C r rock art sites have traditionally been associated with male ceremonial activity. It has been assumed that only males painted sacred rock art. This view is based upon the assumption that women and children are the uninitiated members of Australian Aboriginal societies.
C r rock art sites have traditionally been associated with male ceremonial activity. It has been assumed that only males painted sacred rock art. This view is based upon the assumption that women and children are the uninitiated members of Australian Aboriginal societies.
C r rock art sites have traditionally been associated with male ceremonial activity. It has been assumed that only males painted sacred rock art. This view is based upon the assumption that women and children are the uninitiated members of Australian Aboriginal societies.
The Unrecognized Factor in Sacred Rock Art Production
Claire E. Smith Sacred rock art sites and, occasionally, rock art sites in general have traditionally been associated with male ceremonial activity. The basic contention has been that the execution of a c r ~ rock art could only be carried out by initiated persons and, as initiated persons were invariably male, it has been assumed that only males painted sacred rock art (see Spencer and Gillen 1899[1968]:614; Elkin 1933:462; Love 1936:24; Capell 1939:388; Schulz 1956:42; Crawford 1968:37; Edwards and Guerin 1969:15; Gould 1969:154; Bagglin and Mullins 1987:26; Walsh 1988:14). This view is based upon the ubiquitous assumption that women and children are the uninitiated members of Australian Aboriginal societies who are denied full access to the religious sphere (see Roheim 1933:207; Bates 1938:28,125; Elkin 1939:xxx; Warner 1958:26; Maddock 1982: 139). Frequently the term sacred is applied solely to rituals from which women were excluded and, as Berndt (1981: 188) points out, the very . presence of a woman can be taken to indicate the secular or profane nature of an activity. This notion imbues the study of Aboriginal ritual communication from the Victorian era to the present day. When the existence of women's secret ceremonies has been acknowledged it has been assumed that, as the only province of religion open to women was that concerning fears or anxieties, women's ceremonies revolved around such issues as 'love magic' or physiological crises. The consensus view is expressed by White (1978:40) in her assertion that women's ceremonies dealt with women's concerns but that men's ceremonies dealt with the concerns of society as a whole. This view is epitomised by Maddock (1982:139) in his classic dichotomy between the 'broad, cohesive and impersonal themes' of men's cults and the 'narrow, divisive and personal interests' of women's. Such a view has recently been challenged by a number of researchers whose work has been conducted within the growing theoretical interest in the study of gender that emerged in the 'seventies and 'eighties. In particular, Berndt (1981), Bell (1983) and Hamilton (1980) have stressed the rights, responsibilities and powers invested in Aboriginal women. Bell's (1983) Daughters of the Dreaming demonstrates a breadth of female ceremonial activity in Central Australia That includes the painting of sacred objects, the maintenance of sacred stone arrangements, the decoration and painting of ritual poles, the ritual use of sign language, and the execution of sand drawings and body painting. Bell's (1983:182) contention that female ceremonial life in Central Australia has the same mythological basis as men's is supported by Hamilton (1980: 15) and Layton (1986:45), both of whom contend that women and men develop different aspects and events within the same narrative structure relating to ancestral traditions. An artistic expression of this may be seen in the content of recent Western Desert acrylic paintings (see Anderson and Dussart 1988:122). The argument that both sexes share a religion in common is also supported by Kaberry (1939:190) for the Kimberley. Kaberry's (1939:208;228) assertion that both men and woinen in this region share ritual responsibilities involved in the increase of species is consistent with Piddington's (1932:391) observation that increase ceremonies for nalgoo in Wonguru country near Cape Bossut were carried out entirely by women 'under the direction of men' . This sharing between the sexes of responsibility for species perceived as critical to group survival has also been recorded by Sharp (1934:30) for the Yir Yiront in Cape York, and by Hamilton (1980: 15) for Central Australia. The fulfilment of such responsibilities is obviously inconsistent with the narrow and particularistic focus of women's ceremonies proferred by researchers such as Maddock. In addition to this, I would argue that women's ceremonies that do focus upon sex, procreation and/or fertility have considerable import for society at large, not solely for women. The secret ceremonies of both men and w_omen benefit society as a whole through 46 Rock Art and Prehistory establishing economic and spiritual security for all. It is also clear that in many parts of Australia men have ceremonies concerned with 'love magic' (see Spencer and Gillen 1899[1968]:549; Strehlow 1964:54; Love 1936:99; Bemdt and Bemdt 1982:108) and this, in fact, seems to be one of the least dichotomous aspects of Aboriginal ceremonial life. Reassessment of women's role in ceremonial activity leads naturally to reassessment of women's role as rock artists. If women have a subset of Aboriginal culture of hitherto unrecognized significance, are they not also likely to have responsibility for a subset of paintings, and of rock paintings, within that culture? This is the case in the Victoria River district, where Darrell Lewis and Deborah Rose (pers. comm.) were taken to several women' s sites from which men were either restricted or subject to various restrictions. These sites contain art which is primarily figurative and not readily distinguishable in style from that of other rock art sites, includmg men's sites. Lewis and Rose (1988:65) contend that most rock art sites in the Victoria River district are foci of Dreaming power and knowledge and that control of sites is implemented through gender and age restrictions upon access to information, or to the sites themselves, or to both. There is very little retouching of paintings in this region. Most of the rock art is regarded by Aboriginal people as a product of the Dreaming. It is the Dreaming - not the work of men and women (Lewis and Rose 1988:53). There is, therefore, no way of discovering who did the art from the Aborigines themselves. A little to the east, at Yingalarri waterhole on Willeroo Station, Josephine Flood, Robin Frost and Bruno David have recently been working, in conjunction with the linguist Francesca Merlan, with a number of Wardaman men and women. These Aboriginal informants state that both men and women had and have the right to retouch certain paintings. At site 1 they make no distinction between paintings which could be retouched by men and those which could be retouched by women. An interesting aspect of the work done by this team is the nature of the questions posed. Flood asked a series of questions as follows: Q: Who can paint? A: Anyone. Q: Can men paint? A: Yes, anyone. Q: Can women paint? A: Yes, anyone. The principal informant was an Aboriginal man called Blucher and, a little later (the existence of female rock artists was not a primary focus of the questioning), Flood turned from Blucher to particular Aboriginal women in the group to ask them if they had a right to paint. The answers were affirmative, though not all had a right to paint at that particular site. During the same interview Blucher accosted a female child who touched a painting, warning her that this action could cause sickness. It would appear, then, that at least some of the paintings at this site are considered potent and potentially dangerous. I would argue that this is a more accurate measure of the sacredness of rock art than the mere exclusion of females from a site. Whilst children of both sexes were prohibited from touching the paintings at this site, a woman visiting from the adjacent territory of the Djauan also refrained from touching the art on the grounds that she was a stranger and that it might make her sick, too. As she was Blucher's wife, it would appear that marriage does not automatically provide rights to, and protection from, rock art. Local Wardaman women were, however, quite free to touch the art, as were the men. The significant aspect of Flood's questioning is that if she had only asked the first two questions (i.e. if she had not specifically asked if women had a right to paint) she could easily have interpreted the replies as indicating that there was no social division between men who painted and men who did not paint. Such interpretations are common throughout the literature (e.g. Edwards and Guerin 1969: 15). The limitations of questioning based on traditional androcentric assumptions can be perceived in Mountford's work on rock art at Uluru. He records rock art at the women's sacred site of Pulari (Mountford's Bulari) without considering the possibility that the art may have been executed by women rather than men. During his 1940 expedition to Central Australia he called the older Aboriginal men into the Pulari cave and asked a number of questions around the subject of whether the art represented hunting magic. When he finally asked the question directly the informants replied in the negative and Mountford concluded that the art had no magical significance (Mountford 1940:485-7). In 1960 an informant suggested that the art depicted Meta catching the emu (Mountford 1960:517). This informant, a man named Balinga, was, however, Mountford's one and only informant on the 1960 expedition, spoke little English and was anxious to escape Mountford so that he might hunt dingo pups (see Mountford 1960:391,485,553). Clearly, Mountford's (1965: 144) interpretation of the rock art is too dependent upon the information extracted from one, obviously reluctant, informant. It is also clear that he was determined to discover the ' meaning' of the art despite occasionally having to bully or bribe Balinga into co-operating. Interpretations based upon information derived from such methods are tenuous to say the least. Claire E. Smith 47 Apart from this, it would appear that the earlier 1940 informants were not aware of, or willing to impart, any particular meaning denoted by the art. Could it be that the transmission of knowledge connected with the art was a female, rather than a male, responsibility? The presence of men at this site (see also Mountford 1965:47) would be regarded by Aboriginal women today as ritual rape (Wonne-Greene: pers. comm.). Though the site has been visited by men in the past, it is unlikely that such visits were sanctioned by women and such men are, I feel, unlikely to have left a calling card in the form of rock paintings. Wonne-Greene, the anthropologist now resident at the Mutijulu community at Uluru, has received no indication at all that the right to execute rock paintings in this region might have been restricted to men. The significance of the Pulari site for women is not, however, related to the art, which does not appear to be particularly relevant to Aboriginal women today. This is consistent with Crawford's (1972:307) observation that the art at (presumably male) sacred sites in the adjacent Western Desert frequently has little or no relevance to the myths that make these sites sacred. The point I would like to make here is that the rock art at the Pulari site is just as likely to have been executed by women as by men. While there may be problems in other parts of Australia with previously open sites becoming closed, I would argue that at Uluru modem gender restrictions on physical access and knowledge are likely to have antecedents which militated against men leaving physical traces of their presence at this site. Any argument that Aboriginal women's business is no more than recent manipulation of land rights legislation is countered by Spencer and Gillen's (1899[1968]) observation that: ... in regard to the initiation ceremonies of women, it is clear that, as was first shown by Roth, there are certain ceremonies which are evidently the equivalents of the initiation ceremonies concerned with the men. (Spencer and Gillen (1899[1968) :269) This notion that female sacra predate European land rights legislation is also supported by Kaberry' s (1939:277) contention that Aboriginal women in the Kimberley maintained a body of knowledge, and a set of activities, from which men were excluded. She argued that: ... the men represent the uninitiated in the community in regard to women's ceremonies, which, if less spectacular, are, to the women. just as sacred. (Kaberry 1939:221) It would appear, therefore, that exclusive ritual knowledge associated with women's ceremonies existed in a number of regions within Australia. I would argue that the execution of rock art may well have been one expression of such knowledge. Aboriginal people in the Kimberley believe that the majority of rock art derives from the Dream time, but that occasional embellishments and subjects may be added by humans. Kaberry (1936:398) records being told that an old woman in Gangula country in the Kimberley occasionally touched up rock paintings of Brimurer, the Rainbow Snake. Brimurer then took the ochre from the painting to make a spirit child to replace one that had recently been found by a man and incarnated through his wife. Kaberry asserts that Brimurer made the rain, the rivers and pools in the Dreamtime and that: ... in the spirit-children and spirit centres, in the mythology and rock paintings of the Rainbow serpent we have a fertility cult. (Kaberry 1936:398) Part of that fertility cult involved some women in the execution of sacred rock art. Kaberry (1939:206) presented the earliest challenge to the traditional dichotomy between sacred and secular rock art through her contention that a category of rock art existed, the full meaning of which was known only by old women and old men. The paintings - of crocodile, kangaroo, emu, rainbow snake and other species - were executed as a means of ensuring the increase of species depicted. The painting itself was generally done by a 'headman'. Elkin (1939:xxxix), however, reports being told of the existence of a female 'headman' in this region during this period; such a woman would, presumably, have incurred responsibilities to land that involved the execution of sacred rock art. This interpretation is supported by Mowaljarlai's statement concerning the repainting ofWandjinas in the Kimberley: We need to teach the young men and women ... so that they can continue to look after the country. That's why we, the old men, started to train the young people. A very important part of this training was for them to learn about repainting -body-painting for ceremonies and to renew the painted images on rock. (Mowaljarlai et a/ 1988:692) Vinnicombe (pers. comm.), like Elkin, contends that the responsibility for repainting in the Kimberley lay in the hands of the senior traditional owner. Much painting could, nevertheless, be executed under the sanction of such owners by people possessing a particular spiritual quality known as maban. 48 Rock Art and Prehistory Both males and females can be born with spiritual insight and may display maban features during childhood, but maban is also something that can be learnt. People with maban are natural spiritual leaders, though they will not take on this role until after puberty for females, and after circumcision for males. People with maban could be principals in rock art production. Thus, the two mechanisms through which women in the Kimberley became involved in producing rock art are identical to those through which men became involved in producing rock art: that of being a senior traditional owner, and that of being recognised as having particular spiritual qualities suited to the undertaking of such responsibilities. I would like to emphasise that I am referring to women and men and that I have found no indication at all that girls or boys could traditionally be involved in rock art production. Vinnicombe witnessed a gathering of men, women and children in a sacred rock shelter on the Mitchell Plateau in the Kimberley, at which rain-making songs were sung whilst a new hand stencil was added to the paintings. Such occurrences need to be considered within the context of the contention that designs are actually endowed with meaning through being sung or chanted on. How then does one assess the significance of male and female roles in such ceremonies? A counter to the argument that women were peripheral to the ceremony because they did not do the actual painting would be that men may not have had the right or power to execute these particular paintings if women had not been there to promote power by singing. Apart from this, it is clear that the painting of the object is, by itself, insufficient to gain the desired ends. Another site at which women are likely to have had a role in rock art production is that of Beswick Cave. The art at this site was recorded by Macintosh (1952), who made a number of comments suggesting that this site was of greater significance to women than to men. He records his male informants' repeated references to this f ave as a woman's cave: Lamderod's and Mangga's consistent references to 'lubra's cave', 'lubra's Big Business', 'lubra's dilly bags', 'lubra bin leave him', 'lubra sometimes come 'ere' etc. (Macintosh 1952:270) Macintosh concludes the paper by suggesting the deviations in painting styles and content are related to the essentially female emphasis of the cave and its paintings. The most elaborate painting is of a highly decorated woman, which Macintosh interprets as part of a fertility cult, with the woman related to the Djarada songs, one group of which are women's songs devoted to secret love magic: She carries above her head a boomerang "little one same old man (no. 62) had for open 'im, but she has 'im instead, not man". Apparently she commits self- defloration. It is dangerous for men to watch her but it is all right for women to see her. (Macintosh 1952:271) I would argue that art which is dangerous for men to see is unlikely to have been painted by men. Certainly, women in this area did have some role in rock art production, as Elkin notes that: Instead of painting a picture, a person (man, woman or child) may paint or stencil his (her) hand on the wall, but for the same purpose. (Elkin 1952:246) Elkin does, however, assert that the figurative art at this site was executed by men. Notwithstanding, he does not explicitly mention the female figure that was too dangerous for men to see and I doubt whether he specifically asked who painted that particular figure. Unlike Macintosh, Elkin recognises that individuals will have varying interpretations of art according to their social positions. However, this recognition is still based upon the notion that there is someone, somewhere, who knows all - and that that person is a senior initiated male. Recent researchers (Lewis and Rose 1988:53. Berndt and Berndt 1988:412; Tayon 1988) have, however, noted the referential ambiguity of Aboriginal art, which is not open to simple interpretation by one individual or, indeed, one sex. Women's involvement in rock art production in Western Amhem Land appears, however, to be genuinely minimal. Tacon (1988 and pers. comm.) notes that women do not appear to have painted elaborate x-ray :paintings, though they have, on occasion, painted stick and recent yam figures . The degree to which women participated in the production of rock art in different areas of Australia is, thus, as variable as the societies in which they lived. Any analysis of women's art must, therefore, be Gonducted regionally - it is not valid to extrapolate women's actions or motivations within one area to regions outside that area. In some cases the art may be archaeologically distinguishable from that of men, but in others it will not be. And in some regions women's role in sacred rock art production might genuinely have been negligible or even non-existent. The question raised by this paper is: if Aboriginal women had a role in rock art production, and if they had rock art sites from which men were excluded, why are there so few ethnographic data on these activities? One answer lies with the extent to which the socio- cultural background of the ethnographer directs his or Claire E. Smith 49 her focus to particular areas of research. Another lies with the nature of gender relations in Aboriginal societies. Initial European perceptions of Australian Aborigines were coloured by Romantic fancies that interpreted ceremonial life as the 'play' of 'children of nature' . Various colonists (e.g. Hunter 1793 and Hood 1843, quoted in Leiberman 1985:246) asserted that Aborigines showed no signs of religious life, nor of religious ceremonies. This failure to apprehend the nexus between art, religion and power meant that no questions were asked concerning the social and communicative role of art, and that interpretation was not taken beyond empirical limits. This nexus was identified by Spencer and Gillen (1899[1968]) in The Native Tribes of Central Australia, which was one of the first studies to place rock art within its social and ceremonial context. The focus of this study upon male ceremonies and their identification of ritual communication with males was initially probably a function of the ethnographers' exclusion from female ceremonies. However, this identification gave rise to the notion that ritual communication was a male domain. Once this connection had been made, serious reassessment of women's role in ritual awaited an acceptance of the notion of Aboriginal women as holders of religious power and responsibility. , This situation was exacerbated with the publication of Durkheim's The Elementary Forms of Religious Life in 1915, in which he proposes a framework in which a range of sacredness is differentiated from the secular. While Spencer and Gillen (1899[1968:92- 93]) had recognised initiated women as a separate social group, subsequent research conducted within a basically Durkheimian framework, such as that of Warner (1958), treated the notions of sacred and secular as a simple dichotomy, parallel to the male-female dichotomy of Aboriginal societies (see Bemdt 1981:189- 190 for specific cnt1c1sm of Warner's interpretation of Durkheim). Women were thence taken to be the uninitiated members of the social group simply because they were uninitiated into male secrets. Elkin was a principal advocate of this view. He asserted that: ... women may be independent, powerful, and yet be profane, or outside of that sphere of sacred belief and ritual, admission to which is by religious initiation. (Elkin 1939:xxx) Such a view led to women's role in ritual activity consistently being assessed by the degree to which they were ' involved' or 'excluded' from male ceremonies. As Hamilton ( 1980: 17) points out, the incorporation of some women into male ceremonies was taken to indicate a rise in status, presumably because they were allowed access to male secrets. This view denies the possibility of women contributing their own power or knowledge to the ceremonies and fails to recognise that women, in some areas at least, had an autonomous ritual life that encompassed rights and responsibilities to land. I would that the rise in status of women participating in such ceremonies is related to the and legitimisation of female religious authority. The dearth of information on women' s culture in rock art studies of the twentieth century can be explained in terms of the gender relations of both Aboriginal and European cultures. White, middle-class male ethnographers dominated early research into Australian Aboriginal culture. They viewed women's ceremonies within a theoretical framework . that identified women with home and hearth, rather than power and-religious responsibility. This is not to say that they did not recognise the need for female ethnographers. The decisions made by Kaberry and Goodale to focus their - attention upon women were at the instigation of Elkin and Mountford respectively (see Kaberry 1939:ix and Goodale 1980:xxii). Such recognition did not, however, negate or even contradict the dominant European view that the Aboriginal sacred realm was principally, or wholly, a male domain. The primary informants of early, male ethnographers were Aboriginal men who are likely to have valued the ritual activity of their own sex above that of females and who, in any case, would not have had the right to speak on women's issues. It is also likely that Aboriginal women did not attribute identical status to male and female ceremonies. In fact, there is considerable evidence to suggest the contrary - that male ceremonial activity is generally accorded a higher prestige than that of women. This is particularly apparent in women' s willingness to underwrite male ceremony through the provision of resources and in the degree to which the ritual activities of each sex is allowed to disrupt normal activity (cf. Merlan 1988:66). Myers (1986:252- 3), for example, argues that Pintupi men's ceremonies have a wider inclusiveness than women's in that they entail the aggregation of large groups and determine the movements and labour of women for extended periods. Such observations are common throughout the literature and this is possibly a universal throughout Aboriginal societies. Merlan's (1988) view is most insightful: It has seemed to me that the subjective understandings of women about themselves reveal no gender based sense whatsoever of personal inferiority to men, but a sense of priority of certain male domains, especially ritual, and a 50 Rock Art and Prehistory strong sense of the propriety of adhering to norms of gender differentiated behaviour. (Merlan 1988:59) My point here is that the nature of the interface between European and Aboriginal was such that it would have been extremely difficult for information on women's ceremonial life to emerge. Elkin (1939:xx-) notes that a male researeher questioning Aboriginal men on aspects of women's culture would be instructed to question the women directly. He also argues, notwithstanding, that: ... the male anthropologist is apt to feel, and rightly so, that he, as a man, should respect the taboo and not pry into the preserves of the other sex ... In any case, the male worker refrains, from reasons of courtesy and delicacy, from inquiring into some aspects of a woman's life. He is not a physician. (Elkin 1939:xx) Whilst aspects of this statement are elliptical, Elkin properly recognises that the study of Aboriginal women's ceremonies by European men would have transgressed Aboriginal social codes. It is likely that his courtesy was appreciated by both Aboriginal men and women. Mountford's explanation for his own failure to collect women's crayon drawings is also illuminating: No attempt was made by the writer to collect any drawings from the women. As every ethnologist knows it is unwise, and usually calamitous, to carry out research with both sexes. The inevitable outcome is that the men become suspicious that the secrets they have imparted to the investigator are being passed on to the women, or vice versa. However, my young companion, Mr L.E. Sheard, about seventeen years of age, in collaboration with a middle-aged Aboriginal woman, was able to obtain a small series of drawings from the women. (Mountford 1976:109) Mountford was presented with a practical dilemma and took what he probably considered to be the only option open to him. However, this was not the case with the early female ethnographer Daisy Bates, who might have had access to women's ceremonies but chose to identify herself with men rather than women. She describes the latter as 'less than dust' (Bates 1938:28). Her focus upon male culture and her access to secret male ceremonies almost certainly militated against her being granted fuller access to women's ceremonies. A similar position to that of Mountford has been taken more recently by Bell (1983:8) who went into the field with the intention of focusing solely upon women. My criticism of all such studies is that this approach is unnecessarily limited and prohibits insights into the nature of male-female relations. Nearly all detailed information of women's culture has come from female research. The 'excavation' of such information had to await the advent of the female ethnographer as well as a social and intellectual climate in which the study of women's culture is considered a legitimate research issue, rather than an eccentric aberration. Such a climate only really emerged in the late 'seventies and early 'eighties during which period various aspects of women's role in Aboriginal society have undergone re-evaluation by, principally female, researchers. One of the more interesting studies is that of Caroline Bird (1988), who investigates the role of women in the manufacture and maintenance of stone tools. The principal difference between researchers of the 'eighties and those of earlier periods is in the type of questions which are being asked. Today these questions rest upon the assumption that women in both European and Aboriginal societies can hold positions of power and religious authority. That Aboriginal women have done a better job at keeping their secrets secret can be explained in terms of both the sex, race and socio-cultural background of the ethnographer as well as the likelihood that Aboriginal women did not see that they had anything to gain by disclosing secrets. Apart from this, it is clear that men speak more easily to men and that women speak more easily to women. The identification of s sacred sites is only really emerging within the context of European recognition of Aboriginal rights to control sites and land (e.g. Lewis and Rose 1988:70); it rimy be that the cost of exposure has become less than the cost of losing the land. Aboriginal women are now willing to speak out concerning their responsibilities to land. Part of those responsibilities involved the custodianship and maintenance of sacred sites, including those that have rock art. While the existence of rock art sites sacred to males has received considerable anthropological and archaeological attention, no-one seems to have seriously considered women's role in rock art production, or the possibility that women may have had rock art sites from which men were excluded. Such sites exist in the ethnographic present and are likely to have existed in prehistoric Australia and elsewhere. If they did exist, and can be identified as such, their identification must be crucial to regional and inter-site studies. They may also indicate the degree of female ritual autonomy through time and space. This paper has focused upon interpretations and case studies of Australian rock art. There are, however, Claire E. Smith 51 implications for rock art studies in other parts of the world. The assumption that sacred rock art, or rock art in general, was executed solely by men underlies various interpretations of European rock art. Guthrie (1984), for example, claims that: The Palaeolithic art which has been preserved seems to be an art by men about male preoccupations. . (Guthrie 1984:71) This is certainly not always the case in the Australian situation and, I would argue, is unlikely to be the case in Europe (see also Balm, this volume). Guthrie' s assumption that the depiction of hunting activities will be a male province, is refuted by the content of women's crayon drawings collected on the 1940 Mountford expedition to Central Australia. Various female artists depicted the hunting journeys of men, women and couples (Mountford 1976:111-114). As these were the first drawings on non-traditional media executed by these women, and as they were given no instruction as to what to draw, it is likely that they were thematically similar to traditional sources (cf. Robinson and Bagglin 1977:70). Quite apart from this, there are ethnographic reports of women painting rock in other parts of the world. Schaafsma (1985:260), for example, provides a number of instances of women painting as part of North American Indian puberty ceremonies. In addition, Seligmann and Seligmann (1969:319) also refer to women painting rocks in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) at the turn of the century. Gender may thus be an important factor in both recent and prehistoric rock art variability in various parts of the world. Interpretations of prehistoric rock art should be modified to take into account the probable role of women in rock art production. Acknowledgements I would like to thank those people who provided written comment on earlier drafts of this paper: Jane Balme, Wendy Beck, lain Davidson and, especially, Mike Morwood. I would also like to thank those researchers who allowed me to publish their personal communications: Darrell Lewis, Deborah Rose, Paul Tac;:on, Pat Vinnicombe and Susan Wonne-Greene. Most of these also offered either written or verbal comment on earlier drafts and often tl:l,ese comments were incorporated into the text. Darrell Lewis was particularly helpful in this regard. Jo Flood kindly invited me to Yingalarri. Special thanks to John Fisher, Gary Jackson and John Sutton. Any errors of omission or interpretation are, of course, my own. References Anderson, C. and F. Dussart 1988. Dreamings in Acrylic, Western Desert Art. In P. Sutton (ed.) Dreamings: the art of Aboriginal Australia. pp. 89-143. Viking Penguin Books. Australia. Bagglin, D. and B. Mullins 1987. -Aboriginals of Australia. Books and Muluvan Pty. Ltd., Sydney. Bates, D: 1938. The Passing of the Aborigines. Butler and Tanner Ltd., Frome and London. Bell, D. 1983. -Daughters of the Dreaming. Allen and Unwin, Sydney. Berndt, C. 1981. Interpretation and 'facts' in Aboriginal Australia. In Francis Dahlberg (ed.) Woman the Gatherer. pp. 153-203. Yale University Press, New Haven. Berndt, R.M. and C.H. 1982. Australian Aboriginal Art. Methuen, Australia. Berndt, R.M. and C.H. 1988. The World of the First Australians. Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra. Bird, C. 1988. Woman the toolmaker. Paper presented to conference on stone tools held at the University of New England. Armidale. Capell, A. 1939. Mythology in Northern Kimberley, North- West Australia Oceania 9(4):382-404. Crawford, I. 1968. The Art of the Wandjina. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Crawford, I. 1972. Function and change in Aboriginal art, Western Australia World Archaeology: 301-312. Durkheim, E. 1976 (1915). The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Allen and Unwin. Winchester, Massachusetts. Edwards, R. and B. Guerin 1969. Aboriginal Bark Paintings. Rigby, Adelaide. Elkin, A.P. 1939. Introduction to P.M. Kaberry's Aboriginal Woman: Sacred and Profane, pp. xvii-xxxi. George Routledge and Sons. Ltd .. London. Elkin, A.P. 1952. Cave paintings in southern Arnhem Land. Oceania 22(4):245-255. Goodale, J. 1980. Tiwi Wives. A st!lfly of the women of Melville Island, North Australia. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Gould, R.A. 1969. Yiwara: Foragers of the Australian Desert. Collins, London. Guthrie, R.D. 1984. Ethological observations from Palaeolithic art. In H.G. Bandi, W. Huber, M.R. Sauter and B. Sitter (eds.) La Contribution de la Zoologie et de l'Ethologie a /'interpretation de l'Art des Peuples Chasseurs Prehistoriques, pp. 35-74. Editions Universitaires, Fribourg. Hamilton, A. 1980. Dual social systems: technology, labour and women's rites in the eastern Western Desert of Australia. Oceania 51:4-19. Hamilton, A. 1981. A Complex Stratigraphical Situation: Gender and Power in Aboriginal Australia. In N. Grieve and P. Grimshaw (eds.) Australian Women: Feminist Perspectives. pp.69-85. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Kaberry, P.M. 1939. Aboriginal Woman: Sacred and Profane. George Routledge and Sons Ltd., London. Layton, R. 1986. Uluru: an Aboriginal history of Ayers Rock. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra. 52 Rock Art and Prehistory Lewis, D. and D. Rose 1988. The Shape of the Dreaming. Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra. Lieberman, K. 1985. Understanding Interaction in Central Australia. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. Love, J.R.B. 1936. Stone-Age Bushmen of Today. Blackie and Sons Ltd., London. Macintosh, N.G.W. 1952. Paintings in Beswick Creek Cave, Northern Territory. Oceania 22(4):256- 274. Maddock, K. 1982. The Australian Aborigines: a portrait of their society. 2nd Edition. Penguin, London. Merlan, F. 1988. Gender in Aboriginal Social Life: A Review. In R.M. Berndt and R. Tonkinson (eds.) Social Anthropology and Australian Aboriginal Studies: a contemporary overview. Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra. Mountford, C.P. 1940. Adelaide University Anthropological Expedition tq Central Australia Diary. Vol. 1 (46;49). Vol. 2 (47). Vol. 3 (48). Held in the H.L. Sheard Collection, Mortlock Library, Adelaide. Mountford, C.P. 1960. Expedition to Central Australia. Aboriginal Myths Vol.2 and 3. Held in the H.L. Sheard Collection, Mortlock Library, Adelaide. Mountford, C.P. 1965. Ayers Rock: its people, their beliefs and their art. East-West Centre Press, Honolulu. Mountford, C.P. 1976. Nomads of the Australian Desert. Rigby. Adelaide. Mowaljarlai, D., P. Vinnicombe, G.K. Ward and C. Chippindale 1988. Repainting of images on rock in Australia and the maintenance of Aboriginal culture. Antiquity 62(23 7):690-696. Myers, F.R. 1986. Pintupi Country, Pintupi Self: Sentiment, Place and Politics among Western Desert Aborigines. Smithsonian Institution Press and Australian Aboriginal Studies, Washington and Canberra. Piddington, R. 1932. Totemic system of the Karadjeri tribe. Oceania 2(4). Robinson, R. and D. Bagglin 1977. The Australian Aboriginal. A.H. and A.W. Reed Pty. Ltd., Sydney. Roheim, G. 1933. Women and their secret life in Central Australia. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 63:207- 68. Schaafsma, P. (1985). Form, content, and function: theory and method in North American rock art studies. In M.B. Schiffer (ed.) Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 8. pp. 237-277, Academic Press, New York. Seligmann, G.G. & B.Z. Seligmann 1969. The Veddas. Anthropological Publications, Oosterhoust M.B., The Netherlands. Sharp, R.L. 1934. The Social Organisation of the Yir-Yiront Tribe, Cape York Peninsula. Oceania Shulz, A.S. 1956. North-West Australian Rock Paintings. Memoirs of the National Museum of Victoria 20:7- 57. Spencer, B. and F.J. Gillen 1899 [1968] . The Native Tribes of Central Australia. Dover Publications Inc., New York. P. 1988. Somewhere over the rainbow: an ethnographic and archaeological analysis of recent rock paintings of western Arnhem Land, Australia. Paper presented to first AURA Congress, Darwin. Walsh, G. 1988. Rock art retouch: can a claim of Aboriginal descent establish curation rights over mankind's cultural heritage? Paper presented to the first AURA Congress, Darwin. Warner, W.L. 1958. A Black Civilization. Peter Smith, Gloucester, Mass. White, I. 1978. Aboriginal Women's status: a paradox resolved. In F. Gale (ed.) Women's Role in Aboriginal Society. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.
The Girl Explorers: The Untold Story of the Globetrotting Women Who Trekked, Flew, and Fought Their Way Around the World (Inspirational Women Who Made History)