Methods compared

The methodical approaches to investigate Dynamic Figure art have been mentioned previously; but it is useful here to summarise each and how they apply to this research. Each of the researchers detailed above employed all the methods mentioned to develop their chronology; for example, Taçon and Chippindale also considered changes in material culture not just superimposition.

However, Lewis, and to a lesser extent Brandl, defined their sequences through the technology and material culture which they observed and contrasted this with environmental change in northern Australia. Alternatively, Chaloupka, Taçon and Chippindale and Haskovec focused upon superimposition analysis — rock art stratigraphy — which they contrasted with environmental change to identify periods and styles (Chippindale and Taçon 1993). The former considers what environment the depicted material culture would be best suited to; while the later, principally Chaloupka, considers what material culture would be indicative of an established environmental

3.9.1 Material culture periods

Lewis and Brandl chose to focus upon material culture as the key indicator of artistic periods, as it is the most accurate method to determine the stylistic parameters of an assemblage of rock art (see Lewis 1988). The boomerang period is a prime example of this methodology. A distinctive material culture object(s), a boomerang, is depicted, which indicates that a group of motifs belong to the same temporal period, a time when people used and depicted boomerangs. These motifs are used to create a collection of stylistic attributes for this period; for example, in Dynamic Figure art the headdress and elongated legs. These attributes can be used to identify motifs that stylistically fit into this period, even without the depiction of the specific material culture objects, the boomerang. The next period is identified by the change in material culture object(s), the ‘Hookstick’, and new stylistic attributes that are associated with those motifs are developed (Lewis 1988:13-14).

This type of analysis is only possible in regions, like western Arnhem Land, where an abundance of rock art exists, and it has a long enough antiquity that technology and material culture distinctly changes over time. It also requires that a significant part of the rock art production in each temporal period is anthropomorphic. Art periods dominated by depictions of fauna could not be included in this method. These observations are highlighted to demonstrate this method’s limitations and not criticized its validity.

However, concerns do arise from this method. It assumes that tools and weapons e.g. boomerangs, are among the most significant and, to an extent, prevalent material culture associated with an art style. This is not true for Dynamic Figure art, where worn material culture, specifically the headdress, is more prevalent and significant to the style (see Johnston 2017; May et al. 2017a). It would be problematic to incorporate this etic perspective of the west Arnhem Land chronology, as headdresses are not unique to any period of the past and it would be problematic to identify a representative group or type of art motif with headdresses as its defining feature. However, if boomerangs are used as the defining attribute to develop the style’s form parameters; it may not represent a non-biased statistically accurate sample group of motifs. To clarify, motifs with boomerangs may not represent the whole spectrum of Dynamic Figure art. This could be particularly problematic if apprenticeship and ownership rules demonstrated by Taylor (1996) in recent art practices existed in the past, as only a small group of artists may have painted boomerangs with their motifs. This does not invalidate Lewis’s

boomerang period and its definition of a Dynamic Figure but highlights how this research is using aspects of his methodology to research Dynamic Figures art.

3.9.2 Superimposition

Chaloupka’s chronology was developed from his analysis of the superimposition of motifs and an environmental narrative of Arnhem Land’s past; this environmental narrative will be discussed separately below. Chaloupka identified the limitations of his superimposition dating conclusions - one cannot determine if the over painted motif is a week or several thousand years later than the one below. Therefore, it is difficult with this methodology to attached absolute dates to styles or motifs. Notwithstanding, he argued that depictions of animals, specifically fish, bird and extinct mega fauna species, and material cultural, particularly boomerangs, demonstrate how Aboriginal people have adapted to the changing environment of Arnhem Land (Chaloupka 1988:330-331). This is a reversal of the previous methodology where superposition is secondary to material culture.

Lewis (1988:15-16,25) and Brandl (1988:172) argued that comprehending the superimposition layers of rock art is problematic at best and that weathering and other external factors can influence the state of the pigment on the rock face for contemporary viewers. This is not to suggest that they never observed superimposition but that it should not be used as the basis of determining a rock art chronology. Taçon and Chippindale, as discussed above, applied a superimposition matrix methodology to develop their chronology (Chippindale and Taçon 1993:35). They argued by recording specific densely superimposed sites and each stroke of each motif, they could reduce the subjectiveness of superimposition analysis and arrive at an accurate result.

Haskovec’s ‘revisit’ of Mount Gilruth, a reassessment of the two panels that Chaloupka’s chronology is based on, demonstrates the key issue of superimposition analysis. He argued that Chaloupka incorrectly identified Large Naturalistic Figures as being superimposed by Dynamic Figure art (Haskovec 1992). The truth is impossible to determine as both researchers have stated their observations of superimposition as fact. This highlights the subjectiveness of superimposition analysis.

For this reason, superimposition may be used with caution to determine a sequence in Dynamic Figure art if suitable sites present themselves in the future.

3.9.3 Environmental periods

Relating the environmental changes that have occurred in Arnhem Land during human occupation to the rock art record has been the goal of many researchers (Jones and Negerivich 1985) and Chaloupka (1984a) was the first researcher to specifically align his chronology with environmental phases. Chaloupka divided his sequence into three environmental phases: pre-estuarine, estuarine and freshwater; these reflected the environmental changes determined from excavations in Arnhem Land and relate to the progression from Pleistocene to Holocene (Chaloupka 1984a;1988/89:330-331). According to Taçon and Brockwell (1995), the pre-estuarine is the period after 20,000 years BP and before ±8,000 years BP. Arnhem Land was a larger land mass, had a semi-arid environment and was dominated by terrestrial fauna, according to the rock art. The estuarine period is after ±8,000 years BP and before ±4,000 years BP, it is characterised by rising sea levels, increased rainfall, a smaller Arnhem Land and saltwater inundation. Marine fauna and fish become more prominent in the rock art. The fresh water period is post ±1,500 years BP, after a slow transition with increased rainfall and the development of a monsoonal weather system. Freshwater fish species dominate the rock art, although terrestrial fauna is still depicted (Chaloupka 1984a; see also Taçon and Brockwell 1995). These phases also provided the relative dates for Chaloupka’s styles. Human figures were painted in all periods.

Lewis used the same environmental data to analyse the attributes of motifs and applied this to the societies that produced rock art; specifically, he concluded that the correlations between environment and homogeneity of art in the Boomerang period equated to larger cultural territorial boundaries than in the present (Lewis 1988:80-86). However, he questioned Chaloupka’s environmental phases. He argued that one cannot distinguish between an estuarine and freshwater period because the fish species that Chaloupka cited as indicators can and did live in salt and fresh water, for this Lewis cited Taçon (1987). He further argued that Chaloupka’s date for the emergence of X- Ray art and the appearance of stone spear points are too early (Lewis 1988:75-77). Therefore, Lewis concluded that Chaloupka’s three phase distinction cannot be made from the rock art evidence. However, Taçon argued in his own thesis that a distinction can be made between estuarine and freshwater periods in the rock art, as certain fish species are indicative of salt and fresh water (Taçon 1988, 1989a). In summary, the contention rests upon if flora and fauna are good or poor indicators of specific environments (estuarine or freshwater); most researcher except that floar and fauna can

indicate drastically different environments (swamp vs semi-arid). Therefore, this debate will be set aside in this research as the earlier pre-estuarine/estuarine distinction is universally accepted by each researcher and that is the proposed time of Dynamic Figure art production.

The current research concludes that Dynamic Figure art is a product of a cultural group that occupied a semi-arid environment. This is drawn from the dominance in depiction of large macropods and emus compared to fish as both fauna species are more prevalent in a dryer climate than contemporary Arnhem Land.