Archaeol.
Oceania 34 (1999) 132-144
At the centre of it all: constructing contact through the rock art of
Watarrka National Park, central Australia
URSULA K. FREDERICK
Abstract
This paper offers !in account of rock art research on contact and
challenges some of the basic assumptions underlying previous
approaches to contact rock art. It is argued that many Australian
rock art studies incorporating contact art offer merely descriptive
accounts of introduced objects without exploring the underlying
social processes motivating and directing change within the art
system. This study outlines a number of interpretations about the
nature and patterning of contact rock art within a specific rock art
assemblage in Watarrka National Park, central Australia. These
conclusions were reached through the adoption of an analytical
archaeological approach informed by readings of anthropological
and historical data. The results of this analysis indicate that contact
rock art does not merely reflect a series of historical events and the
imposition of foreign forces, rather it represents a more complex
exchange involving losses and gains. They further indicate that the
rock art process of contact is a record of change and continuity
which served not only to reflect the changes brought by Europeans
but also highlights the active role Indigenous people took in
responding to these circumstances.
There has been a dearth of rock art research in Australia
which has examined Indigenous responses to the
processes of culture contact and colonisation. This paper
addresses some of the issues involved in researching rock
art produced in the context of cross-cultural exchange. It
explores conventional perceptions of contact rock art and
challenges previous assumptions and misconceptions
about how the contact process is visually represented.
Andree Rosenfeld was one of the first academics in
Australia to specialise in the study of rock art and she
has played a prominent role in teaching and researching
Australian rock art. Since 1990, the rock art of central
Australia has been a major focus of Rosenfeld's research
and it is within this context that I came to conduct my
own research in the region. Rosenfeld acted as the key
supervisor to this work and the dialogue we shared over
the course of this research has been central to the devel-
opment of my ideas.
Background
Rock art is an important archaeological resource which
offers informative and expressive Indigenous views of
Department of Archaeology and Anthropology, Australian
National University, ACT 0200
132
the contact process. Rock art produced in the context of
cross-cultural encounters appears throughout Australia
and the diversity of this imagery reflects the broad spec-
trum of cross-cultural relationships experienced by
Indigenous societies during contact. The study of con-
tact is important for considering how contemporary
cross-cultural experiences continue to influence the way
rock art and other aspects of Indigeneous visual culture
are perceived and appraised in both a national and
global context.
Despite the progressive development of contact stud-
ies in Australian archaeological research (Allen 1978;
Birmingham 1992; Birmingham and Wilson 1993;
Colley and Bickford 1996; Clarke 1994; Clarke and
Torrence in press; Head and Fullagar 1997; Macknight
1972, 1986; Megaw 1968; 1974; Mitchell 1994;
Mulvaney 1989; Murray 1993; Paterson 1998) scholars
of Australian rock art have focused largely on the prehis-
toric rock art of Indigenous Australia. The emphasis on
rock art production in the distant past is undoubtedly a
result of the long term association between rock art stud-
ies and the broader discipline of prehistory. This associa-
tion stems from early archaeological approaches to the
analyses of Australian rock art that advocated the
scrutiny of art as an archaeological artefact from which
'information' may be extracted but of which the 'mean-
ing' is almost entirely indeterminable (Clegg 1977;
Edwards 1966, 1971; Maynard 1976, 1979)
Alternatively, more recent .episodes of rock art pro-
duction have been largely examined from anthropologi-
cal, historical or ethnoarchaeological perspectives (e.g..
Haskovec and Sullivan 1989; Mountford 1959; Sale
1992; Smith 1994; Tacon 1988, 1992; Taylor 1979;
Turner 1973). Clearly the rock art of contact provides
generous scope for a convergence of archaeological,
anthropological and historical research designs.
Of the entirety of rock art recorded in central Australia
over the past century, only passing mention has been
made of rock art produced during the period of
Aboriginal - European contact. These references are
largely anecdotal and provide a limited picture of the
social contexts of rock art production during the period
of Aboriginal-European contact in central Australia. In
addition to brief references made by Kimber (1991) and
Gunn (1989; 1995), Tindale apparently documented
paintings made in the Musgrave Ranges after 1915
(Layton 1992). At the Granites in the Tanami Desert,
Graham and Mulvaney (1995) have recorded engravings
of motor cars, camels and men in hats, some of which
were previously investigated by Mountford between
1936-1939 (Mountford 1955). Drawings of motor vehi-
cles appear at Tjungkupu (Tarn of Auber) and contact
subjects have been documented in the rock art of the
Mereenie Oil field (Smith, et al. 1983) and at Puritjarra
by Rosenfeld (1996, pers. comm.). McCarthy (1978:86)
also noted:
In the Northem Territory at Ayer's Rock, the tribal artists
have painted a camel team, horsemen, donkeys, men
wearing hats, coats and beards, and also the shooting of
cattle and kangaroos.
In all cases, only limited description of the art is pro-
vided and discussion of the context of its production is
minimal. Judging from the minor detail in these accounts
it could be argued that the rock art of central Australia,
as manifest during the period of contact, has to date been
largely ignored or is yet to be informatively discovered
as a subject worthy of research and analysis.
Constructions of Contact
Although contact and cross-cultural studies remain a
relatively unexplored theme in Australian rock art
research, a certain discourse has emerged in many of
the accounts which do exist. While my examination of
contact rock art was directed specifically at central
Australia, I found that much of the same dialogue is
perpetuated nationally and in some international studies
or references to contact rock art (Chaloupka 1980,
1988, 1993; Crawford 1968; Colley and Bickford 1996;
David and Chant 1995; Edwards 1979; Graham and
Mulvaney 1995; Hall 1996; Head and Fullagar 1997;
McCarthy 1960, 1979; McDonald 1994; Mulvaney
1992; Reynolds 1987; Rosenfeld 1979, 1990; Smith, C.
1994; Turpin 1989; Turner 1973; Walshe 1988). A few
of the salient features that dominate this discourse are
outlined below.
Many references to contact rock art in the archaeolog-
ical literature are descriptive accounts which do not
incorporate analytical studies or informative discussions
of the socio-cultural processes of art production.
Mention of contact rock art is often limited to very gen-
eral statements such as:
Here and there on the upper East Alligator one can find,
as the most recent paintings on the rock walls, a European
with a rifle, a sailing boat or a steamship - motifs relat-
ing to the contact with aliens. (Brandl 1973:2)
A common convention of these accounts is the identi-
fication of motifs and materials of a non-Indigenous
appearance or derivation. I would argue further that con-
tact art is not only assumed to be associated with the
appearance/presence of introduced subject matter and
materials but that it is effectively defined by them.
One danger in constructing contact in this way is that
it implicitly asserts a model of acculturation. In other
archaeological contexts such uni-directional models have
had the effect of generalising as well as understating the
processes that developed within the context of cross-cul-
tural exchange (Clarke 1994). An over emphasis on
motifs or materials that appear to be introduced can
imply that the subjugation of Indigenous graphic sys-
tems, design vocabularies and the social institutions gov-
erning the. graphic system is an inevitable outcome of
contact.
The adoption of a singular narrative reading may also
inadvertently promote the assumption that the introduc-
tion of contact imagery is aligned with the increasing
secularisation of the graphic code and general practice of
art production. This may be true in some cases (Turner .
1973). However, the confusion between the introduction
of materials as an indicator of increasing acculturation
and the subsequent demise of 'tradition' remains a valid
concern. There are no grounds for assuming that contact
themes are only associated with secular behaviour and
activities. As Merlan has previously indicated, there is
no reason why themes derived from of non-Indigenous
contact cannot be incorporated within visual expressions
of Aboriginal mythology and non-secular activities
(Merlan 1989). In Eastern Arnhem Land, for example,
Macassan objects and iconography have been incorpo-
rated into the song, dance, ceremonial exchange net-
works, funerary rites and rituals of Indigenous groups
(Morphy 1987; Thomson 1949; Worsley 1955).
It is certainly not every rock art researcher's intention
to conduct an intensive study of contact and clearly it is
not always possible to distinguish the aesthetic outcome
of contact processes beyond the obvious markers of
change. However, it is through the creation and applica-
tion of simplistic definitions of contact that the intrica-
cies and complexities of cross-cultural exchange become
obscured.
In many instances, subject matter allows archaeolo-
gists to securely situate rock art within a circumscribed
time frame, a luxury not to be disregarded. Researchers
are excited by the temporal key that contact art may offer
while giving little consideration to the social, cultural
and historical processes that lie at the source of its pro-
duction.
A consequence of using contact rock art principally as
a temporal marker rather than as a theme of investigation
within its own right is the tendency to favour change
over continuity. While change is an obvious feature of
cross-cultural exchange, a preoccupation with only the
innovations associated with the rock art of contact may
limit our understanding of contact to only the first stage
in a long and complicated process of cultural exchange.
In viewing contact purely as a moment in time or as
an historical event of the past we fail to see the ongoing
relationships and social circumstances generated by con-
tact encounters, the essential links between prehistory,
the recent past and contemporary times. This, in turn,
leads us away from accepting the multivalency inherent
to many Indigenous visual systems and which is com-
monly recognised in the study of prehistoric (e.g. David
133

Pre-contact art
Wet pigment techniques dominate
Red ochre dominant
Figurative forms extremely rare
Bichromatic/polychromatic present but infrequent
The hand is a dominant subject
No European subject matter
Re-marking infrequent
Track graphics common
Basic graphics common
Small range of consisently used graphic classes
Small number of elaborate geometric graphics
Larger number of art sites
Wide distribution of art sites
Table 1. General attributes and trends characterising the pre-contact and contact rock art assemblages at Watarrka
National Park.
and Chant 1992; Rosenfeld 1990; Tacon 1992) and con-
temporary Indigenous arts (e.g. Morphy 1989,
1991,1998; Munn 1972; Sutton 1988).
To illustrate the problem with not recognising the
potential for multivalency in contact rock art it is neces-
sary to highlight the values it can hold. In this regard it is
worth noting Lewis and Rose's point (1988) that the very
ambiguity intrinsic to many Indigenous visual systems
'promotes the viability of a philosophy of unchanging
continuity maintained in a dialectical relationship with
the changing present' (Lewis and Rose 1988:51). In
other words, multi valency provides the power for
Indigenous societies to transform themselves, to accom-
modate change within the bounds of traditional Law,
without disrupting the social stability Law brings. As
they note, 'The relationship between the Dreaming and
ordinary life and time is dialectical' (Lewis and Rose
1988:50) and ambiguity is a major component of this
dialogue, providing the space for the relationships
between people, place and Law to be maintained in the
face of dramatic change.
Clearly, the adoption of a singular narrative reading of
contact rock art is inconsistent with what we already
know about Indigenous Australian art and society. This
descriptive narrative approach to the construction and
interpretation of contact art has perpetuated a particular
discourse which objectifies the Indigenous agents of rock
art production and overrides their active role in the nego-
tiations of socio-cultural exchange. Contact rock art is
not merely a passive reflection of the changing times, it
also demonstrates the measures Indigenous Australians
took towards securing their own social, economic and
cultural survival in a transforming world. Both
Mulvaney (1992) and Chaloupka (1993) have suggested
that a dramatic increase in sorcery appears to have
134
----------- -------------
Contact art
Dry pigment drawing emerges
Black charcoal dominant
Production of figurative forms increase
Bichromatic/polychromatic rare
The hand is a dominant subject, albeit to a lesser extent
European subject matter present
Re-marking increases
Track graphics infrequent
Elaborate graphics common
Diverse range of graphic classes, many used only once
Elaborate geometric graphics more common
Smaller number of art sites
Limited distribution of art sites
occurred in northern Australia after initial and continuing
contact with Europeans (Chaloupka 1993 :207) who
brought devastating diseases to the Indigenous popula-
tion. An increase in the production of sorcery paintings
in northern Australia provides one example of the kind
of Indigenous actions that may be associated with the
contact process but which are otherwise obscured by a
definition of contact dominated by images of innovation
or non-Indigenous derivation.
Defining 'Contact' art
Having identified some of the issues that I see as central
to the study of contact rock art it is worth identifying the
limitations of my own definition or 'construction' of con-
tact. Contact rock art as it is used in this paper refers to
rock art/markings produced within a context of cross-cul-
tural exchange. In general terms this exchange, whether it
be a fleeting encounter or a sustained relationship, does
not and will not always relate to a specific event or date
but marks the beginning of a process of awareness of or
interaction with another cultural group. In this way, con-
tact rock art may have been made during and/or after
interaction (direct or indirect) between cultural groups.
This definition is a conceptual one and it does not pro-
vide a distinct set of visual attributes which can be used
to identify or distinguish something belonging to a 'con-
tact art' assemblage. Indeed, the motive behind the
above critique is to argue that there is no one set of
visual criteria that will conform to all visual expressions
of contact experience(s). The manner in which my con-
ceptual definition of contact art correlates with real
visual manifestations of contact rock art will vary and is
dependent on the conditions of contact experienced at

Yular.a ~
UlURU NP
Figure 1. Central Australia and Watarrka (Kings Canyon) National Park
local and regional levels. The value of this conceptual
definition is clearly linked to its limitation. By not hav-
ing a pre-defined set of visual criteria with which to
define contact rock art the definition allows for the
acceptance of art not previously recognised as 'contact
art'. Continuities and changes in the patterning of visual
attributes which I have identified with the contact
process in this case study are defined in Table 1 of the
following analysis.
Contact at the Centre
When I first approached Rosenfeld about my interest in
doing research on contact rock art I had visions of
Macassan praus. While this is how I had framed images
of contact within my own mind I believe it is a percep-
tion commonly shared by many archaeologists and
scholars of rock art. Pictures of guns, airplanes, buffalo,
Macassans, ships and men on horses all capture the
vision of how we generally imagine contact art to be (for
example see Mulvaney 1989). Instead, Rosenfeld intro-
duced me to the idea of working in central Australia on a
body of rock art which did not so clearly conform to
these preconceived images and common constructions of
contact art.
Rosenfeld had previously recorded a number of motifs
Ranges
which looked like Europeans within rock art sites at
Watarrka (Kings Canyon) National Park and had noted a
certain consistency in media, technique and potential
contemporaneity between these representations of con-
tact and a far more ambiguous collection of non-figura-
tive and apparently unstructured forms (Rosenfeld 1990).
The specific body of art to which she referred is located
in Watarrka (Kings Canyon) National Park, an area of
land situated approximately 320 km south west of Alice
Springs, central Australia (Figure 1).
Watarrka National Park lies on the western outliers of
the Central Ranges and comprises the western end of the
George Gill Range, a large sandstone rock formation
towering above adjacent sandplains to the north, south
and south west. Several ephemeral watercourses drain in
a southerly direction from the northern and southern
escarpments of the range. These creeks and springs are
particularly prominent along the southern end of the
range and provide an important resource in such an arid
environment.
The traditional owners of the area are generally recog-
nised as Luritja while people identifying with
Yankutjatjara, Pitjantjatjara, Kukatja, and Southern
Aranda speaking groups also have affiliations to this
country (Hamilton and Vachon 1985; Kimber 1979;
Maurice 1989; Strehlow 1969). It has been suggested
that, within an ethnographic context, the George Gill
135
Range acted as a physiographic marker distinguishing
eastern Western Desert country from that of the adjacent
Aranda and other Central Desert groups (Hamilton and
Vachon 1985; Stirling 1896; Strehlow 1969).
The explorations of Ernest Giles in 1872 mark the ear-
liest recorded interactions between European settlers and
the Indigenous people of the area. However, it was not
until after 1885 that settlers took up regular visitation
and a prolonged interest in the George Gill Range. By
this time pastoral expansion, the Overland Telegraph,
police and Lutheran missionaries had all reached the
central interior.
Rosenfeld and other members of an archaeological
team spent two field seasons surveying and recording the
rock art of Watarrka National Park. They located a total
of 59 rock art sites and identified an assemblage of rock
art incorporating petrogylphs, incised grooves, paintings,
stencils and drawings.
The most prolific form of artistic production they
identified in these sites involved the application of min-
eral pigment to the rock surface. Engravings occur less
frequently and at fewer sites. This contrasts with many
other rock art localities in central Australia, where
engraving is the dominant technique of rock art produc-
tion (Forbes 1982; Graham and Mulvaney 1995; Gunn
1995; Layton 1992; Rosenfeld and Mumford 1993;
Tacon 1994). Rosenfeld (1990) concluded that the rock
art contained a fairly limited range of motifs consisting
of hands, 'track' -like forms and structured circle and line
arrangements.
One of the important outcomes of this work was the
identification of a large number of dry charcoal drawings
in many of the rock shelters. Although they were not
extensively recorded at the time, the drawings identified
represent a wide range of figurative and non-figurative
motifs.
Most dry pigment drawings are in charcoal. In many
cases these are simple lines and amorphous patterns, oth-
ers are figurative representations of introduced animals
and of humans wearing items of clothing. Formal struc-
tured motifs are less frequent and include circles, elongate
forms, striped designs and hand outlines. In a few
instances dry black pigment has also been used to high-
light pre-existing rock markings such as incised grooves,
red pigment motifs or a natural rock spall. (Smith and
Rosenfeld 1992:12)
Smith and Rosenfeld (1992) concluded that the dry
pigment art represented the most recent rock art in the
assemblage and attributed it to a phase of post-contact art
production on the basis of its content and its association
with surface archaeological material of post-contact ori-
gin, namely several wooden artefacts apparently manu-
factured using metal tools.
It is interesting to note that Smith and Rosenfeld's
interpretation focuses on the figurative component of the
rock art and it returns us to the issue of how archaeolo-
gists tend to proceed in identifying and defining contact
experiences as expressed through rock art.
Despite identifying a large number of dry pigment
136
drawings at Watarrka National Park and making some
preliminary interpretive assessments, no further exami-
nation of the post-contact art was made (Rosenfeld 1990;
Smith and Rosenfeld 1992). After my arrival at the ANU
Rosenfeld suggested that the assemblage warranted fur-
ther research and on the basis of her observations
Watarrka National Park seemed an ideal area within
which to carry out research on contact rock art, which I
did during 1994 and 1995.
After completing field recording, my intention was to
examine the different contexts of art production exhib-
ited in the Watarrka assemblage. I sought to consider
whether there was a distinction between the rock art pro-
duced prior to contact and that which was produced dur-
ing contact, as Rosenfeld had suggested, and what char-
acterised and motivated the distinction. Yet because the
assemblage incorporated stencils, European figures,
'tracks' and non-figurative forms I was faced with mater-
ial which, according to the current conventions, may not
be clearly perceived as contact art. In attempting to
unravel the relationship between the dry pigment draw-
ings and the rest of the assemblage, within the context of
contact, two approaches could be taken. The investiga-
tion could be confined to examining content and
analysing only those motifs that were recognisably asso-
ciated with contact experiences or it could aim to move
beyond the confines of formal representation to consider
the underlying principles and structures employed in the
production of graphic forms.
By encouraging me to carry out a formal analysis, and
thereby adopt an analytical approach, Andree provided
me with a way of seeing rock art and the social factors
driving its production. While her influence in this regard
was ongoing it has crystallised in my memory in two
specific events:
The first recalls an experience in the field, recording
art at a site where the dry pigment drawing was difficult
to discern and hard to photograph. As Andree and I pro-
duced sketches of these drawings in our notebooks
Andree pointed out the advantages of re-drawing a motif
for oneself. The practice could be considered important
not merely as a function of basic recording, but as an
analytical tool for considering the manner in which a
motif was constructed, the order in which each stroke
was applied. It also provided some connection with the
'artists' themselves and the actions they took in the prac-
tice of making a mark.
The second recollection evolved out of my efforts to
analyse the rock art data. Once the analysis had com-
menced, discussions with Andree were an important
sounding board in the development of my research. A
unique feature of this process was the communication of
our ideas visually on paper to one another. The value of
this approach was reinforced one day when she provided
me with an article written in French. Having read it her-
self, she thought it may be of some assistance to me in
approaching my analysis. Knowing I was illiterate in
French I can only imagine that she knew the illustrations
would speak for themselves. It is this attention to visual
literacy and her encouragement to look beneath the sur- then possible to consider the way in which these ele-
face of an image that I credit with the development of the ments may have been replicated and/or composed to
following approach. produce the graphic classes and whether this way of
A formal analysis was developed on the assumption structuring elements remained consistent across the
that a detailed examination of the internal structure of the assemblage.
art system may assist in understanding a society and In the course of creating an inventory of elements I
what role the art system plays in the dynamicity of that developed an analytical model for distinguishing differ-
society, particularly in its capacity to mediate and com- ent kinds of elements and the ways in which they were
municate social action. integrated to create a graphic class. This involved devel-
The intricacies of my analytical method and my inter- oping a method for evaluating the structural complexity
pretation of the Watarrka assemblage are detailed else- of each graphic. An index was devised to determine the
where (Frederick 1997; Frederick, in press). Essentially, number and variety of elements used and the way in
I adopted an archaeological approach to the analysis of which these elements and structural principles were com-
rock art material by classifying the recorded rock art bined to create graphics. The index was devised to assess
assemblage into discrete categories for contrast and com- whether the structuring of graphic classes remained con-
parison. The immediate objective of the formal analysis sistent over time, space, technique and medium or
was the development of a classificatory scheme for whether the art system was altered.
organising and examining the rock art material recorded
during the field season. A classification scheme simpli-
fies and structures information (Officer 1993), and once Colour and Medium.
it is established, it becomes a valuable tool for charting
diversity and patterns of change and continuity in the The application of pigment, as it is characterised in the
production and distribution of graphics. The reduction of Watarrka National Park assemblage, is primarily mono-
the rock art assemblage into typological classes is neces- chromatic and few bichrome or polychrome paintings or
sary both for management of the data as well as assess- drawings exist within the assemblage. Four colours (red,
ing the range and frequency of graphics present. The black, white, and yellow) were used in the production of
terms I have chosen to use in developing this analysis pigment art, but red ochre and black charcoal were the
draws on the terminology and theoretical constructs dominant choice of media. Red ochre was the dominant
devised by Officer (1993) and are defined in the glossary medium, used specifically as a wet pigment suspension
(Appendix 1). in the production of paintings and stencils. In contrast,
My analysis was largely concerned with identifying black charcoal represents the dominant medium used in
changes and continuities in the patterning of cultural drawings, with other pigments showing minimal use
conventions in the rock art assemblage which may be (Table 2).
attributed to changes in the context of socio-cultural
processes. In taking the view that 'material culture ... [is]
an active, constitutive element of social practice'
Colour Medium Proportion Proportion Proportion
(Conkey 1980:15), I have made the assumption that an
of wet of dry of sites at
investigation of stylistic variation in rock art can inform
pigment pigment which it is
and be informed by variations in the context within
art (%) art (%) present (%)
which socio-cultural conventions evolve. Stylistic varia-
tion over time and space was examined with the inten- Red Ochre 94.5 3 95.2
tion of identifying the manner in which the archaeologi-
Black Charcoal 4.0 96.3 51.6
cal remains of art production elicited an Indigenous
response to the radical changes of the contact period. White Clay/Chalk 0.9 0.3 11.3
The main attributes chosen for the focus of this Yellow Ochre 0.6 0.3 6.5
analysis were: colour/medium, technique, graphic cate-
gory, graphic class, and graphic structure. After the ini- Table 2. Frequency and distribution of art by
tial stage of identifying the types of media and tech- colour/medium
niques employed in the production of the rock art, my
classification scheme groups graphics at a gross scale,
within general categories such as figurative or geomet-
ric. The next stage of classification reduces graphic cat- Technique.
egories into classes. The final stage of the analysis
examines the variability of classes and considers the Stencilling was by far the most frequently used method
relative complexity of their graphic structure. The for producing rock art in Watarrka National Park. It is
structure of a graphic class is determined to be more or well represented across the landscape either in small
less elaborate on the basis of the number and manner in numbers or as very large assemblages at some sites.
which specific elements, the building blocks of graphic Petroglyphs collectively represent a small proportion of
structure, were employed to create a graphic class. It is the assemblage and have a limited spatial distribution.

137
Painting is the least frequently employed technique but is Graphic Classes.
the most geographically dispersed technique apart from
stencilling. Dry pigment drawings occur at fewer sites The entire art assemblage was reduced into a total of 101
than either paintings or stencils. Yet despite their limited graphic classes.
spatial distribution, drawings make up a significant pro- Of all the classes defined, only a small proportion fell
portion of the total art assemblage. A large proportion of into the figurative category. It is worth noting that the
the sites that contain drawings also contain some other most commonly represented figurative classes are single
rock art technique (Table 3). anthropomorphs and quadrupeds and both depict sub-
jects which may be tangibly linked to the process of
European colonisation. Of the remaining classes most
Technique Proportion of are geometric while the track category comprises 11
Proportion of
classes and object stencils consist of seven classes.
art assemblage (%) sites at which it
Only a small proportion of the graphic classes have a
is present (%)
wide spatial distribution. This core group of 18 graphics
Stencilling 69 84 makes up a large proportion of the art assemblage and
Painting 9.1 81 occurs across the entire landscape. These classes include:
Drawing 11.9 47 the hand stencil, 'bird' track, 'macropod' track, 'dot'
Engraving 10 19 track, circle/oval, concentric circle, arc/u-shape, and
straight line graphics. This clearly indicates that the rock
Table 3 Frequency and distribution of art by technique
art assemblage is dominated by a small standard vocabu-
lary of commonly employed graphics.
The geometric category exhibits the greatest diversity
Category of classes, half of which occur only once. This is an inter-
Number of Proportion Proportion
esting point given that the geometric graphics represent a
graphic of art of sites at
comparatively modest percentage (17%) of the overall art
classes within assemblage which it is
this category (%) assemblage. By comparison, the object stencil category
present (%)
has only seven classes yet represents 69% of the total art
Object Stencil 7 68.9 83.9 assemblage. In total, just over a third of the graphic
classes represent graphics that occur only once in the
Geometric 70 16.7 51.6 assemblage. Most of these unique graphics were produced
Track 11 6.1 45.2 as dry pigment drawings, and to a lesser extent by painting
Figurative 13 1.9 9.7 and engraving techniques. Judging from these percent-
Indeterminate 6.3 51.6 ages, certain techniques and media appear to elicit a more
diverse range of highly structured and unique designs.
Table 4 Frequency and distribution of art by graphic As well as being technologically determined, many of
category the graphic classes are associated with specific areas of
the landscape. In the northern escarpment of the range
half of the graphic classes are present, while the southern
end of the range has the greatest diversity of classes with
Graphic Category. 79% of all classes represented there.
In contrast to other techniques, a large number and
All of the graphics within the art assemblage were cate- wide variety of graphic classes were produced by the
gorised as one of the following: object stencil, figurative, drawing technique. The range of graphic designs exe-
geometric, 'track', and indeterminate. cuted by painting is greater than that of engraving or
The analysis indicated that there are differences in the stencilling but less than in drawing.· It appears that the
distribution of graphic categories across the Watarrka painting, engraving and stencilling assemblages gener-
National Park landscape. Object stencils are the most ally operated on a standard vocabulary of regularly
commonly occurring category, making up 69% of the employed graphic classes.
total assemblage and feature most prominently in sites
along the southern escarpment of the range. The next
most frequently occurring graphics are geometric, Graphic Structure.
strongly represented across the entire landscape and
making up 17% of the overall assemblage. Track graph- The graphics identified in the assemblage are made up of a
ics are present in almost half of the sites and make up body of basic elements. The underlying structure of
6% of the assemblage (Table 4). The figurative category graphic composition revolves around the combination and
makes up a minimal proportion (2%) of the total assem- arrangement of these elements. The structuring principles
blage and nearly all (92%) occur in elevated areas of the which are applied to these elements vary considerably
range. The majority (84%) of figurative forms were within each graphic class. Indeed, it is largely this factor
drawn with dry black pigment. which explains the diversity of graphic classes. There are

138
 Examples of Examples of Basic Examples of Examples of
Elements Track and Elaborate Figurative Forms
Geometric -
Geometric
Graphics Graphics.

0 ®~ ~ r
I *, ~ ••
~ n
(-'~~-'
t J\
\\
••
••
••
1t ( f 0"'0""
,\. "" i!
-"
"C, ~.... ,
.I )
7\
-

u \0 ~
~
i)c&
. .tT
(~,))
«c~

rvvv @@J ~~ )rt ~ mr

rt~
Figure 2 Examples of Elements and Graphic Classes. Please note that due to the potential sensititivity of some graph-
ics, the graphic classes represented here are only meant as an illustration of the kinds of graphic classes present at
Watarrka National Park and should not be taken as an accurate reproduction of specific graphic classes.

four principles governing the arrangement of elements in
the construction of graphic classes. They are identified as:
overlay, enclosure, adjoinment/attachment/intersection,
and association. An illustration of the way these structur-
ing principles are employed in graphic arrangements is
presented in Figure 2.
Thirteen elements were considered to be the con-
stituent components of the art system. They were
employed both singly, that is they are identifiable as indi-
vidual graphic classes, in repetition of the same elements
and in combinations of two or more elements. These ele-
ments do not occur at the same frequency nor are they
distributed evenly across space. Eight elements occur
more frequently than others, either both alone or in com-
bination with other elements (Figure 2). These elements
may be considered as the 'core' elements of the art sys-
tem and they were employed throughout the entire land-
scape using a variety of media and techniques.
Certain elements appear to be particular to specific
techniques. The way these elements are arranged also
vary somewhat, in accordance with the chosen tech-
nique. For example, the majority of paintings use only a
limited number of elements at one time.
Index of Structural Complexity.
Generally speaking, the structural complexity of paintings
was increased through the principles of repetition, addition
and enclosure being applied to a single graphic element. In
contrast, drawn graphics expanded in complexity both
through the repetition and combination of various graphic
elements and application of several design principles
within the one graphic design. This trend demonstrates
that the very principles employed in the construction of
graphic designs did not change across different media or

139
technique. However, when dry pigment was used there is a
notable shift in that more principles and elements are used
collectively to produce individual designs.
The Watarrka National Park assemblage consisted
mainly of graphics with low index ratings, that is less
elaborate forms. In relation to technique, drawings repre-
sent a diverse body of elaborate and often unique graph-
ics. Examples of highly structured paintings occur less
frequently and represent a less diverse range than the
drawings. I observed that in the painting and engraving
assemblages, structural complexity is generally lower
than in the drawing tradition, because the paintings and
engravings primarily consist of repetitions of elements.
In the drawing assemblage elements are repeated but
graphics also consist of numerous and different elements
assembled into complex arrangements.
In summary, the analysis revealed a number of inter-
esting patterns regarding the frequency and distribution
of colour/media, technique, graphic category, graphic
class and graphic construction across the art assemblage.
After establishing the nature and extent of stylistic varia-
tion across the assemblage, the analytical results were
considered in the light of other historical, anthropologi-
cal and archaeological information. A picture of the
changing social context underlying the art production
began to evolve.
Discussion
The analysis clearly identified a formal shift in the pro-
duction of rock art in the Watarrka National Park assem-
blage, namely in the media and techniques of art produc-
tion and corresponding changes in the structuring of
graphics and in the frequency of production. The
sequence of art production identified elsewhere
(Frederick 1997) orders these trends into two assem-
blages of rock art production which correlate with a gen-
eral process of change associated with the arrival of
Europeans. These assemblages, identified as pre-contact
and contact, are distinguished on the basis of superimpo-
sitioning, differential weathering, intra-site spatial pat-
terning and variation in media and technique.
A summary of the trends associated with pre-contact
and contact rock art production is given in Table 1. This
table highlights a number of observed continuities and
discontinuities within the process of art production prior
to and during contact. While the discontinuities between
the pre-contact and contact assemblages are a record of
the unfolding changes in rock art production associated
with the process of Aboriginal - European contact; the
continuities between the two assemblages highlight the
transitional nature of this process. Furthermore, the exis-
tence of internal variation within the contact assemblage
is an indication that the distinction between pre-contact
and contact assemblages is not a clear cut division.
The results of my analysis indicate that certain pat-
terns in the rock art assemblage could be observed across
time and space. The analysis also discerned variation
140
within the contact assemblage, and indicated that contact
rock art production was not restricted to the production
of figurative forms or otherwise clearly non-Indigenous
subjects. When considered in light of other multi-disci-
plinary sources it suggests that a range of factors, includ-
ing the nature and timing of different cross-cultural expe-
riences, the access and allocation of resources and,
indeed, the landscape itself, play an important role in
Indigenous responses to contact.
The stylistic variation identified within the art system
is both the reflections and the responses of a dynamic
society engaged in a process of interaction and exchange.
While these patterns are explored more fully elsewhere
(Frederick 1997; Frederick, in press), a few salient points
are examined below.
In conducting an analysis of the Watarrka National
Park rock art assemblage I have arrived at various con-
clusions about change and continuity in graphic expres-
sion produced in the context of cross-cultural exchange.
While these observations relate specifically to the
Watarrka National Park assemblage they address some of
the basic assumptions about contact rock art which were
outlined earlier and may have some broader application
to future studies of contact rock art.
• Rock art produced in the context of cross-cultural
exchange may not always be immediately stylistically
distinguishable. The rock art may not only demon-
strate change but also continuity or transformation of
existing traditions. It cannot be assumed that the
changes and/or continuities in graphic expression that
emerge as a result of cross-cultural exchange will be
recognisable, and superficial observations will have a
tendency to gloss over the intricacies of cross-cultural
exchange.
• Contact art does not merely reflect a series of intru-
sions and the imposition of foreign ideas, materials
and technologies on Indigenous populations. It also
embodies the internally generated responses
Indigenous people took towards maintaining and
adapting their lives. Equating cross-cultural encoun-
ters with the 'impact' of first contact will have a ten-
dency to privilege superficial examinations of obvious
changes and obscure the consistencies and internally
motivated changes within the art system.
• Contact rock art varies dramatically from region to
region and the intricacies of its production will be
predicated upon the local conditions of cross-cultural
exchange.
• Contact rock art is produced both at and away from
geographical points of cultural contact. This follows
from the understanding that the influences, impres-
sions and conditions of contact experience(s) extend
beyond any spatio-temporally isolated context within
which an interaction was situated. It cannot be
assumed that contact art will occur only in the specific
geographical location where these negotiations are
actually played out.
• Changes in the use of landscape for the production of
rock art will follow long-term cross-cultural contact,
particularly where colonial forces impinge on access
to important resources.
• The experiences of contact involve losses andgains,
This follows from the understanding that contact is a
transitional process, for both Indigenous people and
'outsiders', and through which social circumstances
and information changes. In the art system, more
socially meaningful characteristics, conducive to the
exchange of information and integral to the mainte-
nance of significant cultural forms, are likely to be
adopted and may even replace others which become
obsolete.
• During contact, the art system exhibited an increased
diversity, albeit within a loose framework of unifor-
mity, possibly as a way of building social cohesion
while communication networks and the number and
nature of cross-cultural relationships expanded.
A final conclusion of this study is that dry pigment
drawing, particularly as it relates to recent processes of
rock art production, has a broader distribution within
central Australia than was previously imagined. While
little reference to this contact rock art appears in the liter-
ature it has been recognised that dry pigment drawings
appear in the Musgrave Ranges, Rainbow Valley, Tempe
Downs, the Petermann Pound, on the Dare Plain, at
Tjungkupu and at Kweyunbe, at Puritjarra, in the Dulcie
Ranges and at Urremerne, Erota, Illararri, Kwerlpe,
Therirrerte, Kulbi Maru in the Levi Ranges, Inteyerre,
Atherrke, Nthwerrke, Intriyapa as well as several painted
motifs 'redrawn' in dry pigment at Inange and Kulbi
Maru (Gunn 1991, 1995, 1996, pers comm.). A large
proportion of this material incorporates basic linear .non-
figurative motifs, reminiscent of the Watarrka National
Park assemblage (Basedow 1904; Gunn 1995; Kimber
1994; Smith, M. 1995, pers comm.; Thorley 1997, pers
comm.), some figurative drawings (Rosenfeld 1997, pers
comm.) as well as names of and drawings by known
individuals (Gunn 1989).
Thus it would appear that the drawings Rosenfeld first
identified at Watarrka National Park may not represent a
unique phenomena, but an exemplary representation of a
distinctive contact tradition within the wider corpus of
central Australian rock art. Only additional research into
contact and dry pigment rock art will confirm or contest
this conclusion.
Conclusion
In summary, the work that Rosenfeld piloted at Watarrka
National Park has achieved several outcomes, not the
least of which is the inspiration she has brought to my
own research on contact art. In the process of doing this
research I have developed a critique of the way contact
rock art has been perceived and I have proposed several
ideas about the way these issues may be addressed and
how investigations of contact rock art may proceed. This
process evolved out of my interactions with Andree and
the development of an analytical approach. The formal
analysis I used to understand the underlying mechanics
of the art system mirrors a broader interest in under-
standing the changing social contexts behind the produc-
tion of contact rock art.
Andree Rosenfeld's contribution to the study of cen-
tral Australian rock art to date is clearly apparent in the
various publications she has produced. Yet it is less
explicitly, though no less enduringly, realised through the
insightful commentary and questions her work has pro-
voked and, for me at least, in the many directions her
approach to seeing and thinking about art has inspired.
Indeed, in charting the trajectory of my own research
into contact rock art it is clear to me that Andree's influ-
ence lies at the centre of it all.
Acknowledgments
I am indebted to a great number of individuals and
organisations who provided assistance to me throughout
the course of my Masters research. The financial, intel-
lectual and general service support provided by the
Department of Archaeology and Anthropology and the
North Australian Research Unit of the Australian
National University, the Australian Museum and the
Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory is
gratefully acknowledged. The traditional owners of
Watarrka National Park generously allowed me to work
in their country; their permission and advice is greatly
appreciated. I would also like to thank Peter White,
Meredith Wilson, Paul Tacon, Ben Gunn, Annie Clarke
and Sue O'Connor for their incisive comments with
regard to this paper. I am grateful to Winifred Mumford
for allowing me to reproduce her illustrations. I thank the
Bednariks and the 1998 AURA Conference 'Making a
Mark' for running a session honouring Andree Rosenfeld
and for the opportunity to contribute to it. Finally, this
paper and the research from which it derived would not
exist without Andree Rosenfeld. I thank her for the gift
of her guidance and the intellectual support, grace and
friendship she has shared.
References
Allen, FJ. 1978 The archaeology of nineteenth century British
imperialism. In Schu1yer, R. (ed.) Historical Archaeology:
A Guide to Substantive and Theoretical Contributions, pp
139-148. Baywood Publishing Company: Farmingdale.
Basedow, H. 1904. Anthropological notes made on the South
Australian Government North-West Prospecting Expedition,
1903. Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of
South Australia. December 1904, pp 12-51.
Birmingham, J. 1992. Wybalenna. The Archaeology of Cultural
Accommodation in Nineteenth Century Tasmania. Sydney:
The Australian Society for Historical Archaeology.
Birmingham J. and Wilson, A. 1993. Sydney University
141
 Central Australian Archaeological Project. Australian
Society for Historical Archaeology Research Bulletin 16, pp
1-8.
Brandl, E. J. 1973. Australian Aboriginal Paintings in Western
and Central Arnhem Land. Canberra: Australian Institute of
Aboriginal Studies.
Chaloupka, G. 1984. From Palaeoart to Casual Paintings.
Darwin: Northern Territory Museum of Arts and Sciences.
Chaloupka, G. 1988. Groote Eylandt archipelago rock art sur-
vey. Unpublished report to the Heritage Branch,
Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory
Government, Darwin.
Chaloupka, G. 1993. Journey in Time: the world's longest con-
tinuing art tradition. Chatswood: Reed.
Clarke, A. 1994. Winds of Change: an archaeology of contact
in the Groote Eylandt archipelago, Northern Australia.
Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Australian National University.
Clarke A. and Torrence, R, in press. Negotiating Difference
Clegg, J. K. 1977. A method of resolving problems which arise
from style in art. In PJ. Ucko (ed.) Form in Indigenous Art,
pp 260-276. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal
Studies.
Colley S. and Bickford, A. 1996. 'Real' Aborigines and 'Real'
Archaeology: Aboriginal Places and Australian Historical
Archaeoloy. World Archaeology Bulletin 7:5-21.
Conkey, M. W. 1990. Experimenting with style in archaeology:
some historical and theoretical issues. In M. Conkey and C.
Haston (eds) The uses of style in archaeology, pp. 5 -17.
Cambridge: New Directions in Archaeology, Cambridge
University Press.
Crawford, I. M. 1968. The art of the Wandjina. Melbourne:
Oxford University Press in association with the West
Australian Museum.
David, B. and Chant, D. 1995. Rock art and regionalisation in
north Queensland prehistory. Memoirs of the Queensland
Museum 37:357-528.
Edwards, R. 1979. Australian Aboriginal Art: the art of the
Alligator Rivers region, Northern Territory. Canberra:
Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
Frederick, U. K. 1997. Drawing in differences: changing social
contexts of rock art production in Watarrka (Kings Canyon)
National Park, Central Australia. Unpublished MA thesis,
Australian National University.
Frederick, U.K. , in press. Keeping the Land Alive. In Clarke
and Torrence, Negotiating Difference.
Graham, R and Mulvaney, K. 1995. The Granites: its history,
art and ethnography. Unpublished report prepared for the
Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority, Alice Springs.
Gunn, R G. 1989. Dulcie Range rock art survey. Unpublished
report to the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority, Alice
Springs.
Gunn, RG. 1991. The rock art of Erota and Inangne Santa
Theresa Area Central Australia. Unpublished report for the
Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority: Alice Springs and
the Australian Heritage Commission: Canberra.
Gunn, R G. 1995. Kulbi Maru and the rock art of the KM site
complex, Central Australia. Unpublished report to the
Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority: Alice Springs.
Gunn, R G. 1996. Regional patterning in the Aboriginal rock
art of central Australia: a preliminary report. Rock Art
Research 12:ll7-127.
Hall, M. 1996. Historical Archaeology in South Africa. World
Archaeology Bulletin 7:32-39.
Haskovec, I. and Sullivan, H. 1989. Reflections of an
142
Aboriginal artist. In Animals into Art, Morphy, H. (ed.),
57-74. London: Unwin.
Head, Land Fullagar, R 1997. Hunter-gatherer archaeology
and pastoral contact: perspectives from the northwest
Northern Territory, Australia. World Archaeology
28:418-428.
Kimber, R.G. 1991. Rainbow Valley Aboriginal Rock Art
Survey. Unpublished report to the Australian Heritage
Commission: Canberra.
Kimber, R. G. 1994. personal communication.
Layton, R. 1992. Australian Rock Art: a new synthesis.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lewis, D. and Rose, D. 1988. The Shape of the Dreaming: the
cultural significance of Victoria River rock art. Canberra:
Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
Maynard, L. 1976. An archaeological approach to the study of
Australian rock art. Unpublished MA thesis, University of
Sydney, Sydney.
Maynard, L. 1979. The archaeology of Australian Aboriginal
art. In S.M. Mead (ed.) Exploring the Visual Art of Oceania.
University Press of Hawaii: Honolulu, pp 83-ll0.
McCarthy, F. D. 1960. The cave paintings of Groote Eylandt
and Chasm Island. In Records of the American-Australian
Expedition to Arnhem Land. 2: Anthropology and Nutrition,
Mountford, C. P. (ed), pp 297-414. Melbourne: Melbourne
University Press.
McCarthy, F. D. 1978. Australian Aboriginal Rock Art.
Sydney: The Australian Museum.
McDonald, J. J. 1994. Dreamtime superhighway: an analysis
of Sydney Basin rock art and prehistoric information
exchange. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Australian National
University.
Macknight, C. C. 1972. Macassans and Aborigines. Oceania
XLII:283-319.
Macknight, C. C. 1986. Aborigines and Macassans.
Archaeology in Oceania 21:69-75.
Megaw, J.V.S. 1968. Trial Excavations in Captain Cook's
Landing Place Reserve, Kurnell, NSW. Australian Institute
ofAboriginal Studies Newsletter 2:17-21.
Megaw, J.Y. S. 1974. The Recent Archaeology of the Sydney
District: Excavations 1964-1967. Australian Institute of
Aboriginal Studies: Canberra.
Merlan, F. 1989. The interpretive framework of Wardaman
rock art: a preliminary report, Australian Aboriginal Studies
1989/2:14 -24.
Mitchell, S. 1994. Culture contact and Indigenous economies
on the Cobourg Peninsula Northwestern Arnhem Land.
Unpublished PhD thesis, Northern Territory University.
Morphy, H. 1987. The Art of Northern Australia. In W.H.
Edwards (ed) Traditional Aboriginal Society: A reader.
South Melbourne: MacMillan, pp 10-33.
Morphy, H. (ed.) 1989. Animals into Art. London: Unwin
Hyman.
Morphy, H. 1991. Ancestral Connections: art and an
Aboriginal system of knowledge. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Morphy, H. 1998. Aboriginal Art. London: Phaidon.
Mountford, C.P. 1955. An unrecorded method of Aboriginal
rock marking, Records of the South Australian Museum
II :345-352.
Mulvaney, D. J. 1989. Encounters in Place: outsiders and
Aboriginal Australians, 1606-1985. St. Lucia: University of
Queensland Press.
Mulvaney, K. 1992. Who paints for a killing: Gurindji sorcery
 painting of Palngarrawuny. In State of the Art: regional rock
art studies in Australia and Melanesia. Proceedings of
Symposiums C and D of the 1988 AURA Congress,
McDonald, J. and Haskovec, 1. (eds), pp. 216-225.
Melbourne: Occasional AURA Publication No.6.
Mulvaney, K. 1996. What to do on a rainy day. Rock Art
Research 13:3-20.
Munn, N. D. 1973. Walbiri Iconography: graphic representa-
tion and cultural symbolism in a central Australian society.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Murray, T. A. 1993. The childhood of William Lanne: contact
archaeology and Aboriginality in Tasmania. Antiquity
67:504-519.
Officer, K.L.C. 1993. Style and Graphic: An archaeological
model for the analysis of rock art. Unpublished PhD. thesis,
Canberra: A.N.U.
Paterson, A. 1998. A Land of Monstrosities. Unpublished
paper presented in Many Voices, Past Lives, Valla: 1998
Australian Archaeological Association annual conference.
Reynolds, R. 1987. The Indenoona contact site: a preliminary
report of an engraving site on the Pilbara region of Western
Australia. Australian Archaeology 25:80-87.
Rosenfeld, A. 1990. Report on survey of rock art sites in the
Watarrka National Park. Unpublished report to the
Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory.
Rosenfeld, A. 1996. personal communication
Rosenfeld, A. and Mumford, W. 1996 The Thuiparta Rock
Engravings at Erowalle, Wallace Rock Hole, James Range,
Northern Territory. In Ulm, S., Lilley, 1. and Ross, A. (eds)
Australian Archaeology '95: Annual Conference, Tempus 6.
Anthropology Museum, University of Queensland: St
Lucia, pp. 247-255.
Sale, K. 1992. Make 'em Bright. Unpublished BA(Hons) the-
sis, University of Sydney
Smith, C. 1994. Situating style: an ethnoarchaeological study
of social and material context in an Australian Aboriginal
artistic system. Unpublished Ph.D thesis, University of New
England.
Smith, M. A. and Rosenfeld, A. 1992. Archaeological sites in
Watarrka National Park: the northern sector of the plateau.
Unpublished report to the Conservation Commission of the
Northern Territory on fieldwork in 1991.
Sutton, P. (ed) 1988. Dreamings: the Art of Aboriginal
Australia. Ringwood: Penguin Australia.
Tacon, P. S. C. 1987. Internal-external: a re-evaluation of the
'x-ray' concept in western Amhem Land rock art. Rock Art
Research 4:36-50.
Tacon, P. S. C. 1988. Identifying fish species in the recent rock
paintings of western Arnhem Land. Rock Art Research
5:3-15.
Tacon, P. S. C. 1992. Somewhere over the rainbow: an ethno-
graphic and archaeological analysis of recent rock paintings
of western Arnhem Land. In State of the Art: Regional rock
art studies in Australia and Melanesia. Proceedings of
Symposiums C and D of the 1988 AURA Congress,
McDonald, J. and Haskovec, 1. (eds), 202-215. Melbourne:
Occasional AURA Publication No.6.
Tacon, P. S. C. 1994. Socialising landscapes: the long-term
implications of signs, symbols and marks on the land.
Archaeology in Oceania 29:117-129.
Taylor, L. 1979. Ancestors into art: an analysis ofPitjanjatjara
Kulpidji designs and crayon drawings. Unpublished BA
(Hons) thesis, Australian National University.
Thomson, D. 1949. Economic Structure and the Ceremonial
Exchange Cycle in Arnhem Land. Melbourne: McMillan
and Co. Ltd.
Turner, D. H. 1973. The rock art of Bickerton Island. Oceania.
43:286-325.
Turpin, S.A. 1989. The Iconography of Contact. In D.Thomas
(ed) Columbian Consequences: Archaeological and
Historical Perspectives on the Spanish Borderlands West.
Volume 1, pp. 277-299. Washington: Smithsonian
Institution Press.
Worsley, P.M. 1955. Early Asian Contacts with Australia. Past
and Present:11:1-11.
143
 Appendix
Researchers of Australian rock art have given considerable
thought to the merit of classification and terminology (Clegg
1978; Layton 1992; Maynard 1977; McCarthy 1988; Officer
1993) and to this date, various methods for grouping and label-
ing rock art phenomena are employed. Officer has made an
important contribution to this discussion through the develop-
ment of an 'analytical taxonomy for the classification of style
in rock art' (Officer 1993).
Graphic.
Officer uses the word 'graphic' to refer to:
any physically perceivable mark which is, (or was), made used
or interpreted within a styledynamic... [it is used] to referto the
basic unit of analysis, as in 'thereare 23 identifiable graphics at
site B'; and...conceptually to referto those physically manifest
variables which are derived from, or applied within, a style
dynamic, as in 'the graphic component of a mark'. (Officer
1993:73-74)
I have employed the term 'graphic', as used by Officer,
because of its emphasis on 'the use of material form as a mean-
ingful signifier, rather than the character or result of that use'
(Officer 1993:73). A graphic may be subdivided into discrete
components that are labeled here as graphic 'elements'.
Graphic Category.
The grossest level of classification relates to the distinction
between categories. The general categories into which the
graphic assemblage of the Park has been subdivided include
stencil objects, figurative, non-figurative, track and indetermi-
nate graphics.
144
Graphic Class.
Each of the identified general graphic categories is further
reduced into particular classes. For example the graphics repre-
sented by the object stencil category are more finely distin-
guished as hand object stencils, boomerang object stencils, feet
object stencils, and so on.
Graphic Complexity.
The composition of each graphic, as represented in the graphic
classes, may be broken into constituent graphic elements. The
manner in which these elements are comprised to construct a
graphic composition is considered in light of varying levels of
graphic structuring and elaboration, and is referred to as
graphic complexity.
Element.
Elements are the fundamental irreducible units of the graphic
system, and may occur singly or in structured combinations as
a graphic. Graphics have been grouped into classes.
Object Stencil.
The term object stencil has been adopted to distinguish this
category of graphic from the actual technique of stencilling.
Though many of the graphics within the assemblage are con-
sidered to be both stencils and object stencils, one term (sten-
cil) clearly implies a technique and the other term (object sten-
cil) represents a broad category of graphic form. An object as
defined by Officer is 'that which is depicted by the outline of a
stencil, or the perimeter of a print or imprint' (Officer
1993:87). This distinction allows for the differentiation
between, for example, a stencil of a human hand (object) and a
drawing of a human hand (Maynard 1977; Officer 1993).