in lines, often in sets of more-or-less
parallel lines. The lines in this tradition are called meanders (sometimes also
referred to as macaroni), and can be of engravings or scratches on cave walls,
on rocks portable or permanent, on bones, or can be of finger tracings on
suitable surfaces.
This
paper centers on an Australian site of the meander tradition, that of
I have
visited Koonalda only once since that time, at the beginning of
On the
We also
found, after using the suggestions of
This is a
working paper describing a plan of attack so that further work on the Koonalda
meanders can be approached constructively. I have adopted a practice which may
at first seem strange, that of enclosing statements within lines: these are
assumptions being made in the attempt to work out a methodology and are open to
investigation, or are matters to be looked at, avenues to be explored.
As a final
point in this introduction, I assume that the meanders are made by human beings
and not by animals, for instance by bats and owls in the Cave. While I have
faced this objection before, and Gallus too for the
wall markings at the rear of the Cave, it nevertheless keeps cropping up as a serious
objection to the manner of investigation represented by our work, and warrants
a more careful
investigation.
Marshack's Techniques
One of the
most significant contributions of Marshack to the study of prehistoric meanders
is a technique of analysis. Suppose we are looking at a number of lines
engraved by some tool, perhaps a flake of flint. Marshack suggests a close
examination
1.
of
the engraved lines themselves, looking at their cross-sections depth, width
and shape and
2.
of
the points at which lines meet or overlie.
Different
cross-sections of lines would imply a different tool was used perhaps by
different people, and perhaps at different times. An examination of line
junctions tells which lines overlie others, and hence the temporal sequence of
their compilation. From both of these techniques one can give the story of the lines' construction, their structure: the order
in which they were engraved with (presumably) differently intentioned lines
corresponding to those made with different tools.
This
analytic technique is an ideal; in practice, it is not so easy. For one thing,
with the Koonalda engravings for instance, some sets contain no overlapping or
meeting lines, and hence the temporal dimension of their construction is lost.
Moreover, the rock surface has a deteriorated and "granular
structure," which means analysis can be carried out only to a certain size
dimension at which point the rock surface itself swallows up the lines, making
them indistinguishable from "background" marks. This is especially so
for worn lines. The rock also has surface cracks, sometimes short and of the
same dimension as engraved lines. Not always can cross-sections and overlays be
ascertained with certainty, involving the structural analysis of engravings
with a degree of subjectivity and error. This will become more apparent as examples
are analyzed.
As a
further technique for analysis, the brightness of radiance under ultra-violet
light can be used as an indicator of the relative ages of engravings. The brighter the light, the newer or more recent the engraving, for
the oxidizing or crystallizing process decreases luminosity under ultra-violet
light.
Marshack's
investigations so far appear to be mainly of engravings on portable artifacts
held in museum collections, and originating from a wide scattering of places
over
Marshack-Analysis of Koonalda Engravings
The
accompanying figures are the results of carrying out a Marshack-type of analysis
on some examples of Koonalda engravings.
One
general conclusion can be drawn from this Marshack-analysis, and that is that
engravings are made in sets of around three or four more-or-less parallel
lines. Cross-sections confirm the visual supposition that each set of parallel
lines, called a stream of lines, is made by one tool, and has a unity of
itself. Different tools usually make overlying
streams. This is an important and significant conclusion, for it implies at
least some order to the chaos of the engravings. One should note that this
tradition of engraving in streams of parallel lines the meander tradition
is worldwide.
A further
term is helpful too. We call a group of streams a cluster of streams if
they exhibit a unity because of their physical inter-related overlying or
separation from other groups of streams. Sometimes it is easy to separate out
clusters and sometimes it is not.
It appears
that in some cases the clusters of streams can be broken into three cycles
of streams, a cycle being either the initial laying down of streams which then
become related (this gives a little distortion in the idea of a cycle), or a
self-contained temporally adjacent set of streams which are also physically
related; in other words, the next (temporally) stream of the cluster beyond a
particular cycle bears no physical connection to the members of the cycle. For
instance, the clusters we have so far analyzed can be broken into the following
cycles (some with a stretch of the imagination):
Cluster Number
Cycle
Cycle
Cycle
Cycle
Cycle
Cycle
Cycle
Cycle
Cluster Number
Cycle
Cycle
Cycle
Cycle
Cycle
Cycle
Cluster Number
Cycle
Cycle
Cycle
Cycle
Cycle
Cycle
Cluster Number
Cycle
Cycle
Cycle
Cycle
Cycle
Cycle
Cluster Number
Cycle
Cycle
Cycle
Cycle
Cycle
Cycle
Cluster Number
Cycle l:
Stream
Cycle
Cycle
Cycle
Cycle
Cycle
Cluster Number
Cycle
Cycle
Cycle
Cycle
Cycle
Cycle
The
following points should be noted:
1.
The
order the streams are given in is the order as far as is known in which the
streams were engraved. In the figures a more recent stream is drawn cutting
across an older stream, as it would in actuality, breaking the earlier's continuity.
2.
The
order in which holes, cracks, or shells are numbered is arbitrary.
3.
Each
cycle follows the stream sequence through one particular intention, and usually
it follows through the continuous relating of stream to stream via
intersections or touchings. Thus, a new cycle is
started when another intention is indicated with the next stream unrelated to
those in the previous cycle.
4.
This
is except for the first cycle in each cluster that comprises the natural holes,
shells or cracks in the rock surface which will later be included, plus those
initial unrelated streams that become related in the cluster. No temporal order
is intended within this cycle, and in fact, it would be possible that some of
its streams were engraved after those of later cycle (for instance, in cluster
number
5.
As
emphasized elsewhere in this paper, this stream and cycle analysis is based on
inadequate data and should not be taken as the unquestionable structural
analysis of the clusters. It is sufficient, however, to pose a methodology for
further investigation of the engravings. The hypothesis under investigation in
6.
No
cycle analysis is given for cluster number
7.
From
the cycle analysis given there appears to be no repetition between the cycles
of the various clusters, except that often they can be broken into three
cycles.
Any
further comparison for instance, between the way
streams are related within each cycle should probably be left until further
data are gathered and we are more sure of the structural breakdown of each
cluster.
8.
Finally,
the following are some of the ways streams (etc.) are related within each
cycle: by cutting across, touching, paralleling, having a common direction
focus, and by including.
That is
about as far as Marshack's analytical techniques will
carry us by themselves. Where do we go from here? There are many avenues open.
For instance, one could subject them to an analysis in which the engravings are
treated as art (which it is highly probable that they are, while at the same
time probably something else as well), or a symbolic and psychological analysis
in which the engravings are seen as the expression of archetypal, or
developmental stages, or psychological conditions. Another approach is to
consider the engravings as a form of writing, of cultural, stylized
interpersonal communication. Of course, any of these can only be hypotheses for
investigation, avenues to be explored and perhaps discarded. It is with this
last approach that this paper is chiefly concerned.
A Further Structural Analysis
Meanders as a
Form of Writing
Let us now
look at the Koonalda engravings as a form of writing, as having a deep
structural consistency, as being the representations of a set of myth stories
in an interpersonally recognizable manner. One should question this approach if
the consistency that one would expect with an interpersonal form of writing is
not present. The existence of one element of consistency, the universality of
streams, is encouragement for it. The next few sections are a further
examination of this hypothesis.
The object
of the exercise is to find a way of looking at the lines and their relative
structures that allows them to present themselves in a unified and consistent
manner. At present, we have one level of consistency, namely the streams, but
beyond that, there is no so-far apparent structural consistency in the
relations between the streams except perhaps a three-cycle breakdown of
clusters.
It should
further be noted that this analysis would not give us automatically the meaning
of the meanders for the people who made them. I am merely trying to see if this
can be taken as a form of writing and, if so, how the structure of the
engravings relates to what we see as the structure of writing. The translation
is a further step, and one to which I shall return also.
Basic to
our written language are words, grammar being the way words are related and
thereby used. If we were to suppose that the Koonalda meanders are a form of
writing, it would seem reasonable to look for words represented in them.
Amongst
the variables we need to consider in deciding what is what, are:
1.
the
physical nature of the stream (the number of lines in it, the spacing between
the lines, the lines' cross-section, whether they have any branching, whether
and how they curve, etc.);
2.
the
relation between two streams (do they cross, or touch, with one or more lines
of the stream; do they only meet; are they parallel, etc.?);
3.
the
relation between streams and natural aspects of the rock (shells, holes,
cracks, etc.); (iv) the visual and physical nature of the cluster (does it form
a visual pattern? how many streams in it? Etc.).
The most
obvious choice for word equivalents in the engravings is the streams, since
they are the consistent ingredients of the engravings beyond the lines
themselves (perhaps the "letters"?). Streams are physically related,
spatially and temporally in clusters; a cluster could therefore be taken as a
whole statement or perhaps even as a collection of statements forming an entity
of itself such as a paragraph or story.
It is
possible to take a line (or a cluster) to be a single word, as another appoach, and interpret certain streams as, say, people or
objects, and others as their relationships.
Suppose we
accept a "stream = word", "cluster = statement" approach,
then it would seem that the various characteristics of streams as in (
Since the
cluster examples above are only structurally analyzed approximately the data
not being fully reliable at this stage this relationship type of analysis
should wait.
Consistency and Repeatedness
If all the
clusters in
One of our
initial working assumptions after the
As an
addition to this point, one might suggest that only streams of the same age be
included within a cluster; that is, that clusters may overlie clusters. The analysis
suggested must be on only an individual cluster.
We also
need to recognize that there are different styles and apparently different
meander structures even within
And
thirdly, a collection of myth stories might be told accompanying the
rituals being performed in the upper chamber that is, it might not always
within one engraving tradition be the same myth being represented, but one from
a presumably small repertoire of myths. Some consistency should therefore be
expected among subgroups of clusters within any one engraving tradition.
Why should
a story or character be represented the same way with different engravings?
Obviously, this need not necessarily be so and different engravers may well
have been at liberty to express the character of that written about in whatever
way they so felt. This would mean that we might find no further consistency
beyond the basic structures so far described from a Marshack-analysis, and have
no hope of ever being able via this method to translate this writing.
It is
important that I leave myself open to the possibility that perhaps the meanders
are not writing and not culturally consistent, the meaning expressed by the
engraver perhaps not comprehendible by someone else with the same cultural
tradition. Perhaps a mode of expression is employed in which individuals have
expressed themselves, and others within the same
cultural tradition cannot understand that expression. The proof of this pudding
is in its eating: there is no inter-personal communication at this level, given
the correctness of the analysis so far, if no structural consistency is found.
Another
fact potentially negative to my hypothesis is the high density of lines in some
places. Could it be that lines with a deliberate structure were made over top
of others?
However,
this pessimism is perhaps counted against. One reason for optimism is that a
consistent structure has so far been found and it would seem likely that
consistency would continue: why should each engraver specifically stick to
stream, cycle and cluster method and then divert into individual styles of
expression, and not be individualistic right from the start?
Further
reasons for supposing an inter-personal consistency with regard to representing
characters and their relationships lie in the answers to another question
concerning repeatedness. Should we expect the same
myth to be repeated, the same statements to be made or the same characters
referred to? If not, then we should not expect there to be any further
repetitions in the actualized variables of the meanders. To answer this we need
to consider the nature of the northwest passage of
Why do we think
that the upper chamber was used for ritual purposes and not, for instance, for
a night-shelter, or as a place for a pleasant Sunday afternoon picnic? There
are many reasons. The finds themselves do not imply a utilitarian use: no
implements specialized that way, only skulls and vertebrae of animals, and so
on. Secondly, the upper chamber takes us nearly an hour to reach from
the surface of the Plain using steel ladders, paths, lanterns, and other modern
paraphernalia; it is a very difficult place to and one of the more inaccessible
parts of
All these
indicate that the going to Koonalda and to its upper chamber were extra-special
for extra-ordinary purposes, probably to perform rituals. These may, or course, have been in association with some other
activity such as the collecting of water in particularly dry periods (although
in those circumstances the water in the Cave was probably too saline for
consumption), or for the mining of flint. If it be the latter, then the
Koonalda flint may be of a special (non-physical) worth since probably the same
seams of flint were available from the cliffs or scarp which now are the sea
cliffs south of Koonalda, and then would have been rather inland (although they
may have been covered with sand dunes). Further to that, the Koonalda
people probably used one place for one particular ritual, that place and its
contents being closely associated with the ritual. This appears to be so for
modern Aborigines. Thus, we should expect the meanders in Koonalda to be
representations of one particular set of myths, those associated with one
particular ritual, if they are representations of myth stories. We
should, that is, expect the meanders to exhibit structures from out of a
(small) range, those representing the (small) number of myth stories told and
retold in the upper chamber.
As eons went by, it may be that the upper chamber was used for different ritual purposes, and that the tradition of making meanders changed. Thus, it is not surprising that there are also a number of different styles of engraving and different structures within the meanders.
Translating the
Meanders
The most
obvious question next to arise is whether the meanders, presuming they are a
form of writing, can be translated. To so bridge a
There is a
more tenuous approach to translating which I will now outline. Suppose, first,
that the engravings in
The
problem now would seem to be compiling a collection of all the myths of the
Koonalda people so that structural analyses can be made of each of them. It is
at this point that more tenuous connections are made, for we would probably
need to compile all the myths of the Mirning and
perhaps of their near neighbors. Difficulties arise because this tribe is now
extinct and almost the only records we have of their mythology are in the
popular writings and notes of Daisy Bates; but at least there is some record.
Two
preliminary investigations first need to be undertaken. The first is to make a case
for the continuity of myths over vast periods within a people. I understand
that this is so, especially as far as the structure of myths are concerned,
representing as they do the statement and solution of the dichotomies a people
find themselves in (see, in this regard, the work of Levi-Strauss and other structuralists).
The second
investigation is whether the Mirning were the people
in whose territory the Nullarbor lay
Other Matters
There are
a host of other questions to be asked, both theoretical and practical. Let me
outline two of the theoretical ones:
1.
One
can rightfully ask why this tradition of meander engravings ceased and probably
the representational art we know of the Aborigines developed. One can say that
the latter too is a form of writing in the sense of it being in culturally
standardized symbols, even if they often were representational symbols, and are
usually the depiction of mythic stories within the context of rituals. Far from
being a step backwards from a non-representational form of expression,
contemporary Aboriginal art is a step forwards in that the mythic symbolism
expressed in the representational form is more evocative and universally
relatable.
It may
well be that both traditions the representational and the
non-representational co-existed; they appear to have in Europe, and given
sand drawings and engraved portable artifacts from the ethnographic Australian
scene this may not be too unreasonable. The meander tradition of Koonalda may
not have ceased
The
meander tradition could also be seen within a parallel to the development of
children's drawings in the life cycle of an individual's maturation. If this be
a valid parallel, the history of the human race, biological as well as mental,
is written again in the development of each human being from conception to
childhood. The work of Piaget suggests that children at an early stage draw in
parallel lines, meanders, and then later can express themselves more representationally. Is this what happened also in the
evolution of humankind? The question as to why the change from meanders to representationalism, then if there is one can be
answered in terms of it being a developmental or evolutionary change in the
mental history of the human species
2.
Why
was this meander tradition worldwide? Why is it found throughout
Summary
As an attempt at a methodology for the study of meander engravings
such as are found in
1.
An
examination of the lines themselves according to the techniques of
2.
A
re-telling the temporal story of each cluster of streams of lines, breaking
them into cycles.
3.
Extracting
the repetitions or structural patterns in the stream-cycle cluster analyses,
noting also the character of each defined within the relevant variables. Each
separable type of cluster is the written form of one particular myth story.
4.
From
a structural analysis of the myths of the people whose meanders are so
analyzed, or of their nearest kin whose myths are recorded, correlate each
separable type of cluster with a myth having the same structure. This may be a
way of translating the engravings.
Acknowledgments
Many
people were involved in the
1.
For
financial
2.
For
permission to enter
3.
For
accompanying us on this visit: Sandor Gallus
(nominated by the
4.
For
hospitality while at Koonalda, Mr. and Mrs. Cyril Gurney.
5.
For
stimulus and
6.
For
information and comments in the preparation of the report, Mike Smith, Betty
Ross, C. Merewether and A. Cooper (and Sandor Gallus
for permission to use Neil Chadwicks and their notes on the upper chamber, the
latter compiled ? January
7.
For
assistance in the preparation of the manuscript itself, the late Alf Armstrong,
Sandra Myer my typist, and the Universities of Otago
and
8.
For
financial
9.
Most
of all, I want to express my great debt to Sandor
Gallus.
Copyright
(c) Kevin J. Sharpe,