Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-l82ql Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-31T04:04:27.911Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stratigraphy, Harris matrices & relative dating of Australian rock-art

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Christopher Chippindale ,
Joané de Jongh ,
Josephine Flood  and
Scott Rufolo
Christopher Chippindale
Affiliation:
Cambridge University Museum of Archaeology & Anthropology, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3DZ, England. cc43@cam.ac.uk
Joané de Jongh
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3DZ, England jswart@icon.co.za
Josephine Flood
Affiliation:
School of Archaeology, University of Sydney, Sydney NSW 2006, Australia josephineflood@compuserve.com
Scott Rufolo
Affiliation:
McDonald Institute of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3DZ, England sr2000@globalonline.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Rock-art, despite much ingenious effort (e.g., among many, Watchman et al. 1997), remains difficult to date by absolute methods, so relative dating has a central importance much as applied to dirt archaeology in the era before routine radiometric dating. It is sound relative dating which will show just what the entities are to which absolute dates may be connected. The first basis for relative dating is the determination of sequence: what motifs done by which techniques in which materials precede and follow each other; and the first basis for sequence is physical superposition, in which one figure plainly overlies another or - in the case of rock-engravings - one figure clearly cuts through another. But often figures do not cut or superpose each other so no relation of sequence exists: and sometimes figures are cut through each other without sequence being clear, or are so much overpainted that the older figures are impossible to discern.

Type
News and notes
Information
Antiquity , Volume 74 , Issue 284 , June 2000 , pp. 285 - 286
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Chippindale, C. & Taçon, P.S.C.. 1993. Two old painted panels from Kakadu: variation and sequence in Arnhem Land rock art, in Steinbring, J. et al. (ed.), Time and space: dating and spatial considerations in rock art research (papers of Symposia F and E, AURA Congress Cairns 1992): 32–56. Melbourne: Australian Rock Art Research Association. Occasional AURA Publication 8.Google Scholar
Flood, J. 1997. Rock art of the Dreamtime: images of ancient Australia. Sydney: Angus & Robertson.Google Scholar
Flood, J. & David, B.. 1994. Traditional systems of encoding meaning in Wardaman rock art, Northern Territory, Australia, Artefact 17: 6–22.Google Scholar
Harris, E.C. 1989. Principles of archaeological stratigraphy. 2nd edition. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mguni, S. 1997. The evaluation of the superpositioning sequence of painted images to infer relative chronology: Diepkloof Kraal shelter as a case study. Unpublished BA (Hons.) thesis, Department of Archaeology, University of Cape Town.Google Scholar
Mulvaney, D.J. & Kamminga, J.. 1999. Prehistory of Australia. New edition. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.Google Scholar
Watchman, Alan L., Walsh, G.L. Morwood, M.J. & Tuniz, C.. 1997. AMS radiocarbon dating age estimates for early rock paintings in the Kimberley, NW Australia: preliminary results, Rock Art Research 14:18–26.Google Scholar